content
stringlengths 1
15.9M
|
|---|
\section{Introduction}
The study of acoustic black holes was proposed in 1981 by Unruh~\cite{Unruh} and has been extensively studied in the literature~\cite{MV, Volovik, others}. Acoustic black holes was found to possess many of the fundamental properties of black holes in general relativity and has been developed to investigate the Hawking radiation and other phenomena for understanding quantum gravity. Thus, many fluid systems have been investigated on a variety of analog models of acoustic black holes, including gravity wave~\cite{RS}, water~\cite{Mathis}, slow light~\cite{UL}, optical fiber~\cite{Philbin} and electromagnetic waveguide~\cite{RSch}. The models of superfluid helium II~\cite{Novello}, atomic Bose-Einstein condensates~\cite{Garay,OL} and one-dimensional Fermi degenerate noninteracting gas~\cite{SG} have been proposed to create an acoustic black hole geometry in
the laboratory. A relativistic version of acoustic black holes has been presented in~\cite{Xian,ABP}.
In Ref.~\cite{Rinaldi} was investigated (1 + 1)-dimensional acoustic black hole entropy by the brick-wall method. In order to obtain a finite result, they had to introduce the ultraviolet cut-off. So their calculation suggested that analog black hole entropy has the “cut-off problem” similar to that of gravitational black hole entropy. More recently in~\cite{Rinaldi:2011aa} the author uses transverse modes in order to cure the divergences.
The study on the statistical origin of black hole entropy has been extensively explored by several authors --- see for instance ~\cite{Wilczek, Magan:2014dwa,Solodukhin:2011gn}.
In Ref.~\cite{Kaul}, Kaul and Majumdar compute the lowest order
corrections to the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy. They find that the leading correction is
logarithmic, with
\[
S\sim \frac{A}{4G}-\frac{3}{2}\ln\left(\frac{A}{4G} \right)+const. +\cdots
\]
on the other hand, Carlip in Ref.~\cite{Carlip:2000nv} compute the leading logarithmic corrections to the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy and shows that the logarithmic correction is identical to that of Kaul and Majumdar, plus corrections that depend on conserved charges, as
\[
S\sim \frac{A}{4G}-\frac{3}{2}\ln\left(\frac{A}{4G} \right) +\ln[F(Q)]+const. +\cdots
\]
where $F(Q)$ is some function of angular momentum and other conserved charges.
The brick-wall method proposed by G. 't Hooft has been used for calculations on the black hole, promoting the understanding of the origin of black hole entropy. According to G. 't Hooft, black hole entropy is just the entropy of quantum fields outside the black hole horizon. However, when one calculates the black hole statistical entropy by this method, to avoid the divergence of states density near black hole horizon, an ultraviolet cut-off must be introduced.
The other related idea in order to cure the divergences is to consider models in which the Heisenberg uncertainty relation is modified, for example in one dimensional space, as
\[
\Delta x\Delta p\geq \frac{\hbar}{2}\left( 1 +\alpha^2 (\Delta p)^2 \right) ,
\]
which shows that there exists a minimal length $ \Delta x\geq \hbar\alpha $, where $ \Delta x $ and
$ \Delta p $ are uncertainties for positon and momentum, respectively, and $ \alpha $ is a positive constant
which is independent of $ \Delta x $ and $ \Delta p $. A commutation relation for the generalized uncertainty principle (GUP) can be written as
$[x,p]_{GUP}=i\hbar(1+\alpha^2 p^2) $, where $ x $ and $ p $ are the positon and the momentum operators, respectively.
Thus, using the modified Heisenberg uncertainty relation the divergence in the brick-wall model are eliminated as discussed in~\cite{Brustein}.
The statistical entropy of various black holes has also been calculated via corrected state density of the GUP~\cite{XLi}.
Thus, the results show that near the horizon quantum state density and its statistical entropy are finite. In~\cite{KN} a relation for the corrected states density by GUP has been proposed
\[
dn=\frac{d^3 x d^3 p}{(2\pi)^3}e^{-\lambda p^2},
\]
where $p^2=p^{i}p_{i} $, and $ \lambda $ plays the role of the Planck scale and in a fluid at high energy regimes.
Recently, the authors in~\cite{ABPS} using a new equation of state density due to GUP~\cite{Zhao}, the statistical entropy of a 2+1-dimensional rotating acoustic black hole has been analyzed. It was shown that using the quantum statistical method the entropy of the rotating acoustic black hole was calculated, and the Bekenstein-Hawking area entropy of acoustic black hole and its correction term was obtained. Therefore, considering the effect due to GUP on the equation of state density, no cut-off is needed \cite{Zhang} and the divergence in the brick-wall model disappears.
There are several approaches to obtain the Hawking radiation and the entropy for black-holes. One of them is the
Hamilton-Jacobi method which is based on the work of Padmanabhan and collaborators~\cite{SP} and also the effects of the self-gravitation of the particle are discarded.
In this way, the method uses the WKB approximation in the tunneling formalism for the computation of the imaginary part of the action. In~\cite{Parikh} the authors Parikh and Wilczek using the method of radial null geodesic determined the Hawking temperature and in~\cite{Jiang} this method was used by authors for calculating the Hawking temperature for different spacetimes. In Ref.~\cite{Banerjee} has been analyzed Hawking radiation considering self-gravitation and back reaction effects in tunneling formalism. It has also been investigated in~\cite{Silva12} the back reaction effects for self-dual black hole using the tunneling formalism by Hamilton-Jacobi method.
In~\cite{Majumder:afa} has been studied the effects of the GUP in the tunneling formalism for Hawking radiation to evaluate the quantum-corrected Hawking temperature and entropy for a Schwarzschild black hole.
Moreover, the authors in~\cite{Becar:2010zza} have discussed the Hawking radiation for acoustic black hole using tunneling formalism.
In this paper, inspired by all of these previous work we apply the acoustic black hole metrics obtained from a relativistic fluid in a noncommutative spacetime~\cite{ABP12} via the Seiberg-Witten map to study the entropy of the acoustic black hole.
Whereas, on one hand our objective is to see if using the GUP in the tunneling formalism via Hamilton-Jacobi method divergences are eliminated as in the gravitational case.
This is also motivated by the fact that in high energy physics both strong spacetime noncommutativity and quark gluon plasma (QGP) may take place together. Thus, it seems to be natural to look for acoustic black holes in a QGP fluid with spacetime noncommutativity in this regime. Acoustic phenomena in QGP matter can be seen in Ref.~\cite{shk} and acoustic black holes in a plasma fluid can be found in Ref.~\cite{BH-plasma}.
Differently of the most cases studied, we consider the acoustic black hole metrics obtained from a relativistic fluid in a noncommutative spacetime. The effects of this set up is such that the fluctuations of the fluids are also affected. The sound waves inherit spacetime noncommutativity of the fluid and may lose the Lorentz invariance. As a consequence the Hawking temperature is directly affected by the spacetime noncommutativity. Analogously to Lorentz-violating gravitational black holes \cite{syb,adam}, the effective Hawking temperature of the noncommutativity acoustic black holes
now is {\it not} universal for all species of particles. It depends on the maximal attainable velocity of this species.
Furthermore, the acoustic black hole metric can be identified with an acoustic Kerr-like black hole.
It was found in~\cite{ABP12} that the spacetime noncommutativity affects the rate of loss of mass of the black hole.
Thus for suitable values of the spacetime noncommutativity parameter a wider or narrower spectrum of particle
wave function can be scattered with increased amplitude by the acoustic black hole.
This increases or decreases the superressonance phenomenon previously studied in \cite{Basak:2002aw,SBP}.
In our study we shall focus on the Hamilton-Jacobi method to determine the entropy of an acoustic black hole using the GUP and considering the WKB approximation in the tunneling formalism to calculate the imaginary part of the action in order to determine the Hawking temperature and entropy for noncommutative acoustic black holes. We anticipate that we have obtained the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of acoustic black holes and its quantum corrections. There is no need to introduce the ultraviolet cut-off and divergences are eliminated.
The paper is organized as follows. In Sec.~\ref{II} we briefly review the steps to find the noncommutative acoustic black hole metrics. In Sec.~\ref{HJ-method} we consider the WKB approximation in the tunneling formalism and apply the Hamilton-Jacobi method to compute the temperature and entropy. In Sec.~\ref{stat-ent} we compute the statistical entropy. We develop explicitly computations for the magnetic and electric
sectors. Finally in Sec.~\ref{conclu} we present our final considerations.
\section{noncommutative acoustic black hole}
\label{II}
In this section let us briefly review the steps to find the noncommutative acoustic black hole metric in (3+1) dimensions from quantum field theory.
The noncommutativity is introduced by modifying its scalar and gauge sector by replacing the usual product of fields by the Moyal product \cite{SW,SGhosh,rivelles,revnc} --- see also \cite{Cai:2007xr,Cai:2014hja} for related issues.
Thus, the Lagrangian of the noncommutative Abelian Higgs model in flat space is
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqAHM}
\hat{\cal L}&=&-\frac{1}{4}\hat{F}_{\mu\nu}\ast\hat{F}^{\mu\nu}
+(D_{\mu}\hat{\phi})^{\dagger}\ast D^{\mu}\hat{\phi}+ m^2\hat{\phi}^{\dagger}\ast\hat{\phi}-b\hat{\phi}^{\dagger}\ast\hat{\phi}\ast\hat{\phi}^{\dagger}\ast\hat{\phi},
\end{eqnarray}
where the hat indicates that the variable is noncommutative and the $ \ast $-product is the so-called Moyal-Weyl product or star product which is defined in terms of a real antisymmetric matrix $ \theta^{\mu\nu}$ that
parameterizes the noncommutativity of Minkowski spacetime
\begin{eqnarray}
[x^{\mu},x^{\nu}]=i\theta^{\mu\nu}, \quad \mu,\nu=0,1,\cdots,D-1.
\end{eqnarray}
The $ \ast $-product for two fields $f(x)$ and $g(x)$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
f(x)\ast g(x)=\exp\left(\frac{i}{2}\theta^{\mu\nu}\partial^{x}_{\mu}\partial^{y}_{\nu}\right)f(x)g(y)\vert_{x=y}.
\end{eqnarray}
As one knows the parameter $\theta^{\alpha\beta}$ is a constant, real-valued antisymmetric $D\times D$- matrix in $D$-dimensional spacetime with dimensions of length squared. For a review see \cite{revnc}.
Now using the Seiberg-Witten map~\cite{SW}, up to the lowest order in the spacetime noncommutative parameter $\theta^{\mu\nu}$, we find the corresponding theory in a commutative spacetime in (3+1) dimensions \cite{SGhosh}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{acao}
\hat{\cal L}&=&-\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}\left(1+\frac{1}{2}\theta^{\alpha\beta}F_{\alpha\beta}\right)
+\left(1-\frac{1}{4}\theta^{\alpha\beta}F_{\alpha\beta}\right)\left(|D_{\mu}\phi|^2+ m^2|\phi|^2-b|\phi|^4\right)
\nonumber\\
&+&\frac{1}{2}\theta^{\alpha\beta}F_{\alpha\mu}\left[(D_{\beta}\phi)^{\dagger}D^{\mu}\phi+(D^{\mu}\phi)^{\dagger}D_{\beta}\phi \right],
\end{eqnarray}
where $F_{\mu\nu}=\partial_{\mu}A_{\nu}-\partial_{\nu}A_{\mu}$ and $D_{\mu}\phi=\partial_{\mu}\phi - ieA_{\mu}\phi$.
Now, if we decompose the scalar field as $\phi = \sqrt{\rho(x, t)} \exp {(iS(x, t))}$ into the original Lagrangian, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{lagran}
{\cal L}&=&-\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}\left(1-2\vec{\theta}\cdot\vec{B}\right)
+\rho(\tilde{\theta}g^{\mu\nu}+\Theta^{\mu\nu}){\cal D}_{\mu}S{\cal D}_{\nu}S+\tilde{\theta} m^2\rho-\tilde{\theta}b\rho^2
+\frac{\rho}{\sqrt{\rho}}(\tilde{\theta}g^{\mu\nu}+\Theta^{\mu\nu})\partial_{\mu}\partial_{\nu}\sqrt{\rho},
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\cal D}_{\mu}=\partial_{\mu}-eA_{\mu}/S $, $\tilde{\theta}=(1+\vec{\theta}\cdot\vec{B})$, $\vec{B}=\nabla\times\vec{A}$ and $\Theta^{\mu\nu}=\theta^{\alpha\mu}{F_{\alpha}}^{\nu}$.
In our calculations we consider the case where there is no noncommutativity between space and time, that is $\theta^{0i}=0$ and use $\theta^{ij}=\varepsilon^{ijk}\theta^{k}$, $F^{i0}=E^{i}$ and $F^{ij}=\varepsilon^{ijk}B^{k}$.
Thus, linearizing the equations of motion around the background $(\rho_0,S_0)$, with $\rho=\rho_0+\rho_1$ and $S=S_0+\psi$ we find the equation of motion for a linear acoustic disturbance $\psi$ given by a Klein-Gordon equation in a curved space
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{-g}}\partial_{\mu}(\sqrt{-g}g^{\mu\nu}\partial_{\nu})\psi=0,
\end{eqnarray}
where $g_{\mu\nu}=\frac{b\rho_0}{2c_s\sqrt{f}}\tilde{g}_{\mu\nu}$ just represents the acoustic metrics in (3+1) dimensions,
being the metric components, $ \tilde{g}_{\mu\nu} $ given in the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{g}_{tt}&=&-[(1-3\vec{\theta}\cdot\vec{B})c^{2}_{s}-(1+3\vec{\theta}\cdot\vec{B})v^2
+2(\vec{\theta}\cdot\vec{v})(\vec{B}\cdot\vec{v})-(\vec{\theta}\times\vec{E})\cdot\vec{v}],
\nonumber\\
\tilde{g}_{tj}&=&-\frac{1}{2}(\vec{\theta}\times\vec{E})^{j}(c^{2}_{s}+1)-\left[2(1+2\vec{\theta}\cdot\vec{B})
-(\vec{\theta}\times\vec{E})\cdot\vec{v}\right]\frac{v^j}{2}+\frac{B^j}{2}(\vec{\theta}\cdot\vec{v})+\frac{\theta^j}{2}(\vec{B}\cdot\vec{v}),
\nonumber\\
\tilde{g}_{it}&=&-\frac{1}{2}(\vec{\theta}\times\vec{E})^{i}(c^{2}_{s}+1)-\left[2(1+2\vec{\theta}\cdot\vec{B})-(\vec{\theta}\times\vec{E})\cdot\vec{v}\right]\frac{v^i}{2}
+\frac{B^i}{2}(\vec{\theta}\cdot\vec{v})+\frac{\theta^i}{2}(\vec{B}\cdot\vec{v}),
\nonumber\\
\tilde{g}_{ij}&=&[(1+\vec{\theta}\cdot\vec{B})(1+c^2_{s})-(1+\vec{\theta}\cdot\vec{B})v^2
-(\vec{\theta}\times\vec{E})\cdot\vec{v}]\delta^{ij}+(1+\vec{\theta}\cdot\vec{B})v^{i}v^{j}.
\nonumber\\
f&=&[(1-2\vec{\theta}\cdot\vec{B})(1+c^2_{s})-(1+4\vec{\theta}\cdot\vec{B})v^2]
-3(\vec{\theta}\times\vec{E})\cdot\vec{v}+2(\vec{B}\cdot\vec{v})(\vec{\theta}\cdot\vec{v}).
\end{eqnarray}
We should comment that in our previous computation we assumed linear perturbations just in the scalar sector, whereas the vector field $A_\mu$ remain unchanged.
In the following we shall focus on the planar noncommutative acoustic black hole metrics in (2+1) dimensions~\cite{ABP12} to address the issues of Hawking temperature and entropy of three-dimensional acoustic black hole in the tunneling formalism via Hamilton-Jacobi method considering the generalized uncertainty principle. For the sake of simplicity, we shall consider {\it two types} of a noncommutative spacetime medium by choosing first pure magnetic sector and then we shall focus on the
pure electric sector.
\section{Tunneling formalism via Hamilton-Jacobi Method}
\label{HJ-method}
In this section we consider the WKB approximation in the tunneling formalism and apply the Hamilton-Jacobi method to calculate the imaginary part of the action in order to determine the Hawking temperature for a noncommutative acoustic black hole. In our calculations we assume that the classical action $ {\cal I} $ satisfies
the relativistic Hamilton-Jacobi equation to leading order in the energy
\begin{eqnarray}
g^{\mu\nu}\partial_{\mu}{\cal I}\partial_{\nu}{\cal I}+m^2=0,
\end{eqnarray}
where $m$ is the mass of the scalar particle. Thus, we can neglect the effects of the self-interaction of the particle. We begin our analysis with the pure magnetic sector (the case $\vec{B}\neq 0$ and $\vec{E}=0$), as we shall show below.
\subsection{ Pure Magnetic Sector - the case $\vec{B}\neq 0$ and $\vec{E}=0$}
The acoustic line element in polar coordinates on the noncommutative plane in (2+1) dimensions, up to an irrelevant position-independent factor, in the nonrelativistic limit { was obtained in \cite{ABP12} and is given by }
\begin{eqnarray}
ds^2&=&-(1+\theta_{z}B_{z})\big\{[(1-3\theta_{z}B_{z})c^{2}_s-(1+3\theta_{z}B_{z})(v^2_{r}+v^2_{\phi})]dt^2
-2(1+2\theta_{z}B_{z})(v_{r}dr+v_{\phi}rd{\phi})dt
\nonumber\\
&+&(1+\theta_{z}B_{z})(dr^2+r^2d\phi^2)\big\}.
\end{eqnarray}
{where $B_z$ is the magnitude of the magnetic field in the $z$ direction, $ \theta_z $ is the noncommutative parameter,
$c_s=\sqrt{dh/d\rho}$ is the sound velocity in the fluid and $v$ is the fluid velocity.}
We consider the flow with the velocity potential $\psi(r,\phi) = A\ln{r} + B\phi$ whose velocity profile in polar coordinates on the plane is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\vec{v}=\frac{A}{r}\hat{r}+\frac{B}{r}\hat{\phi},
\end{eqnarray}
where $B$ and $A$ are the constants of circulation and draining rates of the fluid flow.
Let us now consider the transformations of the time and the azimuthal angle coordinates as follows
\begin{eqnarray}
&&d\tau=dt+\frac{(1+2\theta_{z}B_{z})Ardr}
{[(1-3\theta_{z}B_{z})c^2_s r^2-(1+3\theta_{z}B_{z})A^2]},
\nonumber\\
&&d\varphi=d\phi+\frac{ABdr}{r[c^2_s r^2-A^2]}.
\end{eqnarray}
In these new coordinates the metric becomes
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{ELB}
ds^2=-(1-2\Theta)\left[1-\frac{(1+6\Theta)(A^2+B^2)}{c^2_sr^2}\right]d\tau^2
+\tilde{\theta}\left[1-\frac{(1+6\Theta)A^2}{c^2_s r^2}\right]^{-1}dr^2
-\frac{2{\tilde\theta}^2B}{c_s}d\varphi d\tau+\tilde{\theta}r^2d\varphi^2,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Theta=\theta_{z}B_{z}$ and $\tilde{\theta}=1+2\Theta$.
The radius of the ergosphere is given by $g_{00}(r_{e}) = 0$, whereas the horizon is given by the coordinate singularity $g_{rr}(r_{h}) = 0$, that is
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\tilde{r}_{e}=(1+6\Theta)^{1/2}r_e, \quad\quad r_e=\sqrt{{r}_{h}^2+\frac{B^2}{c^2_s}},
\\
&&\tilde{r}_{h}=(1+6\Theta)^{1/2}r_h, \quad\quad r_h=\frac{|A|}{c_s}.
\end{eqnarray}
Now for $B=0$ (no rotation), we have the metric of stationary acoustic black hole given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{ELBNR}
ds^2=-f(r)d\tau^2+f(r)^{-1}dr^2+\tilde{\theta}r^2d\varphi^2,
\end{eqnarray}
where $ f(r)= (1-2\Theta)\left(1-\frac{\tilde{r}^2_h}{r^2} \right)$, with $ c_s=1 $. Thus, we obtain the Hawking temperature of the noncommutative acoustic black hole in terms of $ \tilde{r}_h $ as
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{T}_{h}=\frac{f^{\prime}(\tilde{r}_h)}{4\pi}=\frac{\left(1-2\Theta\right)}{2\pi \tilde{r}_{h}} + O(\Theta^2),
\end{eqnarray}
or in terms of $r_h$, we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Htemp}
\tilde{T}_{h}=\left(1-5\Theta\right)T_h + O(\Theta^2),
\end{eqnarray}
where $ T_h=(2\pi {r}_{h})^{-1}$ is the Hawking temperature of the acoustic black hole.
Near the horizon, when $ r\rightarrow \tilde{r}_h $, we have $ f(r)\approx 2a(r-\tilde{r}_h)$, where $a$ is the surface gravity of acoustic black hole horizon.
We shall now consider the Klein-Gordon equation for a scalar field $ \Phi $ and apply the tunneling method via the Hamitlon-Jacobi ansatz
\begin{eqnarray}
\left[\frac{1}{\sqrt{-g}}\partial_{\mu}\left(\sqrt{-g}g^{\mu\nu}\partial_{\nu}\right)-\frac{m^2}{\hbar^2}\right]\Phi=0
\end{eqnarray}
where $m$ is the mass of the scalar particle. In this way, using the WKB approximation, we can write
\begin{eqnarray}
\Phi=\exp \left[\frac{i}{\hbar}{\cal I}(t,r,\varphi)\right].
\end{eqnarray}
Then, to the lowest order in $\hbar$, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{wkb}
g^{\mu\nu}\partial_{\mu}{\cal I}\partial_{\nu}{\cal I}+m^2=0.
\end{eqnarray}
Considering the metric (\ref{ELBNR}) the equation (\ref{wkb}) becomes
\begin{eqnarray}
-\frac{1}{f(r)}(\partial_{t}{\cal I})^2+f(r)(\partial_{r}{\cal I})^2+\frac{1}{\tilde{\theta}r^2}(\partial_{\varphi}{\cal I})^2+m^2=0.
\end{eqnarray}
Now due to the symmetries of the metric, we can suppose a solution of the form
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal I}=-Et + W(r) + J_{\varphi}\varphi.
\end{eqnarray}
As a consequence
\begin{eqnarray}
\partial_t {\cal I}=-E, \quad \partial_r {\cal I}=\frac{dW(r)}{dr} \quad \partial_{\varphi} {\cal I}=J_{\varphi}.
\end{eqnarray}
where $ J_{\varphi}$ is a constant and the classical action is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal I}=-Et + \int dr\frac{\sqrt{E^2-f(r)(m^2-\frac{J^2}{\tilde{\theta}r^2}})}{f(r)} + J_{\varphi}\varphi.
\end{eqnarray}
In this way, by taking the near-horizon approximation,
$ f(r)\approx 2a(r-\tilde{r}_h)$, the spatial part of the action function, reads
\begin{eqnarray}
W(r)=\frac{1}{2a}\int dr\frac{\sqrt{E^2-2a(r-\tilde{r}_h)(m^2-\frac{J^2}{\tilde{\theta}r^2}})}{(r-\tilde{r}_h)}
=\frac{2{\pi} i E}{2a}.
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore, the tunneling probability for a particle with energy $ E $ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma\simeq \exp[-2Im {\cal I}]=\frac{2{\pi} i E}{a}.
\end{eqnarray}
On the other hand, we have $ \Gamma\simeq\exp (-\beta E) $, where $ \beta $ is the inverse temperature $ \beta=1/\tilde{T}_h $. Thus, acoustic black hole temperature is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{T}_h=\frac{a}{2\pi}.
\end{eqnarray}
Since $a=f^{\prime}(\tilde{r}_h)/2 $, we can get the temperature in terms of the horizon radius, given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{T}_h=\frac{1-2\Theta}{2\pi \tilde{r}_h}=(1-5\Theta)T_h.
\end{eqnarray}
Note that the temperature is modified due to noncommutativity of spacetime, which precisely agrees with the result (\ref{Htemp}).
\section{The statistical entropy}
\label{stat-ent}
In this section we consider the generalized uncertainty principle (GUP) in the
tunneling formalism and apply the Hamilton-Jacobi method to determine the quantum-corrected Hawking temperature and entropy for a noncommutative acoustic black hole.
Let us start with the GUP~\cite{ADV, Tawfik:2014zca}, which is an extension of \cite{KMM}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{gup}
\Delta x\Delta p\geq \hbar\left( 1-\frac{\alpha l_p}{\hbar} \Delta p +\frac{\alpha^2 l^2_p}{\hbar^2} (\Delta p)^2 \right),
\end{eqnarray}
where $\alpha$ is a dimensionless positive parameter, $ l_p=\sqrt{\hbar G/c^3}={M_p G}/{c^2}\approx 10^{-35}m$ is the Plank length, $ M_p =\sqrt{\hbar c/G}$ is the Plank mass and $ c $ is the velocity of light.
Since $G$ is the Newtonian coupling constant, the correction terms in the uncertainty relation (\ref{gup}) are due to the effects of gravity.
Now the equation (\ref{gup}) can be written as follows.
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta p\geq \frac{\hbar(\Delta x +\alpha l_p)}{2\alpha^2 l_p^2}
\left(1- \sqrt{1-\frac{4\alpha^2 l_p^2}{(\Delta x +\alpha l_p)^2}}\right),
\end{eqnarray}
where we have chosen the negative sign. Since $ l_p/\Delta x $ is relatively small compared to unity
we can expand the equation above in Taylor series
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{p}
\Delta p\geq \frac{1}{\Delta x}\left[1-\frac{\alpha}{2\Delta x}+ \frac{\alpha^2}{2(\Delta x)^2}+\cdots \right].
\end{eqnarray}
As we have chosen $ G=c=k_B=1 $, so we also choose $ \hbar=1 $, and we have $ l_p=1 $. In these units
the uncertainty principle becomes
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta x\Delta p\geq 1 .
\end{eqnarray}
Now using the saturated form of the uncertainty principle we have
\begin{eqnarray}
E\Delta x\geq1,
\end{eqnarray}
which follows from the saturated form of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, $ \Delta x\Delta p\geq 1 $, where $ E $ is the energy of a quantum particle. Therefore, we can rewrite equation (\ref{p}) in the form
\begin{eqnarray}
E_G\geq E\left[1-\frac{\alpha}{2(\Delta x)}+ \frac{\alpha^2}{2(\Delta x)^2}+\cdots \right],
\end{eqnarray}
So by using Hamilton-Jacobi method the tunneling probability of a particle with corrected energy $E_G$ becomes
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma\simeq \exp[-2Im {\cal I}]=\frac{2{\pi} i E_G}{a}.
\end{eqnarray}
comparing with the Boltzmann factor ($ e^{-E/T} $), we obtain the acoustic black hole temperature
\begin{eqnarray}
T=\tilde{T}_h\left[ 1-\frac{\alpha}{2(\Delta x)}+ \frac{\alpha^2}{2(\Delta x)^2}+\cdots \right]^{-1}.
\end{eqnarray}
Here we will choose $ \Delta x=2\tilde{r}_h $. Thus, we have the corrected temperature due to the GUP
\begin{eqnarray}
T=\frac{(1-2\Theta)}{2\pi \tilde{r}_h }\left[ 1-\frac{\alpha}{4\tilde{r}_h }+ \frac{\alpha^2}{8\tilde{r}_h^2 }+\cdots \right]^{-1}.
\end{eqnarray}
Here the entropy is assumed to satisfy the area law, since it depends only on the geometry of the horizon. Thus,
using the laws of black hole thermodynamics we get the entropy in terms of horizon area of the acoustic black
hole as
\begin{eqnarray}
S&=&\int\frac{dE}{T}=\int\frac{\kappa dA}{8\pi T}=\int\frac{d\tilde{A}}{8\pi \tilde{r}_hT}
=(1+2\Theta)\int\frac{d\tilde{A}}{4}\left[ 1-\frac{\pi\alpha}{2\tilde{A}}+ \frac{\pi^2\alpha^2}{2\tilde{A}^2}+\cdots \right],
\nonumber\\
&=&(1+2\Theta)\left[\frac{\tilde{A}}{4}-\frac{\pi\alpha}{8}\ln{\frac{\tilde{A}}{4}}-\frac{\pi^2\alpha^2}{32 \tilde{A}/4}+\cdots\right].
\end{eqnarray}
We can write this expression for entropy in terms of horizon radius as given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{entropy-b}
S=(1+2\Theta)\left[\frac{2\pi \tilde{r}_h}{4}-\frac{\pi\alpha}{8}\ln{\frac{2\pi \tilde{r}_h}{4}}
-\frac{\pi^2\alpha^2}{8}\tilde{T}_h+\cdots\right],
\end{eqnarray}
where $ \tilde{A}=2\pi \tilde{r}_h=(1+3\Theta)A $ is the horizon area of the noncommutative acoustic black hole and $A=2\pi {r}_h$ is the horizon area of the acoustic black hole.
The correction terms are due to quantum effects.
The second term is a correction logarithmic that appears in the leading order and is similar to the existing results for gravitational black hole in 4 dimensions and that are also derived by other methods.
The third term is a correction term to the area entropy in subleading order and is proportional to the radiation temperature,
$ \tilde{T}_h=(1-5\Theta)T_h $, of the noncommutative acoustic black hole. The equation (\ref{entropy-b}) can be written in terms of ${r_h}$ as
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{entropy-bc}
\tilde{S}= \frac{S}{(1+2\Theta)}=(1+3\Theta)\frac{2\pi {r}_h}{4}-\frac{\pi\alpha}{8}\ln{\frac{2\pi {r}_h}{4}}
-\frac{\pi^2\alpha^2}{8}(1-5\Theta){T}_h-\frac{\pi\alpha}{8}\ln{(1+3\Theta)}+\cdots,
\end{eqnarray}
Note that the logarithmic term is obtained due to the contribution $\alpha(\Delta p)$ in the GUP, while the gravitational case, for example, for a Schwarzschild black hole the logarithmic correction is obtained from the quadratic term $ \alpha^2(\Delta p)^2 $ in the GUP.
Thus, for $ \alpha=0 $ and $ \Theta=0 $ we just reproduce the usual semiclassical area law
for the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy, $ S=A/4=2\pi r_h/4 $.
Moreover, choosing $\alpha=12/\pi $, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{ent-c}
\tilde{S}=(1+3\Theta)\frac{2\pi {r}_h}{4}-\frac{3}{2}\ln{\frac{2\pi {r}_h}{4}}
-18\left(1-5\Theta\right){T}_h-\frac{9}{4}\ln{[1+2\Theta + O(\Theta^2)]}+\cdots,
\end{eqnarray}
and the resulting logarithmic correction to the entropy becomes, $-3/2\ln(A/4)$ and which has the same correction for gravitational black holes in four dimensions. The last term in (\ref{ent-c}) is independent of the horizon radius and corresponds to an extra term that depends on a conserved charge $c=e(1+2\Theta)$. Notice that both the logarithmic gravitational-like term and the appearance of the conserved charge corrections are enforced by the existence of the linear correction in the GUP we are considering in Ref.~(\ref{gup}). This conserved charge is obtained from the equations of motion for the field $ A_{\mu} $ (pure magnetic sector) of Lagrangian (\ref{lagran}), ie
\begin{eqnarray}
(\nabla \times \vec{B})^j=2e\rho(1+2\Theta)u^{j}, \quad\quad j=1,2.
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore, in our model considering a linear GUP given by (\ref{gup}) (the linear correction term in the momentum uncertainty is required),
we obtain logarithmic corrections similar to that of Kaul and Majumdar~\cite{Kaul} and one extra term that depends on a conserved charge in a manner analogous to that obtained in~\cite{Carlip:2000nv}.
It is also interesting to note that the equation (\ref{entropy-b}) has a form similar to the result presented in Ref.~\cite{Solodukhin:2011gn} and references therein, for black holes in two dimensions that have the following correction to the entanglement entropy
\begin{eqnarray}
S=\frac{c}{6}\sigma_h + \frac{c}{6}\ln\left(\frac{\Lambda}{\epsilon} \right),
\end{eqnarray}
where $ c $ is a central charge, $\Lambda$ is an IR cut-of, $ \epsilon $ is a UV cut-of and $ \sigma_h=\psi_h/2 $ is given by the value of the field $ \psi $ on the horizon. $\psi$ is the scalar field of the Polyakov action \cite{Solodukhin:2011gn}.
\subsection{Pure Electric Sector - the case $\vec{B}=0$ and $\vec{E}\neq 0$}
In the present subsection we repeat the previous analysis for the pure electric sector ($\vec{B}=0$ and $\vec{E}\neq 0$). As in the earlier case we take the acoustic line element obtained in \cite{ABP12}, in polar coordinates on the noncommutative plane, up to first order in $\theta$, in the `non-relativistic' limit, given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{me}
ds^2\!&=&\!\left[1-\frac{3\theta}{2r}\left({\cal E}_{r}A+{\cal E}_{\phi} B\right)\right]\left\{
-\left[1-\frac{(A^2+B^2+\theta r({\cal E}_{r}A+{\cal E}_{\phi}B)}{c^2_sr^2}\right]d\tau^2\right.
\nonumber\\
&+&\left.\left[1-\frac{\theta}{r}\left({\cal E}_{r}A+{\cal E}_{\phi} B\right)\right]\left[
\left(1-\frac{A^2+\theta{\cal E}_{r}Ar}{c^2_sr^2}\right)^{-1}dr^2+r^2d\varphi^2\right]
-2\left(\frac{B}{c_sr}+\frac{\theta{\cal E}_{\phi}}{2c_s}\right)rd\varphi d\tau\right\},
\end{eqnarray}
where $ \theta{\cal E}_{r}= \theta(\vec{n}\times\vec{E})_{r}$ ,
$ \theta{\cal E}_{\phi}=\theta (\vec{n}\times\vec{E})_{\phi}$.
The radius of the ergosphere is given by $g_{00}(\tilde{r}_{e}) = 0$, whereas the horizon is given by the coordinate singularity $g_{rr}(\tilde{r}_{h}) = 0$, that is
\begin{eqnarray}\label{horizonR}
\tilde{r}_{e}=\frac{\theta{\cal E}_{r}A+\theta{\cal E}_{\phi} B}{2c^2_s}\pm\frac{1}{2}
\sqrt{\frac{(\theta{\cal E}_{r}A+\theta{\cal E}_{\phi} B)^2}{c^4_s}+4r^2_{e}},
\quad\quad \tilde{r}_{h_\pm}=
r_h\left[\frac{\theta{\cal E}_{r}}{2c_s}\pm \sqrt{1+\frac{(\theta{\cal E}_{r})^2}{4c^2_s}}\right]
\end{eqnarray}
where $ r_{e}=\sqrt{(A^2+B^2)/c^2_s }$ and $ r_{h}=|A|/c_s $ are the radii of the ergosphere and the horizon in the usual case. For $ \theta=0 $, we have $\tilde{r}_{e}={r}_{e}$ and $\tilde{r}_{h}={r}_{h} $.
Now for $B = 0$ (no rotation) and $ {\cal E}_{\phi}=0 $ with $ c_s=1 $, we have the metric of stationary acoustic black hole given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{mest}
ds^2= -f(r)d\tau^2+\left(1-\frac{4\theta{\cal E}_{r}r_h}{r}\right)f(r)^{-1}dr^2+\left(1-\frac{5\theta{\cal E}_{r}r_h}{2r}\right)r^2d\varphi^2,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
f(r)=\left(1-\frac{3\theta{\cal E}_{r}r_h}{2r}\right)\left(1-\frac{r^2_h}{r^2} -\frac{\theta{\cal E}_{r}r_h}{r}\right).
\end{eqnarray}
Now we obtain the Hawking temperature of the acoustic black hole as
\begin{eqnarray}
T_{h}=\frac{f^{\prime}(\tilde{r}_{h+})}{2\pi}=\left(1-2\theta{\cal E}_{r}\right)\frac{1}{2\pi \tilde{r}_{h+}}+{\cal O}(\theta^2).
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, considering the tunneling formalism via Hamilton-Jacobi method with the GUP (\ref{gup})
we obtain the corrected temperature as
\begin{eqnarray}
T=\frac{(1-2\theta\varepsilon_r)}{2\pi \tilde{r}_{h+} }\left[ 1-\frac{\alpha}{4\tilde{r}_{h+} }+ \frac{\alpha^2}{8\tilde{r}_{h+}^2 }+\cdots \right]^{-1}.
\end{eqnarray}
In this way, the entropy of the noncommutative acoustic black hole, near the black hole horizon, is
\begin{eqnarray}
S=(1+2\theta\varepsilon_r)\left[\frac{2\pi \tilde{r}_{h+}}{4}
-\frac{\pi\alpha}{8}\ln{\frac{2\pi \tilde{r}_{h+}}{4}}-\frac{\pi^2\alpha^2}{8}\tilde{T}_h+\cdots\right],
\end{eqnarray}
where $ 2\pi \tilde{r}_{h+} $ is the horizon area of the noncommutative acoustic black hole, ie, $ \tilde{A}=(1+\theta\varepsilon_r/2)A $ and $ A= 2\pi {r}_{h}$ the horizon area of the acoustic black hole.
Again, the correction terms are due to quantum effects. Thus the entropy in terms of $r_h$ is
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{S}=\frac{S}{(1+2\theta\varepsilon_r)}=\left(1+\frac{\theta\varepsilon_r}{2}\right)\frac{2\pi {r}_{h}}{4}
-\frac{\pi\alpha}{8}\ln{\frac{2\pi {r}_{h}}{4}}-\left(1-\frac{5\theta\varepsilon_r}{2}\right)\frac{\pi^2\alpha^2}{8}{T}_h
-\frac{\pi\alpha}{8}\ln\left(1+\frac{\theta\varepsilon_r}{2}\right)+\cdots.
\end{eqnarray}
Note that the second term is a logarithmic correction that appears in the leading order as in the gravitational case in 3+1 dimensions and the third correction term is proportional to the radiation temperature of the acoustic black hole.
Moreover, choosing $ \alpha=12/\pi $, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{entropia-e}
\tilde{S}=\left(1+\frac{\theta\varepsilon_r}{2}\right)\frac{2\pi {r}_{h}}{4}
-\frac{3}{2}\ln{\frac{2\pi {r}_{h}}{4}}-18\left(1-\frac{5\theta\varepsilon_r}{2}\right){T}_h
-\frac{3}{2}\ln\left(1+\frac{\theta\varepsilon_r}{2}\right)+\cdots.
\end{eqnarray}
The last term in (\ref{entropia-e}) is independent of the horizon radius and corresponds to an extra term
that depends on a conserved charge $ c=e(1+\theta\varepsilon_r/2) $. This conserved charge is obtained from the equations of motion for the field $ A_{\mu} $ (pure electric sector) of Lagrangian (\ref{lagran}), i.e.,
\begin{eqnarray}
\nabla \cdot \vec{E}=2e\rho w\left(1+\frac{\theta\varepsilon_{r}}{2}\right),
\end{eqnarray}
where we have considered the normalization $ v_r\equiv u_r/w=1 $, since in the near horizon regime $v_r\sim c_s=1$.
\section{conclusions}
\label{conclu}
In summary, by considering the GUP, we derive the noncommutative acoustic black hole temperature and entropy using the Hamilton-Jacobi version of the tunneling formalism. Moreover, in our calculations the Hamilton-Jacobi method was applied to calculate the imaginary part of the action and the GUP was introduced by the correction to the energy of a particle due to gravity near the horizon. The GUP allows us to find quantum corrections to the area law. The noncommutative nature of the spacetime also suggests the existence of corrections in terms of conserved electric charge.
\acknowledgments
We would like to thank CNPq, CAPES and PNPD/PROCAD -
CAPES for partial financial support.
|
\section{Introduction}
In systematic reviews, several studies that examine the same questions are analyzed together. Viewing all the information is extremely valuable for practitioners in the health sciences. A notable example is the Cochrane systematic reviews on the effects of healthcare interventions.
The process of preparing and maintaining Cochrane systematic reviews is described in detail in their manual \cite{Higgins11}. The reviews attempt to assemble all the evidence that is relevant to a specific healthcare intervention.
Deriving conclusions about the overall health benefits or harms from an ensemble of studies can be difficult, since the studies are never exactly the same and there is danger that these differences affect the inference. For example, factors that are particular to the study, such as the specific cohorts in the study that are from specific populations exposed to specific environments, the specific experimental protocol used in the study, the specific care givers in the study, etc., may have an impact on the treatment effect.
A desired property of a systematic review is that the
effect has been observed in more than one study, i.e., the overall
conclusion is not entirely driven by a single study. If a
significant meta-analysis finding becomes non-significant by leaving
out one of the studies, this is worrisome for two reasons: first,
the finding may be too particular to the single study
(e.g., the specific age group in the study); second, there is greater danger that the
significant meta-analysis finding is due to bias in the single
study (e.g., due to improper randomization or blindness). We view this problem as a replicability problem: the
conclusion about the significance of the effect is completely driven
by a single study, and thus we cannot rule out the possibility that
the effect is particular to the single study, i.e., that the effect
was not replicated across studies.
A replicability claim is not merely a vague description. A precise computation of the extent of replicability is possible. An objective way to quantify the evidence
that the meta-analytic findings do not rely on single studies is as follows.
For a meta-analysis of several studies (N studies), the minimal replicability claim is that results have been replicated in at least two studies. This claim can be asserted if the meta-analysis results remains significant after dropping (leaving-out) any single study. We suggest accompanying the review with a quantity we term the $r$-value, which quantifies the evidence towards replicability of the effects across studies.
The $r$-value is the largest of these $N$ meta-analysis $p$-values. Like a $p$-value, which quantifies the evidence against the null hypothesis of no effect, the $r$-value
quantifies the evidence against no replicability of effects. The
smaller the $r$-value, the greater the evidence that the conclusion
about a primary outcome is not driven by a single study.
The report of the $r$-value is valuable for meta-analyses of narrow scope as well as of broad scope.
In Section 5.6 of the manual \cite{Higgins11} the scope of the review question is addressed.
If the scope is broad, then a review that produced a single meta-analytic conclusion may be criticized for `mixing apples and oranges', particularly when good biologic or sociological evidence suggests that various formulations of an intervention behave very differently or that various definitions of the condition of interest are associated with markedly different effects of the intervention. The advantage of a broad scope is that it can give a comprehensive summary of evidence. The narrow scope is more manageable, but the evidence may be sparse, and findings may not be generalizable to other settings or populations. If the $r$-value is large (say above 0.05) for a meta-analyses with a narrow scope, this is worrisome since the scope has already been selected, and the large $r$-value indicates that an even stricter selection that removes one single additional study can change the significant conclusion. If the $r$-value is large for a meta-analyses with a broad scope, this is worrisome since the reason for the significant finding may be the single ``orange" among the several (null) ``apples".
We examined the extent of the replicability problem in systematic reviews.
We found that there
may be lack of replicability in a large proportion of studies.
In Section \ref{sec-lack of replicability}, we show
that out of the 21 reviews with a significant meta-analysis result
on the most important outcomes of interest published on breast
cancer, 13 reviews were sensitive to leaving one study out of the
meta-analysis. The problem was less pronounced in the reviews
published on influenza, where 2 reviews were sensitive to leaving one
study out of the meta-analysis, out of 6 updated reviews with
significant primary outcomes.
\cite{AnzuresCarbera10} write that a useful sensitivity analysis is one in which the meta-analysis is repeated, each time omitting one of the studies. A plot of the results of these meta-analysis, called an `exclusion sensitivity plot' by \cite{Bax06}, will reveal any studies that have a particularly large influence on the results of the meta-analysis. In this work, we concur with this view, but recommend the most relevant single number of summary information of such a sensitivity analysis be added to the report of the main results, and to the forest plot, of the meta-analysis. The code for the computation of the $r$-values and sensitivity intervals is available from the first author upon request.
\section{The lack of replicability in systematic reviews}\label{sec-lack of replicability}
We took all the updated reviews in two domains: breast cancer and
influenza. Our eligibility criteria were as follows: (a) the review
included forest plots; (b) at least one primary outcome was reported as
significant at the .05 level, which is the default significant level used in Cochrane Reviews; (c) the meta-analysis of at least one of the primary outcomes was based on at least three studies and (d) there was no reporting in the review
of unreliable/biased primary outcomes or poor quality of available evidence.
We consider as primary outcomes the outcomes that were defined as primary by the review
authors, and if none were defined we selected the most important
findings from the review summaries and treated the outcomes for
these findings as primary. We limit ourselves to meta-analyses that
include at least three studies , since this is the minimum number of
studies for which even if the single studies are not significant
the meta-analysis may still be non-sensitive (i.e., that a meta
analysis based on every subset of two studies can have a
significant finding).
In Cochrane reviews, the meta-analyses are of two types: fixed effect and random effects.
Under the fixed effect model all studies in the meta-analysis are assumed to share a common (unknown) effect $\theta$. Since all studies share the same effect, it follows that the observed effect varies from one study to the next only because of the random error inherent in each study. The summary effect is the estimate of this common effect $\theta$. Under the random effects model the effects in the studies, $\theta_{i}$ , $i = 1,2,...,N$, are assumed to have been sampled from a distribution with mean $\tilde {\theta}$. Therefore, there are two sources of variance: the within-study error in estimating the effect in each study and the variance in the true effects across studies. The summary effect is the estimate of the effects distribution mean $\tilde {\theta}$. For details on estimation of these effects and their confidence intervals, see \cite{Higgins11}. In this Section our results are based on the computations of the meta-analysis $p$-values as suggested in \cite{Higgins11}, for both fixed and random effects meta-analyses.
In the breast cancer domain 48 updated reviews were published by the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group in the Cochrane library, out of which we analyzed 21 updated reviews that met our eligibility criteria (14, 8 , 4 and 1 reviews was excluded due reasons a, b, c and d respectively). Out of the 21 eligible reviews, 13 reviews were sensitive to leaving one study out in at least one primary outcome. Moreover, in 8 out of 13 reviews all the significant primary outcomes were sensitive. The prevalence of sensitive meta-analyses was similar among the fixed effect and random effect meta-analyses, see Table \ref{Tab-BreastCancer}. Among the 15 fixed effect meta-analyses, 6 reviews where sensitive in all their primary outcomes, 2 reviews were sensitive in 66\% of the primary outcomes, 1 review was sensitive in 50\% of the primary outcomes, and 6 reviews were not sensitive in any of their primary outcomes.
Among the 7 Random effect meta-analyses, 3 reviews were sensitive in all their primary outcomes, 2 review were sensitive in 50\% of their primary outcomes, and 2 reviews were not sensitive in any of their primary outcomes.
\begin{table}[ht]
\caption{Table of results for the breast cancer domain. The review name (column 2);the type of meta-analysis (column 3); the number of significant primary outcomes (column 4); the number of outcomes with $r$-values at most (0.01,0.05,0.1) (columns 5,6,7); the actual r-values of the primary outcomes, arranged in increasing order (column 8).The smaller the $r$-value, the stronger the evidence towards replicability. The rows are arranged by order of increasing sensitivity; the last 8 rows are sensitive in all primary outcomes. }\label{Tab-BreastCancer}
\scriptsize
\centering
\begin{tabular}{llllllll}
\hline
& & & number of & \multicolumn{3}{c}{number of outcomes}& \\
& & & significant & \multicolumn{3}{c}{non-sensitive at level}& \\
& Review & Random/Fixed & outcomes & 0.01 & 0.05 & 0.1 & $r$-values \\
\hline
1 & CD004421 & Fixed & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & (1.300e-10, 1.405e-07) \\
2 & CD003372 & Fixed & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & (4.000e-14, 5.368e-05) \\
3 & CD002943 & Fixed & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & (9.853e-09, 0.0012) \\
4 & CD006242 & Random & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & (2.580e-09, 0.03549) \\
5 & CD000563 & Fixed & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1.28e-11 \\
6 & CD008941 & Fixed & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1.025e-04 \\
7 & CD005001 & Random & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0.0335 \\
8 & CD003370 & Fixed & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0.05341 \\
9 & CD003367 & Fixed & 2 & 1 & 1 & 1 & (7.440e-07, 0.18) \\
10 & CD005211 & Random & 4 & 1 & 2 & 2 & (0.0017, 0.0167, 0.1231, 0.178) \\
11 & CD003474 & Random & 2 & 1 & 1 & 1 & (0.0463, 0.253) \\
12 & CD003366 & Fixed & 3 & 1 & 1 & 1 & (3.200e-05, 0.21, 0.38) \\
13 & CD003139 & Fixed & 3 & 1 & 1 & 1 & (0.1053, 0.1852, 0.002) \\
14 & CD006823 & Random & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0.08 \\
15 & CD004253 & Random & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0.1028 \\
16 & CD005002 & Fixed & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0.15 \\
17 & CD008792 & Fixed & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0.24 \\
28 & CD007077 & Fixed & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0.3 \\
19 & CD002747 & Fixed & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0.9641 \\
20 & CD007913 & (Random,Fixed) & 2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & (0.0712,0.0756) \\
21 & CD003142 & Fixed & 2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & (0.1243,0.1827) \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
In the influenza domain 25 reviews were published by different groups (e.g., Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group, Cochrane Childhood Cancer Group etc.) in the Cochrane library, out of which we analyzed 6 updated reviews that met our eligibility criteria (9, 2 , 7 and 1 review was excluded due reasons a, b, c and d respectively). Our results are summarized in Table \ref{Tab-Influenza}. Out of the 6 eligible reviews, 2 reviews were sensitive to leaving 1 study out. Among the two fixed effect meta-analyses reviews, one review was sensitive in all primary outcomes and one review was not sensitive in all primary outcomes.
Among the five reviews with random effect meta-analyses, 1 review was sensitive in 40\% of the primary outcomes, and four reviews were not sensitive in any of their outcomes.
\begin{table}[ht]
\caption{Table of results for the influenza domain. The review name (column 2);the type of meta-analysis (column 3); the number of significant primary outcomes (column 4); the number of outcomes with $r$-values at most (0.01,0.05,0.1) (columns 5,6,7); the actual r-values of the primary outcomes, arranged in increasing order (column 8).The smaller the $r$-value, the stronger the evidence towards replicability. The rows are arranged by order of increasing sensitivity. The value $0.0001^*$ indicates that the $r$-value was smaller than 0.0001.}\label{Tab-Influenza}
\scriptsize
\centering
\begin{tabular}{llllllll}
\hline
& & & number of & \multicolumn{3}{c}{number of outcomes}& \\
& & & significant & \multicolumn{3}{c}{non-sensitive at level}& \\
& Review & Random/Fixed & outcomes & 0.01 & 0.05 & 0.1 & $r$-values \\
\hline
1 & CD001269 & (Fixed,Random) & 4 & 4 & 4 & 4 & ($0.0001^*$, $0.0001^*$,0.0014, 0.0188) \\
2 & CD001169 & Random & 4 & 4 & 4 & 4 & ($0.0001^*$ ,0.0014 ,0.0016, 0.0025) \\
3 & CD004879 & Random & 4 & 4 & 4 & 4 & ($0.0001^*$ ,$0.0001^*$ ,0.0007, 0.006) \\
4 & CD002744 & Random & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0.0009 \\
5 & CD008965 & Random & 5 & 1 & 3 & 3 & ($0.0001^*$, 0.0108, 0.0471 ,0.118, 0.1206) \\
6 & CD005050 & Fixed & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0.9888 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
The influenza domain has a much smaller number of reviews with significant primary results than the breast cancer domain. In the influenza domain, most of the reviews have non-significant endpoints or low quality of evidence.
\section{Calculating and reporting the r-value: examples}\label{sec-ex}
In this section we shall give examples
of sensitive and non-sensitive (fixed and random effect)
meta-analyses in the breast cancer domain. For examples in the influenza domain, see Appendix
\ref{app-influenza}. For each example, we shall compute the $r$-value, which is based on the $N$ leave-one out meta-analysis $p$-values, as well as the sensitivity interval, which is the union of these $N$ meta-analysis confidence intervals. The detailed computations are given in Appendix \ref{app-computations}. We shall show how to incorporate these new quantities in the Cochrane reviews' abstract and forest plots .
Our first example is based on a meta-analysis in review CD006242, analyzed by the authors as a random effect meta-analysis, which is
non-sensitive and thus has a small $r$-value. The objective of review CD006242
was to assess the efficacy of therapy with Trastuzumab in
women with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. Only one of the
studies was (barely) significant, and the remaining four studies had
non-significant effects at the .05 significance level. However, when combined in a meta-analysis
the evidence was highly significant, and the review conclusion was
that Trastuzumab improved overall survival in HER2-positive women
with metastatic breast cancer, see the left panel of Figure
\ref{fig-Trastuzumab}. This is a nice example that shows how a
meta-analysis can increase power. Even after removing the
single significant study (study number 5) there was still a
significant effect in the meta-analysis at the 0.05 level; see the right panel of Figure
\ref{fig-Trastuzumab}. The $r$-value is 0.03549 based on the meta-analysis computations as suggested in \cite{Higgins11}. In a recent paper, \cite{IntHout14} suggested an alternative random effect meta-analysis, which controls the type I error rate more adequately. The $r$-value is 0.0366 based on the meta-analysis computations as suggested in \cite{IntHout14}.
We suggest accompanying the original forest
plot with this $r$-value, see Figure \ref{fig-Trastuzumab-orig}. The significant meta-analytic
conclusion can therefore be accompanied by a statement that the
replicability claim is established at the .05 level of significance.
This is a stronger scientific claim than that of the meta-analysis,
and it is supported by the data in this example. In the main results of Review CD006242 the authors write
"The combined HRs for overall survival and progression-free survival favoured the trastuzumab-containing regimens (HR 0.82, 95\% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 0.94, P = 0.004; moderate-quality evidence)". To this, we suggest adding the following information ``This result was replicated in more than one study ($r$-value = 0.03549)".
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth, height=0.3\textheight]{37ALL.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth, height=0.3\textheight]{37no5.png}
\caption{The forest plot in Review CD006242 (Left) and excluding study 5 (Right). The $r$-value was 0.03549. The sensitivity interval, [0.685,0.987], is the confidence interval excluding study 5 (the black diamond in the right panel) with an additional (very small) left tail. The axis is on the logarithmic scale.}\label{fig-Trastuzumab}.
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth, height=0.5\textheight]{37original_2.png}
\caption{The forest plot in the original Review CD006242 including the $r$-value, which was 0.03549. The asterisks indicate which study was excluded for the $r$-value computation.}\label{fig-Trastuzumab-orig}
\end{figure}
Our second example, also from the breast cancer domain, is based on a meta-analysis in review CD008792, that was analyzed by the authors as a fixed effect meta-analysis. In this example the fixed effect meta-analysis was sensitive. The objective of
Review CD008792 was to assess the effect of combination
chemotherapy compared to the same drugs given sequentially in women
with metastatic breast cancer. In the meta-analysis a significant
finding was discovered, see the left panel of Figure
\ref{fig-Combination}. However, note that the different studies seem
to have different effects. Nevertheless, the
review conclusion was that the combination arm had a higher risk of
progression than the sequential arm. After removing study number 7,
there was no longer a significant effect in the meta-analysis, see
the right panel of Figure \ref{fig-Combination}. The $r$-value was
0.24. The replicability claim was not established at the .05 level
of significance. This lack of replicability, quantified by the $r$-value, cautions practitioners that the significant meta-analysis finding may depend critically on
a single study.
We suggest accompanying the original forest plot
with this $r$-value, see Figure \ref{fig-Combination-orig}.
In the main results of Review CD008792 the authors write "The combination arm had a higher risk of progression than the sequential arm (HR 1.16; 95\% CI 1.03 to 1.31; P = 0.01) with no significant heterogeneity". To this, we suggest adding the following information ``We cannot rule out the possibility that this result is based on a single study ($r$-value = 0.24)".
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth, height=0.3\textheight]{44ALL.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth, height=0.3\textheight]{44no7.png}
\caption{The forest plot in Review CD008792 (Left) and excluding study 7 (Right). The $r$-value was 0.24. The sensitivity interval, [0.94, 1.356], is the confidence interval excluding study 7 (the black diamond in the right panel) with an additional (small) right tail. The axis is on the logarithmic scale.}\label{fig-Combination}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth, height=0.5\textheight]{44original_2.png}
\caption{The forest plot in the original Review CD008792 including the $r$-value, which was 0.24. The asterisks indicate which study was excluded for the $r$-value computation.}\label{fig-Combination-orig}
\end{figure}
In the right panels of Figures \ref{fig-Trastuzumab} and
\ref{fig-Combination}, the meta-analysis confidence intervals that
would have been computed had we considered only this specific subset of
studies is shown. The sensitivity intervals has an additional tail in the direction favoured by the data.
\section{Methodological extensions}
\subsection{A lower bound on the extent of replicability}
A review is less sensitive than another review if a larger fraction
of studies are excluded without reversing the significant
conclusions. We can calculate the meta-analysis significance not only after dropping each single study, but also after dropping all pairs of studies, triplets of studies etc. Each time we calculate the maximum $p$-value and stop at the first time it exceeded $\alpha$. The bigger the number of studies that can be dropped, the stronger the replicability claim.
For example, the objective of Review CD004421
was to assess the efficacy of therapy taxane containing chemotherapy regimens
as adjuvant treatment of pre- or post-menopausal women with early breast cancer.
The review included 11 studies, out of which only three studies were significant, and the remaining eight studies had non-significant effects. When combined in a meta-analysis,
the evidence was highly significant, and the review conclusion was
that the use of taxane containing adjuvant chemotherapy regimens improved the overall survival of women with early breast cancer, see Figure
\ref{fig-CD004421}.
In order to reverse the significant conclusion, we need to leave out 6 studies: for $u=6$, the $r$-value was 0.0281, but for $u=7$, the $r$-value was 0.0628, see Table 3. Therefore, with $95\%$ confidence, the true number of studies with an effect (in the same direction) is at least 6. More generally, testing in order at significance level $\alpha$ , results in a 1-$\alpha$ confidence lower bound on the number of studies with an effect in a fixed-effect meta-analysis (see \cite {Heller11} for proof).
Note that although we have a lower bound on the number of studies that show an effect, we cannot point out to which studies these are. This is so since the pooling of evidence in the same direction in several studies increases the lower bound, even though each study on it's own maybe non-significant.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth, height=0.5\textheight]{26ALL.png}
\caption{The forest plot in the original Review CD004421 including the $r$-value, which was 2.91e-06. The asterisks indicate which study was excluded for the $r$-value computation.}\label{fig-CD004421}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[ht]
\caption{The $r$-value excluding $u-1$ studies, for $u=2,\ldots,7$, in Review CD004421. This exclusion is in worst-case order, i.e in order of the study that will show the highest lower bound.}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{rrrrr}
\hline
& & & sensitivity interval & \\
& $u$ & $r$-value & lower bound & exclued study \\
\hline
1 & 2 & 2.91e-06 & 0.89 & BCIRG 001 \\
2 & 3 & 1.64e-04 & 0.91 & BIG 2-98 \\
3 & 4 & 2.29e-03 & 0.94 & Taxit 216 \\
4 & 5 & 8.32e-03 & 0.96 & NSABP B-28 \\
5 & 6 & 2.81e-02 & 0.99 & HeCOG \\
6 & 7 & 6.28e-02 & 1.01 & PACS 01 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}\label{tab-CD004421}
\subsection{Accounting for multiplicity}\label{subsec-multiplicity}
When more than one primary endpoint is examined, the $r$-value needs to be smaller in order to establish replicability. This is exactly the same logic as with $p$-values, for which we need to lower the significance threshold when faced with multiplicity of endpoints. Family-wise error rate (FWER) or false discovery rate (FDR) controlling procedures can be applied to the individual $r$-values in order to account for the multiple primary endpoints, see \cite{Benjamini09} for details.
For example, in Review CD005211 four endpoints were examined, with the following $r$-values: (1) 0.1231; (2) 0.0017; (3) 0.0167; (4) 0.1776. For FWER control over replicability claims at the 0.05 level, the Bonferroni-adjusted $r$-values are the number of endpoints multiplied by the original $r$-values. Only endpoint (2) is reported as replicated using Bonferroni at the 0.05 level, since it is the only Bonferroni-adjusted $r$-value below 0.05, $4\times 0.0017<0.05$.
For FDR control over replicability claims, we can use the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH) procedure (\cite{Benjamini95}) on the reported $r$-values. The BH-adjusted $r$-values for a sorted list of $M$ $r$-values, $r_{(1)}\leq \ldots \leq r_{(M)}$, are $\min_{i\geq j} \frac{Mr_{(i)}}{i}, \quad j=1,\ldots, M.$ In Review CD005211, the sorted list is $(0.0017, 0.0167, 0.1231, 0.1776)$ and the adjusted $r$-values are $(0.0068, 0.0334, 0.1641, 0.1776)$. Therefore, endoints (2) and (3), the two endpoints with the smallest $p$-values in the sorted list, are reported as replicated using FDR at the 0.05 level, since for both endpoints the BH-adjusted $r$-values are below 0.05.
\section{Discussion}
In this work we suggested enhancing the systematic reviews meta-analyses, for both fixed effect and random effects model, with a measure that quantifies the strength of replicability,i.e., the $r$-value. In the reporting, if the $r$-value is small we have evidence that the conclusion is based on more than one study, i.e., that the effect was replicated across studies. We suggest adding a cautionary note if the $r$-value is greater than the significance level (say $=0.05$), that states that the conclusion
depends critically on a single study. This does not mean that the
conclusion is necessarily reversed, but the large $r$-value warrants
another examination of the studies in the meta-analysis, and if the
single study upon which the review relies was very well conducted
the conclusion may still be justified despite it being only a single
study.
We would like to emphasize that replicability analysis is relevant for both fixed effect and random effects model meta analysis. In both cases, the meta-analysis can be significant even though the true summary effect is greater than zero in only one study out of the $N$ and hence the replicability analysis is needed. Specifically, for the random effect model in Appendix \ref{app-sim} we show simulations where $N-1$ studies have effects $\theta_i$ samples for the normal distribution with zero mean, and one study has effect $\mu_n \in \{0,\ldots, 5\}$. When $\mu_n=0$, the fraction of times the null is rejected at the nominal 0.05 level using a $t$-test with $N-1$ degrees of freedoms on the sample of $N$ estimated effect sizes is about 0.05, and using the meta-analysis computations suggested in \cite{Higgins11} the fraction is at most 0.12. However, when $\mu_n>0$, the fraction of times the null is rejected at the nominal 0.05 level using a $t$-test with $N-1$ degrees of freedoms on the sample of $N$ estimated effect sizes can be as high as 0.15, and using the meta-analysis computations suggested in \cite{Higgins11} the fraction can reach almost 0.3. We conclude from these simulations that for meta-analysis, it is better to use the $t$-test, and that even with this non-liberal test the significant conclusion can be entirely driven from a single study. Therefore, a replicability analysis is necessary in order to rule out the possibility that a significant random effect meta-analysis conclusion is driven by a single study.
In our two domains there were typically 1-4 primary endpoints per review. We briefly discussed ways to account for the multiplicity of primary endpoints in assessing replicability in Section \ref{subsec-multiplicity}. We regard this as an extension since the emphasis, and the new contribution, of this paper is the introduction of the
$r$-value into the meta-analysis conclusions
|
\section{\label{I}Introduction}
The dynamics of swarms of active particles has been studied intensively in recent years \cite{1}-\cite{5}. Much of the work is based on the assumption that each particle of the swarm moves with a velocity determined by its own activity and by the local fluid flow velocity arising from the flow patterns of surrounding particles. The flow pattern of each particle is centered on that particle and is carried along with the particle velocity. Due to the perpetual change of particle positions this leads to an interesting many-body problem with complicated dynamics.
The assumptions in the theory, as used in practice, can be questioned on two counts. First, it is usually assumed that at each point in time the net steady state flow pattern of each particle is all that needs to be considered. In fact the net flow pattern must be regarded as the time average over a period of the swimming or flying motion. On the fast time scale of the period there is an additional oscillating flow pattern. The phase of the oscillating pattern is important and affects the hydrodynamic interaction and hence the swimming velocities \cite{6}-\cite{8}. Second, a net steady state flow pattern is often assumed without derivation from a swimming motion on the fast time scale.
In the following we study the second assumption on the basis of low Reynolds number hydrodynamics \cite{9}. Therefore the fluid equations of motion are Stokes equations for a viscous incompressible fluid, and inertia effects are neglected. In Stokes hydrodynamics the flow at each point in space is determined instantaneously by the no-slip boundary condition on the surface of each of the particles.
We study a single distorting sphere and calculate the resulting net flow pattern to second order in the amplitude of stroke. It turns out that a commonly assumed active particle flow pattern, of so-called $B_1B_2$ type, cannot be realized as the result of the swimming motion of a distorting sphere. In particular this calls into question the calculation of the hydrodynamic interaction of two swimming micro-organisms for which the $B_1B_2$ model was first proposed \cite{10}.
We conclude that instead of assuming a particular net steady state flow pattern for an active particle it is preferable to consider a swimmer characterized by a combination of low order oscillating multipole moments and to calculate the corresponding net flow pattern. Several examples of such explicit calculations are presented. Each of the resulting net flow patterns can be used in the dynamics of swarms of active particles, though with the caveat that the phase of stroke may be relevant in hydrodynamic interactions.
\section{\label{II}Swimming sphere}
We consider a sphere of radius $a$ immersed in a viscous incompressible fluid of shear viscosity $\eta$. The fluid is of infinite extent and at rest at infinity. It is made to move as a result of shape deformations of the sphere, which change the undeformed sphere with surface $S_0$ into a body with surface $S(t)$ at time $t$. The fluid flow equations are formulated conveniently in the instantaneous rest frame of the body. It is assumed that in this frame the flow velocity $\vc{v}(\vc{r},t)$ and the pressure $p(\vc{r},t)$ satisfy the Stokes equations
of low Reynolds number hydrodynamics \cite{9}
\begin{equation}
\label{2.1}\eta\nabla^2\vc{v}-\nabla p=0,\qquad\nabla\cdot\vc{v}=0.
\end{equation}
The flow velocity is assumed to satisfy the no-slip condition at the surface $S(t)$. A point on the surface $S_0$ of the undeformed sphere is denoted by $\vc{s}$, and the corresponding point on the surface $S(t)$ is denoted by $\vc{s}+\vc{\xi}(\vc{s},t)$, with displacement vector $\vc{\xi}(\vc{s},t)$. The no-slip condition reads \cite{11}
\begin{equation}
\label{2.2}\vc{v}(\vc{s}+\vc{\xi}(\vc{s},t))=\frac{\partial\vc{\xi}(\vc{s},t)}{\partial t}.
\end{equation}
We place the origin of a Cartesian system of coordinates at the center of the sphere $S_0$. By definition
\begin{equation}
\label{2.3}\int_{S_0}\vc{\xi}\;dS=0.
\end{equation}
We also exclude the radial displacement corresponding to uniform expansion of the sphere.
We assume for simplicity that the displacement is axially symmetric and choose the axis of symmetry as $z$ axis. As a consequence the flow velocity and pressure are also axially symmetric, and the body acquires a translational velocity $\vc{U}(t)=U(t)\vc{e}_z$ in the direction of the $z$ axis, but no rotational velocity.
In spherical coordinates $(r,\theta,\varphi)$ the flow velocity can be expanded in terms of a set of fundamental solutions of the Stokes equations (2.1),
\begin{equation}
\label{2.4}\vc{v}(\vc{r},t)=-U(t)\vc{e}_z+\sum^\infty_{l=1}m_l(t)\vc{u}_l(r,\theta)+\sum^\infty_{l=2}k_l(t)\vc{v}_l(r,\theta),
\end{equation}
with \cite{12}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{2.5}\vc{u}_l(r,\theta)&=&\bigg(\frac{a}{r}\bigg)^{l+2}\big[(l+1)P_l(\cos\theta)\vc{e}_r+P^1_l(\cos\theta)\vc{e}_\theta\big],\nonumber\\
\vc{v}_l(r,\theta)&=&\bigg(\frac{a}{r}\bigg)^l\big[(l+1)P_l(\cos\theta)\vc{e}_r+\frac{l-2}{l}P^1_l(\cos\theta)\vc{e}_\theta\big],
\end{eqnarray}
with Legendre polynomials $P_l(\cos\theta)$ and associated Legendre functions $P^1_l(\cos\theta)$ in the notation of Edmonds \cite{13}. In the second sum in Eq. (2.4) the term $\vc{v}_1(r,\theta)$ is missing on account of the requirement that the body exert no net force on the fluid. It follows from the expansion Eq. (2.4) that the translational velocity $U(t)$ may be calculated from the identity
\begin{equation}
\label{2.6}\vc{U}(t)=-\frac{1}{4\pi b^2}\int_{r=b}\vc{v}(\vc{r},t)\;dS,
\end{equation}
where the integral is over any large sphere centered at the origin and enclosing the body completely. The pressure corresponding to Eq. (2.4) is
\begin{equation}
\label{2.7}p(\vc{r},t)=p_0+2\eta\sum^\infty_{l=2}(2l-1)k_l(t)\frac{a^l}{r^{l+1}}P_l(\cos\theta),
\end{equation}
where $p_0$ is the ambient pressure at infinity.
Provided the sums in Eq. (2.4) converge we can use the expression also for $r=a$ and write
\begin{equation}
\label{2.8}\vc{v}(\vc{r},t)|_{r=a}=\sum^\infty_{l=1}A_l(t)P_l(\cos\theta)\vc{e}_r+\sum^\infty_{l=1}B_l(t)\frac{2}{l(l+1)}P^1_l(\cos\theta)\vc{e}_\theta,
\end{equation}
which defines the coefficients $\{A_l,B_l\}$ of Lighthill \cite{14} and Blake \cite{15}. By comparing Eq. (2.8) with Eq. (2.4) we find the relations
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{2.9}A_1&=&2m_1-U,\qquad B_1=m_1+U,\nonumber\\
A_l&=&(l+1)m_l+(l+1)k_l,\qquad B_l=\frac{1}{2}l(l+1)m_l+\frac{1}{2}(l-2)(l+1)k_l,\qquad (l>1).
\end{eqnarray}
The displacement may be written analogously to Eq. (2.4) as
\begin{equation}
\label{2.10}\vc{\xi}(\vc{s},t)=\sum^\infty_{l=1}M_l(t)\vc{u}_l(a,\theta)+\sum^\infty_{l=2}K_l(t)\vc{v}_l(a,\theta),
\end{equation}
where the term with $\vc{v}_1(a,\theta)$ is missing on account of Eq. (2.3).
We note in particular
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{2.11}\vc{u}_1(r,\theta)&=&\bigg(\frac{a}{r}\bigg)^3\;[2\cos\theta\;\vc{e}_r+\sin\theta\;\vc{e}_\theta]=\frac{a^3}{r^3}(-\vc{I}+3\vc{e}_r\vc{e}_r)\cdot\vc{e}_z,\nonumber\\
\vc{v}_1(r,\theta)&=&\frac{a}{r}\;[2\cos\theta\;\vc{e}_r-\sin\theta\;\vc{e}_\theta]=\frac{a}{r}(\vc{I}+\vc{e}_r\vc{e}_r)\cdot\vc{e}_z,\nonumber\\
\vc{u}_2(r,\theta)&=&\frac{3a^4}{4r^4}\;[(1+3\cos2\theta)\;\vc{e}_r+2\sin2\theta\;\vc{e}_\theta],\nonumber\\
\vc{v}_2(r,\theta)&=&\frac{3a^2}{4r^2}\;(1+3\cos2\theta)\vc{e}_r,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\vc{I}$ is the unit tensor. The field $\vc{u}_1$ is identical to an electrostatic dipole field, the field $\vc{v}_1$ is an Oseen monopole flow, the field $\vc{u}_2$ is identical to an electrostatic quadrupole field, and the field $\vc{v}_2$ is a hydrodynamic stresslet or Oseen dipole flow.
It is convenient to expand the flow velocity $\vc{v}$ and the pressure $p$ in powers of the displacement $\vc{\xi}$ as \cite{11}
\begin{equation}
\label{2.12}\vc{v}=\vc{v}^{(1)}+\vc{v}^{(2)}+...,\qquad p=p^{(1)}+p^{(2)}+....
\end{equation}
By expanding the no-slip boundary condition Eq. (2.2) we find that the velocity at the undisplaced surface is given by \cite{11}
\begin{equation}
\label{2.13}\vc{u}^{(1)}_S=\vc{v}^{(1)}|_{r=a}=\frac{\partial\vc{\xi}}{\partial t},\qquad\vc{u}^{(2)}_S=\vc{v}^{(2)}|_{r=a}=-\vc{\xi}\cdot\nabla\vc{v}^{(1)}|_{r=a}.
\end{equation}
The translational velocity $\vc{U}(t)$ has the corresponding expansion
\begin{equation}
\label{2.14}\vc{U}=\vc{U}^{(2)}+\vc{U}^{(3)}+....
\end{equation}
Here the first order term is missing on account of Eq. (2.3). From Eq. (2.9) this implies $A_1^{(1)}=2m^{(1)}_1$ and $B_1^{(1)}=m_1^{(1)}$. The second order term in the velocity is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{2.15}\vc{U}^{(2)}=-\frac{1}{4\pi a^2}\int_{S_0}\vc{u}^{(2)}_S\;dS.
\end{equation}
For periodic displacements with period $T=2\pi/\omega$ we put
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{2.16}M_l(t)=a(\mu_{ls}\cos\omega t-\mu_{lc}\sin\omega t),\nonumber\\
K_l(t)=a(\kappa_{ls}\cos\omega t-\kappa_{lc}\sin\omega t),
\end{eqnarray}
with dimensionless coefficients $\mu_{ls},\mu_{lc},\kappa_{ls},\kappa_{lc}$. Then we have from Eq. (2.13) for the first order flow velocity
\begin{equation}
\label{2.17}\vc{v}^{(1)}(\vc{r},t)=-a\omega\bigg[\sum^\infty_{l=1}\mu_l(t)\vc{u}_l(r,\theta)+\sum^\infty_{l=2}\kappa_l(t)\vc{v}_l(r,\theta)\bigg],
\end{equation}
with multipole coefficients
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{2.18}\mu_l(t)=\mu_{lc}\cos\omega t+\mu_{ls}\sin\omega t,\nonumber\\
\kappa_l(t)=\kappa_{lc}\cos\omega t+\kappa_{ls}\sin\omega t,
\end{eqnarray}
in the notation of Felderhof and Jones \cite{12}. The velocity $U^{(2)}(t)$ and the rate of dissipation $\mathcal{D}^{(2)}(t)$ to second order in the displacement can be expressed as bilinear expressions \cite{12} in terms of the coefficients $\{\mu_{ls},\mu_{lc},\kappa_{ls},\kappa_{lc}\}$.
From Eqs. (2.4) and (2.17) we find for the first order moments
\begin{equation}
\label{2.19}m^{(1)}_l(t)=-a\omega\mu_l(t),\qquad k^{(1)}_l(t)=-a\omega\kappa_l(t).
\end{equation}
In particular, from Eq. (2.9)
\begin{equation}
\label{2.20}A_1^{(1)}(t)=-2a\omega\mu_1(t),\qquad B^{(1)}_1(t)=-a\omega\mu_1(t),
\end{equation}
since $U^{(1)}(t)=0$.
\section{\label{III}Net flow pattern}
In this section we consider a periodic swimmer with first order flow velocity given by Eq. (2.17), and calculate the mean second order flow pattern. The mean is calculated as the time average over a single period $T=2\pi/\omega$. Thus we consider
\begin{equation}
\label{3.1}\overline{\vc{v}^{(2)}(\vc{r})}=\frac{1}{T}\int^T_0\vc{v}^{(2)}(\vc{r},t)\;dt
\end{equation}
corresponding to some stroke or displacement $\vc{\xi}(\vc{s},t)$. Here the flow pattern $\vc{v}^{(2)}(\vc{r},t)$ is defined in the instantaneous rest frame at time $t$ and is the solution of the Stokes equations (2.1) which tends to $-U^{(2)}(t)\vc{e}_z$ at infinity and has boundary value at $r=a$ given by Eq. (2.13).
The second order time-averaged flow pattern may be expanded as
\begin{equation}
\label{3.2}\overline{\vc{v}^{(2)}(\vc{r})}=-\overline{U^{(2)}}\vc{e}_z+\sum^\infty_{l=1}\overline{m_l^{(2)}}\vc{u}_l(r,\theta)+\sum^\infty_{l=2}\overline{k_l^{(2)}}\vc{v}_l(r,\theta),
\end{equation}
corresponding to Eq. (2.4). At the surface the mean second order flow pattern is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{3.3}\overline{\vc{v}^{(2)}(\vc{r})|_{r=a}}=\overline{\vc{u}_S^{(2)}(\vc{s})}=-\overline{\vc{\xi}\cdot\nabla\vc{v}^{(1)}|_{r=a}}.
\end{equation}
The right hand side can be calculated for a given stroke $\vc{\xi}(\vc{s},t)$.
The flow pattern $\overline{\vc{v}^{(2)}(\vc{r})}$ in Eq. (3.2) tends to $-\overline {U^{(2)}}\vc{e}_z$ at infinity with value given by Eq. (2.15). We denote the corresponding coefficients given by the analogue of Eq. (2.8) as $\{A^{\prime}_l,B^{\prime}_l\}=\{\overline{A_l^{(2)}},\overline{B_l^{(2)}}\}$. These may be calculated from $\overline{\vc{u}_S^{(2)}(\vc{s})}$ by using the orthonormality relations of the Legendre functions \cite{13}. It may be checked that $A^{\prime}_1$ and $B^{\prime}_1$ satisfy the relation
\begin{equation}
\label{3.4}\overline {U^{(2)}}=\frac{1}{3}(2B^{\prime}_1-A^{\prime}_1).
\end{equation}
We define the corresponding net flow pattern as
\begin{equation}
\label{3.5}\vc{v}^\prime(\vc{r})=\overline{\vc{v}^{(2)}(\vc{r})}+\overline {U^{(2)}}\vc{e}_z.
\end{equation}
This tends to zero at infinity at least as fast as $1/r^2$ and can be identified with the flow pattern of an active particle. Conversely the question arises as to whether a chosen steady state flow pattern can be identified with the net flow $\vc{v}^\prime(\vc{r})$ of a periodic swimmer.
For example, can we find a stroke $\vc{\xi}(\vc{s},t)$ for which all coefficients $\{A^{\prime}_l\}$ vanish and only $B^{\prime}_1,B^{\prime}_2$ differ from zero?
\section{\label{IV}Simple swimmers as active particles}
In this section we consider some simple swimmers with strokes characterized by combinations of low order multipole moments. The analysis suggests the flow pattern of corresponding active particles.
The calculation of the time-average $\overline{\vc{u}_S^{(2)}(\vc{s})}$ in Eq. (3.3) is performed most easily by using complex notation
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{4.1}\mu^c_l&=&\mu_{lc}+i\mu_{ls},\qquad\mu_l(t)=\mu^c_le^{-i\omega t},\nonumber\\
\kappa^c_l&=&\kappa_{lc}+i\kappa_{ls},\qquad\kappa_l(t)=\kappa^c_le^{-i\omega t},
\end{eqnarray}
with the identity
\begin{equation}
\label{4.2}\overline{\vc{u}_S^{(2)}(\vc{s})}=-\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Re}\;\vc{\xi}^*\cdot\nabla\vc{v}^{(1)}|_{r=a},
\end{equation}
with complex $\vc{v}^{(1)}$ given by Eq. (2.17) with complex coefficients $\{\mu_l(t),\kappa_l(t)\}$, and complex $\vc{\xi}$ given by
\begin{equation}
\label{4.3}\vc{\xi}=-ia\bigg[\sum^\infty_{l=1}\mu_l^c\vc{u}_l(a,\theta)+\sum^\infty_{l=2}\kappa_l^c\vc{v}_l(a,\theta)\bigg]e^{-i\omega t}.
\end{equation}
We have checked the expressions for the $\{A^{\prime}_l,B^{\prime}_l\}$-coefficients given below by a separate calculation of the coefficients $\{A_l^{(2)}(t),B_l^{(2)}(t)\}$ and a subsequent time-average.
We consider first a simple swimmer with only $\mu^c_1,\kappa^c_2,\mu^c_2$ different from zero, corresponding to the superposition of a potential dipole field, an Oseen dipole, and a potential quadrupole field. The mean swimming velocity is derived from Eq. (2.15) as
\begin{equation}
\label{4.4}\overline{U^{(2)}}=\frac{3}{5}\;a\omega(\mu_{1c}\kappa_{2s}-\mu_{1s}\kappa_{2c}+5\mu_{1c}\mu_{2s}-5\mu_{1s}\mu_{2c}),
\end{equation}
in agreement with Eq. (7.8) of Ref. 12.
From Eq. (3.5) we find for the $A^{\prime},B^{\prime}$-coefficients
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{4.5}A^{\prime}_1&=&=\frac{3}{5}\;a\omega(\mu_{1c}\kappa_{2s}-\mu_{1s}\kappa_{2c}+3\mu_{1c}\mu_{2s}-3\mu_{1s}\mu_{2c}),\nonumber\\
B^{\prime}_1&=&\frac{3}{2}\overline{U^{(2)}}+\frac{1}{2}A^{\prime}_1,\nonumber\\
A^{\prime}_2&=&\frac{2}{5}B^{\prime}_2=-\frac{9}{7}\;a\omega(\mu_{2c}\kappa_{2s}-\mu_{2s}\kappa_{2c}),\nonumber\\
A^{\prime}_3&=&10\overline{U^{(2)}}-16A^{\prime}_1,\qquad B^{\prime}_3=21\overline{U^{(2)}}-33A^{\prime}_1,\nonumber\\
A^{\prime}_4&=&\frac{2}{5}B^{\prime}_4=6A^{\prime}_2.
\end{eqnarray}
The coefficients for $l>4$ vanish. The corresponding multipole moments $\{m_l^{\prime},\;k_l^{\prime}\}$ are calculated from the inverse of Eq. (2.9). The lowest order moments are
\begin{equation}
\label{4.6}m_1^\prime=\frac{1}{2}(U^{(2)}+A^\prime_1),\qquad k^\prime_2=\frac{-1}{5}B^\prime_2,\qquad m^\prime_2=\frac{1}{3}B^\prime_2.
\end{equation}
Squirming at $l=2$ with $\mu^c_2=-\kappa^c_2$ implies $A^{\prime}_2=0,\;B^{\prime}_2=0$ and $A^\prime_1=\frac{1}{2}\overline{U^{(2)}}$. In the notation of Drescher et al. \cite{16} the source doublet strength is $A_{sd}=3m_1^{\prime}a^3$ and the stresslet strength is $A_{str}=\frac{3}{2}k_2^{\prime}a^2$. These authors measured the values for swimming Volvox, but they did not find a contribution from the quadrupole $m^{\prime}_2$, or higher order multipoles.
For the mean rate of dissipation or power we find from Eq. (7.15) of Ref. 12
\begin{equation}
\label{4.7}\overline{\mathcal{D}^{(2)}}=8\pi\eta\omega^2a^3\frac{3}{20}\big[10(\mu_{1c}^2+\mu_{1s}^2)+9(\kappa^2_{2c}+\kappa^2_{2s})
+20(\mu_{2c}^2+\mu_{2s}^2)+24(\kappa_{2c}\mu_{2c}+\kappa_{2s}\mu_{2s})\big].
\end{equation}
The calculations in Eqs. (4.4) and (4.7) are performed most easily by using the expressions given in Eqs. (7.11) and (7.17) of Ref. 12.
From Eqs. (4.4) and (4.7) we derive an expression for the swimming efficiency defined by \cite{12}
\begin{equation}
\label{4.8}E_T=4\eta\omega a^2\frac{|\overline{U_2}|}{\overline{\mathcal{D}_2}}.
\end{equation}
Without loss of generality we can choose the phase such that $\mu_{1s}=0$. We then find that the efficiency is maximal for
\begin{equation}
\label{4.9}\kappa_{2c}=0,\qquad\mu_{2c}=0,\qquad\kappa_{2s}=-\frac{4}{3}\sqrt{2}\;\mu_{1c},\qquad\mu_{2s}=\frac{11}{5\sqrt{2}}\;\mu_{1c},
\end{equation}
with value $E_T=5/(6\pi\sqrt{2})=0.188$. The net flow pattern $\vc{v}^\prime(\vc{r})$ can be calculated from the multipole coefficients $\{m_l^{\prime},\;k_l^{\prime}\}$ by using Eqs. (3.2) and (3.5). We note that the particular coefficients $A_2^{\prime}$ and $B_2^{\prime}$, as well as $A_4^{\prime}$ and $B_4^{\prime}$, vanish when Eq. (4.9) holds. It follows from Eq. (2.9) that then $m_2^{\prime},\;k_2^{\prime}$ and $m_4^{\prime},\;k_4^{\prime}$ also vanish. The net flow corresponds to a potential dipole of strength $m_1^{\prime}=(59\sqrt{2}/75)\mu_{1c}^2a\omega$ and equal multipoles at $l=3$ with $k_3^{\prime}=m_3^{\prime}=(459/472)m_1^{\prime}$. The measurements of Drescher et al. \cite{16} for Volvox do not correspond to the pattern for optimal swimming in the above sense, since they find $A_{str}$ to be different from zero.
In order to visualize the axisymmetric flow pattern it is useful to introduce a Stokes stream function $\psi$ via the relations \cite{17}
\begin{equation}
\label{4.10}v_r=\frac{1}{r^2\sin\theta}\frac{\partial\psi}{\partial\theta},\qquad v_\theta=\frac{-1}{r\sin\theta}\frac{\partial\psi}{\partial r}.
\end{equation}
The uniform flow $\vc{e}_z$ corresponds to the stream function
\begin{equation}
\label{4.11}\psi_z(\vc{r})=\frac{1}{2}\;r^2\sin^2\theta,
\end{equation}
and the flow patterns in Eq. (2.5) correspond to
\begin{equation}
\label{4.12}\psi_{ul}(r,\theta)=\frac{a^{l+2}}{lr^l}\;\sin\theta P^1_l(\cos\theta),\qquad
\psi_{vl}(r,\theta)=\frac{a^lr^2}{lr^{l}}\;\sin\theta P^1_l(\cos\theta).
\end{equation}
The streamlines of the flow are given by lines of constant $\psi$. In Fig. 1 we show the streamlines of the net flow $\vc{v}^\prime(\vc{r})$ calculated from $\overline{U^{(2)}}$ and the optimal moments of Eq. (4.9). In Fig. 2 we show the values of $v^{\prime }_r/\overline{U^{(2)}}$ and $v^{\prime }_\theta/\overline{U^{(2)}}$ at $r=a$ as functions of the polar angle $\theta$. In Fig. 3 we show the values of $\vc{v}^{\prime 2}/\overline{U^{(2)}}\;^2$ at $r=a$, $r=1.25a$, and $r=1.5a$ as functions of the polar angle $\theta$.
As a second example we consider a squirming swimmer characterized by coefficients $\mu^c_1=0,\;\kappa^c_2=-\mu^c_2,\; \kappa^c_3=-\mu^c_3$ with all higher order moments vanishing.
The mean swimming velocity is derived from Eq. (2.15), or from the expression in Eq. (7.11) of Ref. 12, as
\begin{equation}
\label{4.13}\overline{U^{(2)}}=\frac{48}{35}\;a\omega(\mu_{2c}\mu_{3s}-\mu_{2s}\mu_{3c}).
\end{equation}
For the mean rate of dissipation we find
\begin{equation}
\label{4.14}\overline{\mathcal{D}^{(2)}}=8\pi\eta\omega^2a^3\frac{1}{12}\big[9(\mu_{2c}^2+\mu_{2s}^2)+8(\mu_{3c}^2+\mu_{3s}^2)\big].
\end{equation}
The calculation based on the analogue of Eq. (2.8) for the boundary value $\overline{\vc{u}^{(2)}_S(\vc{s})}$ of the flow pattern $\overline{\vc{v}^{(2)}(\vc{r})}$ shows that all $A^{\prime}$-coefficients vanish and it yields for the $B^{\prime}$-coefficients
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{4.15}B^{\prime}_1&=&\frac{3}{2}\;\overline{U^{(2)}},\qquad
B^{\prime}_2=0,\nonumber\\
B^{\prime}_3&=&\frac{7}{12}\;\overline{U^{(2)}},\qquad
B^{\prime}_4=0,\qquad B^{\prime}_5=-\frac{25}{12}\;\overline{U^{(2)}}.
\end{eqnarray}
The corresponding multipole moments are found from Eq. (2.9) as
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{4.16}m^\prime_1&=&\frac{1}{2}\;\overline{U^{(2)}},\qquad m^\prime_2=k^\prime_2=0,\nonumber\\
m^{\prime}_3&=&-k^{\prime}_3=\frac{7}{48}\;\overline{U^{(2)}},\qquad m^\prime_4=k^\prime_4=0,\nonumber\\
m^{\prime}_5&=&-k^{\prime}_5=-\frac{25}{72}\;\overline{U^{(2)}}.
\end{eqnarray}
The moments for $l>5$ vanish. The net flow pattern $\vc{v}^\prime(\vc{r})$ can be calculated from the multipole moments by using Eqs. (3.2) and (3.5).
Without loss of generality we can choose the phase such that $\mu_{2s}=0$. We then find that the efficiency $E_T$ is maximal for $\mu_{3c}=0,\;\mu_{3s}=\sqrt{9/8}\mu_{2c}$ with value $E_T=12\sqrt{2}/(35\pi)=0.154$. In Fig. 4 we show the streamlines of the net flow $\vc{v}^\prime(\vc{r})$ calculated from $\overline{U^{(2)}}$ and the set of coefficients $\{A_l^{\prime},B_l^{\prime}\}$ given by Eq. (4.15) for the optimal moments. The net flow pattern at the surface $r=a$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{4.17}\vc{v}'|_{r=a}&=&\overline{\vc{u}_S^{(2)}(\vc{s})}+\overline{U^{(2)}}\vc{e}_z\nonumber\\
&=&\bigg[\cos\theta\;\vc{e}_r+\big[-\sin\theta+\frac{35}{64}(7+5\cos2\theta)\sin^3\theta\big]\;\vc{e}_\theta\bigg]\overline{U^{(2)}}.
\end{eqnarray}
The radial component arises from the second term in the first line. In Fig. 5 we show the values of $v^{\prime }_r/\overline{U^{(2)}}$ and $v^{\prime }_\theta/\overline{U^{(2)}}$ at $r=a$ as functions of the polar angle $\theta$. In Fig. 6 we show the values of $\vc{v}^{\prime 2}/\overline{U^{(2)}}\;^2$ at $r=a$, $r=1.25a$, and $r=1.5a$ as functions of the polar angle $\theta$. It follows from Eq. (4.15) that the squirmer can be identified with a $B_1B_3B_5$-active particle with particular ratios of the coefficients.
As a third example we consider a swimmer characterized by coefficients $\mu^c_1,\;\kappa^c_2,\;\kappa^c_3$, with all other moments vanishing. The mean swimming velocity is derived from Eq. (2.15), or from the expression in Eq. (7.11) of Ref. 12, as
\begin{equation}
\label{4.18}\overline{U^{(2)}}=\frac{3}{35}\;a\omega(7\mu_{1c}\kappa_{2s}-7\mu_{1s}\kappa_{2c}+6\kappa_{2c}\kappa_{3s}-6\kappa_{2s}\kappa_{3c}).
\end{equation}
For the mean rate of dissipation we find
\begin{equation}
\label{4.19}\overline{\mathcal{D}^{(2)}}=8\pi\eta\omega^2a^3\frac{1}{420}\big[630(\mu_{1c}^2+\mu_{1s}^2)+567(\kappa_{2c}^2+\kappa_{2s}^2)+1180(\kappa_{3c}^2+\kappa_{3s}^2)\big].
\end{equation}
The calculation based on the analogue of Eq. (2.8) for the boundary value $\overline{\vc{u}^{(2)}_S(\vc{s})}$ of the flow pattern $\overline{\vc{v}^{(2)}(\vc{r})}$ yields for the non-vanishing $A^{\prime}$- and $B^{\prime}$-coefficients
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{4.20}A^{\prime}_1&=&\frac{1}{2}B^{\prime}_1=\overline{U^{(2)}},\nonumber\\
A^{\prime}_2&=&\frac{2}{5}B^{\prime}_2=\frac{20}{7}\;a\omega(\mu_{1c}\kappa_{3s}-\mu_{1s}\kappa_{3c}),\nonumber\\
A^{\prime}_3&=&\frac{1}{2}B^{\prime}_3=\frac{6}{5}\;a\omega(-3\mu_{1c}\kappa_{2s}+3\mu_{1s}\kappa_{2c}+\kappa_{2c}\kappa_{3s}-\kappa_{2s}\kappa_{3c}),\nonumber\\
A^{\prime}_4&=&\frac{2}{5}B^{\prime}_4=-A^\prime_2,\nonumber\\
A^{\prime}_5&=&\frac{1}{2}B^{\prime}_5=\frac{30}{7}\;a\omega(\kappa_{2c}\kappa_{3s}-\kappa_{2s}\kappa_{3c}).
\end{eqnarray}
Without loss of generality we can choose the phase such that $\mu_{1s}=0$. We then find that the efficiency is maximal for
\begin{equation}
\label{4.21}\kappa_{2c}=0,\qquad\kappa_{2s}=\frac{5}{3}\sqrt{\frac{230}{413}}\;\mu_{1c},\qquad\kappa_{3c}=-\frac{27}{59}\mu_{1c},\qquad\kappa_{3s}=0.
\end{equation}
with value $E_T=\sqrt{115/826}/(3\pi)=0.040$, showing that this type of swimming is rather less effective than for the first two examples. For the optimal swimmer the coefficients $A^{\prime}_2,\;B^{\prime}_2,\;A^{\prime}_4,\;B^{\prime}_4$ vanish.
Ghose and Adhikari \cite{18} have considered a similar swimmer with added potential flows with $m^c_2=-\frac{3}{5}k^c_2$ and $m^c_3=-\frac{5}{7}k^c_3$. In our analysis \cite{12} the $\{m_l\}$- and $\{k_l\}$-multipoles can have independent values. We recall that the above expressions are calculated from integrals bilinear in the first order flow velocity. The work of Ghose and Adhikari \cite{18} suggests that the time-dependent swimming velocity and flow pattern must be calculated to third order in the displacement $\vc{\xi}$ in order to agree with experimental observations of the swimming of Chlamydomonas \cite{19}. Delmotte et al. \cite{20} have studied the same swimmer in computer simulation.
We note that it follows from Eq. (2.7) that in all three examples the net flow pattern is accompanied by a steady pressure pattern $p^\prime(\vc{r})$. In the first and third examples the coefficients $A_2^{\prime}$ and $B_2^{\prime}$ are related by $A_2^{\prime}=\frac{2}{5}B_2^{\prime}$, and in the second example both coefficients vanish. It is not possible to design a swimmer with surface displacement (4.3) for which the steady state net second order flow pattern $\vc{v}^\prime(\vc{r})$ has all coefficients $\{A_l^{\prime}\}$ vanishing and only $B_1^{\prime},B_2^{\prime}$ of the $\{B_l^{\prime}\}$-coefficients nonvanishing.
\section{\label{V}Discussion}
The net steady state flow pattern of a periodically distorting sphere can be calculated for a chosen set of oscillating multipolar flow patterns determined by the stroke. As we have shown, such a calculation yields a net flow pattern characterized by a set of steady state multipole moments, as exemplified in Eqs. (4.6) and (4.16). In the study of hydrodynamic interactions between swimmers it is preferable to start from a particular set of oscillating multipole moments, rather than from a chosen steady state flow pattern. The net flow pattern must be used with caution since the hydrodynamic interactions may be affected by the relative phase of swimming strokes.
The explicit calculations of Sec. IV provide examples of simple multipolar swimmers. We suggest that the corresponding flow patterns be used in the study of the dynamics of swarms of active particles.
It may be preferable to use the stroke of optimum swimming efficiency within the chosen class of strokes.
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction} \label{introduzione}
It is more and more common in recent years that applications of regression analysis are concerned with functional data. It is the case, for example, when the explanatory variables are curves (or are a digitized points of a curve) linked to a scalar response variable. This arises, for instance, in chemometrics, where some chemical variable has to be predicted by a digitized signal such as the Near Infrared Reflectance (NIR) spectroscopic information (see \cite{Osborneetal1984}, \cite{FrankFriedman1993}). Other examples concern environmental problems, like prediction of total annual precipitation for Canadian weather stations from the pattern of temperature variation through the year \cite{RS2006}, or linguistic issues \cite{Hastieetal1993}, like the analysis of the relationship between log-spectra of sequences of spoken syllables and phoneme classification \cite{MarxEilers1996}.
In all these cases, classical regression models for multivariate data may be inadequate, since the functional nature of covariates should be exploited using proper estimation and inferential techniques.
In other words, in functional linear regression, the parameters estimation involves solving an illposed problem \cite{Cuevasetal2002} and has points of contact with a range of methodologies, including statistical smoothing and deconvolution (see, among others, \cite{Cardotetal2003} and references therein). The standard approach to carry out estimation and inference on regression parameters is based explicitly on functional principal components analysis (FPCA, see \cite{RS2006} and references therein) and, consequently, on spectral decomposition in terms of eigenvalues and eigenfunctions. Despite FPCA, or analogous projection methods, are often effective and straightforward to apply to the analysis of functional data, the choice of the number of basis components remains something subjective and not always properly discussed and justified. Even if several criteria exist to determine the number of basis functions to be selected dimensional reduction methods per se do not ensure the proper estimation of the regression parameters. We show that, given the sub-space identified by the the chosen basis, the classical procedures do not automatically ensure to obtain an unbiased estimate neither of the true functional coefficient nor of its projection on the correspondent sub-space.
In this work we face the functional linear model with scalar response. In our model a real random response $Y$ is linked to a square integrable random function X defined on some compact set $T$ of $\mathbb{R}$, as
\begin{equation}
y_i=\int_T x_i(t)\beta(t)dt + \epsilon_i,\ \ \ i=1,..,n,
\end{equation}\label{eq:the_model_functional}
\noindent We discuss the choice of suitable finite sub-spaces of $L^2(T)$, called identifiable sub-spaces, where the least square estimation problem is well posed. We point out the properties in terms of bias and variance of the related estimators.
Moreover we explain the reasons why the FPCA comes out to be the optimal solution of a bias-variance trade off problem when no information are available on the space where the regression parameters are defined. Finally we discuss the influence on the parameters estimates (in terms of bias) of the orthogonal component of the sub-space identified by the FPC basis, and we provide a simulation study that shows the theoretical results.
The paper is organized as follows: firstly, the model setting and the functional parameters estimation (Section \ref{section_model}) together with a critical discussion of their inferential properties (Section \ref{section_estimation_subspace}) are presented for finite dimensional sub-spaces. Then the large dimensional case is considered (Section \ref{section_D_inf}) and asymptotic results for increasing size of the sub-space are introduced.
Appendixes \ref{appendix_relation_D_E} and \ref{appendix_cauchy} gather some auxiliary results while Appendix \ref{appendix_simulation} contains the setting details of the simulation study. All the analyses are carried out with \texttt{R}, see \cite{R}.
\section{Model setting and functional least square estimation} \label{section_model}
Let consider the functional model in \eqref{eq:the_model_functional},
\begin{equation*}
y_i=\int_T x_i(t)\beta(t)dt + \epsilon_i,\ \ \ i=1,..,n,
\end{equation*}
where $\beta\in L^2(T)$, with $T$ compact set of $\mathbb{R}$, $x_i\in L^2(T)$ and $\epsilon_i\in\mathbb{R}$.
We will consider $\beta$ as a deterministic function and $\epsilon_1,..,\epsilon_n$ as random variables independent of $x_1,..,x_n$, with $\bm{E}\left[\epsilon_i\right]=0$ and $\bm{Var}\left[\epsilon_i\right]=\sigma^2>0$.
We assume to collect the values of the outcomes $y_1,..,y_n$ and to observe the data $x_i$ only in correspondence of $p$ discrete values $t_1,..,t_p\in T$,
i.e. the data are $\left(x_i(t_1),..,x_i(t_p),y_i\right)$ for $i=1,..,n$.
This is the case treated for example in \cite{Osborneetal1984,FrankFriedman1993,Hastieetal1993,MarxEilers1996,RS2006}, among others.
To ease notation, we let $\langle a,b\rangle$ denote the usual inner product in $L^2(T)$, as $\langle a,b\rangle=\int_Ta(t)b(t)dt$,
and $\|a\|$ is the corresponding norm $\sqrt{\int_Ta^2(t)dt}$.
Accordingly, we can write the model~\eqref{eq:the_model_functional} as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:the_model}
y_i=\langle x_i,\beta\rangle + \epsilon_i,\ \ \ i=1,..,n.
\end{equation}
To obtain the asymptotic results presented in the paper,
we assume that $x_1,..,x_n$ are i.i.d. realizations of a process $X$ with support $S_X\subseteq L^2(T)$,
zero mean and bounded second moment,
i.e. $\bm{E}[X]=0$ and $\bm{E}[\|X\|^2]<\infty$.
In general, neither the distribution of the random process $X$ nor its support $S_X$ are assumed to be known.
The quantities $\epsilon_1,..,\epsilon_n$ model the errors in observing the outcomes $y_1,..,y_n$, and so are assumed to be unknown.
The function $\beta$ is unknown and its estimation is the main focus of this paper.
We need the following setting to describe the functional estimation presented in the paper:
let $S$ be the smallest closed sub-space of $L^2(T)$ such that $S_X\subseteq S$,
and we call $S^{\perp}$ the sub-space of $L^2(T)$ orthogonal to $S$, so that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:decomposition_L2_1}
L^2(T)=S\oplus S^{\perp}.
\end{equation}
In general, the set $S$ may not coincide with $L^2(T)$, that means $S^{\perp}\neq \emptyset$.
For instance, consider the following process in $L^2(T)$, with $T=[-1,1]$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:example_X}
X(t)\ =\ \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} U_k \eta_k \varphi_k(t),
\end{equation}
where $\{U_k:k\geq0\}$ are i.i.d. uniform random variables in $[-1,1]$,
$\{\eta_k:k\geq0\}$ a sequence of positive coefficients such that $\sum_k\eta_k^2<\infty$,
$\varphi_0(t) = 1/\sqrt{2}$ and $ \varphi_k(t)=\cos{(\pi k t)}; k\geq1.$
In this case, the support $S_X$ is composed by the even functions such that
$|\langle g,\varphi_k\rangle|\leq \eta_k$, for any $k\geq0$ and $g\in L^2(T)$.
Then, the smallest sub-space of $L^2(T)$ including $S_X$ coincides with the set of the even functions,
while the orthogonal space is represented by the odd functions, i.e.
$$S:=\left\{\varphi_k(t);k\geq0\right\},\ \ \ \ \ \ \ S^{\perp}:=\left\{\sin{(\pi k t)};k\geq1\right\}.$$
\begin{rem}\label{rem:intercetta}
It is worth saying that the results on the estimation of $\beta$ presented in the paper also hold when the model is
$$y_i=\alpha+\langle x_i,\beta\rangle + \epsilon_i,\ \ \ i=1,..,n,$$
with $\alpha\in\mathbb{R}$, or when $\bm{E}[X]\neq0$.
In these cases, the model~\eqref{eq:the_model} is applied to the centered data, i.e. $y_i-(\sum_{i=j}^ny_i)/n$ and $x_i-(\sum_{i=j}^nx_i)/n$
$i=1,..,n$, so that the asymptotic results are straightforwardly verified.
\end{rem}
\subsection{Functional least square estimation in finite sub-spaces} \label{section_least square}
In the multivariate regression analysis, a common approach to solve the problem of the estimation of $\beta$ is to compute the least square estimator.
However, it is well known that this approach can't be straightforwardly generalized to the functional context,
not even in the case of $x_1,..,x_n$ entirely observed for any $t\in T$.
In fact, the extension of the least square estimator to the functional framework would be
\begin{equation}\label{eq:minimum_problem_complete}
\widehat{\beta}_n:=\arg\min_{b\in L^2(T)}\ f(b)=\arg\min_{b\in L^2(T)}\ \left\{\sum_{i=1}^n(y_i-\langle x_i,b\rangle )^2\right\}
\end{equation}
and it is trivial to note that for any $n\in\mathbb{N}$, $x_1,..,x_n\in L^2(T)$ and $y_1,..,y_n\in \mathbb{R}$ there exist infinite functions $b\in L^2(T)$ such that $f(b)=0$, even for $S=L^2(T)$. Then, the estimator $\widehat{\beta}_n$ can never be well defined by following the least square approach~\eqref{eq:minimum_problem_complete}.
However, a least square estimator of $\beta$ can be computed in a finite sub-space $D$ of $ L^2(T)$.
In fact, let $D\subset L^2(T)$ be a sub-space where the data $x_i$ are reconstructed from their discrete observation $\left(x_i(t_1),..,x_i(t_p)\right)$ by classical smoothing techniques, so obtaining $x_i^D\in D$.
Therefore, we will simply assume that $x_i^D$ represents the projection of $x_i$ on $D$, and in particular that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:reconstruction_assumption}
\langle x_i^D,g\rangle\ =\ \langle x_i,g\rangle,\ \ \ \forall g\in D.
\end{equation}
Given~\eqref{eq:reconstruction_assumption}, the following minimization problem is, under mild conditions, well posed:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:minimum_problem_D}
\widehat{\beta}^D_n:=\arg\min_{b\in D}\ f(b)=\arg\min_{b\in D}\ \left\{\sum_{i=1}^n(y_i-\langle x_i,b\rangle )^2\right\},
\end{equation}
and it can be computed exactly since from~\eqref{eq:reconstruction_assumption} the real function $x_i\in S$ can be replaced in~\eqref{eq:minimum_problem_D} by its reconstruction $x_i^D\in D$.
First, note that if $d:=\dim(D)$ is greater than the sample size $n$, or than the number $p$ of observation points,
the solution of~\eqref{eq:minimum_problem_D}
is not unique as in~\eqref{eq:minimum_problem_complete}, which provides us the condition $d\leq \min\{n;p\}$.
Moreover, if there exists $\beta_0\in D\cap S^{\perp}$ then $\langle x_i,\beta^D+\beta_0\rangle=\langle x_i,\beta^D\rangle$ for any $\beta^D\in D$, which implies that the minimum is not unique and so $\widehat{\beta}^D_n$ is not well defined.
From~\eqref{eq:reconstruction_assumption} we have that the same situation occurs when we replace $x_i$ with its reconstruction $x_i^D$.
To avoid this problem, we introduce the following concept.
We call \emph{identifiable} any sub-space $D$ such that $D\cap S^{\perp}=0$.
We recall that $S$ and $S^{\perp}$ are individuated by $S_X$, which is in general unknown.
Then, the statistician has the important role of choosing a sub-space with no components orthogonal with respect to the sample data,
which are formally the components lying in $S^{\perp}$.
It is worth highlighting that estimating $\beta$ in a finite sub-space $D$
is intrinsically a consequence of the reconstruction procedure of the data $x_i$ on $D$.
In fact, if we consider the problem~\eqref{eq:minimum_problem_complete} computed with the reconstructed data $x_i^D\in D$,
it is easy to see that for any $b_1,b_2$ such that $(b_1-b_2)\in D^{\perp}$,
we have $f(b_1)=f(b_2)$ and the solution of~\eqref{eq:minimum_problem_D} can't be unique.
Hence, the uniqueness of the solution of~\eqref{eq:minimum_problem_D}
can be obtained only by restricting the problem to the sub-space where the data have been reconstructed, that is $D$ is an identifiable sub-space.
Moreover, in some application, the physical context of the problem may provide a prior information on $\beta$ so that
searching a solution in a specific sub-space $D$ could be the smartest thing to do.
In this case, even if the data $x_i$ are perfectly recorded at any $t\in T$, the problem~\eqref{eq:minimum_problem_D}
would only consider their projection on $D$, since the part on $D^{\perp}$ is useless.
In fact, from~\eqref{eq:minimum_problem_D} the components of the data $x_i$ orthogonal to $D$ are irrelevant,
because $b^D\in D$ and the orthogonal part vanishes in the scalar product $\langle x_i,b^D\rangle $.
Then, the strategy of searching $\beta\in D$ through~\eqref{eq:minimum_problem_D} suggests to reconstruct the data on $D$.
In practice, the a priori information on $\beta$ may not guarantee to determine a finite sub-space $D$ where $\beta$ belongs to.
Then, the sub-space $D$ is typically chosen to reconstruct the data $x_1,..,x_n$ at best,
and so we can imagine that in general the true $\beta$ may not lie in that sub-space $D$.
In this case, it is not clear what $\widehat{\beta}^D_n$ defined in~\eqref{eq:minimum_problem_D} is actually estimating,
and which are its statistical properties.
In the following section, we provide an answer to this issue.
For instance, we will show that, in general, the least square estimator $\widehat{\beta}^D_n$ computed on $D$
does not converge to the projection of the real $\beta$ on $D$, as one may expect.
Moreover we will discuss the collinearity effects in the estimation of $\beta$,
which plays a central role in the unbiasedness and consistency of the estimator $\widehat{\beta}^D_n$.
\section{Properties of Least Square Estimator in finite sub-spaces} \label{section_estimation_subspace}
To investigate the statistical properties of $\widehat{\beta}^D_n$,
we rewrite~\eqref{eq:minimum_problem_D} in a slightly different way.
First, we introduce the projection operator $\pi:D\rightarrow S$ of $D$ on $S$, and call $E\subset S$ the image of $\pi$, i.e.
$$E\ :=\ \left\{\ x\in S\ :\ \exists y\in D, x=\sum_{k=1}^{\dim(S)}\langle y,\varphi^S_k\rangle\varphi^S_k\ \right\},$$
where $\left\{\varphi_k^S;k=1,..,\dim(S)\right\}$ is an orthonormal basis of $S$.
Naturally, the definition of $E$ implies that $D\subset E \oplus S^{\perp}$.
Appendix~\ref{appendix_relation_D_E} is dedicated to explore more precisely the relation among $D$ and $E$:
for any given $D$ and $S$, we describe how to compute an orthonormal basis for $E$ and we provide the analytic expression of the projection operator $\pi$.
Here, we focus on the following properties:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] since $D\cap S^{\perp}=0$ ($D$ is identifiable) and $D$ is finite dimensional, it is possible to show that $\pi$ is invertible (see Appendix~\ref{appendix_relation_D_E}), so that $\pi$ is a bicontinuous operator from $D$ to $E$;
\item[(2)] for any $b^D\in D$, calling $b^{E}=\pi(b^D)$, we have that
$$\langle x_i,b^D\rangle=\langle x_i,b^{E}\rangle+\langle x_i,b^D-b^{E}\rangle=\langle x_i,b^{E}\rangle,$$
because $(b^D-b^{E})\in S^{\perp}$ and $x_i\in S$.
\end{itemize}
From (1) and (2), we have that $f(b^D)=f(b^{E})$ for any $b^D\in D$, so that the element of $D$ that minimizes $f$ is univocally associated
through the projection $\pi$ with the element of $E$ minimizing $f$.
Hence, the least square estimator computed minimizing in~\eqref{eq:minimum_problem_D} can be obtained as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:inverse_projection}
\widehat{\beta}^{D}_n=(\pi)^{-1}(\widehat{\beta}^{E}_n),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{eq:minimum_problem_E}
\widehat{\beta}^{E}_n:=\arg\min_{b\in E}\ f(b)=\arg\min_{b\in E}\ \left\{\sum_{i=1}^n(y_i-\langle x_i,b\rangle )^2\right\}.
\end{equation}
Then, in the following, we study the statistical properties of $\widehat{\beta}^{E}_n$
to describe the behavior of the estimator $\widehat{\beta}^{D}_n$ computed in $D$,
which is the sub-space individuated by the experimenter as mentioned before.
The problem~\eqref{eq:minimum_problem_E} is solved in Subsection~\ref{section_estimation_betaE},
where the properties of $\widehat{\beta}^{E}_n$ are investigated.
After that, a wide analysis on the behavior $\widehat{\beta}^{D}_n$ is detailed in Subsection~\ref{section_a_b_c}.
Finally, to sake of simplicity, we define the sub-space $F=S\cap E^{\perp}$, so that we replace~\eqref{eq:decomposition_L2_1}
with the following expression
\begin{equation}\label{eq:decomposition_L2_2}
L^2(T)=E\oplus F\oplus S^{\perp}.
\end{equation}
Then, a unique orthogonal decomposition can be realized for any $\beta\in L^2(T)$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:decomposition_beta}
\beta\ =\ \beta^E\ +\ \beta^F\ +\ \beta^{S^{\perp}},
\end{equation}
where $\beta\in D$ implies $\beta^F=0$, since $D\subset E \oplus S^{\perp}$.
\subsection{Characterization of the least square estimator in $E$} \label{section_estimation_betaE}
In this section, we focus on solving~\eqref{eq:minimum_problem_E} and
we obtain the main properties of $\widehat{\beta}^{E}_n$.
Given any orthonormal basis for $D$ and $S$,
denoted by $\left\{\varphi_k^D;k=1,..,d\right\}$ and $\left\{\varphi_k^S;k=1,..,\dim(S)\right\}$ respectively,
we can compute the orthonormal basis for $E$ and we denote it as $\bm{\varphi^{E}(t)}:=\left\{\varphi_k^E;k=1,..,d\right\}$
(see Appendix~\ref{appendix_relation_D_E} for the details).
Then, we call $x_i^{E}$ the projection of $x_i$ on $E$ and note that for any $b^{E}\in E$
$$\langle x_i,b^{E}\rangle=\langle x_i^{E},b^{E}\rangle+\langle x_i-x_i^{E},b^{E}\rangle=\langle x_i^{E},b^{E}\rangle,$$
since $(x_i-x_i^{E})$ lies in a sub-space orthogonal to $E$.
Hence,~\eqref{eq:minimum_problem_E} can be solved with finite dimensional quantities,
obtaining $\widehat{\beta}^{E}_n(t):=(\bm{\widehat{\beta}^{E}_n})^T
\cdot\bm{\varphi^{E}(t)}$, where
\begin{equation}\label{eq:minimum_problem_E_smart}
\bm{\widehat{\beta}^{E}_n}:=\arg\min_{\bm{b^{E}}\in \mathbb{R}^d}\
\left\{(\bm{y}-X^{E}\bm{b^{E}})^T(\bm{y}-X^{E}\bm{b^{E}})\right\},
\end{equation}
$\bm{y}$ is the $n$-vector composed by the observed values $\bm{y}=(y_1,..,y_n)^T$ and
$X^{E}$ is the $n\times d$-matrix, where $[X^{E}]_{ij}=\langle x_i,\varphi_j^{E}\rangle$.
As in the multivariate theory, we can easily obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq:estimate_E}
\bm{\widehat{\beta}^{E}_n}=((X^{E})^TX^{E})^{-1}(X^{E})^T\bm{y}.
\end{equation}
Now, let us discuss the statistical properties of $\bm{\widehat{\beta}^{E}_n}$.
Using decomposition~\eqref{eq:decomposition_beta}, the model~\eqref{eq:the_model} can be written as
$$y_i=\langle x_i,\beta\rangle + \epsilon_i=\langle x_i,\beta^{E}\rangle+\langle x_i,\beta^{F}\rangle + \epsilon_i$$
for any $i=1,..,n$, since $x_i$ is orthogonal to $\beta^{S^{\perp}}$.
In matrix notation, the last expression becomes
\begin{equation*}
\bm{y}=\langle \bm{x},\beta^{E}\rangle+\langle \bm{x},\beta^{F}\rangle+ \bm{\epsilon}
\end{equation*}
where $\bm{x(t)}=(x_1(t),..,x_n(t))^T$, $\bm{\epsilon}=(\epsilon_1,..,\epsilon_n)^T$ and $\bm{y}=(y_1,..,y_n)^T$.
Since the dimension of $E$ is finite, we can rewrite the last expression as follows
\begin{equation}\label{eq:espression_collinearity}
\bm{y}=X^{E}\bm{\beta^{E}}+\langle \bm{x},\beta^{F}\rangle+ \bm{\epsilon},
\end{equation}
where $\bm{\beta^{E}}\in\mathbb{R}^d$ is the vector such that $\beta^{E}(t)=(\bm{\beta^{E}})^T\cdot\bm{\varphi^{E}(t)}$.
Note that the estimator $\bm{\widehat{\beta}^{E}_n}$ is computed in~\eqref{eq:estimate_E} only with the data projected on $E$, i.e. $X^{E}$;
then, the quantity $\langle \bm{x},\beta^{F}\rangle$ in~\eqref{eq:espression_collinearity} represents the part of the data
which has not been used to compute $\bm{\widehat{\beta}^{E}_n}$, so that the least square estimation approach treats $\langle \bm{x},\beta^{F}\rangle$ in~\eqref{eq:espression_collinearity} as the independent error $\bm{\epsilon}$.
Nevertheless, the quantity $\langle \bm{x},\beta^{F}\rangle$ can be correlated to $X^{E}$, and this correlation
plays a central role in the estimation of $\beta$.
To characterize $\bm{\widehat{\beta}^{E}_n}$, we substitute~\eqref{eq:espression_collinearity} in~\eqref{eq:estimate_E}, obtaining
\[\begin{aligned}
\bm{\widehat{\beta}^{E}_n}\ &&=&\ \bm{\beta^{E}}+((X^{E})^TX^{E})^{-1}(X^{E})^T\langle \bm{x},\beta^{F}\rangle+
((X^{E})^TX^{E})^{-1}(X^{E})^T\bm{\epsilon}\\
&&=&\ \bm{\beta^{E}}+\bm{\gamma_n^d}+((X^{E})^TX^{E})^{-1}(X^{E})^T\bm{\epsilon},\\
\end{aligned}\]
where $\bm{\gamma_n^d}:=((X^{E})^TX^{E})^{-1}(X^{E})^T\langle \bm{x},\beta^{F}\rangle$.
Then, conditioning to the data $\bm{x(t)}$, the quantity $\bm{\widehat{\beta}^{E}_n}$ presents the following features:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:features_beta_E}
\bm{E}\left[\bm{\widehat{\beta}^{E}_n}|\bm{x}\right]=\bm{\beta^{E}}+\bm{\gamma_n},\ \ \ \ \
\bm{Cov}\left(\bm{\widehat{\beta}^{E}_n}|\bm{x}\ \right)=\sigma^2((X^{E})^TX^{E})^{-1}.
\end{equation}
The term $\bm{\gamma_n}$ catches the relation among $X$ on $E$ and $X$ on $\beta^F$,
see also Subsection~\ref{section_a_b_c}.
Moreover, since $x_1,..,x_n$ are i.i.d. realizations of $X$ and $\bm{E}[\|X\|^2]<\infty$,
we can apply the Strong Law of Large Numbers (SLLN) obtaining
\begin{equation}\label{eq:convergence_bias}
\bm{\gamma_n}\ \stackrel{a.s.}{\rightarrow}\ \bm{\gamma}:=\left(\bm{E}\left[\bm{X^{E}}(\bm{X^{E}})^T\right]\right)^{-1}
\bm{E}[\bm{X^{E}}\langle X,\beta^{F}\rangle],
\end{equation}
where $\bm{X^{E}}:=\langle X,\bm{\varphi^{E}(t)}\rangle\in\mathbb{R}^d$.
Using~\eqref{eq:convergence_bias} we get that $\bm{\widehat{\beta}^{E}_n}\stackrel{a.s.}{\rightarrow}_n\bm{\beta^{E}}+\bm{\gamma}$.
The quantity $\bm{\gamma}$ has a direct functional representation given by $\gamma(t)=(\bm{\gamma})^T\cdot\bm{\varphi^{E}(t)}$,
and we directly obtain the consistency of $\widehat{\beta}^{E}_n$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:convergence_beta_E}
\widehat{\beta}^{E}_n\ \stackrel{a.s.}{\rightarrow}\ \beta^{E}\ +\ \gamma.
\end{equation}
\begin{rem}\label{rem:bias_delta}
Note that, since $\bm{E}[X]=0$, the bias $\bm{\gamma}$ can also be written as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:bias_zero_mean}
\bm{\gamma}\ =\ \left(\Sigma^E\right)^{-1}
\bm{Cov}(\bm{X^{E}},\langle X,\beta^{F}\rangle),
\end{equation}
where $\Sigma^E:=\bm{Cov}\left[\bm{X^{E}}\right]$.
The meaning of $\bm{\gamma}$ can be easily seen when it is represented along the principal components of $\bm{X^{E}}$.
If we denote with $V^E$ the matrix composed by the eigenvectors ($\bm{\psi_1},..,\bm{\psi_d}$) of $\Sigma^E$,
and if we call $Z^{E}_k:=(\bm{X^{E}})^T\cdot \bm{\psi_k}=\langle X,\psi_k\rangle$ for $k=1,..,d$,
the bias along the $k^{th}$ principal components (i.e. $\delta_k=\langle \gamma,\psi_k\rangle$) can be express as follows
$$\delta_k\ =\ \left(\bm{Var}\left[Z^{E}_k\right]\right)^{-1}\cdot
\bm{Cov}\left[Z^{E}_k,\langle X, \beta^{F}\rangle\right]=
\left(\frac{\bm{Var}\left[\langle X, \beta^{F}\rangle\right]}{\bm{Var}\left[Z^{E}_k\right]}\right)^{1/2}\cdot
\bm{Cor}\left[Z^{E}_k,\langle X, \beta^{F}\rangle\right],$$
which shows how the bias reflects the correlation among $X$ on $E$ and $X$ on $F$.
\end{rem}
\subsection{Discussion on the least square estimation in finite identifiable sub-spaces} \label{section_a_b_c}
We now discuss the behavior of the least square estimator in the finite sub-space $D$, i.e. $\widehat{\beta}^{D}_n$.
To this aim, we consider the results~\eqref{eq:features_beta_E} and~\eqref{eq:convergence_beta_E} related to $\widehat{\beta}^{E}_n$,
and, through the relation~\eqref{eq:inverse_projection}, we discuss the properties of $\widehat{\beta}^{D}_n$.
In particular, in this subsection we focus on the asymptotic behavior of $\widehat{\beta}^{D}_n$,
even if analogous arguments can be used to describe its bias for fixed $n$.
Since $\pi^{-1}:E\rightarrow D$ is continuous,
the consistency of $\widehat{\beta}^{D}_n$ can be easily obtained from~\eqref{eq:convergence_beta_E}:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:convergence_beta_D}
\widehat{\beta}^{D}_n\ \stackrel{a.s.}{\rightarrow}\ \pi^{-1}\left(\beta^{E}+\gamma\right).
\end{equation}
The real issue here is to understand what this limit represents.
The discussion is structured as follows: we analyze the consistency of the least square estimator $\widehat{\beta}^{D}_n$
in these different cases
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] $\beta\in D$;
\item[(b)] $\beta\notin D$, but $\beta^F=0$;
\item[(c)] $\beta\notin D$, and $\beta^F\neq0$.
\end{itemize}
\textit{Case (a): $\beta\in D$.} In this situation, we trivially have $\beta^F=0$ since $D\subset E \oplus S^{\perp}$;
this implies $\beta=\beta^E+\beta^{S^{\perp}}$ and
$\gamma_n=\gamma=0$ for any $n\geq1$ by definition.
Moreover, since $(\beta^E+\beta^{S^{\perp}})\in D$, we have that $\pi^{-1}\left(\beta^{E}\right)=\beta^E+\beta^{S^{\perp}}$.
Hence, we obtain
$$\|\widehat{\beta}^{D}_n-\beta\|\ \stackrel{a.s.}{\rightarrow}\ 0.$$
Then, when the true $\beta$ belongs to the sub-space $D$, the least square estimator on $D$ is consistent.
In Figure~\ref{Simulazione_1}-third panel, we report $100$ independent simulations detailed in Appendix~\ref{appendix_simulation}
in which an estimate of $\widehat{\beta}^{D}_n$ is computed for large $n$ and $\beta \in D$.
The pointwise mean of the estimates of $\widehat{\beta}^{D}_n$ (dotted line) is very close to the true $\beta$ (solid line).
This shows that the estimator $\widehat{\beta}^{D}_n$ is unbiased and consistent.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{Figure1_1.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{Figure1_2.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{Figure1_3.jpg}
\caption{The solid lines are the true $\beta(t)$, the dashed lines are the projection of $\beta(t)$ in the corresponding spaces,
the dotted lines are the pointwise means of the estimated $\hat\beta(t)$.
For further details on the simulation setting see Appendix~\ref{appendix_simulation}.}
\label{Simulazione_1}
\end{figure}\\
\textit{Case (b): $\beta\notin D$, but $\beta^F=0$.}
Analogously to case (a), $\beta^F=0$ implies $\beta=\beta^E+\beta^{S^{\perp}}$ and
$\gamma_n=\gamma=0$ for any $n\geq1$.
However, in this case $\pi^{-1}\left(\beta^{E}\right)\neq\beta^E+\beta^{S^{\perp}}$, so that
$$\|\widehat{\beta}^{D}_n-\beta\|\ \stackrel{a.s.}{\rightarrow}\ \|\left(\pi^{-1}\left(\beta^{E}\right)-\beta^E\right)-\beta^{S^{\perp}}\|,$$
which means the estimator $\widehat{\beta}^D_n$ is not consistent for $\beta$.
The asymptotic bias belongs to the sub-space orthogonal to the data, i.e.
$$\left(\pi^{-1}\left(\beta^{E}\right)-\beta^E\right)-\beta^{S^{\perp}}\ \in\ S^{\perp}.$$
This latter fact can be seen in Figure~\ref{Simulazione_1}-first and second panels.
In fact, in this simulation the difference among $\beta$ (solid line) and the pointwise means of the estimates of $\widehat{\beta}^{D}_n$
(dotted lines) are odd functions, i.e. $S^{\perp}$ in the example.
Since the errors in estimating $\beta$ with $\widehat{\beta}^D_n$ belongs to a space which can't be explored by the data,
the bias can be eliminated only by using a priori information on $\beta$ to modify the choice of $D$.
It is also worth observing that this bias is totally irrelevant if the interest in estimating $\beta$ is only related to the quantity $\langle x,\beta\rangle$ in the regression context,
because the estimation and inference of the inner product is not influenced by any component of $\beta$ in $S^{\perp}$.
In other words in all the cases of Figure~\ref{Simulazione_1} the pointwise means of the estimates of $\widehat{\beta}^{D}_n$ (dotted lines)
only differs in their odd component. Hence, since the data are even functions, the inference on $\langle X,\beta\rangle$ is equivalent.
Summing up in case (b), the choice of $D$ does not influence the explanation of the phenomena related to the regression,
but it is relevant when the interest lies in the reconstruction of the true $\beta$.\\
\textit{Case (c): $\beta\notin D$, and $\beta^F\neq0$.}
In this case, in general we have that $\gamma_n\neq0$ for $n\geq1$ and $\gamma\neq0$.
The asymptotic distance among $\widehat{\beta}^{D}_n$ and $\beta$ can be divided in three orthogonal terms:
$$\|\widehat{\beta}^{D}_n-\beta\|^2\ \stackrel{a.s.}{\rightarrow}\ \|\beta^F\|^2\ +\ \|\gamma\|^2\ +\ \|\left(\pi^{-1}\left(\beta^{E}+\gamma\right)-(\beta^E+\gamma)\right)-\beta^{S^{\perp}}\|^2,$$
where $\beta^F\in F$, $\gamma\in E$ and
$$\left(\pi^{-1}\left(\beta^{E}+\gamma\right)-(\beta^E+\gamma)\right)-\beta^{S^{\perp}}\ \in\ S^{\perp}.$$
In Figure~\ref{Simulazione_2}-left panel, we report $100$ independent simulations in which an estimate of $\widehat{\beta}^{D}_n$ is computed for large $n$
(see details in simulation setting in Appendix~\ref{appendix_simulation}).
Since in case (c) we are mainly interested in the estimation on $S$,
Figure~\ref{Simulazione_2} consider $D\equiv E$ and $\beta^{S^{\perp}}$, so that there is no bias on $S^{\perp}$.
The bias on the sub-space $F$ is always present in this situation, and it is simply due to the fact that
$\widehat{\beta}^{D}_n\in D$, which is included in $E\oplus S^{\perp}$, while $\beta\notin E\oplus S^{\perp}$ when $\beta^F\neq 0$.
Naturally, this bias also influences the statistical analysis on the outcome $y$, since the contribution of
$\langle X,\beta^F\rangle$ to $y$ is not taken into account.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{Figure2_1.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{Figure2_2.jpg}
\caption{The black lines are the true $\beta(t)$, the dashed lines are the projection of $\beta(t)$ in the corresponding spaces,
the dotted lines are the pointwise means of the estimated $\hat\beta(t)$.}
\label{Simulazione_2}
\end{figure}
When the aim of the analysis is to reconstruct only the component of $\beta$ on a particular sub-space,
given by $D$ and the functions orthogonal to the data, i.e. $E\oplus S^{\perp}$,
the bias on $F$ is not of interest.
However, the analysis on the estimation mainly focus on the bias on $E$: $\gamma(t)$.
This function indicates the asymptotic bias among $\widehat{\beta}^{E}_n$ and $\beta^{E}$.
In Figure~\ref{Simulazione_2}-left panel, $\gamma(t)$ is represented by the difference among $\beta$ (solid line) and
the pointwise mean of the estimated $\hat\beta(t)$ (dotted line).
As mentioned in Subsection~\ref{section_estimation_betaE},
this bias is due to the fact that the part of the process $X$ on $E$ can be correlated to the part of $X$ along the component $\beta^{F}\in F$.
We may say that the bias $\gamma_n(t)$ puts in the estimate given by $\widehat{\beta}^{E}_n$ the additional information related to the contribution of $\langle X,\beta^{F}\rangle$ in computing $y_i$. Then, even if $\beta^{E}$ is the closest element of $E$ to $\beta$, the function of $E$ that better reconstructs $y_i$ from data is $(\beta^{E}+\gamma)$, since the contribution $\langle X,\beta^{F}\rangle$ is not observable.
From Remark~\ref{rem:bias_delta}, note that if $\bm{E}[X]=0$ and $E$ is composed by $d$ eigenfunctions of the covariance structure of $X$ (Karunen-Loeve basis),
then $\gamma(t)=0$.
In fact, in this case there is no information of $F$ contained in $E$, and then $\beta^{E}$ is also the function that better constructs $y_i$ from data in $E$.
In fact, in Figure~\ref{Simulazione_2}-right panel, where $D$ is the sub-space generated by the firsts principal components of the data,
the true $\beta$ (solid line) and
the pointwise mean of the estimated $\hat\beta(t)$ (dotted line) coincides ($\gamma(t)=0$).
\subsection{A bias-variance trade off in the estimation in finite sub-spaces} \label{section_bias_variance}
In this subsection, we highlight an interesting bias-variance trade off concerning the choice of the sub-space
where the least square estimator is computed.
Before introducing this trade off, let us discuss the covariance structure of the estimator $\widehat{\beta}^{D}_n$,
which we define as $(\bm{\varphi^D(s)})^T\cdot\bm{Cov}(\bm{\widehat{\beta}^{D}_n})\cdot\bm{\varphi^D(t)}$,
since $\widehat{\beta}^{D}_n(t)=(\bm{\widehat{\beta}^{D}_n})^T\cdot\bm{\varphi^D(t)}$.
We now use the projection matrix $P$ such that,
$\bm{\widehat{\beta}^{D}_n}=P^{-1}(\bm{\widehat{\beta}^{E}_n})$, that is computed in Appendix~\ref{appendix_relation_D_E}.
Through this operator, we can express the relation among $\bm{Cov}(\bm{\widehat{\beta}^{D}_n})$ and $\bm{Cov}(\bm{\widehat{\beta}^{E}_n})$ as follows
$$\bm{Cov}(\bm{\widehat{\beta}^{D}_n})\ =\ P^{-1}\bm{Cov}(\bm{\widehat{\beta}^{E}_n})(P^{-1})^T.$$
From~\eqref{eq:P_E} in Appendix~\ref{appendix_relation_D_E}, we obtain
$$\bm{Cov}(\bm{\widehat{\beta}^{D}_n})\ =\ V_DD_D^{-1/2}\bm{Cov}(\bm{\widehat{\beta}^{E}_n})D_D^{-1/2}V_D^T,$$
where $D_D$ and $V_D$ represent the eigen-structure of $P^TP$, i.e. $P^TPV_D=V_DD_D$.
Denote with $\nu_1^{D},..,\nu_d^{D}$ and $\nu_1^{E},..,\nu_d^{E}$ the eigenvalues of $\bm{Cov}(\bm{\widehat{\beta}^{D}_n})$ and $\bm{Cov}(\bm{\widehat{\beta}^{E}_n})$, respectively. Then, we can observe that
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] since $P$ is a projection matrix, all the eigenvalues of $P^TP$ are less than one. Hence,
all the elements in $D_D^{-1/2}$ are greater than one. So, the variance of the retro-projection due to $P^{-1}$ is non decreasing in any direction, i.e. $\nu_k^{D}\geq \nu_k^{E}$ for any $k=1,..,d$;
\item[(ii)] if $D\subseteq S$, all the eigenvalues are equal to one and the total variance is the same, i.e. $\nu_k^{D}= \nu_k^{E}$ for any $k=1,..,d$;
\item[(iii)] if all the eigenvalues of $D_D$ are greater than a value $\epsilon_D>0$,
we can uniformly control the variance of $\bm{\widehat{\beta}^{D}_n}$, i.e. $\nu_k^{D}\leq 1/\epsilon_D\cdot\nu_k^{E}$ for any $k=1,..,d$.
\end{itemize}
From these properties we can distinguish two interesting cases of bias-variance trade-off related to the choice of the sub-space $D$:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] Consider all the possible identifiable sub-spaces $D$ with the same projection $E_0$ on $S$, i.e.
$D\subseteq E_0\oplus S^{\perp}$ and $D\cap S^{\perp}=0$.
From (i) and (ii) we have that the variance of $\widehat{\beta}^{D}_n$ is minimized by choosing $D\equiv E_0$, that is $D\subseteq S$.
However, to reduce the bias on $S^{\perp}$, some a priori information on $\beta$ may suggest another choice of $D$.
For instance, consider the case $\beta^F=0$ and $\beta^{S^{\perp}}\neq0$: if we choose $D\equiv E_0$ the variance of $\widehat{\beta}^{D}_n$ is minimized but we have a bias on $S^{\perp}$ (case (b)), while if we choose $D$ such that $\beta\in D$, the estimator $\widehat{\beta}^{D}_n$ has no bias but the variance may be very high.
Figure~\ref{Simulazione_1} describes this situation:
when $D\equiv E$ (Figure~\ref{Simulazione_1}-first panel),
the variance of the estimates is low but the pointwise mean of the estimated $\widehat{\beta}^D_n$ does not
target $\beta$; when $D=D_{\pi/6}$ (Figure~\ref{Simulazione_1}-second panel), the variance of the estimates increases and the bias decreases;
when $D=D_{\pi/3}$ (Figure~\ref{Simulazione_1}-third panel), the variance of the estimates is high but there is no bias.
When the sample size $n$ or the number of discrete observations $p$ are not too large,
we may prefer a small variance even if the estimator is biased.
Naturally, when we have no previous information on $\beta$, there is no chance to control the bias and the smartest choice
is to minimize the variance by choosing the closest $D$ to the space of the data $S$.
\item[(2)] Consider all the possible sub-spaces $E\subseteq S$, generated by the projection of $D$ on $S$.
To ease notation, take $D\subset S$ (i.e., $D\equiv E$).
It is well known that the variance of the estimator $\widehat{\beta}^{E}_n$ is smaller when the variance of the data is higher.
Then, the variance of $\widehat{\beta}^{D}_n$ is minimized when $D$ coincides with the space generated by the first principal components of $X$ on $S$.
However, to reduce the bias on $F$, some a priori information on $\beta$ may suggest a different choice of $D$.
For instance, taking $\beta^{S^{\perp}}=0$, when $D$ is equal to the space generated by the first principal components (PCs),
the variance of $\widehat{\beta}^{D}_n$ is minimized but we have a bias on $F$, since in general $\beta^F\neq0$ (case (c)); nevertheless, when $D$ is such that $\beta\in D$, the estimator $\widehat{\beta}^{D}_n$ has no bias (case (a)) but the variance may be very high.
Figure~\ref{Simulazione_3} describes this situation:
in Figure~\ref{Simulazione_3}-left panel, we have a space $D$ that includes $\beta$,
and so the estimates $\widehat{\beta}^D_n$ of $\beta$ are
unbiased but they show a large variance;
in Figure~\ref{Simulazione_3}-second panel, the space of the first PCs does not includes $\beta$,
and so the pointwise mean of the estimated $\widehat{\beta}^D_n$ does not target $\beta$,
but the variance is low.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{Figure3_1.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{Figure3_2.jpg}
\caption{The black line is $\beta(t)$, the dashed line is the projection of $\beta(t)$ in the corresponding space, the dotted line is the pointwise mean of the estimated $\hat\beta(t)$. }
\label{Simulazione_3}
\end{figure}
When the sample size $n$ or the number of discrete observations $p$ are not too large,
we may prefer a small variance even if the estimator is biased.
Naturally, when we have no a priori information on $\beta$, there is no chance to control the bias and the smartest choice
is to minimize the variance by choosing the closest $E$ to the space generated by the first PCs.
\end{itemize}
\section{Estimation in large dimensional sub-spaces} \label{section_D_inf}
In this section, we discuss the behavior of the estimator $\widehat{\beta}_n^{D}$ obtained in~\eqref{eq:minimum_problem_D}
when the dimension of $D$ is arbitrarily large.
In other words, we want to investigate how to compute a well-defined estimator for $\beta$ in an infinite dimensional sub-space $D$.
To deal with this case, we express $D$ as the closure of a countable union of finite sub-spaces $\{D_d,d\geq1\}$, i.e.
$$D\ :=\ \overline{\bigcup_{d\geq1}\{D_d\}},$$
where $D_d\subset D_{d+1}$ for any $d\geq1$.
We denote with $\{\varphi_d^D,d\geq1\}$ the orthonormal basis of $D$, such that $\{\varphi_k^D,k=1,..,d\}$ is an orthonormal basis of $D_d$,
for any $d\geq1$. Note that $\dim(D_d)=d$.
A basic idea to construct an estimation procedure of $\beta$ in $D$ is to consider the estimators
$\{\widehat{\beta}_n^{D_d};d\geq1\}$ computed in the finite dimensional spaces $\{D_d;d\geq1\}$ by~\eqref{eq:minimum_problem_D},
and investigate their asymptotic behavior for large $d$.
In fact, from~\eqref{eq:convergence_beta_D} we have that $\{\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\widehat{\beta}_n^{D_d}\}$ exists finite for any fixed $d\geq1$;
however, $\widehat{\beta}_n^{D_d}$ can be considered a proper estimator in $D$ for $\beta$ only if the sequence of the limits $\left\{\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\widehat{\beta}_n^{D_d};d\geq1\right\}$ is convergent when $d\rightarrow\infty$.
Here we consider sub-spaces $D_d$ with arbitrarily large dimension,
it is worth making an important consideration on the estimator $\widehat{\beta}_n^{D_d}$.
As mentioned in Subsection~\ref{section_least square}, a least square estimator for $\beta$ in a finite identifiable sub-space is well-defined only
if both the sample size $n$ and the number of observations per curve $p$ are greater than the dimension of the sub-space itself.
Then, $\widehat{\beta}_n^{D_d}$ can be computed only if $\min\{n;p\}\geq d$;
moreover, whenever we let $d$ increase to infinity,
we are implicitly requiring that both $n$ and $p$ must diverge with a rate depending on $d$.
Therefore, in all the situations in which $n$ or $p$ can't increases arbitrarily,
the results presented in this section do not hold.
In the following, we consider a framework analogous to the one presented in Section~\ref{section_estimation_subspace}:
for each $d\geq1$, let $E_d$ be the sub-space obtained by the projection of $D_d$ on $S$, i.e.
$$E_d\ :=\ \left\{\ x\in S\ :\ \exists y\in D_d, x=\sum_{k=1}^{\dim(S)}\langle y,\varphi^S_k\rangle\varphi^S_k\ \right\},$$
and let define
$$E\ :=\ \overline{\bigcup_{d\geq1}\{E_d\}},\ \ \ \ F_d:=S\cap E_d^{\perp},\ \ \ \ \ F:=S\cap E^{\perp}.$$
So, we have that $D\subset E \oplus S^{\perp}$ and
$L^2(T)= E \oplus F \oplus S^{\perp}$ and any $\beta\in L^2(T)$ has the following orthogonal decomposition: $\beta= \beta^E + \beta^F + \beta^{S^{\perp}}$.
\subsection{Estimation instability in large dimensional sub-spaces} \label{subsection_controesempio}
In this subsection, we show that the limit of the sequence $\left\{\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\widehat{\beta}_n^{D_d};d\geq1\right\}$ may not exist,
even when $\beta\in D$.
To do this, we discuss an example where the sequence
$\left\{\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\widehat{\beta}_n^{D_d};d\geq1\right\}$
does not converge when $d\rightarrow\infty$.
Since from~\eqref{eq:convergence_beta_D} $\widehat{\beta}_n^{D_d}\rightarrow_n\beta^{D_d}+\gamma^d$ a.s. for any $d\geq1$,
where $\gamma^d$ is the asymptotic bias on $E_d$ and since $\beta^{D_d}\rightarrow_d\beta^{D}$, then
it is sufficient to show that $\{\|\gamma^d\|;d\geq1\}$ is not bounded as $d$ increases.\\
Consider a process $X$, with $\bm{E}[X]=0$, defined on an infinite dimensional sub-space $D$,
with Karhunen-Loeve (K-L) basis $\{\psi_k;k\geq1\}$ and corresponding eigenvalues $\{\lambda_k;k\geq1\}$. The sequence $\{\lambda_k;k\geq1\}$ is decreasing in $k$ (i.e. $\lambda_{max} \equiv \lambda_1 \geq \lambda_2 \geq \cdots$).
Let $\{\varphi_k;k=1,..,d\}$ be a basis for $E_d$, defined as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:phi_controesempio}
\begin{aligned}
\varphi_k & =
\begin{cases}
\cos(\theta_k)\psi_k+\sin(\theta_k)\psi_{k+1} & \text{if }k \text{ odd};
\\
\sin(\theta_{k-1})\psi_{k-1}-\cos(\theta_{k-1})\psi_{k} & \text{if }k \text{ even},
\end{cases}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where the sequence $\{\theta_k;k\geq1\}$ will be appropriately determined more ahead.
Using the representation $\bm{\gamma^d}=V^E\bm{\delta^d}$ presented in Remark~\ref{rem:bias_delta},
it is sufficient to show that $\{\|\delta^d\|;d\geq1\}$ is not bounded as $d$ increases.
To this aim, note that the K-L basis of $X$ projected on $E_d$ is $\{\psi_k;k=1,..,d-1\}\cup\{\varphi_d\}$ for $d$ odd, and
$\{\psi_k;k=1,..,d\}$ for $d$ even.
By Remark~\ref{rem:bias_delta} it is easy to see that $\delta^d_k=0$ for any $k<d$,
while $\delta^d_d=0$ when $d$ is even and
$$\delta^d_d\ =\ \frac{\bm{Cov}\left(\langle X,\varphi_d\rangle,\langle X, \beta^{F_d}\rangle\right)}
{\bm{Var}\left(\langle X,\varphi_d\rangle\right)},$$
when $d$ is odd.
Hence, $\|\delta^d\|=0$ for $d$ even, while $\|\delta^d\|=|\delta^d_d|$ for $d$ odd.
This last term is not zero because of the correlation among the projection of $X$ on $\varphi_d$ (included in $E_d$) and the projection of $X$ on $\varphi_{d+1}$ (included in $F_d$).
By writing $\beta=\sum_{k\geq1}\beta_k\psi_k$, and $X$ projected on $E_d$ as $\sum_{k=1}^{d}Z_k\sqrt{\lambda_k}\psi_k$, we obtain
$$\langle X,\varphi_d\rangle\ =\ Z_d\sqrt{\lambda_d}\cos(\theta_d)+Z_{d+1}\sqrt{\lambda_{d+1}}\sin(\theta_d),$$
\[\begin{aligned}
\langle X, \beta^{F_d}\rangle\ &&=&\ \sum_{k=d+2}^{\infty}Z_k\beta_k\sqrt{\lambda_k}\\
&&+&\ \tilde{\beta}_d
\left(Z_d\sqrt{\lambda_d}\sin(\theta_d)-Z_{d+1}\sqrt{\lambda_{d+1}}\cos(\theta_d)\right),
\end{aligned}\]
where $\tilde{\beta}_d=\left|\beta_d\sin(\theta_d)-\beta_{d+1}\cos(\theta_d)\right|$.
Then, from some easy calculations we have that
$$|\delta_d^d|\ =\ \left(\frac{|\cos(\theta_d)\sin(\theta_d)|\mu_d}
{\mu_d\cos^2(\theta_d)+1}\right)\cdot\tilde{\beta}_d,$$
where $\mu_d=\lambda_d/\lambda_{d+1} - 1$.
Now, consider any sequence $\{\epsilon_d;d\geq1\}$ such that $|\beta_d|/\epsilon_d\rightarrow\infty$, and take $\theta_d=\pi/2-\epsilon_d$ and $\lambda_{d+1}=\lambda_d/(1+\exp(\epsilon_d^{-1}))$, so that for large odd $d$
$$\|\delta^d\|\ \simeq\ \frac{|\beta_d|}{\epsilon_d(1+\exp(-\epsilon_d^{-1}))}\ \rightarrow_d\ \infty.$$
This concludes the example where the sequence $\{\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\widehat{\beta}_n^{D_d};d\geq1\}$ does not converge for $d\rightarrow\infty$.
\subsection{Principal components for estimation in large dimensional sub-spaces} \label{subsection_D_inf_abc}
In Subsection~\ref{subsection_controesempio} we have shown that the limit of the sequence
$\left\{\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\widehat{\beta}_n^{D_d};d\geq1\right\}$
does not exist in general, not even when $\beta\in D$.
We discuss how to introduce an alternative least square estimator well defined in the case of $\beta\in D$.
We will denote this estimator as $\widetilde{\beta}_n^{d,k}$,
where $n\geq1$ is the sample size and $d\geq k\geq1$ are two integer parameters associated to the dimension of the sub-space.
In this subsection, we show that, when $\beta\in D$, there exists a sequence $k_d\rightarrow\infty$ such that
the sequence $\left\{\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\widetilde{\beta}_n^{d,k_d};d\geq1\right\}$ converges when $d\rightarrow\infty$.
This will let us consider $\widetilde{\beta}_n^{d,k_d}$ as a proper estimator for $\beta$ when $d$ is large.
To obtain this result, we need to assume the following conditions
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $\beta\in E \oplus S^{\perp}$, that means $\beta^F=0$;
\item[(ii)] $D\subseteq S$, that means $D\equiv E$ and $D_d\equiv E_d$ for any $d\geq1$.
\end{itemize}
It is worth highlighting that these conditions are not restrictive and in literature they are always assumed to be true.
In fact, most of the existent works consider the limiting space $D$ equal to the space that generates the data, i.e. $D\equiv S$,
which implies both conditions (i) and (ii).\\
Let $\{\psi^d_i;i=1,..,d\}$ be the K-L basis of $X$ projected on the sub-space $D_d$, for any $d\geq1$ and
recall that $\widehat{\beta}_n^{D_d}$ is the least square estimator computed on $D_d$ from~\eqref{eq:minimum_problem_D};
then, we define $\widetilde{\beta}_n^{d,k}$ as the projection of $\widehat{\beta}_n^{D_d}$ on the sub-space
generated by the first $k$ functions of the K-L expansion in $D_d$, i.e.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:beta_tilde}
\widetilde{\beta}_n^{d,k}(t)\ :=\ \sum_{i=1}^k\langle\widehat{\beta}_n^{D_d},\psi^d_i\rangle\psi^d_i(t).
\end{equation}
Analogously, we define $\beta^{d,k}$ and $\gamma^{d,k}$ as the projections of $\beta$ and $\gamma^d$, respectively,
on the sub-space generated by the first $k$ eigenfunctions of $X$ in $D_d$, i.e.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:beta_gamma_dk}
\beta^{d,k}(t):=\sum_{i=1}^k\langle\beta,\psi^d_i\rangle\psi^d_i(t),\ \ \ \ \ \
\gamma^{d,k}(t):=\sum_{i=1}^k\langle\gamma^{d},\psi^d_i\rangle\psi^d_i(t).
\end{equation}
Since from~\eqref{eq:convergence_beta_D} we have that $\widehat{\beta}_n^{D_d}\rightarrow_n \beta^{D_d}\ +\ \gamma^{d}$ a.s.,
we can project all the terms on the sub-space generated by $\{\psi_1^d,..,\psi_k^d\}$, obtaining
$$\widetilde{\beta}_n^{d,k}\ \stackrel{a.s.}{\rightarrow}\ \beta^{d,k}\ +\ \gamma^{d,k}.$$
It is trivial to show that $\beta^{d,k}\rightarrow \beta^D$ when $d$ and $k$ increase to infinity,
then, our aim is to show that there exists a sequence $k_d\rightarrow\infty$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:gamma_kd_tends_to_zero}
\|\gamma^{d,k_d}\|\ \rightarrow\ 0.
\end{equation}
To do that, fix $k\leq d$ and consider the coefficients of $\gamma^{d,k}$ with respect the basis $\{\psi_1^d,..,\psi_k^d\}$, i.e.
$\delta_i^d=\langle\gamma^d,\psi_i^d\rangle$ for $i=1,..,k$, where from Remark~\ref{rem:bias_delta}
$$\delta_i^d\ =\ \left(\bm{Var}\left[\langle X,\psi_i^d\rangle\right]\right)^{-1}\cdot
\bm{Cov}\left[\langle X,\psi_i^d\rangle,\langle X, \beta^{F}\rangle\right].$$
Then, defining $\lambda_i^d:=\bm{Var}\left[\langle X,\psi_i^d\rangle\right]$ and applying Cauchy-Schwartz inequality,
we obtain that, for any $i=1,..,k$,
$$(\delta_i^d)^2\ \leq\ (\lambda_i^d)^{-1}\bm{Var}\left[\langle X, \beta^{F}\rangle\right]\ \leq\
\left(\frac{\lambda_{max}}{\lambda_i^d}\right)\|\beta^{F_d}\|^2.$$
From~\eqref{eq:Cauchy_for_paper} we have that $\lambda_i^d$ is increasing in $d$, so that $\lambda_i^d\geq\lambda_i^k$.
Therefore, for any $i=1,..,k$, we have that
$$
(\delta_i^d)^2\ \leq\ \left(\frac{\lambda_{max}}{\lambda_i^k}\right)\|\beta^{F_d}\|^2,
$$
and hence
$$\|\gamma^{d,k}\|^2\ =\ \sum_{i=1}^k\left(\delta_i^d\right)^2\ \leq\
\sum_{i=1}^k\left(\frac{\lambda_{max}}{\lambda_i^i}\right)\|\beta^{F_d}\|^2.$$
Moreover, from~\eqref{eq:Cauchy_for_paper} we know that $\lambda_k^k\leq\lambda_i^i$ for any $i\leq k$,
and calling $C_k=k(\lambda_{max}/\lambda_k^k)$, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq:bias_PC}
\|\gamma^{d,k}\|^2\ \leq\
k\left(\frac{\lambda_{max}}{\lambda_k^k}\right)\|\beta^{F_d}\|^2\ =\ C_k\|\beta^{F_d}\|^2,
\end{equation}
for any fixed $k\geq1$.
Since $\|\beta^{F_d}\|\rightarrow_d0$ because $\beta^F=0$,
we can take a sequence $k_d\rightarrow_d \infty$ such that
$C_{k_d}\|\beta^{F_d}\|^2\rightarrow0$, so that from~\eqref{eq:bias_PC} we get~\eqref{eq:gamma_kd_tends_to_zero}.
As a consequence, the sequence $\left\{\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\widetilde{\beta}_n^{d,k_d};d\geq1\right\}$ converges when $d\rightarrow\infty$,
which let us consider $\widetilde{\beta}_n^{d,k}$ as a proper estimator of $\beta\in D$ for large $d$.\\
Finally, we can write the consistency result for the estimator $\widetilde{\beta}_n^{d,k}$, by letting $k$ and $d$ depending on the sample size $n$:
under assumptions (i) and (ii), there exists a sequence $\{d_n;n\geq1\}$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:consistency_D_inf}
\widehat{\beta}^{d,k}_n\ \stackrel{a.s.}{\rightarrow}_n\ \beta^D,
\end{equation}
where $d=d_n$ and $k=k_{d_n}$ for any $n\geq1$.
Result~\eqref{eq:consistency_D_inf} can be written as follows
$$\|\widetilde{\beta}^{d,k}_n-\beta\|\ \stackrel{a.s.}{\rightarrow}_n\ \|\beta^{S^{\perp}}\|,$$
which implies that, when $\beta\in D$,
$$\|\widetilde{\beta}^{d,k}_n-\beta\|\ \stackrel{a.s.}{\rightarrow}_n\ 0.$$
\begin{rem}\label{rem:condition_essential}
Assumption (i) is essential to consider $\widehat{\beta}^{d,k}_n$ as a proper estimator of $\beta$.
To see this, consider the following example, where (i) fails, i.e. $\beta^F\neq0$, and there is no sequence $\{k_d;d\geq1\}$
such that $\|\gamma^{d,k_d}\|$ is convergent.
In particular, let $\beta=c\cdot\phi$, with $\phi\in F$ and $\|\phi\|=1$.
Then, take a process $X$ defined as follows
$$X\ =\ \sum_{d=1}^{\infty}Z_d\sqrt{\lambda_d}\varphi_d\ +\ \left(\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}Z_j\sqrt{\lambda_j}\right)\phi$$
where $\{\varphi_d;d\geq1\}$ is an orthonormal basis of $D$ and $\{Z_k;k\geq1\}$ are i.i.d. r.v. with zero mean and unit variance.
Then, define the sequence $\{D_d;d\geq1\}$ as $D_d=\textit{span}\{\varphi_1,..,\varphi_d\}$.
Hence, for any $k=1,..,d$ we have that $\gamma_k^d=1$, which implies $\|\gamma^{k_d,d}\|=\sqrt{k_d}\rightarrow_d\infty$ for any
divergent sequence $\{k_d;d\geq1\}$.
\end{rem}
|
\section{Introduction}
\paragraph{The Poisson line tessellation}
Let $\hat{\mathbf{X}}$ be a stationary and isotropic Poisson line process of intensity
$\hat{\gamma}=\pi$ in $\mathbf{R}^2$ endowed with its scalar product $\langle
\cdot,\cdot\rangle$ and its Euclidean norm $|\cdot |$. By $\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}$, we
shall denote the set of affine lines which do not pass through the origin
$0\in\mathbf{R}^2$. Each line can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{def:Hut}
H(u,t)
:=
\Big\{
\,
x\in \mathbf{R}^2,\;
\langle x,u \rangle = t
\,
\Big\},
\end{equation}
for some $t\in\mathbf{R}$, $u\in\mathbf{S}$, where $\mathbf{S}$ is the unit sphere in $\mathbf{R}^2$. When
$t>0$, this representation is unique. The intensity measure of
$\hat{\mathbf{X}}$ is then given by
\begin{equation}\label{def:mu}
\mu(\mathcal{E})
:=
\int_{\mathbf{S}}\int_{\mathbf{R}_+}\ind{H(u,r)\in \mathcal{E}}dr\operatorname{\sigma}(du),
\end{equation}
for all Borel subsets $\mathcal{E} \subseteq \operatorname{\mathcal{A}}$, where $\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}$
is endowed with the Fell topology (see for example \citet{SW}, p563) and where
$\operatorname{\sigma}(\cdot)$ denotes the uniform measure on $\mathbf{S}$ with the
normalisation $\operatorname{\sigma}(\mathbf{S})=2\pi$. The set of closures of the connected
components of $\mathbf{R}^2\setminus\hat{\mathbf{X}}$ defines a stationary and isotropic random
tessellation with intensity $\gamma^{(2)}=\pi$ (see for example (10.46)
in~\citet{SW}) which is the so-called
\emph{Poisson line tessellation}, $\mosaic$. By a slight abuse of
notation, we also write $\hat{\mathbf{X}}$ to denote the union of lines. An example of
the Poisson line tessellation in $\mathbf{R}^2$ is depicted in
Figure~\ref{fig:pht_example}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.9]{pht_example2}
\end{center}
\caption{
A realisation of the Poisson line tessellation truncated to a
window.
\label{fig:pht_example}
}
\end{figure}
Let $B(z,r)$ denote the (closed) disc of radius $r\in \mathbf{R}_+$, centred at
$z\in\mathbf{R}^2$ and let $\mathcal{K}$ be the family of convex bodies
(i.e. convex compact sets in $\mathbf{R}^2$
with non-empty interior), endowed with the Hausdorff topology.
With each convex body $K\in\mathcal{K}$, we may now define the
\emph{inradius},
\begin{equation*}
r(K) :=
\sup
\Big\{
\,
r : B(z,r) \subset K, \, z\in \mathbf{R}^2, \, r \in \mathbf{R}_+
\,
\Big\}.
\end{equation*}
When there exists a unique $z'\in \mathbf{R}^2$ such that $B(z',r(K)) \subset K$, we
define $z(C) := z'$ to be the \emph{incentre} of $K$. If no such $z'$ exists, we
take $z(K) := 0\in \mathbf{R}^2$. Note that each cell $C\in\mosaic$ has a unique $z'$
almost surely. In the rest of the paper we shall use the shorthand $B(K) :=
B(z(K), r(K))$. To describe the mean behaviour of the tessellation, we recall
the definition of the typical cell as follows. Let $W$ be a Borel subset of
$\mathbf{R}^2$ such that $\lambda_2(W)\in (0,\infty)$, where $\lambda_2$ is the
$2$-dimensional Lebesgue measure. The \emph{typical cell} $\mathcal{C}$ of a Poisson
line tessellation, $\mosaic$ is a random polytope whose distribution is
characterised by
\begin{equation}\label{campbell}
\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}[f(\mathcal{C})]
=
\frac{1}{\pi\lambda_2(W)}
\cdot
\EEE{
\sum_{
\substack{
C\in\mosaic,\\
z(C)\in W
}
}
f(C-z(C))
},
\end{equation}
for all bounded measurable functions on the set of convex bodies
$f\colon\mathcal{K}\to\mathbf{R}$. The typical cell of the Poisson line tessellation has been
studied extensively in the literature, including calculations of mean
values~\cite{Mi2,Mi3} and distributional results~\cite{Cal7} for a number of
different geometric characteristics. A long standing conjecture due to D.G.
Kendall concerning the asymptotic shape of the typical cell conditioned to be
large is proved in \citet{HRS}. The shape of small cells is also considered in
\citet{BRT} for a rectangular Poisson line tessellation. Related results have
also been obtained by \citet{HS4} concerning the approximate properties of
random polytopes formed by the Poisson hyperplane process. Global properties of
the tessellation have also been established including, for example, central
limit theorems~\cite{H4,HSS2}.
In this paper, we focus on the extremal properties of geometric characteristics
for the cells of a Poisson line tessllation whose incentres are contained in a
window. The general theory of extreme values deals with stochastic sequences
\cite{HT} or random fields \cite{LR} (more details may be found in the reference
works by \citet{HF} and \citet{R}.) To the best of the authors' knowledge, it
appears that the first application of extreme value theory in stochastic
geometry was given by Penrose (see Chapters 6,7 and 8 in \citet{Pr}). More
recently, Schulte and Th\"{a}le~\cite{ST} established a theorem to derive the
order statistics of a general functional, $f_k(x_1,\ldots, x_k)$ of $k$ points
of a homogeneous Poisson point process, a work which is related to the study of
$U$-statistics. \citet{CC} went on to provide a series of results for the
extremal properties of cells in the Poisson-Voronoi
tessellation, which were then extended by \citet{Chen}, who gave a general
theorem for establishing this type of limit theorem in tessellations satisfying
a number of conditions. Unfortunately, none of these methods are directly
applicable to the study of extremes for the geometric properties of cells in the
Poisson line tessellation, due in part to the fact that even cells which are
arbitrarily spatially separated may share lines.
\paragraph{Potential applications}
We remark that in addition to the classical references, such as the work by
\citet{Gou} concerning the trajectories of particles in bubble chambers, a
number of new and interesting applications of random line processes are emerging
in the field of Computer Science. Recent work by \citet{VY} concerns the use of
random hyperplane tessellations for dimension reduction with applications to
high dimensional estimation. \citet{VY} in particular point to a lack of results
concerning the global properties of cells in the Poisson line tessellation in
the traditional stochastic geometry literature. Other interesting applications
for random hyperplanes may also be found in context of locality sensitive
hashing~\cite{C}. We believe that our techniques will provide useful tools for
the analysis of algorithms in these contexts and others.
Finally, we note that investigating the extremal properties of
cells could also provide a way to describe the regularity of tessellations.
\subsection{Contributions}
Formally, we shall consider the case in which only a part of the tessellation is
observed in the \emph{window} $\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho} := B\left(0,\pi^{-1/2}\rho^{1/2}\right)$,
for $\rho>0$. Given a measurable function $f\colon\mathcal{K}\to\mathbf{R}$ satisfying
$f(C+x)=f(C)$ for all $C\in\mathcal{K}$ and $x\in\mathbf{R}^2$, we consider the order
statistics of $f(C)$ for all cells $C\in \mosaic$ such that $z(C)\in \mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}$ in
the limit as $\rho \rightarrow \infty$. In this paper, we focus on the case
$f(C):=R(C)$ in particular because the inradius is one of the rare geometric
characteristics for which the distribution of $f(\mathcal{C})$ can be made explicit.
More precisely, we investigate the asymptotic behaviour of $m_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[r]$ and
$M_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[r]$, which we use respectively to denote the inradii of the $r$-th
smallest and the $r$-th largest inballs for fixed $r\geq 1$. Thus for $r=1$ we
have
\begin{equation*}
m_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[1]
\,
=
\min_{ \substack{C \in \mosaic,\\z(C)\in \mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}} }
R(C)
\qquad
\text{and}
\qquad
M_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[1]
\,
=
\max_{ \substack{C \in \mosaic,\\z(C)\in \mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}} }
R(C).
\end{equation*}
The asymptotic behaviours of $m_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[r]$ and $M_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[r]$ are given in
the following theorem.
\begin{Th} \label{Th:maxins}
Let $\mosaic$ be a stationary, isotropic Poisson line tessellation in
$\mathbf{R}^2$ with intensity $\pi$ and let $r\geq 1$ be fixed, then
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item \label{case:minins}
\label{eq:minins}
for any $t \geq 0$,
\begin{equation*}
\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}
\bigg(
m_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[r] \geq (2\pi^2\rho)^{-1}t
\bigg)
\conv[\rho]{\infty}
e^{-t}\sum_{k=0}^{r-1}\frac{t^k}{k!},
\end{equation*}
\item \label{case:maxins}
for any $t\in\mathbf{R}$,
\label{eq:maxins}
\begin{equation*}
\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}
\bigg(
M_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[r]
\leq
\frac{1}{2\pi}
(\log(\rho) + t)
\bigg)
\conv[\rho]{\infty}
e^{-e^{-t}}
\sum_{k=0}^{r-1}
\frac{(e^{-t})^k}{k!}.
\end{equation*}
\end{enumerate}
\end{Th}
When $r=1$, the limit distributions are of type II and type III, so that
$m_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[1]$ and $M_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[1]$ belong to the domains of attraction of
Weibull and Gumbel distributions respectively. The techniques we employ to
investigate the asymptotic behaviours of $m_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[r]$ and $M_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[r]$
are quite different. For the cells minimising the inradius, we show that
asymptotically, $m_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[r]$ has the same behaviour as the $r$-th smallest
value associated with a carefully chosen $U$-statistic. This will allow us to
apply the theorem in \citet{ST2}. The main difficulties we encounter will be in
checking the conditions for their theorem, and to deal with boundary effects.
The cells maximising the inradius are more delicate, since the random variables
in question cannot easily be formulated as a $U$-statistic. Our solution is to
use a Poisson approximation, with the method of moments, in order to reduce our
investigation to \textit{finite} collections of cells. We then partition the
possible configurations of each finite set using a clustering scheme and
conditioning on the inter-cell distance.
\paragraph{The shape of cells with small inradius}
\label{subsec:triangle}
It was demonstrated that the cell which minimises the circumradius for a
Poisson-Voronoi tessellation is a triangle with high probability by
\citet{CC}. In the following theorem we demonstrate that the
analogous result holds for the cells of a Poisson line tessellation with small
inradius. We begin by observing that almost surely, there exists a unique cell
in $\mosaic$ with incentre in $\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}$, say $C_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}} [r]$, such that
$R(C_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}} [r]) = m_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[r]$. We then consider the random variable
$n(C_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}} [r])$ where, for any (convex) polygon $P$ in $\mathbf{R}^2$, we use
$n(P)$ to denote the number of vertices of $P$.
\begin{Th}
\label{Th:triangle}
Let $\mosaic$ be a stationary, isotropic Poisson line tessellation in
$\mathbf{R}^2$ with intensity $\pi$ and let $r\geq 1$ be fixed, then
\begin{equation*}
\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}
\bigg(
\bigcap_{1\leq k\leq r}
\Big\{
\,
n(C_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}} [k]) = 3
\,
\Big\}
\bigg)
\conv[\rho]{\infty}
1.
\end{equation*}
\end{Th}
\begin{Rk} The asymptotic behaviour for the area
of all triangular cells with a small area was given in Corollary 2.7 in
\citet{ST}. Applying similar techniques to those which we use to obtain the
limit shape of the cells minimising the inradii, and using the fact
that
\begin{equation*}
\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}(\lambda_2(\mathcal{C})<v)
\;
\leq
\;
\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}\big(R(\mathcal{C})<(\pi^{-1}v)^{1/2}\big)
\end{equation*}
for all $v>0$, we can also prove that the cells with a small \emph{area} are
triangles with high probability. As mentioned in Remark~4 in \citet{ST} (where a
formal proof is not provided), this implies that Corollary~2.7 in \citet{ST}
makes a statement not only about the area of the smallest triangular cell, but
also about the area of the smallest cell in general.
\end{Rk}
\begin{Rk}
Our theorems are given specifically for the two dimensional case with a fixed
disc-shaped window, $\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}$ in order to keep our calculations simple. However,
Theorem \ref{Th:maxins} remains true when the window is any convex body. We
believe that our results concerning the largest order statistics may be extended
into higher dimensions and more general anisotropic (stationary) Poisson
processes, using standard arguments. For the case of the smallest order
statistics, these generalisations become less evident, and may require
alternative arguments in places.
\end{Rk}
\subsection{Layout}
In Section~\ref{Sec:notation}, we shall introduce
the general notation and background which will be required throughout the rest
of the paper. In Section~\ref{sec:minins}, we provide the asymptotic behaviour
of $m_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[r]$, proving the first part of Theorem~\ref{Th:maxins}
and Theorem~\ref{Th:triangle}. In Section~\ref{sec:technicallemmas}, we establish
some technical lemmas which will be used to derive the asymptotic behaviour of
$M_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[r]$. We conclude in Section~\ref{sec:maxins} by providing
the asymptotic behaviour of $M_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[r]$, finalising the proof
of Theorem~\ref{Th:maxins}.
\section{Preliminaries}
\subsection*{Notation}
\label{Sec:notation}
\begin{itemize}
\item We shall use $\operatorname{Po}(\tau)$ as a place-holder for a Poisson random variable
with mean $\tau>0$.
\item For any pair of
functions $f,g\colon\mathbf{R}\to\mathbf{R}$, we write $f(\rho)\eq[\rho]{\infty}g(\rho)$ and
$f(\rho) = O(g(\rho))$ to respectively mean that $f(\rho)/g(\rho)
\rightarrow 1$ as $\rho \rightarrow \infty$ and $f(\rho)/g(\rho)$ is bounded
for $\rho$ large enough.
\item By $\operatorname{\mathcal{B}}(\mathbf{R}^2)$ we mean the family of Borel subsets in $\mathbf{R}^2$.
\item For any $A \in\operatorname{\mathcal{B}}(\mathbf{R}^2)$ and any $x\in\mathbf{R}^2$, we write $x +
A :=\{x+y: y\in A \}$ and $d(x,A ):=\inf_{y\in A }|x-y|$.
\item Let $E$ be a measurable set and $K\geq 1$.
\begin{itemize}
\item For any $K$-tuple of points $x_1,\ldots, x_K\in E$, we write
$x_{1:K}:=(x_1,\ldots, x_K)$.
\item By $E_{\neq}^K$, we mean the set of $K$-tuples of points $x_{1:K}$ such
that $x_i\neq x_j$ for all $1\leq i\neq j\leq K$.
\item For any function $f\colon E\rightarrow F$, where $F$ is a set, and for any
$A\subset F$, we write $f(x_{1:K})\in A$ to imply that $f(x_i)\in A$ for each
$1\leq i\leq K$. In the same spirit, $f(x_{1:K})>v$ will be used to mean that
$f(x_i)>v$ given $v\in\mathbf{R}$.
\item If $\nu$ is a measure on $E$, we write $\nu(dx_{1:K}):=\nu(dx_1)\cdots \nu
(dx_K)$.
\end{itemize}
\item Given three lines $H_{1:3}\in \operatorname{\mathcal{A}}_{\neq}^3$ in general position
(in the sense of \citet{SW}, p128), we denote by $\triangle(H_{1:3})$ the unique
triangle that can be formed by the intersection of the halfspaces induced by the
lines $H_1$, $H_2$ and $H_3$. In the same spirit, we denote by $B(H_{1:3})$,
$R(H_{1:3})$ and $z(H_{1:3})$ the inball, the inradius and the incentre of
$\triangle(H_{1:3})$ respectively.
\item Let $K\in \mathcal{K}$ be a convex body with a unique inball $B(K)$ such that the
intersection $B(K)\cap K$ contains exactly three points, $x_1, x_2 ,x_3$. In
which case we define $T_1, T_2, T_3$ to be the lines tangent to the border of
$B(K)$ intersecting $x_1, x_2, x_3$ respectively. We now define $\triangle(K) :=
\triangle(T_{1:3})$, observing that $B(\triangle(K)) = B(K)$.
\item For any line $H\in\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}$, we write $H^+$ to denote the half-plane
delimited by $H$ and containing $0\in\mathbf{R}^2$. According to \eqref{def:Hut}, we have
$H^+(u,t) := \{\,x\in \mathbf{R}^2 : \langle x,u \rangle \leq t \,\}$ for given $t>0$
and $u\in\mathbf{S}$.
\item For any $A \in\operatorname{\mathcal{B}}(\mathbf{R}^2)$, we take
$\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}(A )\subset\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}$, to be the set $\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}(A ):=\{H\in
\operatorname{\mathcal{A}} : H\cap A \neq\varnothing\}$. We also define
$\phi\colon\operatorname{\mathcal{B}}(\mathbf{R}^2)\to \mathbf{R}_+$ as
\begin{equation}\label{defphi}
\phi(A )
\;
:=
\;
\mu(\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}(A ))
\;
=
\;
\int_{\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}(A )}
\ind{H\cap A \neq\varnothing}\mu(dH)
\;
=
\;
\EEE{\#\{H\in\hat{\mathbf{X}}: H\cap A \neq \varnothing\}}.
\end{equation}
\end{itemize}
\begin{Rk}
Because $\hat{\mathbf{X}}$ is a Poisson process, we have for any $A \in\operatorname{\mathcal{B}}(\mathbf{R}^2)$
\begin{equation}\label{Rk:phi}
\PPP{\hat{\mathbf{X}}\cap A =\varnothing}
=
\PPP{\#\hat{\mathbf{X}}\cap \operatorname{\mathcal{A}}(A ) = 0}
=
e^{ - \phi(A )}.
\end{equation}
\end{Rk}
\begin{Rk}
When $A \in\operatorname{\mathcal{B}}(\mathbf{R}^2)$ is a convex body, the Crofton formula
(Theorem~5.1.1 in~\citet{SW}) gives that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Crofton}
\phi(A )
=
\ell(A ),
\end{equation}
where $\ell(A )$ denotes the perimeter of $A $. In particular, when
$A =B(z,r)$ for some $z\in\mathbf{R}^2$ and $r\ge 0$, we have $
\operatorname{\phi}(B(z,r)) =
\mu\left(\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}(B(z,r))\right) = 2 \pi r.$
\end{Rk}
\paragraph*{A well-known representation of the typical cell} The typical cell of
a Poisson line tessellation, as defined in \eqref{campbell}, can be made
explicit in the following sense. For any measurable function
$f\colon\mathcal{K}\to\mathbf{R}$, we have from Theorem 10.4.6 in \citet{SW} that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:explicitcell}
\EEE{f(\mathcal{C})}
=
\frac{1}{24\pi}
\int_0^\infty
\int_{\mathbf{S}^3}
\EEE{
f
\left(
C
\left(
\hat{\mathbf{X}},u_{1:3}, r
\right)
\right)
}
e^{-2\pi r}
a(u_{1:3})
\operatorname{\sigma}(du_{1:3})
dr,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{def:typicalcellintegral}
C
\left(
\hat{\mathbf{X}},u_{1:3},r
\right)
:=
\bigcap_{
H \in \hat{\mathbf{X}} \cap
\left(
\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}(B(0,r))
\right)^\text{c}
}
\bigg\{
\,
H^+\cap \bigcap_{j=1}^3H^+(u_j,r)
\,
\bigg\}
\end{equation}
and where $a(u_{1:3})$ is taken to be the area of the convex hull of $\{u_1,
u_2, u_3\}\subset\mathbf{S}$ when $0\in \mathbf{R}^2$ is contained in the convex hull of
$\{u_1,u_2,u_3\}$ and 0 otherwise. With standard computations, it may be
demonstrated that $\int_{\mathbf{S}^3}a(u_{1:3})\operatorname{\sigma}(du_{1:3})=48\pi^2$, so
that when $f(C)=R(C)$, we have the well-known result
\begin{equation}\label{eq:typicalinradius}
\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}(R(\mathcal{C})\leq v)
=
1-e^{-2\pi v} \qquad \text{for all} \; v\geq 0.
\end{equation}
We note that in the following, we occasionally omit the lower bounds in the
ranges of sums and unions, and the arguments of functions when they are clear
from context. Throughout the paper we also use $c$ to signify a universal
positive constant not depending on $\rho$ but which may depend on other
quantities. When required, we assume that $\rho$ is sufficiently large.
\section{Asymptotics for cells with small inradii}
\label{sec:minins}
\subsection{Intermediary results}
\label{subsec:intermediary}
Let $r\geq 1$ be fixed. In order to avoid boundary effects, we introduce a
function $q(\rho)$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{def:q}
\log \rho
\cdot
q(\rho)
\cdot
\rho^{-2}
\conv[\rho]{\infty}0
\qquad
\text{and}
\qquad
\pi^{-1/2}
\left(
q(\rho)^{1/2}-\rho^{1/2}
\right)
-
\varepsilon
\log\rho
\conv[\rho]{\infty}+\infty
\end{equation} for some $\varepsilon>0$. We also introduce two intermediary
random variables, the first of which relates collections of 3-tuples of
lines in $\hat{\mathbf{X}}$. Let $\trmin_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[r]$ represent the $r$-th smallest value of
$R(H_{1:3})$ over all $3$-tuples of lines $H_{1:3}\in\hat{\mathbf{X}}_{\neq}^3$ such that
$z(H_{1:3})\in\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}$ and $\triangle(H_{1:3})\subset\mathbf{W}_{q(\rho)}$. Its
asymptotic behaviour is given in the following proposition.
\begin{Prop}
\label{Prop:mintriangle} For any $r\geq 1$ and any $t\geq 0$,
\begin{equation*}
\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}
\Big(
\trmin_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[r]
\geq (2\pi^2\rho)^{-1}t
\Big)
\conv[\rho]{\infty}
e^{-t}\sum_{k=0}^{r-1}\frac{t^k}{k!}.
\end{equation*}
\end{Prop}
The second random variable concerns the cells in $\mosaic$. More precisely, we
define $\cellmin_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[r]$ to be the $r$-th smallest value of the inradius
over all cells $C\in\mosaic$ such that $z(C)\in\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}$ and $\triangle(C)\subset
\mathbf{W}_{q(\rho)}$. We observe that
$\cellmin_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[r]\geq\trmin_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[r]$ and $\cellmin_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[r]\geq
m_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[r]$. Actually, in the following result we show that the deviation
between these quantities is negligible as $\rho$ goes to infinity.
\begin{Le}
\label{Le:deviation} For any fixed $r\geq 1$,
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item \label{Le:deviation1}
$\PPP{\cellmin_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[r] \neq \trmin_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[r]}\conv[\rho]{\infty}0$,
\item \label{Le:deviation3}
$\PPP{m_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[r] \neq \cellmin_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[r]}\conv[\rho]{\infty}0$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Le}
\label{subsec:proof}
As stated above, Schulte and Th\"ale established a general theorem to deal with
$U$-statistcs (Theorem 1.1 in \citet{ST}). In this work we make use of a new
version of their theorem (to appear in \citet{ST2}), which we modify slightly to
suit our requirements. Let $g\colon\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}^3\to\mathbf{R}$ be a measurable
symmetric function and take $\trmin_{g,\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[r]$ to be the $r$-th smallest
value of $g(H_{1:3})$ over all $3$-tuples of lines $H_{1:3}\in\hat{\mathbf{X}}_{\neq}^3$ such
that $z(H_{1:3})\in\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}$ and $\triangle(H_{1:})\subset\mathbf{W}_{q(\rho)}$
(for $q(\rho)$ as in \eqref{def:q}.) We now define the
following quantities for given $a,t\geq 0$.
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation} \label{defalpha}
\alpha_\rho^{(g)}(t)
:=
\frac{1}{6}\int_{\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}^3}
\ind{z(H_{1:3})\in\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}
\ind{\triangle(H_{1:3})\subset\mathbf{W}_{q(\rho)}}
\ind{g(H_{1:3})<\rho^{-a}t}
\mu(dH_{1:3}),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{defr1}
r_{\rho,1}^{(g)}(t)
:=
\int_{\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}}
\left(
\int_{\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}^2}
\ind{z(H_{1:3})\in\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}
\ind{\triangle(H_{1:3})\subset\mathbf{W}_{q(\rho)}}
\ind{g(H_{1:3})<\rho^{-a}t}
\measure(dH_{2:3})
\right)^2
\measure(dH_1),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{defr2}
r_{\rho,2}^{(g)}(t)
:=
\int_{\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}^2}
\left(
\int_{\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}}
\ind{z(H_{1:3})\in\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}
\ind{\triangle(H_{1:3})\subset\mathbf{W}_{q(\rho)}}
\ind{g(H_{1:3})<\rho^{-a}t}
\measure(dH_3)
\right)^2\measure(dH_{1:2}).
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
\begin{Th}[Schulte and Th\"ale]\label{Th:ST}
Let $t\geq 0$ be fixed. Assume that $\alpha_\rho(t)$ converges to
$\alpha t^\beta >0 $, for some $\alpha,\beta>0$ and $r_{\rho,1}(t),
r_{\rho,2}(t)\conv[\rho]{\infty}0$, then
\[\PPP{\trmin^{(g)}_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[r] \geq \rho^{-a}t} \conv[\rho]{\infty}
e^{-\alpha t^\beta}\sum_{k=0}^{r-1}\frac{\left(\alpha t^\beta\right)^k}{k!}.\]
\end{Th}
\begin{Rk}
Actually, Theorem~\ref{Th:ST} is stated in \citet{ST2} for a Poisson point
process in more general measurable spaces with intensity going to infinity. By
scaling invariance, we have re-written their result for a fixed intensity (equal
to $\pi$) and for the window $\mathbf{W}_{q(\rho)}=B(0,\pi^{-1/2}q(\rho)^{1/2})$
with $\rho\rightarrow\infty$. We also adapt their result by adding the indicator
function $\ind{z(H_{1:3})\in \mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}$ to \eqref{defalpha}, \eqref{defr1} and
\eqref{defr2}.
\end{Rk}
\subsection*{Proofs for Proposition \ref{Prop:mintriangle}, Lemma
\ref{Le:deviation}, Theorem \ref{Th:maxins}, Part \eqref{case:minins} and
Theorem \ref{Th:triangle} }
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{Prop:mintriangle}]
Let $t\geq 0$ be fixed. We apply Theorem \ref{Th:ST} with $g=R$ and $a=1$.
First, we compute the quantity $\alpha_\rho(t):=\alpha^{(R)}_\rho(t)$ as defined
in \eqref{defalpha}. Applying a Blaschke-Petkantschin type change of variables
(see for example Theorem 7.3.2 in \citet{SW}), we obtain
\begin{align*}
\alpha_\rho(t)
&=
\frac{1}{24}
\int_{\mathbf{R}^2}
\int_0^\infty
\int_{\mathbf{S}^3}
a(u_{1:3})
\ind{z\in\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}
\ind{z+r\triangle(H(u_1),H(u_2),H(u_3))\subset\mathbf{W}_{q(\rho)}}
\ind{r<\rho^{-1}t}
\operatorname{\sigma}(du_{1:3})drdz
\\
&=
\frac{1}{24}
\int_{\mathbf{R}^2}
\int_0^\infty
\int_{\mathbf{S}^3}
a(u_{1:3})
\ind{z\in\mathbf{W}_1}
\ind{z+r\rho^{-3/2}
\triangle(H(u_1),H(u_2),H(u_3))\subset\mathbf{W}_{q(\rho)/\rho}}
\ind{r<t}
\operatorname{\sigma}(du_{1:3})drdz.
\end{align*}
We note that the normalisation of
$\mu_1$, as defined in \citet{SW}, is such that $\mu_1=\frac{1}{\pi}\mu$, where
$\mu$ is given in \eqref{def:mu}. It follows from the monotone convergence
theorem that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:alphaST}
\alpha_\rho(t) \conv[\rho]{\infty}\frac{1}{24}
\int_{\mathbf{R}^2}\int_0^\infty\int_{\mathbf{S}^3}a(u_{1:3})
\ind{z\in\mathbf{W}_1}\ind{r<t}\operatorname{\sigma}(du_{1:3})drdz = 2\pi^2t
\end{equation} since
$\lambda_2(\mathbf{W}_1)=1$ and
$\int_{\mathbf{S}^3}a(u_{1:3})\operatorname{\sigma}(du_{1:3}) = 48\pi^2$.
We must now check that
\begin{align}
\label{part1rest}
r_{\rho,1}(t)&\conv[\rho]{\infty}0, \\
\label{part2rest}
r_{\rho,2}(t)&\conv[\rho]{\infty}0,
\end{align}
where $r_{\rho,1}(t):=r^{(R)}_{\rho,1}(t)$ and
$r_{\rho,2}(t):=r^{(R)}_{\rho,2}(t)$ are defined in \eqref{defr1} and
\eqref{defr2}.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.9]{change_of_variables}
\end{center}
\caption{
Construction of double cone for change of variables.
\label{fig:change_of_variables}
}
\end{figure}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Convergence~\eqref{part1rest}.] Let $H_1$ be fixed and
define
\[
G_\rho(H_1)
:=
\int_{\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}^2}
\ind{z(H_{1:3})\in\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}
\ind{\triangle(H_{1:3})\subset \mathbf{W}_{q(\rho)}}
\ind{R(H_{1:3})<\rho^{-1}t}
\measure(dH_{2:3}).
\]
Bounding $\ind{\triangle(H_{1:3})\subset \mathbf{W}_{q(\rho)}}$ by 1, and
applying Lemma \ref{Le:boundint}, Part \eqref{eq:boundint1} (given in appendix)
to $R:=\rho^{-1}t$, $R':=\pi^{-1/2}\rho^{1/2}$ and $z'=0$, we get for $\rho$
large enough
\[
G_\rho(H_1)
\leq
c\cdot
\rho^{-1/2}
\ind{d(0,H_1)<\rho^{1/2}}.
\]
Noting that $r_{\rho,1}(t) = \int_{\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}}G_\rho(H_1)^2\mu(dH_1)$, it
follows from \eqref{def:mu} that
\begin{align}\label{eq:STcond21}
r_{\rho,1}(t)
&
\leq
c\cdot
\rho^{-1}
\int_{\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}}
\ind{d(0,H_1)<\rho^{1/2}}
\measure(dH_1)
\notag
\\
&
=
O\left(\rho^{-1/2}\right).
\end{align}
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Convergence~\eqref{part2rest}.]
Let $H_1$ and $H_2$ be such that $H_1$ intersects $H_2$ at a unique point,
$v(H_{1:2})$. The set $H_1\cup H_2$ divides $\mathbf{R}^2$ into two double-cones with
supplementary angles, $C_i(H_{1:2})$, $1\leq i\leq 2$ (see
Figure~\ref{fig:change_of_variables}.) We then denote by $\theta_i(H_{1:2})\in
[0,\frac{\pi}{2})$ the half-angle of $C_i(H_{1:2})$ so that
$2(\theta_1(H_{1:2})+\theta_2(H_{1:2})) = \pi$. Moreover, we write
\[
E_i(H_{1:2})
=
\Big\{
\,
H_3 \in \operatorname{\mathcal{A}}
:
z(H_{1:3}) \in \mathbf{W}_{\!\rho} \cap C_i(H_{1:2})
,\;
\triangle(H_{1:3}) \subset \mathbf{W}_{q(\rho)}
,
\;
R(H_{1:3})<\rho^{-1} t
\,
\Big\}.
\] We provide below a suitable upper bound for
$G_\rho(H_1,H_2)$ defined as
\begin{align}\label{defG2}
G_\rho(H_1,H_2)
&:=
\int_{\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}}\ind{z(H_{1:3})\in\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}
\ind{\triangle(H_{1:3})\subset \mathbf{W}_{q(\rho)}}
\ind{R(H_{1:3})<\rho^{-1}t}
\measure(dH_3)
\notag
\\
&=
\sum_{i=1}^2\int_{\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}}\ind{H_3\in E_i(H_{1:2})}\measure(dH_3).
\end{align}
To do this, we first establish the following lemma.
\begin{Le}
\label{Le:rho2}
Let $H_1,H_2\in\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}$ be fixed and let $H_3\in E_i(H_{1:2})$ for some
$1\leq i\leq 2$, then
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $H_3\cap W_{c\cdot\rho}\neq \varnothing$, for some $c$,
\item
$
H_3 \cap B
\left(
v(H_{1:2}),
\frac{c\cdot\rho^{-1}}{\sin\theta_i(H_{1:2})}
\right)
\neq \varnothing
$,
\item $|v(H_{1:2})|\leq c\cdot q(\rho)^{1/2}$, for some $c$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Le}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\ref{Le:rho2}]
The first statement is a consequence of the fact that
\begin{equation*}
d(0,H_3)
\;
\leq
\;
|z(H_{1:3})|+d(z(H_{1:3}),H_3)
\;
\leq
\;
\pi^{-1/2}\rho^{1/2}+\rho^{-1}t
\;
\leq
\;
c
\cdot
\rho^{1/2}.
\end{equation*}
For the second statement, we have
\begin{equation*}
d(v(H_{1:2}),H_3)
\;
\leq
\;
|v(H_{1:2}) - z(H_{1:3})|+d(z(H_{1:3}),H_3)
\;
\leq
\;
\frac{R(H_{1:3})}{\sin\theta_i(H_{1:2})} + \rho^{-1}t
\;
\leq
\;
\frac{c\cdot\rho^{-1}}{\sin\theta_i(H_{1:2})}
\end{equation*}
since $R(H_{1:3}) = |v(H_{1:2}) - z(H_{1:3})|\cdot \sin\theta_i(H_{1:2})$.
Finally, the third statement comes from the fact that
$v(H_{1:2})\in \mathbf{W}_{q(\rho)}$
since
$\triangle(H_{1:3})\subset \mathbf{W}_{q(\rho)}$.
\end{proof}
We apply below the first statement of Lemma \ref{Le:rho2} when
$\theta_i(H_{1:2})$ is small enough and the second one otherwise. More
precisely, it follows from~\eqref{defG2} and Lemma~\ref{Le:rho2} that
\begin{align}\label{eq:majG2rho2}
G_\rho(H_1,H_2)
&
\leq
\sum_{i=1}^2
\int_{\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}}
\ind{H_3\cap \mathbf{W}_{c\cdot \rho}\neq\varnothing}
\ind{|v(H_{1:2})|\leq c\cdot q(\rho)^{1/2}}
\ind{\sin\theta_i(H_{1:2})\leq \rho^{-3/2}}\measure(dH_3)
\notag
\\
&\qquad
+
\int_{\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}}
\ind{
H_3\cap
B
\left(
v(H_{1:2}),
\frac{c\cdot\rho^{-1}}{\sin\theta_i(H_{1:2})}
\right)
\neq
\varnothing
}
\ind{|v(H_{1:2})|
\leq
c\cdot q(\rho)^{1/2}}
\ind{\sin\theta_i(H_{1:2})>\rho^{-3/2}}
\measure(dH_3).
\end{align}
Integrating over $H_3$ and applying \eqref{eq:Crofton} to
\begin{equation*}
B
:=
\mathbf{W}_{c\cdot \rho} = B(0,c^{1/2}\rho^{1/2})
\quad
\text{and}
\quad
B' := B\left(v(H_{1:2}),\frac{c\cdot\rho^{-1}}{\sin\theta_i(H_{1:2})} \right),
\end{equation*}
we obtain
\begin{align}\label{eq:majG2rho221}
G_\rho(H_1,H_2)
&
\leq
c\cdot\sum_{i=1}^2
\left(
\rho^{1/2}
\ind{
\sin\theta_i(H_{1:2})
\leq
\rho^{-3/2}}
+
\frac{\rho^{-1}}{\sin\theta_i(H_{1:2})
}
\ind{\sin\theta_i(H_{1:2}) > \rho^{-3/2}}
\right)
\notag
\\
&\qquad
\times
\ind{|v(H_{1:2})| \leq c\cdot q(\rho)^{1/2}}.
\end{align}
Applying the fact that
\begin{equation*}
\label{eq:majG2rho221}
r_{\rho,2}(t)
=
\int_{\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}}G_\rho(H_1,H_2)^2\mu(dH_{1:2})
\qquad
\text{and}
\qquad
\left(
\sum_{i=1}^2 (a_i+b_i)
\right)^2
\leq 4 \sum_{i=1}^2
\left(
a_i^2+b_i^2
\right)
\end{equation*}
for any $a_1,a_2,b_1,b_2\in\mathbf{R}$, it follows from \eqref{eq:majG2rho221} that
\begin{align*}
r_{\rho,2}(t)
&
\leq
c\cdot
\sum_{i=1}^2
\int_{\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}^2}
\left(
\rho\ind{\sin\theta_i(H_{1:2}) \leq \rho^{-3/2}}
+
\frac{\rho^{-2}}{\sin^2\theta_i(H_{1:2})}
\ind{\sin\theta_i(H_{1:2}) > \rho^{-3/2}}
\right)
\\
&\qquad
\times
\ind{|v(H_{1:2})| \leq c\cdot q(\rho)^{1/2}}
\measure(dH_{1:2})
\end{align*}
For any couple of lines $(H_1,H_2)\in\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}^2$ such that $H_1 = H(u_1,
t_1)$ and $H_2 = H(u_2, t_2)$ for some $u_1, u_2 \in \mathbf{S}$ and $t_1, t_2 > 0$,
let $\theta(H_1, H_2)\in [-\tfrac{\pi}{2},\tfrac{\pi}{2}) $ be the oriented half
angle between the vectors $u_1$ and $u_2$.
In particular, the quantity $|\theta(H_{1:2})|$ is
equal to $\theta_1(H_{1:2})$ or $\theta_2(H_{1:2})$. This implies that
\begin{align}\label{eq:majG2rho22}
r_{\rho,2}(t)
&
\leq
4
c
\cdot
\int_{\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}^2}
\left(
\rho\ind{\sin\theta(H_{1:2})
\leq
\rho^{-3/2}}
+
\frac{\rho^{-2}}{\sin^2\theta(H_{1:2})}
\ind{\sin\theta(H_{1:2}) > \rho^{-3/2}}
\right)
\ind{\theta(H_{1:2})\in \left[0,\frac{\pi}{2}\right)}
\notag
\\
&\qquad\times
\ind{|v(H_{1:2})| \leq c\cdot q(\rho)^{1/2}}
\measure(dH_{1:2}).
\end{align}
With each $v=(v_1,v_2)\in\mathbf{R}^2$, $\beta\in [0,2\pi)$ and $\theta\in
[0,\pi/2)$, we associate two lines $H_1$ and $H_2$ as
follows. We first define $L(v_1,v_2,\beta)$ as the line containing $v=(v_1,v_2)$
with normal vector $\vec{\beta}$, where for any $\alpha\in [0,2\pi)$, we write
$\vec{\alpha}=(\cos\alpha,\sin\alpha)$. Then we define $H_1$ and $H_2$ as the
lines containing $v=(v_1,v_2)$ with angles $\theta$ and $-\theta$ with respect
to $L(v_1,v_2,\beta)$ respectively. These lines can be written as
$H_1=H(u_1,t_1)$ and $H_2=H(u_2,t_2)$ with
\begin{align*}
u_1
\;
&:=
\;
u_1(\beta,\theta)
\;
:=
\;
\overrightarrow{\beta-\theta},
\\[2mm]
t_1
\;
&:=
\;
t_1(v_1,v_2,\beta,\theta)
\;
:=
\;
\left|-\sin(\beta-\theta)v_1+\cos(\beta-\theta)v_2\right|,
\\[1mm]
u_2
\;
&:=
\;
u_2(\beta,\theta)
\;
:=
\;
\overrightarrow{\beta+\theta},
\\[2mm]
t_2
\;
&:=
\;
t_2(v_1,v_2,\beta,\theta)
\;
:=
\;
\left|\sin(\beta+\theta)v_1+\cos(\beta+\theta)v_2\right|.
\end{align*}
Denoting by $\overline{\alpha}$, the unique real number in $[0,2\pi)$ such that
$\overline{\alpha}\equiv\alpha\mod 2\pi$, we define
\begin{align*}
\psi
\colon
\mathbf{R}^2
\times
[0,2\pi)
\times
[0,\tfrac{\pi}{2})
&\longrightarrow
\mathbf{R}_+\times [0,2\pi)
\times
\mathbf{R}_+\times \left[0,2\pi\right)
\\
(v_1,v_2,\beta,\theta)
&
\longmapsto
\left(t_1(v_1,v_2,\beta,\theta),\;
\overline{\beta-\theta},\;
t_2(v_1,v_2,\beta,\theta),\;
\overline{\beta+\theta}\right).
\end{align*}
Modulo null sets, $\psi$ is a $\mathcal{C}^1$ diffeomorphism with Jacobian
$J\psi$ given by $|J\psi(v_1,v_2,\beta,\theta)| = 2\sin 2\theta$ for any point
$(v_1,v_2,\beta,\theta)$ where $\psi$ is differentiable. Taking the change of
variables as defined above, we deduce from \eqref{eq:majG2rho22} that
\begin{align}\label{eq:majrrho2t}
r_{\rho,2}(t)
&\leq
c\cdot
\int_{\mathbf{R}^2}
\int_0^{2\pi}
\int_0^{\frac{\pi}{2}}
\sin(2\theta)
\left(
\rho\ind{\sin\theta\leq \rho^{-3/2}}
+
\frac{\rho^{-2}}{\sin^2\theta}
\ind{\sin\theta > \rho^{-3/2}}
\right)
\ind{|v| \leq c\cdot q(\rho)^{1/2}}
d\theta
d\beta dv
\notag
\\
&=
O
\left(
\log\rho\cdot q(\rho)\cdot\rho^{-2}
\right).
\end{align}
As a consequence of \eqref{def:q}, the last term converges to 0 as $\rho$ goes
to infinity.
\end{proof}
The above combined with \eqref{eq:alphaST}, \eqref{eq:STcond21} and Theorem
\ref{Th:ST} concludes the proof of Proposition \ref{Prop:mintriangle}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{Le:deviation}, \eqref{Le:deviation1}]
Almost surely, there exists a unique triangle with incentre contained in
$\mathbf{W}_{q(\rho)}$, denoted by $\Delta_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}} [r]$, such that
\begin{equation*}
z(\triangle_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}} [r])\in \mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}
\qquad
\text{and}
\qquad
R(\triangle_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[r])
=
\trmin_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[r].
\end{equation*}
Also, $z(\triangle_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}} [r])$ is the incentre of a
cell of $\mosaic$ if and only if $\hat{\mathbf{X}}\cap B(\triangle_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}
[r])=\varnothing$. Since $\cellmin_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[r]\geq \trmin_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[r]$, this
implies that
\begin{equation*}
\cellmin_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[r]
\;
=
\;
\trmin_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[r]
\qquad
\Longleftrightarrow
\qquad
\exists 1\leq k\leq r
\quad
\text{such that}
\quad
\hat{\mathbf{X}}\cap B(\triangle_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[k])\neq \varnothing.
\end{equation*}
In particular, for any $\varepsilon>0$, we obtain
\begin{align}\label{eq:difftriangle}
\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}
\Big(
\cellmin_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[r]
\neq
\trmin_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[r]
\Big)
&
\leq
\sum_{k=1}^r
\bigg(
\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}\Big(
\hat{\mathbf{X}}
\cap
B(\triangle_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[k])
\neq
\varnothing,\;
R(\triangle_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[k])
<
\rho^{-1+\varepsilon}
\Big)
\notag
\\
&
\qquad
+
\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}\Big(
R(\triangle_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[k])>\rho^{-1+\varepsilon}
\Big)
\bigg).
\end{align}
The second term of the series converges to 0 as $\rho$ goes to infinity thanks
to Proposition \ref{Prop:mintriangle}. For the first term, we obtain for any
$1\leq k\leq r$, that
\begin{align*}
&
\PPP{
\hat{\mathbf{X}}\cap B(\triangle_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[k])
\neq
\varnothing
,
\;
R(\triangle_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[k]) < \rho^{-1+\varepsilon}
}
\\
&
\qquad
\leq
\PPP{
\bigcup_{H_{1:4}\in\hat{\mathbf{X}}_{\neq}^4}\{z(H_{1:3})\in\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}\}\cap
\{R(H_{1:3})<\rho^{-1+\varepsilon}\}
\cap
\{H_4\cap B(z(H_{1:3}), \rho^{-1+\varepsilon})\neq \varnothing\}
}
\\
&
\qquad
\leq
\EEE{
\sum_{H_{1:4}\in\hat{\mathbf{X}}_{\neq}^4}
\ind{z(H_{1:3})\in\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}
\ind{R(H_{1:3})<\rho^{-1+\varepsilon}}
\ind{H_4\cap B(z(H_{1:3}),
\rho^{-1+\varepsilon})\neq \varnothing}
}
\\
&
\qquad
=
\int_{\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}^4}
\ind{z(H_{1:3})\in\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}
\ind{R(H_{1:3})<\rho^{-1+\varepsilon}}
\ind{H_4\cap B(z(H_{1:3}),
\rho^{-1+\varepsilon})\neq \varnothing}
\mu(dH_{1:4}),
\end{align*}
where the last line comes from Mecke-Slivnyak's formula (Corollary 3.2.3 in
\citet{SW}). Applying the Blaschke-Petkantschin change of variables, we obtain
\begin{align*}
&
\PPP{
\hat{\mathbf{X}} \cap B(\triangle_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[k]) \neq \varnothing
,
\;
R(\triangle_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[k]) < \rho^{-1+\varepsilon}
}
\\
&\qquad
\leq
c
\cdot
\int_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}
\int_0^{\rho^{-1+\varepsilon}}
\int_{\mathbf{S}^3}
\int_{\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}}
a(u_{1:3})
\ind{H_4\cap B(z,\rho^{-1+\varepsilon})\neq \varnothing}
\mu(dH_4)
\sigma(du_{1:3})drdz.
\end{align*}
As a consequence of \eqref{defphi} and \eqref{eq:Crofton}, we have
\begin{equation*}
\int_{\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}}
\ind{
H_4\cap B(z,\rho^{-1+\varepsilon})
\neq
\varnothing
}
\mu(dH_4)
\;
=
\;
c\cdot \rho^{-1+\varepsilon}
\end{equation*}
for any $z\in\mathbf{R}^2$. Integrating over $z\in\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}$, $r< \rho^{-1+\varepsilon}$
and $u_{1:3}\in\mathbf{S}^3$, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq:difftriangle2}
\PPP{
\hat{\mathbf{X}}\cap B(\triangle_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[k]) \neq \varnothing
,
\;
R(\triangle_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[k])< \rho^{-1+\varepsilon}
}
\leq c\cdot\rho^{-1+2\varepsilon}
\end{equation}
since $\lambda_2(\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho})=\rho$. Taking $\varepsilon<\frac{1}{2}$, we deduce
Lemma \ref{Le:deviation}, \eqref{Le:deviation1} from \eqref{eq:difftriangle} and
\eqref{eq:difftriangle2}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{Th:triangle} ]
Let $\varepsilon\in (0,\frac{1}{2})$ be fixed. For any $1\leq k\leq r$, we write
\begin{align*}
&
\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}\Big( n(C_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[k]) \neq 3\Big)
\\
&\qquad
=
\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}\Big(
n(C_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}} [k]) \geq 4
,\;
m_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[k]\geq \rho^{-1+\varepsilon}
\Big)
+
\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}\Big(
n(C_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}} [k]) \geq 4
,
\;
m_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[k] < \rho^{-1+\varepsilon}
\Big).
\end{align*}
According to Proposition \ref{Prop:mintriangle}, Lemma \ref{Le:deviation},
\eqref{Le:deviation1} and the fact that $\cellmin_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[k]\geq
m_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[k]$, the first term of the right-hand side converges to 0 as $\rho$
goes to infinity. For the second term, we obtain from \eqref{campbell} that
\begin{align}
\label{eq:mintriangle}
\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}\Big(
n(C_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}} [k]) \geq 4
,\;
m_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[k] < \rho^{-1+\varepsilon}
\Big)
&
\leq
\PPP{
\min_{
\substack{
C\in\mosaic,
\\
z(C)\in \mathbf{W}_{\rho},\, n(C)\geq 4
}
}
R(C) < \rho^{-1+\varepsilon}
}
\notag
\\
&
\leq
\EEE{
\sum_{
\substack{
C\in \mosaic,
\\
z(C)\in \mathbf{W}_{\rho}
}
}
\ind{R(C)< \rho^{-1+\varepsilon}}\ind{n(C)\geq 4}
}
\notag
\\
&
=
\pi\rho\cdot
\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}\Big(
R(\mathcal{C})<\rho^{-1+\varepsilon}, \; n(\mathcal{C})\geq 4
\Big).
\end{align}
We give below an integral representation of
$\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}(R(\mathcal{C})<\rho^{-1+\varepsilon},\;n(\mathcal{C})\geq 4)$. Let $r>0$ and
$u_1,u_2,u_3\in\mathbf{S}$ be fixed. We denote by $\triangle(u_{1:3},r)$ the triangle
$\triangle(H(u_1,r), H(u_2,r), H(u_3,r) )$. Let us notice that the random
polygon $C(\hat{\mathbf{X}},u_{1:3},r)$, as defined in
\eqref{def:typicalcellintegral}, satisfies $n(C(\hat{\mathbf{X}},u_{1:3},r))\geq 4$ if and
only if $\hat{\mathbf{X}}\in \operatorname{\mathcal{A}}\left(\triangle(u_{1:3},r)\setminus
B(0,r)\right)$. According to \eqref{Rk:phi} and
\eqref{eq:explicitcell}, this implies that
\begin{align*}
&
\pi
\rho
\cdot
\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}\Big(
R(\mathcal{C})<\rho^{-1+\varepsilon}
,
\;
n(\mathcal{C})\geq 4
\Big)
\\
&\qquad
=
\frac{\rho}{24}\int_0^{\rho^{-1+\varepsilon}}
\int_{\mathbf{S}^3}
\left(1-e^{-\phi(\triangle(u_{1:3},r)\setminus B(0,r))}\right)
e^{-2\pi r}
a(u_{1:3})
\sigma(du_{1:3})dr.
\end{align*}
Using the fact that $1-e^{-x}\leq x$ for all $x\in\mathbf{R}$ and the fact that
\begin{equation*}
\phi\big(\triangle(u_{1:3},r) \setminus B(0,r)\big)
\;\leq\;
\phi(\triangle(u_{1:3},r))
\;=\;
r \ell(\triangle(u_{1:3}))
\end{equation*}
according to \eqref{eq:Crofton}, we get
\begin{align*}
\pi\rho\cdot
\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}
\Big(
R(\mathcal{C})<\rho^{-1+\varepsilon}
,
\;
n(\mathcal{C})\geq 4
\Big)
&
\leq \frac{\rho}{24}
\int_0^{\rho^{-1+\varepsilon}}
\int_{\mathbf{S}^3}re^{-2\pi r}
\ell(\triangle(u_{1:3}))
\sigma(du_{1:3})dr
\\
&
=
O\left(\rho^{-1+2\varepsilon}\right).
\end{align*}
This together with \eqref{eq:mintriangle} gives that
\begin{equation*}
\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}
\Big(
n(C_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}} [k]) \geq 4,\; m_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[k]< \rho^{-1+\varepsilon}
\Big)
\conv[\rho]{\infty} 0.
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{Le:deviation}, \eqref{Le:deviation3}]
Since $m_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[r] \neq \cellmin_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[r]$ if and only if
$ \triangle\left(C_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[k]\right)\cap \mathbf{W}^\text{c}_{q(\rho)}
\neq
\varnothing $
for some $1\leq k\leq r$, we get for any $\varepsilon>0$
\begin{align}\label{eq:majdeviation2}
&
\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}\Big(
m_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[r]
\neq
\cellmin_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[r]
\Big)
\notag
\\
&\qquad
\leq
\sum_{k=1}^r
\Bigg(
\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}\Big( R(C_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}} [k])\geq \rho^{-1+\varepsilon} \Big)
+
\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}\Big( n(C_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}} [k]) \neq 3 \Big)
\notag
\\
&\qquad\qquad
+
\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}\Big(
\triangle
\left(C_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[k]\right)
\cap
\mathbf{W}^\text{c}_{q(\rho)}
\neq\varnothing
,\;
n(C_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}} [k])=3
,\;
R(C_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}} [k])<\rho^{-1+\varepsilon}
\Big)
\Bigg).
\end{align}
As in the proof of Theorem~\ref{Th:triangle}, the first term of the series
converges to zero. The same fact is also true for the second term as a
consequence of Theorem~\ref{Th:triangle}. Moreover, for any $1\leq k\leq r$, we
have
\begin{align*}
&
\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}\Big(
\triangle
\left(C_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[k]\right)
\cap
\mathbf{W}^\text{c}_{q(\rho)}
\neq
\varnothing,
\;
n(C_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[k])
=
3
,
\;
R(C_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}} [k])
<
\rho^{-1+\varepsilon}
\Big)
\\
&\quad
\leq
\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}\Bigg(
\bigcup_{H_{1:3} \in \hat{\mathbf{X}}_{\neq}^3}
\left\{
\hat{\mathbf{X}} \cap \triangle(H_{1:3})
=
\varnothing
,
\;
z(H_{1:3})\in\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho},
\;
\triangle(H_{1:3}) \cap \mathbf{W}^\text{c}_{q(\rho)}
\neq
\varnothing
,
\;
R(H_{1:3}) < \rho^{-1+\varepsilon}
\right\}
\Bigg)
\\
&
\quad
\leq
\int_{\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}^3}
\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}\Big(\hat{\mathbf{X}}\cap \triangle(H_{1:3}) = \varnothing \Big)
\ind{z(H_{1:3})\in\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}
\ind{\triangle(H_{1:3})\cap \mathbf{W}^\text{c}_{q(\rho)}\neq\varnothing}
\ind{R(H_{1:3})< \rho^{-1+\varepsilon}}
\measure\left(dH_{1:3}\right)
\\
&
\quad
\leq
\int_{\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}^3}
e^{-\ell\left( \triangle(H_{1:3})\right)}
\ind{z(H_{1:3})\in\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}
\ind{
\ell\left( \triangle(H_{1:3})\right)
>
\pi^{-1/2}(q(\rho)^{1/2}-\rho^{1/2})
}
\ind{R(H_{1:3}) < \rho^{-1+\varepsilon}}
\measure\left(dH_{1:3}\right),
\end{align*}
where the second and the third inequalities come from Mecke-Slivnyak's formula
and \eqref{Rk:phi} respectively. Using the fact that
\begin{equation*}
e^{
-\ell
\left(
\triangle(3H_{1:3})
\right)
}
\;\leq\;
e^{
-\pi^{-1/2}
\left(
q(\rho)^{1/2}-\rho^{1/2}
\right)
},
\end{equation*}
and applying the Blaschke-Petkantschin formula, we get
\[
\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}\Big(
\triangle\left(C_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[k]\right)
\cap
\mathbf{W}^\text{c}_{q(\rho)}\neq\varnothing
,\;
n(C_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}} [k])=3
\Big)
\leq
c\cdot\rho^{\varepsilon}
\cdot
e^{-\pi^{-1/2}\left(q(\rho)^{1/2}-\rho^{1/2} \right)}.
\]
According to \eqref{def:q}, the last term converges to zero. This together with
\eqref{eq:majdeviation2} completes the proof of Lemma~\ref{Le:deviation},
\eqref{Le:deviation3}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{Th:maxins}, \eqref{eq:minins}]
The proof follows immediately from Proposition \ref{Prop:mintriangle} and Lemma
\ref{Le:deviation}.
\end{proof}
\begin{Rk}
As mentioned on page \pageref{sec:minins}, we introduce an auxiliary
function $q(\rho)$ to avoid boundary effects. This addition was necessary to
prove the convergence of $r_{\rho,2}(t)$ in \eqref{eq:majrrho2t}.
\end{Rk}
\section{Technical results} \label{sec:technicallemmas}
In this section, we establish two results which will be needed in order to derive
the asymptotic behaviour of $M_{\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[r]$.
\subsection{Poisson approximation}
Consider a measurable function $f\colon \mathcal{K} \to \mathbf{R}$ and a
\emph{threshold} $v_\rho$ such that $v_\rho \rightarrow \infty$ as
$\rho\rightarrow\infty$. The cells $C\in\mosaic$ such that $f(C) > v_\rho$ and
$z(C) \in\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}$ are called the \emph{exceedances}. A classical tool in extreme
value theory is to estimate the limiting distribution of the number of
exceedances by a Poisson random variable. In our case, we achieve this with the
following lemma.
\begin{Le} \label{Le:henze}
Let $\mosaic$ be a Poisson line tessellation embedded in $\mathbf{R}^2$ and suppose
that for any $K\geq 1$,
\begin{equation}\label{Hyp:henze}
\EEE{
\sum_{
\substack{
C_{1:K}\in(\mosaic)^K_{\neq} \\
z(C_{1:K})\in\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}
}
}
\mathbb{1}_{f(C_{1:K})>v_\rho}
}
\conv[\rho]{\infty}\tau^K.
\quad
\end{equation}
Then \begin{equation*}
\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}
\Big(
M_{f,\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[r]
\leq
v_\rho
\Big)
\conv[\rho]{\infty}
\sum_{k=0}^{r-1}
\frac{\tau^k}{k!} e^{-\tau}.
\end{equation*}
\end{Le}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{Le:henze}]
Let the number of exceedance cells be denoted
\begin{equation*}
U(v_\rho)
:=
\sum_{
\substack{
C\in\mosaic,\\
z(C)\in\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}
}
}
\ind{ f(C) > v_\rho }.
\end{equation*}
Let $1\leq K\leq n$ and let $\stirling{n}{K}$ denote the Stirling number of the
second kind. According to \eqref{Hyp:henze}, we have
\begin{align*}
\EEE{U(v_\rho)^n}
&=
\EEE
{
\sum_{K=1}^n
\stirling{n}{K}\,
\,
U(v_\rho)
\cdot
\big(U(v_\rho)-1\big)
\cdot
\big(U(v_\rho)-2\big)
\cdots
\big(U(v_\rho) - K+1\big)
}
\\
&=
\sum_{K=1}^n
\stirling{n}{K}\,
\EEE
{
\sum_{
\substack{
C_{1:K} \in{\mosaic}^K_{\neq}, \\
z( C_{1:K} )\in \mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}
}
}
\ind{f(C_{1:K})>v_\rho}
}
\\
&\conv[\rho]{\infty}
\sum_{K=1}^n \stirling{n}{K} \tau^K
\\[1mm]
&=
\EEE{\operatorname{Po}(\tau)^n}.
\end{align*}
Thus by the method of moments, $U(v_\rho)$ converges in distribution to a Poisson
distributed random variable with mean $\tau$. We conclude the proof by
noting that $ M_{f,\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}[r] \leq v_\rho$ if and only if $U(v_\rho)\leq r-1$.
\end{proof}
Lemma~\ref{Le:henze} can be generalised for any window $\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}$ and for any
tessellation in any dimension. A similar method was used to provide the
asymptotic behaviour for couples of random variables in the particular setting
of a Poisson-Voronoi tessellation (see Proposition~2 in \citet{CC}). The main
difficulty is applying Lemma~\ref{Le:henze}, and we deal partially with this in
the following section.
\subsection{A uniform upper bound for $\operatorname{\phi}$ for the union of discs}
\label{sec:uniform_upper_bound}
Let $\phi: \operatorname{\mathcal{B}}(\mathbf{R}^2)\rightarrow\mathbf{R}_+$ as in \eqref{defphi}. We evaluate
$\phi(B)$ in the particular case where $B=\bigcup_{1\leq i\leq K}^KB(z_i,r_i)$
is a finite union of balls centred in $z_i$ and with radius $r_i$, $1\leq i\leq
K$. Closed form representations for $\phi(B)$ could be provided but these
formulas are not of practical interest to us. We provide below (see Proposition
\ref{Prop:uniformupperbound}) some approximations for $\phi(\cup_{1\leq i\leq
K}^KB(z_i,r_i) )$ with simple and quasi-optimal lower bounds.
\subsubsection{Connected components of cells}
\label{sec:connected_components_notation}
\label{sec:connected_components}
Our bound will follow by splitting collections of discs into a set of
connected components. Suppose we are given a threshold $v_\rho$ such that
$v_\rho \rightarrow \infty$ as $\rho\rightarrow \infty$ and $K\geq 2$ discs
$B\left(z_{i}, r_{i}\right)$, satisfying $z_{i}\in\mathbf{R}^2$, $r_{i} \in\mathbf{R}_+$ and
$r_{i}>v_\rho$, for all $i = 1,\dots, K$. We take $R := \max_{1\le i \le K}
r_{i}$. The \emph{connected components} are constructed from the graph
with vertices $B(z_i,r_i), i=1,\dots,K$ and edges
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:rel_connected_components}
B(z_i, r_i) \longleftrightarrow B(z_j, r_j)
\quad
\Longleftrightarrow
\quad
B(z_i, R^3) \cap B(z_j, R^3) \neq \varnothing.
\end{equation}
On the right-hand side, we have chosen radii of the form $R^3$ to provide a
simpler lower bound in Proposition \ref{Prop:uniformupperbound}. The \emph{size}
of a component is the number of discs in that component. To refer to these
components, we use the following notation which is highlighted for ease of
reference.
\subsubsection*{Notation}
\begin{itemize}
\item
For all $k\leq K$, write $n_k:=n_k(z_{1:K}, R)$ to denote the
number of connected components of size $k$. Observe that in particular,
$\sum_{k=1}^K k\cdot n_k=K$.
\item
Suppose that with each component of size $k$ is assigned a unique label $1\leq j \leq n_k$.
We then write
$
B_k^{(j)} := B_k^{(j)}(z_{1:K}, R)
$,
to refer to the union of balls in the $j$\textit{th} component of size $k$.
\item
Within a component, we write
$B_k^{(j)}[r] := B_k^{(j)}(z_{1:K}, R)[r]$, $1\leq r\leq k$,
to refer to the ball having the $r$\textit{th} largest radius
in the $j$\textit{th} cluster of size $k$. In particular, we have $B_k^{(j)} = \bigcup_{r =1}^kB_k^{(j)}[r]$. We also write $z_k^{(j)}[r]$ and $r_k^{(j)}[r]$ as shorthand to refer
to the centre and radius of the ball $B_k^{(j)}[r]$.
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.9]{clusters}
\end{center}
\caption{
Example connected components for $K=5$ and $(n_1,\dots,n_K) = (0,1,1,0,0)$.
\label{fig:clusters}
}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{The uniform upper bound}
In extreme value theory, a classical method to investigate the behaviour of the
maximum of a sequence of random variables relys on checking two conditions of
the sequence. One such set of conditions is given by \citet{L1}, who defines the
conditions $D(u_n)$ and $D'(u_n)$ which represent an asymptotic property and a
local property of the sequence respectively. We shall make use of analagous
conditions for the Poisson line tessellation, and it is for this reason that we
motivate the different cases concerning spatially separated and spatially
close balls in Proposition~\ref{Prop:uniformupperbound}.
\begin{Prop}\label{Prop:uniformupperbound}
Consider a collection of $K$ disjoint balls, $B(z_{i}, r_{i})$ for
$i=1,\dots,K$ such that $r_{1:K} > v_\rho$ and $R := \max_{1\le i \le K} r_{i}$.
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item \label{case:uniform1}
When $n_{1:K}=(K,0,\ldots, 0)$, i.e. $\min_{1\leq i,j\leq K}|z_i-z_j|>R^3$, we
obtain for $\rho$ large enough
\begin{equation}
\label{Rk:uniform1}
\operatorname{\phi}
\bigg(
\bigcup_{1\leq i\leq K}
B
\left(
z_{i}, r_{i}
\right)
\bigg)
\geq 2\pi \sum_{i=1}^{K}r_{i} - c\cdot v_\rho^{-1}.
\end{equation}
\item \begin{enumerate}[(a)] \label{case:uniformbound0}
\item \label{case:uniformbound1}
for $\rho$ large enough,
\begin{equation*}
\operatorname{\phi}
\bigg(
\bigcup_{1\leq i\leq K}
B
\left(
z_{i}, r_{i}
\right)
\bigg)
\geq
2\pi R
+
\left(
\sum_{k=1}^{K}n_k-1
\right)
2\pi v_\rho
-
c\cdot v_\rho^{-1},
\end{equation*}
\item\label{case:uniformbound2}
when $ R \,\le \, (1+\varepsilon)v_\rho$, for some $\varepsilon>0$, we
have for $\rho$ large enough
\begin{equation*}
\operatorname{\phi}
\bigg(
\bigcup_{1\leq i\leq K}
B
\left(
z_{i}, r_{i}
\right)
\bigg)
\geq
2\pi R
+
\left(\sum_{k=1}^{K}n_k-1 \right)2\pi v_\rho
+
\sum_{k=2}^K
n_k(4-\varepsilon\pi)v_\rho
-
c\cdot v_\rho^{-1}.
\end{equation*}
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
\end{Prop}
\begin{Rk}
Suppose that $n_{1:K}=(K,0,\ldots, 0)$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item We observe that \eqref{Rk:uniform1} is quasi-optimal since we also have
\begin{equation}
\label{Rk:uniform2}
\operatorname{\phi}
\bigg(
\bigcup_{1\leq i\leq K} B
\left(
z_{i}, r_{i}
\right)
\bigg)
\quad
\leq
\quad
\sum_{i=1}^K\operatorname{\phi}
\left(
B
\left(
z_{i}, r_{i}
\right)
\right)
\quad
=
\quad
2\pi
\sum_{i=1}^{K}r_{i}.
\end{equation}
\item Thanks to \eqref{Rk:phi}, \eqref{Rk:uniform1} and \eqref{Rk:uniform2}, we
remark that
\[
\left|
\PPP{\bigcap_{1\leq i\leq K}
\left\{\hat{\mathbf{X}}\cap B(z_i,r_i)=\varnothing\right\}}
-
\prod_{1\leq i\leq K}\PPP{\hat{\mathbf{X}}\cap B(z_i,r_i)=\varnothing}
\right| \leq c\cdot v_\rho^{-1}
\conv[\rho]{\infty}0.
\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{Rk}
The fact that the events considered in the probabilities above tend to be
independent is well-known and is related to the fact that the tessellation
$\mosaic$ satisfies a mixing property (see, for example the proof of Theorem
10.5.3 in \citet{SW}.) Our contribution is to provide a \emph{uniform rate of
convergence} (in the sense that it does not depend on the centres and the radii)
when the balls are distant enough (case \eqref{case:uniform1}) and a suitable
\emph{uniform} upper bound for the opposite case (case
\eqref{case:uniformbound0}.) Proposition \ref{Prop:uniformupperbound} will be
used to check \eqref{Hyp:henze}. Before attacking
Proposition~\ref{Prop:uniformupperbound}, we first state two lemmas. The first
of which deals with the case of just two balls.
\begin{Le}\label{Le:2ballscase}
Let $z_{1},z_{2}\in\mathbf{R}^2$ and $R\geq r_{1}\geq r_{2}> v_\rho$ such that
$|z_{2}-z_{1}|>r_{1}+r_{2}$.
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item \label{Le:2ballscase:case^{(1)}}
If $|z_{2}-z_{1}|>R^3$, we have for $\rho$ large enough that
\begin{equation*}
\measure
\Big(
\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}(B(z_{1},r_{1})) \cap \operatorname{\mathcal{A}}(B(z_{2},r_{2}))
\Big)
\leq c\cdot v_\rho^{-1}.
\end{equation*}
\item\label{Le:2ballscase:case^{(2)}}
If $R\leq (1+\varepsilon )v_\rho$ for some $\varepsilon>0$, then we have
for $\rho$ large enough that
\begin{equation*}
\measure
\Big(
\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}(B(z_{1},r_{1})) \cap \operatorname{\mathcal{A}}(B(z_{2},r_{2}))
\Big)
\leq 2\pi r_{2}
-
(4-\varepsilon\pi)v_\rho
\end{equation*}
\end{enumerate}
\end{Le}
Actually, closed formulas for the measure of all lines intersecting two convex
bodies can be found in \citet{Sa}, p33. However, Lemma~\ref{Le:2ballscase} is
more practical since it provides an upper bound which is independent of the
centres and the radii. The following lemma is a generalisation of the previous
result.
\begin{Le}\label{Le:generalcase}
Let $z_{1:K}\in\mathbf{R}^{2K}$ and $R$ such that, for all $1\leq i\neq j\leq K$, we
have $R\geq r_i >v_\rho$ and $|z_i-z_j|>r_i+r_j$.
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item\label{Le:generalcase:case_1}
$
\displaystyle
\label{eq:generalcase}
\measure
\bigg(
\bigcup_{1\leq i\leq K}
\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}
\left(
B
\left(
z_{i}, r_{i}
\right)
\right)
\bigg)
\geq
\sum_{k=1}^K\sum_{j=1}^{n_k}2\pi \cdot r_k^{(j)}[1] - c\cdot
v_\rho^{-1}.
$
\item\label{Le:generalcase:case_2}
If $R\leq (1+\varepsilon)v_\rho$ for some $\varepsilon>0$, we
have the following more precise inequality
\begin{equation*}\label{eq:generalcaseepsilon}
\measure
\bigg(
\bigcup_{1\leq i\leq K}
\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}
\left(
B
\left(
z_{i}, r_{i}
\right)
\right)
\bigg)
\geq
\sum_{k=1}^K\sum_{j=1}^{n_k}2\pi \cdot r_k^{(j)}[1]
+
\sum_{k=2}^Kn_k(4-\varepsilon\pi)v_\rho - c\cdot
v_\rho^{-1}.
\end{equation*}
\end{enumerate}
\end{Le}
\subsubsection{Proofs}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{Prop:uniformupperbound}.] The proof of
\eqref{case:uniform1} follows immediately from \eqref{defphi} and Lemma
\ref{Le:generalcase}, \eqref{Le:generalcase:case_1}. Using the fact that
$r_k^{(j)}[1]>v_\rho$ for all $1\leq k\leq K$ and $1\leq j\leq n_k$ such that
$r_k^{(j)}[1]\neq R$, we obtain \eqref{case:uniformbound1} and
\eqref{case:uniformbound2} from Lemma \ref{Le:generalcase},
\eqref{Le:generalcase:case_1} and \eqref{Le:generalcase:case_2} respectively.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\ref{Le:2ballscase}.]
As previously mentioned, \citet{Sa} provides a general formula for the
measure of all lines intersecting two convex bodies. However, to obtain a more
explicit representation of $\measure ( \operatorname{\mathcal{A}}(B(z_{1},r_{1})) \cap
\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}(B(z_{2},r_{2})))$, we re-write his result in the particular
setting of two balls. According to \eqref{def:mu} and the fact that $\mu$ is
invariant under translations, we obtain with standard computations that
\begin{align*}
\measure
\Big(
\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}(B(z_{1},r_{1})) \cap \operatorname{\mathcal{A}}(B(z_{2},r_{2}))
\Big)
&=
\int_{\mathbf{S}}
\int_{\mathbf{R}_+}
\ind{H(u,t)\cap B(0,r_{1})
\neq
\varnothing}
\ind{H(u,t) \cap B(z_{2}-z_{1},r_{2})
\neq
\varnothing }
dt \operatorname{\sigma} (du)
\\
& = \int_{\mathbf{S}} \int_{\mathbf{R}_+}\ind{t<r_1}\ind{d(z_2-z_1, H(u,t))<r_2}dt\operatorname{\sigma}(du)\\
& = \int_{[0,2\pi)} \int_{\mathbf{R}_+}\ind{t<r_1}\ind{|\cos\alpha\cdot |z_2-z_1|-t|<r_2}dt d\alpha\\
& = 2\cdot f(r_{1},r_{2},|z_{2}-z_{1}|),
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}
&f(r_{1},r_{2},h)\\
&\quad
:= (r_{1}+r_{2})
\arcsin
\left(
\tfrac{r_{1}+r_{2}}{h}
\right)
-
(r_{1}-r_{2})
\arcsin
\left(
\tfrac{r_{1}-r_{2}}{h}
\right)
-
h
\left(
\sqrt{1-\left(\tfrac{r_{1}-r_{2}}{h} \right)^2}
-
\sqrt{1-\left(\tfrac{r_{1}+r_{2}}{h} \right)^2}
\;
\right)
\end{align*}
for all $h>r_{1}+r_{2}$. It may be demonstrated
that the function
$
f_{r_1,r_2}\colon (r_{1}+r_{2},\infty)\to \mathbf{R}_+,\;
h \mapsto f(r_{1},r_{2}, h)
$
is positive, strictly decreasing and converges to zero as $h$ tends to
infinity. We now consider each of the two cases given above.
\medskip \\
\textit{Proof of \eqref{Le:2ballscase:case^{(1)}}.}
Suppose that $|z_{2}-z_{1}|>R^3$. Using the inequalities,
\begin{equation*}
r_{1}+r_{2}\leq 2R,
\quad
\arcsin
\big(
(r_{1}+r_{2})/(|z_{2}-z_{1}|)
\big)
\leq
\arcsin( 2/R^2 ),
\quad
r_1\geq r_2
\end{equation*}
we obtain for $\rho$ large enough that,
\begin{equation*}
f(r_{1},r_{2},|z_{2}-z_{1}|)
\;\;<\;\;
f(r_{1},r_{2},R^3)
\;\;\leq \;\;
4R\arcsin
\left(
\tfrac{2}{R^2}
\right)
\;\;\leq\;\;
c\cdot R^{-1}\leq c\cdot v_{\rho}^{-1}.
\end{equation*}
\textit{Proof of \eqref{Le:2ballscase:case^{(2)}}.}
Suppose that $R\leq (1+\varepsilon)v_\rho$. Since $|z_{2}-z_{1}|>r_{1}+r_{2}$, we get
\begin{equation*}
f(r_{1},r_{2},|z_{2}-z_{1}|)
\;\;<\;\;
f(r_{1},r_{2},r_{1}+r_{2})
\;\;=\;\;
2\pi r_{2}+2(r_{1}-r_{2})
\arccos\left(\tfrac{r_{1}-r_{2}}{r_{1}+r_{2}} \right)
-
4\sqrt{r_{1}r_{2}}.
\end{equation*}
Using the inequalities,
\begin{equation*}
r_{1}\geq r_{2}> v_\rho,
\quad
\arccos\left(\tfrac{r_{1}-r_{2}}{r_{1}+r_{2}} \right)\leq \frac{\pi}{2},
\quad
r_{1}\leq R\leq (1+\varepsilon)v_\rho,
\end{equation*}
we have
\begin{equation*}
f(r_{1},r_{2},|z_{2}-z_{1}|)
\;\;<\;\;
2\pi r_{2} + (r_{1}-v_\rho)\pi - 4v_\rho
\;\;\leq\;\;
2\pi r_{2}
-
(4-\varepsilon\pi)v_\rho.
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\ref{Le:generalcase}~\eqref{Le:generalcase:case_1}]
Using the notation defined in Section \ref{sec:connected_components}, we obtain
from Bonferroni inequalities
\begin{align}\label{eq:generalcase1}
\measure
\bigg(
\bigcup_{1\leq i\leq K}
\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}
\big(
B
\big(
z_{i}, r_{i}
\big)
\big)
\bigg)
& =
\measure
\bigg(
\bigcup_{k\leq K} \bigcup_{j\leq n_k}
\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}
\big(
B_k^{(j)}
\big)
\bigg)
\notag
\\
&\geq
\sum_{k=1}^K \sum_{j=1}^{n_k}
\measure
\left(
\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}
\big(
B_k^{(j)}
\big)
\right)
\;-\!
\sum_{(k_1,j_1) \neq (k_2,j_2)}
\measure
\left(
\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}
\big(
B_{k_1}^{(j_1)}
\big)
\cap
\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}
\big(
B_{k_2}^{(j_2)}
\big)
\right).
\end{align}
We begin by observing that for all $1\leq k_1\neq k_2\leq K$ and $1\leq j_1\leq
n_{k_1}$, $1\leq j_2\leq n_{k_2}$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:generalcase2}
\measure
\left(
\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}
\left(
B_{k_1}^{(j_1)}
\right)
\cap
\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}
\left(
B_{k_2}^{(j_2)}
\right)
\right)
\;\leq\;
\sum_{1\leq\ell_1\leq k_1, 1\leq\ell_2\leq k_2}\,
\measure
\left(
\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}
\left(
B_{k_1}^{(j_1)}[\ell_1]
\right)
\cap
\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}
\left(
B_{k_2}^{(j_2)}[\ell_2]
\right)
\right)
\;\leq\;
c\cdot v_\rho^{-1}
\end{equation}
when $\rho$ is sufficiently large, with the final inequality following directly
from Lemma~\ref{Le:2ballscase}, \eqref{Le:2ballscase:case^{(1)}} taking $r_1 :=
r_{k_1}^{(j_1)}[\ell_1]$ and $r_2 := r_{k_2}^{(j_2)}[\ell_2]$. In addition,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:generalcase3}
\measure
\left(
\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}
\big(
B_k^{(j)}
\big)
\right)
\;\geq\;
\measure
\left(
\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}
\big(
B_k^{(j)}[1]
\big)
\right)
\;=\;
2\pi
\cdot
r_k^{(j)}[1].
\end{equation}
We then deduce~\eqref{Le:generalcase:case_1} from~\eqref{eq:generalcase1},
\eqref{eq:generalcase2} and \eqref{eq:generalcase3}.
\end{proof}
\smallskip
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\ref{Le:generalcase}~\eqref{Le:generalcase:case_2}]
We proceed along the same lines as in the proof of~\eqref{Le:generalcase:case_1}.
The only difference concerns the lower bound for
$
\measure( \operatorname{\mathcal{A}}(B_k^{(j)}) )
$.
We shall consider two cases. For each of the $n_1$ clusters of size one, we have
$
\measure(\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}(B_1^{(j)} ) ) = 2\pi r_1^{(j)}[1]
$.
Otherwise, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\measure
\left(
\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}
\big(
B_k^{(j)}
\big)
\right)
&=
\measure
\bigg(
\bigcup_{\ell=1}^{k}
\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}
\big(
B_k^{(j)}[\ell]
\big)
\bigg)
\\
&
\geq
\measure
\left(
\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}
\big(
B_k^{(j)}[1]
\big)
\cup
\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}
\big(
B_k^{(j)}[2]
\big)
\right)
\\
&=
2\pi r_k^{(j)}[1]+2\pi r_k^{(j)}[2]
-
\measure
\left(
\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}
\big(
B_k^{(j)}[1]
\big)
\cap
\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}
\big(
B_k^{(j)}[2]
\big)
\right)
\\
&\geq
2\pi\cdot r_k^{(j)}[1]
+
(4-\varepsilon\pi)
v_\rho
\end{split}
\end{equation*} which follows from Lemma~\ref{Le:2ballscase},
\eqref{Le:2ballscase:case^{(2)}}. We then deduce~\eqref{Le:generalcase:case_2}
from the previous inequality,
\eqref{eq:generalcase1} and \eqref{eq:generalcase2}.
\end{proof}
\section{Asymptotics for cells with large inradii}
\label{sec:maxins}
We begin this section by introducing the following notation. Let $t\geq 0$, be
fixed.
\subsubsection*{Notation}
\begin{itemize}
\item We shall denote the \emph{threshold} and the mean number of cells having
an inradius larger than the threshold respectively as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ddeftau}
v_\rho
\;
:=
\;
v_\rho(t)
\;
:=
\;
\frac{1}{2\pi}
\big(
\log(\pi\rho) + t
\big)
\qquad
\text{and}
\qquad
\tau
\;
:=
\;
\tau(t)
\;
:=
\;
e^{-t}.
\end{equation}
\item For any $K\geq 1$ and for any $K$-tuple of convex bodies $C_1,\ldots, C_K$
such that each $C_i$ has a unique inball, define the events
\begin{align}
\label{def:E}
\sumevent{C_{1:K}}
&:=
\Big\{
\,
\min_{1\leq i\leq K} R(C_{i}) \geq v_{\rho}
,
\;
R\left(C_{1}\right) = \max_{1\leq i\leq K} C_{i}
\,
\Big\},
\\
\label{def:Ecircle}
\emptyevent{C_{1:K}}
&:=
\Big\{
\,
\forall 1\leq i\neq j\leq K,\,
B(C_i) \cap B(C_j) = \varnothing
\,
\Big\}.
\end{align}
\item For any $K\geq 1$, we take
\begin{equation}\label{eq:defGK}
I^{(K)}(\rho)
:=
K
\EEE{
\sum_{
\substack{
C_{1:K}\in(\mosaic)^K_{\neq},\\
z(C_{1:K})\in \mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}^K}
}
\ind{ \sumevent{C_{1:K}} }
}.
\end{equation}
\end{itemize}
The proof for Theorem~\ref{Th:maxins}, Part~\eqref{case:maxins}, will then
follow by applying Lemma~\ref{Le:henze} and showing that $I^{(K)}(\rho)
\rightarrow \tau^k$ as $\rho \rightarrow \infty$, for every fixed $K \geq 1$. To
begin, we observe that $I^{(1)}(\rho) \rightarrow \tau$ as $\rho \rightarrow
\infty$ as a consequence of \eqref{eq:typicalinradius}
and \eqref{eq:ddeftau}. The rest of this section is devoted to considering the
case when $K\geq 2$. Given a $K$-tuple of cells $C_{1:K}$ in $\mosaic$, we use
$L(C_{1:K})$ to denote the number lines of $\hat{\mathbf{X}}$ (without repetition) which
intersect the inballs of the cells. It follows that $3\leq L(C_{1:K})\leq 3K$
since the inball of every cell in $\mosaic$ intersects exactly three lines
(almost surely.) We shall take
\begin{equation*}
\left\{H_{1}, \ldots, H_{L(C_{1:K})}\right\}
\;
:=
\;
\left\{H_{1}(C_{1:K}), \ldots, H_{L(C_{1:K})}(C_{1:K})\right\}
\end{equation*}
to represent the set of lines in $\hat{\mathbf{X}}$ intersecting the inballs of the cells
$C_{1:K}$. We remark that conditional on the event $L(C_{1:K}) = 3K$, none of
the inballs of the cells share any lines in common. To apply the bounds we
obtained in Section~\ref{sec:uniform_upper_bound}, we will split the cells up
into clusters based on the proximity of their inballs using the procedure
outlined in Section~\ref{sec:connected_components}. In particular, we define
\begin{equation*}
n_{1:K}(C_{1:K}) := n_{1:K}(z(C_{1:K}), R(C_1)).
\end{equation*}
We may now re-write $I^{(K)}(\rho)$ by summing over events conditioned on the
number of clusters of each size and depending on whether or not the inballs
of the cells \emph{share} any lines of the process,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:defGK123}
I^{(K)}(\rho)
=
K
\sum_{n_{1:K}\in\mathcal{N}_{K}}
\left(
I_{S^\text{c}}^{(n_{1:K})}(\rho)+I_{S}^{(n_{1:K})}(\rho)
\right),
\end{equation}
where the size of each cluster of size $k$ is represented by a tuple contained
in
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{N}_{K}
:=
\Big\{
\,
n_{1:K}
\in
\mathbf{N}^K
:
\sum_{k=1}^K
k
\cdot
n_k
=
K
\,
\Big\},
\end{equation*}
and where for any $n_{1:K}\in\mathcal{N}_K$ we write
\begin{align}\label{eq:defG1}
I_{S^\text{c}}^{(n_{1:K})}(\rho)
&
:=
\EEE{
\sum_{
\substack{
C_{1:K}\in(\mosaic)^K_{\neq},\\
z(C_{1:K})\in\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}^K
}
}
\ind{
\sumevent{C_{1:K}}
}
\ind{n_{1:K}(C_{1:K}) = n_{1:K}}
\ind{L(C_{1:K}) = 3K}
},
\\
\label{eq:defG2}
I_{S}^{(n_{1:K})}(\rho)
&
:=
\EEE{
\sum_{
\substack{
C_{1:K}\in(\mosaic)^K_{\neq},\\
z(C_{1:K})\in\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}^K
}
}
\ind{
\sumevent{C_{1:K}}
}
\ind{
n_{1:K}(C_{1:K}) = n_{1:K}
}
\ind{
L(C_{1:K}) < 3K
}
}.
\end{align}
The following proposition deals with the asymptotic behaviours of these functions.
\begin{Prop}\label{Prop:G123}
Using the notation given in~\eqref{eq:defG1} and~\eqref{eq:defG2},
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item\label{eqref:convG1
$
\displaystyle
I_{S^\text{c}}^{(K,0,\ldots, 0)}(\rho) \conv[\rho]{\infty} \tau^K
$,
\item \label{eqref:convG2}%
for all
$
\displaystyle
n_{1:K}\in\mathcal{N}_K \setminus \{(K,0,\dots, 0)\}$, we have $I_{S^\text{c}}^{(n_{1:K})}(\rho)
\conv[\rho]{\infty} 0
$,
\item\label{eqref:convG3}%
for all
$
\displaystyle
n_{1:K}\in\mathcal{N}_K$, we have $I_{S}^{(n_{1:K})}(\rho) \conv[\rho]{\infty} 0
$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Prop}
The convergences in Proposition~\ref{Prop:G123} can be understood intuitively as
follows. For \eqref{eqref:convG1}, the inradii of the cells behave
as though they are independent, since they are far apart and no line in the
process touches more than one of the inballs in the $K$-tuple (even though two
\emph{cells} in the $K$-tuple may share a line.) For \eqref{eqref:convG2}, we are
able to show that with high probability the inradii of neighbouring cells cannot
simultaneously exceed the level $v_\rho$, due to
Proposition~\ref{Prop:uniformupperbound}, Part~\eqref{case:uniformbound0}. Finally, to
obtain the bound in \eqref{eqref:convG3} we use the fact that the proportion of
$K$-tuples of cells which share at least one line is negligible relative to
those that do not.
\paragraph{The graph of configurations}
\label{bipartite}
For Proposition~\ref{Prop:G123}, Part~\eqref{eqref:convG3}, we will need to
represent the dependence structure between the \emph{cells} whose inballs share
\emph{lines}. To do this, we construct the following \emph{configuration graph}.
For $K \geq 2$ and $L \in \{\,3,\dots, 3K\,\}$, let $V_C := \{\, 1,\dots, K
\,\}$ and $V_L := \{\, 1,\dots, L \,\}$. We consider the bipartite graph
$\mathbf{G}(V_C, V_L, E)$ with vertices $V := V_C \sqcup V_L$ and edges $E
\subset V_C \times V_L$. Let
\begin{equation}
\Lambda_K
:=
\bigcup_{L\leq 3K}
\Lambda_{K,L},
\end{equation}
where $\Lambda_{K,L}$ represents the collection of all graphs which are
isomorphic up to relabling of the vertices and satisfying
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\operatorname{degree}(v) = 3, \forall v \in V_C$,
\item $\operatorname{degree}(w) \geq 1, \forall w \in V_L$,
\item
$
\operatorname{neighbours}(v)
\neq
\operatorname{neighbours}(v'),
\;
\forall (v,v') \in (V_C)^2_{\neq}.
$
\end{enumerate}
We shall use $V_C$ to represent the cells and $V_L$ to represent the lines
in a line process, with each graph edge implying that a line intersects the
inball of a cell. The number of such bipartite graphs is finite since
$|\Lambda_{K,L}| \leq 2^{KL}$ so that $|\Lambda_K| \leq 3K\cdot 2^{(3K^2)}$.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.9]{config_graph}
\end{center}
\caption{
Example of configuration of inballs and lines, with associated
configuration graph.
\label{fig:config_graph}
}
\end{figure}
\subsection*{Proofs}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{Prop:G123}~\eqref{eqref:convG1}]
For any $1\leq i\leq K$ and the $3$-tuple of lines
$H_i^{(1:3)}:=(H_i^{(1)},H_i^{(2)},H_i^{(3)})$, we recall that $\triangle_i :=
\triangle_i(H_i^{(1)}, H_i^{(2)},H_i^{(3)})$ denotes the unique triangle that can
be formed by the intersection of the half-spaces induced by the lines
$H_i^{(1:3)}$. For brevity, we write $B_i := B(\triangle_i)$ and
$H_{1:K}^{(1:3)} := (H_1^{(1:3)},\ldots, H_K^{(1:3)})$. We shall often omit the
arguments when they are obvious from context. Since
$\ind{\sumevent{C_{1:K}}}=\ind{\sumevent{B_{1:K}}}$ and since the lines of $\hat{\mathbf{X}}$
do not intersect the inballs in their interior, we have
\begin{align*}
I_{S^\text{c}}^{(K,0,\ldots, 0)}(\rho)
&
=
\frac{K}{6^K}
\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}
\Bigg[
\sum_{ H_{1:K}^{(1:3)} \in \mathbf{X}^{3K}_{\neq} }
\ind{
\left\{
\hat{\mathbf{X}} \setminus \cup_{i\le K, j\le 3 }H_i^{(j)}
\right\}
\cap
\left \{ \cup_{i\le K} B_i \right \}
=
\varnothing
}
\\
&\qquad
\times
\ind{
z(B_{1:K}) \in \mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}^K
}
\ind{
\sumevent{B_{1:K}}
}
\ind{
n_{1:K}(B_{1:K})=(K,0,\ldots,0)
}
\Bigg]
\\
&=
\frac{K}{6^K}
\int_{\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}^{3K}}
e^{
-\operatorname{\phi}
\left(
\bigcup_{i\leq K}
B_i
\right)
}
\ind{
z(B_{1:K}) \in \mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}^K
}
\ind{
\sumevent{B_{1:K}}
}
\ind{
n_{1:K}(B_{1:K})=(K,0,\ldots,0)
}
\measure\big(dH_{1:K}^{(1:3)}\big),
\end{align*}
where the last equality comes from \eqref{Rk:phi} and Mecke-Slivnyak's formula.
Applying the Blaschke-Petkantschin formula, we get
\begin{align*}
I_{S^\text{c}}^{(K,0,\ldots, 0)}(\rho)
&=
\frac{K}{24^K}
\int_{ (\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}\times\mathbf{R}_+\times \mathbf{S}^3)^K }
e^{
-\operatorname{\phi}
\left(
\bigcup_{i\leq K} B(z_i, r_i)
\right)
}
\prod_{i\leq K}
a
\big(
u_i^{({1:3})}
\big)
\ind{
\sumevent{B_{1:K}}
}
\\
&\qquad\times
\ind{
n_{1:K}(B_{1:K})=(K,0,\ldots,0)
}
dz_{1:K}
\,
dr_{1:K}
\,
\operatorname{\sigma}\big(du_{1:K}^{(1:3)}\big),
\end{align*}
where we recall that $a(u_i^{({1:3})})$ is the area of the triangle spanned by
$u_i^{(1:3)}\in\mathbf{S}^3$. From \eqref{Rk:uniform1} and \eqref{Rk:uniform2}, we
have for any $1\leq i\leq K$,
\begin{equation*}
e^{-2\pi \sum_{i=1}^Kr_i}
\cdot
\ind{E_{B_{1:K}}}
\quad
\leq
\quad
e^{
-\operatorname{\phi}
\left(
\bigcup_{i\leq K} B(z_i, r_i)
\right)
}
\cdot
\ind{E_{B_{1:K}}}
\quad
\leq
\quad
e^{-2\pi \sum_{i=1}^Kr_i}
\cdot
e^{c\cdot{v_{\rho}^{-1}}}
\cdot
\ind{E_{B_{1:K}}}.
\end{equation*}
According to \eqref{def:E}, this implies that
\begin{align*}
I_{S^\text{c}}^{(K,0,\ldots, 0)}(\rho)
&
\eq[\rho]{\infty}\frac{K}{24^K}
\int_{
(\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}\times\mathbf{R}_+\times \mathbf{S}^3)^K
}
\prod_{i\leq K}
e^{-2\pi\cdot r_i}
a
\big(
u_{i}^{(1:3)}
\big)
\ind{r_i>v_\rho}
\ind{r_1=\max_{j\leq K}r_j}\ind{|z_i-z_j|>r_1^3 \text{ for } j\neq i}
\\
&
\qquad
\times
dz_{1:K}
\,
dr_{1:K}
\,
\operatorname{\sigma}\big(du_{1:K}^{(1:3)}\big)
\\
&
=
\frac{K\tau^K}{(24\pi)^K}
\int_{
(\mathbf{W}_1\times\mathbf{R}_+\times \mathbf{S}^3)^K
}
\prod_{i\leq K}
e^{-2\pi\cdot r'_i}
a
\big(
u_{i}^{(1:3)}
\big)
\ind{
r'_1
=
\max_{j\leq K}r'_j
}
\ind{
|z'_i-z'_j|
>
\rho^{-1/2}{r'}_1^3
\text{ for } j\neq i
}
\\
&
\qquad
\times
dz'_{1:K}
\,
dr'_{1:K}
\,
\operatorname{\sigma}\big(du_{1:K}^{(1:3)}\big),
\end{align*}
where the last equality comes from \eqref{eq:ddeftau} and the change of
variables $z'_i=\rho^{-1/2}z_i$ and $r'_i=r_i-v_\rho$. It follows from the
monotone convergence theorem that
\begin{align*}
I_{S^\text{c}}^{(K,0,\ldots, 0)}(\rho)
&
\eq[\rho]{\infty} \frac{K\tau^K}{(24\pi)^K}
\int_{
(\mathbf{W}_1\times\mathbf{R}_+\times \mathbf{S}^3)^K
}
\prod_{i\leq K}
e^{-2\pi\cdot r_i}
a
\left(
u_{i}^{(1:3)}
\right)
\ind{r_1=\max_{j\leq K}r_j}dz_{1:K}dr_{1:K}\operatorname{\sigma}(du_{1:K}^{(1:3)})
\\
&
=
\frac{\tau^K}{(24\pi)^K}
\left(\int_{(\mathbf{W}_1\times\mathbf{R}_+\times \mathbf{S}^3)^K}
a(u_{1:3})
e^{-2\pi r}
dz
\,
dr
\,
\operatorname{\sigma}(du_{1:3}) \right)^K
\\
&
\conv[\rho]{\infty}\tau^K,
\end{align*}
where the last line follows by integrating over $z,r$ and $u_{1:3}$, and by using
the fact that $\lambda_2(\mathbf{W}_1)=1$ and
$\int_{\mathbf{S}^3}a(u_{1:3})\operatorname{\sigma}(du_{1:3})=48\pi^2$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{Prop:G123}~\eqref{eqref:convG2}]
Beginning in the same way as in the proof of~\eqref{eqref:convG1}, we have
\begin{align*}
I_{S^\text{c}}^{(n_{1:K})}(\rho)
&=
\frac{K}{24^K}
\int_{
(\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}\times\mathbf{R}_+\times \mathbf{S}^3)^K
}
e^{
-\operatorname{\phi}
\left(
\bigcup_{i\leq K}
B(z_i, r_i)
\right)
}
\prod_{i\leq K}
a
\left(
u_i^{({1:3})}
\right)
\ind{
\sumevent{B_{1:K}}
}
\ind{
\emptyevent{B_{1:K}}
}
\\
&
\qquad
\times
dz_{1:K}\,
dr_{1:K} \,
\operatorname{\sigma}
\left(
du_{1:K}^{(1:3)}
\right),
\end{align*}
where the event $\emptyevent{B_{1:K}} $ is defined in \eqref{def:Ecircle}.
Integrating over $u_{1:K}^{(1:3)}$, we get
\begin{align*}
I_{S^\text{c}}^{(n_{1:K})}(\rho)
&
=
c
\cdot
\int_{ (\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}\times\mathbf{R}_+)^K }
e^{
-
\operatorname{\phi}
\left(
\bigcup_{i\leq K} B(z_i, r_i)
\right)
}
\prod_{i\leq K}
\ind{
\sumevent{B_{1:K}}
}
\ind{
\emptyevent{B_{1:K}}
}
\ind{n_{1:K}(z_{1:K},r_1)=n_{1:K}}
dz_{1:K}
dr_{1:K}
\\
&
=
I_{S^\text{c},a_\varepsilon}^{
(n_{1:K})
}(\rho)
+
I_{S^\text{c},b_\varepsilon}^{(n_{1:K})}(\rho),
\end{align*}
where, for any $\varepsilon>0$, the terms
$I_{S^\text{c},a_\varepsilon}^{(n_{1:K})}(\rho)$ and
$I_{S^\text{c},b_\varepsilon}^{(n_{1:K})}(\rho)$ are defined as the term of the first
line when we add the indicator that $r_1$ is larger than $(1+\varepsilon)
v_\rho$ in the integral and the indicator for the complement respectively. We
provide below a suitable upper bound for these two terms. For
$I_{S^\text{c},a_\varepsilon}^{(n_{1:K})}(\rho)$, we obtain from
Proposition~\ref{Prop:uniformupperbound}~\eqref{case:uniformbound1} that
\begin{align*}
I_{S^\text{c},a_\varepsilon}^{(n_{1:K})}(\rho)
&
\le
c
\cdot
\int_{(\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}\times \mathbf{R}_+)^K}
e^{
-
\left(
2\pi r_1
+
\left(
\sum_{k=1}^{K}
n_k-1
\right)
2\pi v_\rho
-
c\cdot v_\rho^{-1}
\right)
}
\ind{
r_1 > (1+\varepsilon)v_\rho
}
\ind{r_1=\max_{j\leq K} r_j}
\\
&
\qquad
\times
\,
\ind{
n_{1:K}(z_{1:K}, r_1) = n_{1:K}
}
dz_{1:K}
\,
dr_{1:K}.
\end{align*}
Integrating over $r_{2:K}$ and $z_{1:K}$, we obtain
\begin{align}\label{eq:majI2a}
I_{S^\text{c},a_\varepsilon}^{(n_{1:K})}(\rho)
&
\leq
c
\cdot
\int_{(1+\varepsilon)v_\rho}^\infty
r_1^{K-1}
e^{
-
\left(
2\pi r_1
+
\left(
\sum_{k=1}^{K} n_k-1
\right)
2\pi
v_\rho
\right)
}
\notag
\\
&
\qquad
\times
\lambda_{dK}
\Big(
\big\{
\,
z_{1:K}\in\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}^K
:
n_{1:K}(z_{1:K}, r_1)
= n_{1:K}
\,
\big\}
\Big)
\,
dr_1.
\end{align}
Furthermore, for each $n_{1:K}\in\mathcal{N}_K\setminus\{(K,0,\ldots, 0)\}$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:majI2b}
\lambda_{dK}
\Big(
\big\{
\,
z_{1:K}\in\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}^K
:
n_{1:K}(z_{1:K}, r_1)
=
n_{1:K}
\,
\big\}
\Big)
\;
\leq
\;
c
\cdot
\rho^{\sum_{k=1}^Kn_k}
\cdot
r_1^{
6\left(K-\sum_{k=1}^Kn_k \right)
},
\end{equation}
since the number of connected components of $\bigcup_{i=1}^KB(z_i,r_1^3)$ equals
$\sum_{k=1}^Kn_k$. It follows from \eqref{eq:majI2a} and \eqref{eq:majI2b} that
there exists a constant $c(K)$ such that
\begin{align*}
I_{S^\text{c},a_\varepsilon}^{(n_{1:K})}(\rho)
&\leq
c
\cdot
\big(
\rho
e^{-2\pi\, v_\rho}
\big)^{
\left(
\sum_{k=1}^{K}n_k
\right)
}
e^{2\pi v_\rho}
\int_{
(1+\varepsilon)v_\rho
}^{\infty}
r_1^{ c(K) }
e^{-2\pi r_1}dr_1
\\
&=
O\left((\log\rho)^{c(K)}\rho^{-\varepsilon} \right),
\end{align*}
according to \eqref{eq:ddeftau}. For $I_{S^\text{c},b_\varepsilon}^{(n_{1:K})}(\rho)$, we
proceed exactly as for $I_{S^\text{c},a_\varepsilon}^{(n_{1:K})}(\rho)$, but this time we
apply the bound given in
Proposition~\ref{Prop:uniformupperbound}~\eqref{case:uniformbound2}. We obtain
\begin{align*}
I_{S^\text{c},b_\varepsilon}^{(n_{1:K})}(\rho)
&
\le
c
\cdot
\big(
\rho
\,
e^{-2\pi v_\rho}
\big)^{
\left(
\sum_{k=1}^{K}n_k
\right)
}
e^{ 2\pi v_\rho
-
\sum_{k=2}^{K}
n_k(4-\varepsilon\pi)v_\rho
}
\int_{v_\rho}^{ (1+\varepsilon)v_\rho }
r_1^{ c(K) }
e^{-2\pi r_1}
\,
dr_1
\\
&
=
O
\left(
(\log\rho)^c\cdot \rho^{-\frac{4-\varepsilon\pi}{2\pi}}\cdot
\right)
\end{align*}
since for all $n_{1:K}\in\mathcal{N}_K\setminus\{(K,0,\ldots,0)\}$, there exists a $2\le k \le K$ such that $n_k$
is non-zero. Choosing $\varepsilon < \tfrac{4}{\pi}$ ensures that
$I_{S^\text{c},b_\varepsilon}^{(n_{1:K})}(\rho) \rightarrow 0$ as $\rho \rightarrow
\infty$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{Prop:G123}~\eqref{eqref:convG3}]
Let $\mathbf{G}=\mathbf{G}(V_C,V_L,E)\in\Lambda_K$, with $|V_L|=L$ and $|V_C|=K$,
be a bipartite graph as in Page~\pageref{bipartite}. With $\mathbf{G}$, we can
associate a (unique up to re-ordering of the lines) way to construct $K$
triangles from $L$ lines by taking $V_C$ to denote the set of indices of the
triangles, $V_L$ to denote the set of indices of the lines and the edges to
represent intersections between them. Besides, let $H_1,\ldots, H_{L}$ be an
$L$-tuple of lines. For each $1\leq i\leq K$, let $e_i=\{e_i(0),e_i(1),e_i(2)\}$
be the tuple of neighbours of the $i$\textit{th} vertex in $V_C$. In
particular,
\begin{equation*}
B_i(\mathbf{G})
:=
B
\left(
\triangle_i(\mathbf{G})
\right)
\qquad
\text{and}
\qquad
\triangle_i(\mathbf{G})
:=
\triangle
\left(
H_{e_i(0)},
H_{e_i(1)},
H_{e_i(2)}
\right)
\end{equation*}
denote the inball and the triangle generated by the 3-tuple of lines with
indices in $e_i$. An example of this configuration graph is given in
Figure~\ref{fig:config_graph}. According to~\eqref{eq:defG2}, we have
\begin{equation*}
I_{S}^{(n_{1:K})}(\rho)
=
\sum_{
\mathbf{G} \in \Lambda_K
}
I_{S_{\mathbf{G}}}^{(n_{1:K})}(\rho),
\end{equation*}
where for all $n_{1:K}\in\mathcal{N}_K$ and $\mathbf{G} \in \Lambda_K$, we write
\begin{align}\label{def:IGn}
I_{S_{\mathbf{G}}}^{(n_{1:K})}(\rho)
&
=
\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}
\Bigg[
\sum_{ H_{1:L} \in \mathbf{X}^{L}_{\neq} }
\ind{
\left\{
\hat{\mathbf{X}}
\setminus
\cup_{i\le L}
H_i
\right\}
\cap
\left\{
\cup_{i\le K}
B_i(\mathbf{G})
\right\}
=
\varnothing
} \ind{
z(B_{1:K}(\mathbf{G})) \in \mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}^K
} \ind{
\sumevent{B_{1:K}(\mathbf{G})}
}
\ind{
\emptyevent{B_{1:K}(\mathbf{G})}
}
\notag
\\
&
\qquad
\times
\ind{n_{1:K}(B_{1:K}(\mathbf{G})) = n_{1:K}}
\Bigg]
\notag
\\
&
=
\int_{\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}^{|V_L|}}
e^{
-
\operatorname{\phi}
\left(
\bigcup_{i\leq K}
B_i(\mathbf{G})
\right)
}\ind{
z(B_{1:K}(\mathbf{G})) \in \mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}^K
}
\ind{
\sumevent{B_{1:K}(\mathbf{G})}
}
\ind{
\emptyevent{B_{1:K}(\mathbf{G})}
}
\notag
\\
&
\qquad
\times
\ind{n_{1:K}(B_{1:K}(\mathbf{G})) = n_{1:K}}
\measure(dH_{1:L}).
\end{align}
We now prove that $I_{S_{\mathbf{G}}}^{(n_{1:K})}(\rho) \rightarrow 0$ as
$\rho \rightarrow \infty$. Suppose first that $n_{1:K}=(K,0,\ldots, 0)$. In this
case, we obtain from \eqref{def:IGn},
Proposition~\ref{Prop:uniformupperbound}~\eqref{case:uniformbound1} and
\eqref{def:E} and \eqref{def:Ecircle} that
\begin{align}
I_{S_{\mathbf{G}}}^{(K,0,\ldots, 0)}(\rho)
&
\leq
c
\cdot
\int_{\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}^{L}}
e^{
-
2
\pi
\cdot
(
R(
B_1(\mathbf{G})
)
+
(K-1)
v_\rho
)
}\ind{z(B_{1:K}(\mathbf{G}))\in\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}}
\ind{R(B_1(\mathbf{G}))>v_\rho}
\notag
\\
&
\qquad
\times
\ind{R(B_1(\mathbf{G}))=\max_{j\leq K}R(B_j(\mathbf{G}))}
\ind{n_{1:K}(B_{1:K}(\mathbf{G})) = (K,0,\ldots, 0)}
\measure(dH_{1:L})
\notag
\\
\label{eq:lem_vol_integral}
&
\leq
c
\cdot
\rho^{\frac{1}{2}}
\int_{v_\rho}^{\infty}
r^{c(K)}
e^{-2\pi r}dr
\\
&
=
O
\left(
(\log\rho)^{c(K)}
\rho^{-\frac{1}{2}}
\right),
\notag
\end{align}
where the second inequality of \eqref{eq:lem_vol_integral} is a consequence of
\eqref{eq:ddeftau} and Lemma~\ref{Le:volumeintegral} applied to
$f(r):=e^{-2\pi r}$. Suppose now that $n_{1:K}\in\mathcal{N}_K\setminus\{(K,0,\dots,
0)\}$. In the same spirit as in the proof of
Proposition~\ref{Prop:G123}~\eqref{eqref:convG2}, we shall re-write
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Igraph}
I_{S_{\mathbf{G}}}^{(n_{1:K})}(\rho)
=
I_{S_{\mathbf{G}},a_\varepsilon}^{(n_{1:K})}(\rho)
+
I_{S_{\mathbf{G}},b_\varepsilon}^{(n_{1:K})}(\rho)
\end{equation}
by adding the indicator that $R(B_1(\mathbf{G}))$ is larger than
$(1+\varepsilon)v_\rho$ and the opposite in \eqref{def:IGn}. For
$I_{S_{\mathbf{G}},a_\varepsilon}^{(n_{1:K})}(\rho)$, we similarly apply
Proposition~\ref{Prop:uniformupperbound}~\eqref{case:uniformbound1} to get
\begin{align}
I_{S_{\mathbf{G}},a_\varepsilon}^{(n_{1:K})}(\rho)
&\leq
c\cdot
\int_{\operatorname{\mathcal{A}}^{L}}
e^{
-
2
\pi
\left(
R(B_1(\mathbf{G}))
+
\left(
\sum_{k=1}^Kn_k-1
\right)
v_\rho
\right)
}
\ind{
z(B_{1:K}(\mathbf{G}))\in\mathbf{W}_{\!\rho}
}
\ind{
R(B_1(\mathbf{G}))>(1+\varepsilon)v_\rho
}
\notag
\\
&
\qquad
\times
\ind{
R(B_1(\mathbf{G}))
=
\max_{j\leq K}R(B_j(\mathbf{G}))
}
\ind{
n_{1:K}(B_{1:K}(\mathbf{G}))
=
n_{1:K}
}
\measure(dH_{1:L})
\notag
\\
\label{eq:Igraph1}
&
\leq
c
\cdot
\left(
\rho e^{-2\pi v_\rho}
\right)^{\sum_{k=1}^Kn_k}
\cdot
\rho
\int_{(1+\varepsilon)v_\rho}^{\infty}
r^{c(K)}
e^{-2\pi r}
dr
\\
&=
O
\left(
(\log\rho)^{c(K)}
\rho^{-\varepsilon}
\right),
\notag
\end{align}
where \eqref{eq:Igraph1} follows by applying Lemma~\ref{Le:volumeintegral}. To
prove that $I_{S_{\mathbf{G}},b_\varepsilon}^{(n_{1:K})}(\rho)$ converges to
zero, we proceed exactly as before but this time applying
Proposition~\ref{Prop:uniformupperbound}~\eqref{case:uniformbound2}. As for
$I_{S^\text{c},b_\varepsilon}^{(n_{1:K})}(\rho)$, we show that
\begin{equation*}
I_{S^\text{c},b_\varepsilon}^{(n_{1:K})}(\rho)
=
O
\left(
(\log\rho)^{c(K)}\rho^{-\frac{4-\varepsilon\pi}{2\pi}}
\right)
\end{equation*}
by taking $\varepsilon < \tfrac{4}{\pi}$. This together with \eqref{eq:Igraph}
and \eqref{eq:Igraph1} gives that $I_{S_{\mathbf{G}}}^{(n_{1:K})}(\rho)$
converges to zero for any $n_{1:K}\in\mathcal{N}_K\setminus\{(K,0,\ldots, 0)\}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{Th:maxins}~\eqref{case:maxins}]
According to Lemma~\ref{Le:henze}, it is now enough to show that for all $K \geq
1$, we have $I^{(K)}(\rho) \rightarrow \tau^K$ as $\rho\rightarrow \infty$.
This fact is a consequence of \eqref{eq:defGK123} and Proposition
\ref{Prop:G123}.
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction}
Let $(M^n, g)$ be a compact Riemannian manifold of
dimension $n \geq 2$ with smooth boundary $\partial M$
and $\bM := M \cup \partial M$.
We will study the equation
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn}
f (\lambda(\nabla^{2}u + A [u])) - u_t = \psi (x, t, u, \nabla u)
\end{equation}
in $M_T = M \times (0,T] \subset M \times \mathbb{R}$, where $f$ is
a symmetric smooth function of $n$ variables, $\nabla^2 u$ denotes the
Hessian of $u (x, t)$ with respect to $x \in M$,
$A [u] = A (x, t, \nabla u)$ is a $(0,2)$ tensor on
$\bM$ which may depend on $t \in [0, T]$ and $\nabla u$
and
\[ \lambda (\nabla^2 u + A [u]) = (\lambda_1 ,\ldots,\lambda_n) \]
denotes the
eigenvalues of $\nabla^2 u + A [u]$ with respect to the metric $g$.
In this paper we are mainly concerned with the \emph{a priori} $C^2$ estimates for solutions
to \eqref{eqn} with boundary condition
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn-bd}
u = \varphi \mbox{ on }\mathcal{P} M_T,
\end{equation}
where
$\varphi \in C^{\infty}(\overline{\mathcal{P}M_T})$ satisfying
$\lambda (\nabla^{2} \varphi(x,0) + A[\varphi(x,0)]) \in \Gamma$ for all $x \in \bM$.
Here $\mathcal{P} M_T
= B M_T \cup S M_T$ is the parabolic boundary of $M_T$ with $B M_T = M
\times \{0\}$ and $S M_T = \partial M \times [0,T]$.
The idea of this paper is mainly from Guan and Jiao \cite{GJ} where the authors studied
the second order estimates for the elliptic counterpart of \eqref{eqn}:
\begin{equation}
\label{3I-10}
f (\lambda (\nabla^2 u + A (x, u, \nabla u)))
= \psi (x, u, \nabla u).
\end{equation}
Comparing with the elliptic case,
the main difficulty in deriving the second order estimates for the parabolic equation
\eqref{eqn} is from its degeneracy which is overcome by using the strict subsolution
in this paper. Surprisingly, thanks to the strict subsolution, we are able to relax
some restrictions to $f$.
Again because of the degeneracy, we do not get the higher estimates and the
existence of classical solution. It is useful to consider viscosity solutions to
\eqref{eqn} which will be addressed in forthcoming papers.
The first initial-boundary value problem for equation of form \eqref{eqn} in $\mathbb{R}^n$
with $A \equiv 0$ and $\psi = \psi (x,t)$ was studied by Ivochkina and Ladyzhenskaya in \cite{IL1}
(when $f = \sigma_n^{1/n}$) and \cite{IL2}. Jiao and Sui treated the case that
$A \equiv \chi (x)$ and $\psi = \psi (x,t)$ on Riemannian manifolds using the techniques
of \cite{G} and \cite{GJ}.
For the elliptic Hessian equations on manifolds, we refer
the readers to Li \cite{LiYY90}, Urbas \cite{U}, Guan \cite{G1,G,G14}, Guan and Jiao \cite{GJ} and
their references.
As in \cite{CNS}, in which the authors studied the equations \eqref{3I-10}
with $A \equiv 0$ and $\psi = \psi (x)$
in a bounded domain of $\mathbb{R}^n$, $f \in C^\infty (\Gamma) \cap C^0 (\overline{\Gamma})$
is assumed to be defined on $\Gamma$, where $\Gamma$ is an open, convex,
symmetric proper subcone of $\mathbb{R}^{n}$ with vertex at the origin and
\[\Gamma^{+} \equiv \{\lambda \in \mathbb{R}^{n}:\mbox{ each component }
\lambda_{i} > 0\} \subseteq \Gamma,\]
and to satisfy the following structure conditions in this paper:
\begin{equation}
\label{f1}
f_{i} \equiv \frac{\partial f}{\partial \lambda_{i}} > 0 \mbox{ in } \Gamma,\ \ 1\leq i\leq n,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{f2}
f\mbox{ is concave in }\Gamma,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{f5}
f > 0 \mbox{ in } \Gamma, \ \ f = 0 \mbox{ on } \partial \Gamma.
\end{equation}
Typical examples are given by $f = \sigma^{1/k}_k$ and $f = (\sigma_k / \sigma_l)^{1/(k - l)}$,
$1 \leq l < k \leq n$, defined in the cone
$\Gamma_{k} = \{\lambda \in \mathbb{R}^{n}: \sigma_{j} (\lambda) > 0, j = 1, \ldots, k\}$,
where $\sigma_{k} (\lambda)$ are the elementary symmetric functions
\[\sigma_{k} (\lambda) = \sum_ {i_{1} < \ldots < i_{k}}
\lambda_{i_{1}} \ldots \lambda_{i_{k}},\ \ k = 1, \ldots, n.\]
Another interesting example is $f = \log P_k$, where
\[ P_k (\lambda) := \prod_{i_1 < \cdots < i_k}
(\lambda_{i_1} + \cdots + \lambda_{i_k}), \;\; 1 \leq k \leq n,\]
defined in the cone
\[ \mathcal{P}_k : = \{\lambda \in \bfR^n:
\lambda_{i_1} + \cdots + \lambda_{i_k} > 0\}. \]
We call a function $u(x,t)$ admissible if $\lambda(\nabla^{2} u + A[u]) \in \Gamma$ in $M \times [0, T]$.
It is shown in \cite{CNS} that \eqref{f1} ensures that equation \eqref{eqn}
is parabolic for admissible solutions. \eqref{f2} means that the function $F$ defined
by $F (A) = f (\lambda [A])$ is concave for $A \in \mathcal{S}^{n \times n}$ with
$\lambda [A] \in \Gamma$, where $\mathcal{S}^{n \times n}$ is the set of $n \times n$
symmetric matrices.
Throughout the paper we assume $A [u]$ is smooth on $\bM_T$ for $u \in C^{\infty} (\bM_T)$,
$\psi \in C^{\infty} (T^*\bM \times [0,T] \times \bfR)$ (for convenience we shall write
$\psi = \psi (x, t, z, p)$ for $(x, p) \in T^*\bM$, $t \in [0, T]$ and $z \in \bfR$ though).
Note that for fixed $(x, t) \in \bM_T$ and $p \in T^*_x M$,
\[ A (x, t, p): T^*_x M \times T^*_x M \rightarrow \bfR \]
is a symmetric bilinear map. We shall use the notation
\[ A^{\xi \eta} (x, \cdot, \cdot) := A (x, \cdot, \cdot) (\xi, \eta), \;\;
\xi, \eta \in T^*_x M \]
and, for a function $v \in C^{2,1}_{x,t} (M_T)$, $A [v] := A (x, t, \nabla v)$,
$A^{\xi \eta} [v] := A^{\xi \eta} (x, t, \nabla v)$ (see \cite{GJ}).
In this paper
we assume that there exists an admissible function
$\underline{u} \in C^{2} (\bM_T)$ satisfying
\begin{equation}
\label{sub}
f(\lambda(\nabla^{2} \underline{u} + A [\ul u])) - \underline{u}_{t}
\geq \psi(x, t, \ul u, \nabla \ul u) + \delta_0 \mbox{ in } M \times [0, T].
\end{equation}
for some positive constant $\delta_0$ with $\ul u = \varphi$ on $\partial M \times [0, T]$
and $\ul u \leq \varphi$ in $M \times \{0\}$.
We shall prove the following Theorem.
\begin{theorem}
\label{jsui-th1}
Let $u \in C^4 (\bM_T)$ be an
admissible solution of (\ref{eqn}).
Suppose \eqref{f1}-\eqref{f5} and \eqref{sub} hold.
Assume that
\begin{equation}
\label{A2}
\mbox{$-\psi (x,t,z,p)$ and $A^{\xi \xi} (x,t,p)$ are concave
in $p$}, \;\; \forall \, \xi \in T_x M,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{A4}
\psi_z \leq 0.
\end{equation}
Then
\begin{equation}
\label{hess-a10}
\max_{\bM_T} |\nabla^2 u| \leq
C_1 \big(1 + \max_{\mathcal{P} M_T}|\nabla^2 u|\big)
\end{equation}
where $C_1 > 0$ depends on $|u|_{C^1_x (\bM_T)}$ and $|\ul u|_{C^2 (\bM_T)}$.
Suppose that $u$ also satisfies the boundary condition
\eqref{eqn-bd} and, in addition,
assume that
\begin{equation}
\label{3I-45}
\sum f_{i} (\lambda) \lambda_{i} \geq 0,
\; \forall \, \lambda \in \Gamma,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{comp}
f (\lambda (\nabla^2 \varphi (x, 0) + A [\varphi (x, 0)])) - \varphi_t (x, 0)
= \psi [\varphi (x, 0)],\ \ \forall x \in \bM,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{lbd0}
\varphi_t (x, t) + \psi (x, t, z, p) > 0
\end{equation}
for each $(x, t) \in SM_T$, $p \in T^*_x \bM$ and $z \in \mathbb{R}$.
Then there exists $C_2 > 0$ depending on
$|u|_{C^1_x (\bM_T)}$, $|\ul u|_{C^2 (\bM_T)}$ and
$|\varphi|_{C^4 (\mathcal{P} M_T)}$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{hess-a10b}
\max_{\mathcal{P} M_T}|\nabla^2 u| \leq C_2.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
Since $u$ is admissible, we have, by \eqref{A2},
\[
\triangle u + \mathrm{tr} A_{p_k} (x, t, 0) \nabla_k u
+ \mathrm{tr} A (x, t, 0) \geq \triangle u + \mathrm{tr} A (x, t, \nabla u) > 0
\]
and by the maximum principle it is easy to derive
the estimate
\begin{equation}
\label{gj-I115}
\max_{\bM_T} |u| + \max_{\mathcal{P} M_T} |\nabla u| \leq C.
\end{equation}
Combining with the gradient estimates (Theorem \ref{p-th0}-\ref{jsui-th2}), we can prove
the following theorem immediately.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm-main}
Let $u \in C^4 (\bM_T)$ be an
admissible solution of (\ref{eqn}) in $M_T$ with
$u \geq \ul u$ in $M_T$ and $u = \varphi$ on $\mathcal{P} M_T$.
Suppose \eqref{f1}-\eqref{f5}, \eqref{sub}-\eqref{A4},
and \eqref{3I-45}-\eqref{lbd0} hold. Then we have
\begin{equation}
\label{gsui-3}
|u|_{C^{2,1}_{x, t} (\bM_T)}\leq C,
\end{equation}
where $C > 0$ depends on $n$, $M$ and $|\ul u|_{C^2(\bM_T)}$
under any of the following additional assumptions:
(\romannumeral1) \eqref{A1-parabolic}-\eqref{A3}
hold for $\gamma_1 < 4$, $\gamma_2 = 2$
in \eqref{A1-parabolic};
(\romannumeral2) $(M^n, g)$ has nonnegative sectional curvature and
\eqref{A1-parabolic} hold
for $\gamma_1, \gamma_2 < 2$;
(\romannumeral3) \eqref{A1-parabolic}, \eqref{f4}-\eqref{p-G20**}
hold for $\gamma_1, \gamma_2 < 4$ in \eqref{A1-parabolic} and
$\gamma < 2$ in \eqref{p-A5}-\eqref{p-G20**}.
\end{theorem}
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we introduce
some preliminaries and present a brief review
of some elementary formulas. In Section 3 and Section 4, we
establish the global and boundary estimates for second order
derivatives respectively. The gradient estimates are derived in
Section 5.
\section{Preliminaries}
\label{gj-P}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\medskip
Throughout the paper $\nabla$ denotes the Levi-Civita connection
of $(M^n, g)$. The curvature tensor is defined by
\[ R (X, Y) Z = - \nabla_X \nabla_Y Z + \nabla_Y \nabla_X Z
+ \nabla_{[X, Y]} Z. \]
Let $e_1, \ldots, e_n$ be local frames on $M^n$. We denote
$g_{ij} = g (e_i, e_j)$, $\{g^{ij}\} = \{g_{ij}\}^{-1}$.
Define the Christoffel symbols $\Gamma_{ij}^k$ by
$\nabla_{e_i} e_j = \Gamma_{ij}^k e_k$ and the curvature
coefficients
\[ R_{ijkl} = g( R (e_k, e_l) e_j, e_i), \;\; R^i_{jkl} = g^{im} R_{mjkl}. \]
We shall use the notation $\nabla_i = \nabla_{e_i}$,
$\nabla_{ij} = \nabla_i \nabla_j - \Gamma_{ij}^k \nabla_k $, etc.
For a differentiable function $v$ defined on $M^n$, we usually
identity $\nabla v$ with the gradient of $v$, and use
$\nabla^2 v$ to denote the Hessian of $v$ which is locally given by
$\nabla_{ij} v = \nabla_i (\nabla_j v) - \Gamma_{ij}^k \nabla_k v$.
We recall that $\nabla_{ij} v =\nabla_{ji} v$ and
\begin{equation}
\label{hess-A70}
\nabla_{ijk} v - \nabla_{jik} v = R^l_{kij} \nabla_l v,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{hess-A80}
\begin{aligned}
\nabla_{ijkl} v - \nabla_{klij} v
= R^m_{ljk} \nabla_{im} v & + \nabla_i R^m_{ljk} \nabla_m v
+ R^m_{lik} \nabla_{jm} v \\
& + R^m_{jik} \nabla_{lm} v
+ R^m_{jil} \nabla_{km} v + \nabla_k R^m_{jil} \nabla_m v.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Let $u \in C^4 (\bM_T)$ be an admissible solution of
equation~\eqref{eqn}.
For simplicity we shall denote $U := \nabla^2 u + A (x, t, \nabla u)$
and, under a local frame $e_1, \ldots, e_n$,
\[ U_{ij} \equiv U (e_i, e_j) = \nabla_{ij} u + A^{ij} (x, t, \nabla u), \]
\begin{equation}
\label{gj-P10}
\begin{aligned}
\nabla_k U_{ij}
\equiv \,& \nabla U (e_i, e_j, e_k)
= \nabla_{kij} u + \nabla_k A^{ij} (x, t, \nabla u) \\
\equiv \,& \nabla_{kij} u + A_{x_k}^{ij} (x, t, \nabla u)
+ A^{ij}_{p_l} (x, t, \nabla u) \nabla_{kl} u,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{gj-P10-1}
\begin{aligned}
(U_{ij})_t
\equiv \,& (U (e_i, e_j))_t
= (\nabla_{ij} u)_t + A^{ij}_t (x, t, \nabla u)
+ A^{ij}_{p_l} (x, t, \nabla u) (\nabla_{l} u)_t \\
\equiv \,& \nabla_{ij} u_t + A_{t}^{ij} (x, t, \nabla u)
+ A^{ij}_{p_l} (x, t, \nabla u) \nabla_{l} u_t,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $A^{ij} = A^{e_{i} e_{j}}$ and
$A_{x_k}^{ij}$ denotes the {\em partial} covariant derivative of $A$
when viewed as depending on $x \in M$ only, while the meanings of
$A^{ij}_t$ and $A^{ij}_{p_l}$, etc are obvious. Similarly we can calculate
$\nabla_{kl} U_{ij} = \nabla_k \nabla_l U_{ij} - \Gamma_{kl}^m \nabla_m U_{ij}$, etc.
Let $F$ be the function defined by
\[ F (h) = f (\lambda (h)) \]
for a $(0,2)$ tensor $h$ on $M$.
Following the literature we denote throughout this paper
\[ F^{ij} = \frac{\partial F}{\partial h_{ij}} (U), \;\;
F^{ij, kl} = \frac{\partial^2 F}{\partial h_{ij} \partial h_{kl}} (U) \]
under an orthonormal local frame $e_1, \ldots, e_n$.
The matrix $\{F^{ij}\}$ has eigenvalues $f_1, \ldots, f_n$ and
is positive definite by assumption (\ref{f1}), while (\ref{f2})
implies that $F$ is a concave function of $U_{ij}$ (see \cite{CNS}).
Moreover, when $\{U_{ij}\}$ is diagonal so is $\{F^{ij}\}$, and the
following identities hold
\[ F^{ij} U_{ij} = \sum f_i \lambda_i, \;\; F^{ij} U_{ik} U_{kj} = \sum f_i \lambda_i^2,
\;\; \lambda (U) = (\lambda_1, \ldots, \lambda_n). \]
Define the linear operator $\mathcal{L}$ locally by
\[\mathcal{L} v = F^{ij} \nabla_{ij} v + (F^{ij} A^{ij}_{p_k} - \psi_{p_k}) \nabla_k v - v_t,\]
for $v \in C^{2, 1}_{x, t} (M_T)$.
We can prove
\begin{theorem}
\label{barrier}
Let $u$ be an admissible solution to \eqref{eqn} with $u \geq \ul u$ in $M_T$.
Assume that \eqref{f1}, \eqref{f2}, \eqref{A2} and \eqref{A4} hold. Then there exists a constant
$\theta > 0$ depending only on $\delta_0$ and $\ul u$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{sub-bar}
\mathcal{L} (\ul u - u) \geq \theta (1 + \sum F^{ii})
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Since $\ul u$ is admissible satisfying \eqref{sub}, there exists a constant $\varepsilon_0 > 0$ such that
$\{x \in \bM_T: \lambda (\nabla^2 \ul u + A [\ul u] - \varepsilon_0 g)\}$ is a compact subset of $\Gamma$
and
\[
f (\lambda (\nabla^2 \ul u + A [\ul u] - \varepsilon_0 g))
- \ul u_t \geq \psi [\ul u] + \frac{\delta_0}{2} \mbox{ in $M_T$.}
\]
Let $\theta = \min \{\frac{\delta_0}{2}, \varepsilon_0\}$. For each $(x, t) \in M_T$, we may
assume $\{U_{ij}\} = \{\nabla_{ij} u + A^{ij}\}$ is diagonal at
$(x, t)$. From \eqref{A2}, \eqref{A4} and the concavity of $F$, we see, at $(x, t)$,
\begin{equation}
\label{para-100}
\begin{aligned}
F^{ii} (\ul U_{ii} - \varepsilon_0 g_{ii} - U_{ii}) - (\ul u - u)_t
\geq \,& \psi (x, t, \ul u, \nabla \ul u) - \psi (x, t, u, \nabla u) + \frac{\delta_0}{2}\\
\geq \,& \psi (x, t, u, \nabla \ul u) - \psi (x, t, u, \nabla u) + \frac{\delta_0}{2}\\
\geq \,& \psi_{p_k} \nabla_k (\ul u - u) + \frac{\delta_0}{2}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
By \eqref{A2} again, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{para-101}
\begin{aligned}
F^{ii} (\ul U_{ii} - U_{ii}) = \,& F^{ii} \nabla_{ii} (\ul u - u)
+ F^{ii} (A^{ii} (x, t, \nabla \ul u) - A^{ii} (x, t, \nabla u))\\
\geq \,& F^{ii} \nabla_{ii} (\ul u - u) + F^{ii} A^{ii}_{p_k} \nabla_k (\ul u - u).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Combining \eqref{para-100} and \eqref{para-101}, we get
\[
\mathcal{L} (\ul u - u) \geq \varepsilon_0 \sum F^{ii} + \frac{\delta_0}{2}
\geq \theta (1 + \sum F^{ii})
\]
\end{proof}
\section{Global estimates for second derivatives}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
In this section, we prove \eqref{hess-a10} in Theorem \ref{jsui-th1} for which we set
\[W = \max_{(x,t) \in \bar{M_T}} \max_{\xi \in T_x M, |\xi| = 1}
(\nabla_{\xi\xi} u + A^{\xi \xi} (x, u, \nabla u) e^\phi,\]
as in \cite{GJ}, where $\phi$ is a function to be determined. It suffices to estimate $W$.
We may assume $W$ is achieved at $(x_{0}, t_{0}) \in \bM_T - \mathcal{P} M_T$.
Choose a smooth orthonormal local frame $e_{1}, \ldots, e_{n}$ about $x_{0}$
such that $\nabla_i e_j = 0$, and
$U$ is diagonal at $(x_0, t_0)$.
We assume $U_{11} (x_0, t_0) \geq \ldots \geq U_{nn} (x_0, t_0)$.
We have $W = U_{11} (x_0, t_0) e^{\phi (x_0, t_0)}$.
At the point $(x_{0}, t_{0})$ where the function
$\log U_{11} + \phi$ attains its maximum,
we have
\begin{equation}
\label{gs3}
\frac{\nabla_i U_{11}}{U_{11}} + \nabla_i \phi = 0
\mbox{ for each } i = 1, \ldots, n,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{gs4}
\frac{(U_{11})_t}{U_{11}} + \phi_t \geq 0,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{gs5}
0 \geq \sum_{i} F^{ii} \{\frac{\nabla_{ii} U_{11}}{U_{11}}
- \frac{(\nabla_i U_{11})^{2}}{U^{2}_{11}} + \nabla_{ii} \phi\}.
\end{equation}
Differentiating equation (\ref{eqn}) twice, we find
\begin{equation}
\label{gs1}
F^{ii} \nabla_{k} U_{ii} - \nabla_k u_t = \psi_{x_k} + \psi_{u} \nabla_{k} u
+ \psi_{p_j} \nabla_{kj} u, \mbox{ for all } k,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{gs2}
\begin{aligned}
F^{ii} \nabla_{11} U_{ii}
+ \,& F^{ij,kl} \nabla_{1} U_{ij} \nabla_{1} U_{kl} - \nabla_{11} u_t \\
\geq \,& \psi_{p_{j}} \nabla_{11j} u + \psi_{p_{l} p_{k}} \nabla_{1k} u \nabla_{1l} u
- C U_{11} \\
\geq \,& \psi_{p_{j}} \nabla_j U_{11} + \psi_{p_{1} p_{1}} U_{11}^2 - C U_{11} \\
= \,& - U_{11} \psi_{p_{j}} \nabla_j \phi + \psi_{p_{1} p_{1}} U_{11}^2 - C U_{11}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Next, by \eqref{gs3} and \eqref{gs1},
\begin{equation}
\label{gj-S80}
\begin{aligned}
F^{ii}(\nabla_{ii} A^{11} - \nabla_{11} A^{ii})
\geq \,& F^{ii} (A^{11}_{p_{j}} \nabla_{iij} u - A^{ii}_{p_{j}} \nabla_{11j} u) \\
\,& + F^{ii} (A^{11}_{p_i p_i} U_{ii}^2 - A^{ii}_{p_1 p_1} U_{11}^2)
- C U_{11} \sum F^{ii} \\
\geq \,& U_{11} F^{ii} A^{ii}_{p_{j}} \nabla_{j} \phi
+ A^{11}_{p_j} \nabla_j u_t - C U_{11} \sum F^{ii} - C U_{11} \\
& - C \sum_{i \geq 2} F^{ii} U_{ii}^2
- U_{11}^2 \sum_{i \geq 2} F^{ii} A^{ii}_{p_1 p_1}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Note that
\begin{equation}
\label{gj-S50}
\nabla_{ii} U_{11}
\geq \nabla_{11} U_{ii} + \nabla_{ii} A^{11} - \nabla_{11} A^{ii} - C U_{11}.
\end{equation}
Thus, by (\ref{gs2}), \eqref{gj-S80} and \eqref{gs4}, we have, at $(x_{0}, t_{0})$,
\begin{equation}
\label{gs6}
\begin{aligned}
F^{ii} \nabla_{ii} U_{11} \geq \,& F^{ii} \nabla_{11} U_{ii} - C U_{11} (1 + \sum F^{ii})
+ A^{11}_{p_j} \nabla_j u_t\\
& - C \sum_{i \geq 2} F^{ii} U_{ii}^2
- U_{11}^2 \sum_{i \geq 2} F^{ii} A^{ii}_{p_1 p_1} + U_{11} F^{ii} A^{ii}_{p_{j}} \nabla_{j} \phi\\
\geq \,& U_{11} \mathcal{L} \phi - U_{11} F^{ii} \nabla_{ii} \phi
- F^{ij,kl} \nabla_{1} U_{ij} \nabla_{1} U_{kl} + \psi_{p_{1} p_{1}} U_{11}^2\\
& - C U_{11} (1 + \sum F^{ii}) - C F^{ii} U_{ii}^2
- U_{11}^2 \sum_{i \geq 2} F^{ii} A^{ii}_{p_1 p_1}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
It follows that, by \eqref{gs5},
\begin{equation}
\label{gs11}
\mathcal{L} \phi \leq U_{11} \sum_{i \geq 2} F^{ii} A^{ii}_{p_1 p_1} - \psi_{p_{1} p_{1}} U_{11}
+ C (1 + \sum F^{ii}) + \frac{C}{U_{11}} F^{ii} U^2_{ii} + E,
\end{equation}
where
\[E = \frac{1}{U^2_{11}} F^{ii} (\nabla_i U_{11})^{2}
+ \frac{1}{U_{11}} F^{ij,kl} \nabla_{1} U_{ij} \nabla_{1} U_{kl}.\]
Let
\[ \phi = \frac{\delta |\nabla u|^2}{2} + b \eta, \]
where $b$, $\delta$ are undetermined constants, $0 < \delta < 1 \leq b$, and $\eta$ is a $C^{2}$
function which may depend on $u$ but not on its derivatives.
We calculate, at $(x_0, t_0)$,
\begin{equation}
\label{ps-gs3}
\nabla_{i} \phi
= \delta \nabla_{j} u \nabla_{ij} u + b \nabla_{i} \eta
= \delta \nabla_i u U_{ii} - \delta \nabla_{j} u A^{ij} + b \nabla_{i} \eta
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{ps-gs301}
\phi_t
= \delta \nabla_{j} u (\nabla_{j} u)_t + b \eta_t
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{ps-gs4}
\nabla_{ii} \phi
\geq \frac{\delta}{2} U_{ii}^2 - C \delta + \delta \nabla_{j} u \nabla_{iij} u
+ b \nabla_{ii} \eta.
\end{equation}
From \eqref{hess-A70} and \eqref{gs1}, we derive
\begin{equation}
\label{ps-gs7}
\begin{aligned}
F^{ii} \nabla_{j} u \nabla_{iij} u
\geq \,& F^{ii} \nabla_{j} u (\nabla_{j} U_{ii} - \nabla_{j} A^{ii})
- C |\nabla u|^2 \sum F^{ii} \\
\geq \,& (\psi_{p_{l}} - F^{ii} A^{ii}_{p_l}) \nabla_{j} u \nabla_{jl} u
+ \nabla_j u \nabla_j (u_t) - C (1 + \sum F^{ii}).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Therefore,
\begin{equation}
\label{ps-S100}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L} \phi \geq b \mathcal{L} \eta + \frac{\delta}{2} F^{ii} U_{ii}^2
- C \sum F^{ii} - C.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Let $\eta = \ul u - u$. We get
from \eqref{ps-gs3} that
\begin{equation}
\label{bs-gs3.5}
\begin{aligned}
(\nabla_{i} \phi)^2
\leq C \delta^2 (1 + U_{ii}^2) + 2 b^2 (\nabla_{i} \eta)^2
\leq C \delta^2 U_{ii}^2 + C b^2.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
For fixed $0 < s \leq 1/3$ let
\[ \begin{aligned}
J \,& = \{i: U_{ii} \leq - s U_{11}\}, \;\;
K = \{i: U_{ii} > - s U_{11} \}.
\end{aligned} \]
Using a result of Andrews \cite{A} and Gerhardt \cite{GC}
as in \cite{G} and \cite{GJ} (see \cite{U} also), we have
\begin{equation}
\label{gj-S140}
E \leq C b^2 \sum_{i \in J} F^{ii} + C \delta^2 \sum F^{ii} U_{ii}^2
+ C \sum F^{ii} + C (\delta^2 U_{11}^2 + b^2) F^{11}.
\end{equation}
Therefore, by \eqref{gs11}, \eqref{ps-S100} and \eqref{gj-S140}, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{ps-S150}
\begin{aligned}
b \mathcal{L} \eta
\leq \,& \Big(C \delta^2 - \frac{\delta}{2} + \frac{C}{U_{11}}\Big) F^{ii} U_{ii}^2
+ C b^2 \sum_{i \in J} F^{ii} + C \sum F^{ii} \\
& + C (\delta^2 U_{11}^2 + b^2) F^{11} + C\\
\leq \,& \Big(C \delta^2 - \frac{\delta}{2} + \frac{C}{U_{11}}\Big) F^{ii} U_{ii}^2
+ C b^2 \sum_{i \in J} F^{ii} + C \sum F^{ii} \\
& + C b^2 F^{11} + C.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Choose $\delta$ sufficiently small such that $C \delta^2 - \frac{\delta}{2}$
is negative and let
\[
c_1 := - \frac{1}{2} \Big(C \delta^2 - \frac{\delta}{2}\Big) > 0.
\]
We may assume
\[
C \delta^2 - \frac{\delta}{2} + \frac{C}{U_{11}} \leq - c_1
\]
for otherwise we have $U_{11} \leq \frac{C}{c_1}$ and we are done. Thus, by \eqref{sub-bar},
choosing $b$ sufficiently large, we derive from \eqref{ps-S150} that
\[
c_1 F^{ii}U_{ii}^2 - C b^2 F^{11} - C b^2\sum_{i \in J}F^{ii} \leq 0.
\]
Then we can get a bound $U_{11} (x_0, t_0) \leq C$ since
$|U_{ii}| \geq s U_{11}$ for $i \in J$.
The proof of \eqref{hess-a10} is completed.
\section{Boundary estimates for second derivatives}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
In this section, we consider the estimates of second order derivatives on parabolic boundary
$\mathcal{P} M_T$. We may assume $\varphi \in C^4 (\bM_T)$.
Fix a point $(x_{0}, t_{0}) \in S M_T$. We shall choose
smooth orthonormal local frames $e_1, \ldots, e_n$ around $x_0$ such that
when restricted to $\partial M$, $e_n$ is normal to $\partial M$.
Since $u - \ul{u} = 0$ on $S M_T$ we have
\begin{equation}
\label{hess-a200}
\nabla_{\alpha \beta} (u - \ul{u})
= - \nabla_n (u - \ul{u}) \varPi (e_{\alpha}, e_{\beta}), \;\;
\forall \; 1 \leq \alpha, \beta < n \;\;
\mbox{on $S M_T$},
\end{equation}
where
$\varPi$ denotes the second fundamental form of $\partial M$.
Therefore,
\begin{equation}
\label{hess-E130}
|\nabla_{\alpha \beta} u| \leq C, \;\; \forall \; 1 \leq \alpha, \beta < n
\;\;\mbox{on} \;\; S M_T.
\end{equation}
Let $\rho (x)$ denote the distance from $x \in M$ to $x_{0}$,
\[\rho (x) \equiv \mathrm{dist}_{M^n} (x, x_{0}),\]
and set
\[M_{\delta} = \{X = (x, t) \in M \times (0,T]:
\rho (x) < \delta, t \leq t_{0} + \delta\}.\]
For the mixed tangential-normal and pure normal second derivatives
at $(x_0, t_0)$, we shall use the following barrier function as in
\cite{G},
\begin{equation}
\label{eq3-3}
\varPsi
= A_1 v + A_2 \rho^2 - A_3 \sum_{l< n} |\nabla_l (u - \varphi)|^2
\end{equation}
where
$v = u - \ul{u}$.
By differentiating the equation \eqref{eqn} and
straightforward calculation, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{eq3-1}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L} (\nabla_k (u - \varphi)) \leq \,& C \Big(1 + \sum f_i |\lambda_i| + \sum
f_i\Big),
\;\; \forall \; 1 \leq k \leq n.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Similar to \cite{G} (see \cite{GJ} also), using Proposition 2.19 and Corollary 2.21 of
\cite{G} and Theorem \ref{barrier}, we can prove that there exist uniform positive constants
$\delta$ sufficiently small, and $A_1$, $A_2$, $A_3$
sufficiently large such that
\begin{equation}
\label{pbs-E170'}
\mathcal{L} (\varPsi \pm \nabla_{\alpha} (u - \varphi)) \leq 0
\mbox{ in } M_\delta
\end{equation}
and
$\varPsi \pm \nabla_{\alpha} (u - \varphi) \geq 0$ on $\mathcal{P} M_{\delta}$.
Thus, by the maximum principle, we see $\varPsi \pm \nabla_{\alpha} (u - \varphi) \geq 0$
in $M_{\delta}$. Then we get
\begin{equation}
\label{pbs-E130'}
|\nabla_{n\alpha} u (x_0, t_0)| \leq \nabla_n \varPsi (x_0, t_0) \leq C,
\;\; \forall \; \alpha < n.
\end{equation}
It remains to derive
\begin{equation}
\label{cma-200}
\nabla_{nn} u (x_{0}, t_{0}) \leq C
\end{equation}
since $\triangle u \geq - C$.
We shall use an idea of Trudinger \cite{T} as \cite{G} and \cite{GJ} to prove that
there exist uniform positive constants $c_{0}$, $R_{0}$ such that for
all $R > R_{0}$,
$(\lambda' [U], R) \in \Gamma$ and
\begin{equation}
\label{pbs-bs9}
f(\lambda' [U], R) - u_{t} \geq \psi [u] + c_{0} \mbox{ on } \overline{S M_T}
\end{equation}
which implies \eqref{cma-200} by Lemma 1.2 in \cite{CNS}, where
$\lambda' [U] = (\lambda'_{1}, \ldots, \lambda'_{n-1})$
denote the eigenvalues of the $(n-1) \times (n-1)$ matrix
$\{U_{\alpha \beta}\}_{1 \leq \alpha, \beta \leq (n-1)}$
and $\psi [u] = \psi (\cdot, \cdot, u, \nabla u)$.
For $R > 0$ and a symmetric $(n-1)^2$
matrix $\{r_{\alpha {\beta}}\}$ with $(\lambda' (\{r_{\alpha \beta}\}), R) \in \Gamma$ , define
\[G [r_{\alpha \beta}] \equiv f (\lambda' [\{r_{\alpha \beta}\}], R)\]
and consider
\[m_R \equiv \min_{(x, t) \in \overline{S M_T}}
G [U_{\alpha \beta} (x, t)] - u_{t}(x, t) - \psi [u].\]
Note that $G$ is concave and $m_R$ is increasing in $R$ by \eqref{f1},
and that
\[\begin{aligned}
c_R \equiv \,& \inf_{\overline{S M_T}} (G[\ul U_{\alpha \beta}] - \ul u_t - \psi [\ul u])\\
\geq \,& \inf_{\overline{S M_T}} (G[\ul U_{\alpha \beta}] - F [\underline{U}_{ij}]) > 0
\end{aligned}\]
when $R$ is sufficiently large.
We wish to show $m_R > 0$ for $R$ sufficiently large. Without loss of generality
we assume $m_R < c_R/2$ (otherwise we are done) and
suppose $m_R$ is achieved at a point $(x_{0}, t_{0}) \in \overline{S M_T}$.
Choose local orthonormal frames around $x_0$ as before and assume
$\nabla_{n n} u (x_0, t_0) \geq \nabla_{n n} \ul u (x_0, t_0)$.
Let $\sigma_{\alpha {\beta}} = \langle \nabla_{\alpha} e_{\beta}, e_n \rangle$
and
\[G^{\alpha\beta}_{0} = \frac{\partial G}{\partial r_{\alpha\beta}}
[U_{\alpha\beta} (x_{0},t_{0})].\]
Note that
$\sigma_{\alpha \beta} = \varPi (e_\alpha, e_\beta)$ on $\partial M$
and that
\begin{equation}
\label{pbs-c-200}
G^{\alpha {\beta}}_0 (r_{\alpha {\beta}} - U_{\alpha {\beta}} (x_0, t_0))
\geq G [r_{\alpha {\beta}}] - G [U_{\alpha {\beta}} (x_0, t_0)]
\end{equation}
for any symmetric matrix $\{r_{\alpha \beta}\}$ with $(\lambda' [\{r_{\alpha \beta}\}], R) \in \Gamma$
by the concavity of $G$.
In particular, since $u_t = \ul u_t = \varphi_t$ on $\overline{SM_T}$, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{pbs-c-210}
\begin{aligned}
G^{\alpha {\beta}}_0 U_{\alpha {\beta}} - \psi [u] - \varphi_t
\,& - G^{\alpha {\beta}}_0 U_{\alpha {\beta}} (x_0, t_0) + \psi [u] (x_0, t_0) + u_t (x_0, t_0)\\
\geq \,& G [U_{\alpha {\beta}}] - \psi [u] - u_t - m_R \geq 0
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
on $\overline{SM_T}$.
From \eqref{hess-a200} we see that
\begin{equation}
\label{pbs-c-220}
U_{\alpha {\beta}} = \ul{U}_{\alpha {\beta}}
- \nabla_n (u - \ul{u}) \sigma_{\alpha {\beta}}
+ A^{\alpha \beta}[u] - A^{\alpha \beta}[\ul u] \mbox{ on $\ol{SM_T}$}.
\end{equation}
Note that at $(x_0, t_0)$, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{pbs-c-225}
\begin{aligned}
\nabla_n (u - \ul{u}) G^{\alpha \beta}_0 \sigma_{\alpha {\beta}}
= \,& G^{\alpha {\beta}}_0 (\ul{U}_{\alpha \beta} - U_{\alpha \beta})
+ G^{\alpha {\beta}}_0 (A^{\alpha \beta}[u] - A^{\alpha \beta}[\ul u]) \\
\geq \,& G[\ul{U}_{\alpha {\beta}}] - G[U_{\alpha {\beta}}]
+ G^{\alpha {\beta}}_0 (A^{\alpha \beta}[u] - A^{\alpha \beta}[\ul u]) \\
= \,& G[\ul{U}_{\alpha {\beta}}] - \psi [u] - u_t - m_R
+ G^{\alpha {\beta}}_0 (A^{\alpha \beta}[u] - A^{\alpha \beta}[\ul u]) \\
\geq \,& c_R - m_R + \psi [\ul u] + \ul u_t - \psi [u] - u_t\\
& + G^{\alpha {\beta}}_0 (A^{\alpha \beta}[u] - A^{\alpha \beta}[\ul u]) \\
\geq \,& \frac{c_R}{2} + H [u] - H[\ul u]
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $H [u] = G^{\alpha {\beta}}_0 A^{\alpha \beta} [u] - \psi [u]$.
Define
\[ \varPhi = - \eta \nabla_n (u - \ul u) + H [u] - \varphi_t + Q \]
where $\eta = G^{\alpha {\beta}}_0 \sigma_{\alpha {\beta}}$ and
\[ Q \equiv G^{\alpha {\beta}}_0 \nabla_{\alpha {\beta}} \ul u
- G^{\alpha {\beta}}_0 U_{\alpha {\beta}} (x_0, t_0) + \psi [u] (x_0, t_0) + u_t (x_0, t_0). \]
By virtue of \eqref{pbs-c-210} and \eqref{pbs-c-220} we see that
$\varPhi \geq 0$ on $\overline{S M_T}$ and $\varPhi (x_0, t_0) = 0$.
Next, by \eqref{eq3-1} and \eqref{A2},
\[ \begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L} H \leq \,& H_z [u] \mathcal{L} u
+ H_{p_k} [u] \mathcal{L} \nabla_k u
+ F^{ij} H_{p_k p_l} [u] \nabla_{ki} u \nabla_{lj} u\\
& + C (\sum F^{ii} + \sum f_i |\lambda_i| + 1) \\
\leq \,& C (\sum F^{ii} + \sum f_i |\lambda_i| + 1) + H_z [u] \mathcal{L} u.
\end{aligned} \]
Since $H_z [u] \geq 0$, by Theorem \ref{barrier}, we have
\[
\mathcal{L} u = \mathcal{L} (u - \ul u) + \mathcal{L} \ul u \leq C (1 + \sum F^{ii}).
\]
It follows that
\[
\mathcal{L} H \leq C (\sum F^{ii} + \sum f_i |\lambda_i| + 1).
\]
Therefore,
\begin{equation}
\label{pbs-gjB360}
\mathcal{L} \varPhi
\leq C (\sum F^{ii} + \sum f_i |\lambda_i| + 1).
\end{equation}
By the compatibility condition\eqref{comp}, we find that
\[
c'_R \equiv \inf_{x \in \bM} G (\nabla_{\alpha \beta} \varphi + A [\varphi]) (x, 0)
- \psi [\varphi] (x, 0) - \varphi_{t} (x, 0) > 0
\]
when $R$ is sufficiently large.
We may assume $m_R < \frac{c'_R}{2}$ (otherwise we are done).
For $x \in \bM$, by the concavity of $G$ again, we have
\[
\begin{aligned}
\varPhi (x, 0) = \,& G_0^{\alpha \beta} (U_{\alpha \beta} (x, 0) - U_{\alpha \beta} (x_0, t_0))\\
& - \psi [u] (x, 0) - \varphi_t (x, 0) + \psi [u] (x_0, t_0) + u_t (x_0, t_0)\\
= \,& G^{\alpha \beta}_0 (\nabla_{\alpha \beta} \varphi + A [\varphi] (x, 0) - U_{\alpha \beta} (x_0, t_0))\\
& - \varphi_t (x, 0) + u_{t}(x_{0},t_{0}) + \psi [u](x_{0}, t_{0}) - \psi [\varphi] (x, 0)\\
\geq \,& G (\nabla_{\alpha \beta} \varphi + A [\varphi]) (x, 0) - G (U_{\alpha\beta} (x_0, t_0))\\
& - \varphi_t (x, 0) + u_{t}(x_{0},t_{0}) + \psi [u](x_{0}, t_{0}) - \psi [\varphi] (x, 0)\\
\geq \,& c'_R - m_R > \frac{c'_R}{2}.
\end{aligned}
\]
It means that $\varPhi > 0$ on $B M_{T}$. Thus,
we get $\varPhi \geq 0$ on $\mathcal{P} M_{\delta}$.
Consider the function $\varPsi$ defined in \eqref{eq3-3} as before.
Similarly, there exist another group of constants $A_1 \gg A_2 \gg A_3 \gg 1$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{pbs-cma-106}
\left\{ \begin{aligned}
& \mathcal{L} (\varPsi + \varPhi) \leq 0 \;\; \mbox{ in $M_{\delta}$}, \\
& \varPsi + \varPhi \geq 0 \;\; \mbox{ on $\mathcal{P} M_{\delta}$}.
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation}
By the maximum principle we find $\varPsi + \varPhi \geq 0$ in $M_{\delta}$.
It follows that $\nabla_n \varPhi (x_0, t_0) \geq - \nabla_n \varPsi (x_0, t_0) \geq -C$.
Following \cite{GJ}, we write $u^s = s u + (1-s) \ul u$ and
\[ H [u^s] = G^{\alpha {\beta}}_0 A^{\alpha \beta} [u^s] - \psi [u^s]. \]
We have
\[ \begin{aligned}
H [u] - H[\ul u]
= \,& \int_0^1 \frac{d H[u^s]}{dt} ds \\
= \,& (u - \ul{u}) \int _0^1 H_z [u^s] ds
+ \sum \nabla_k (u - \ul{u}) \int _0^1 H_{p_k} [u^s] ds.
\end{aligned} \]
Therefore, at $(x_0, t_0)$,
\begin{equation}
\label{c-235}
H [u] - H[\ul u]
= \nabla_n (u - \ul{u}) \int _0^1 H_{p_n} [u^s] ds
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{c-245}
\begin{aligned}
\nabla_n H [u]
= \,& \nabla_n H [\ul u]
+ \sum \nabla_{kn} (u - \ul{u}) \int _0^1 H_{p_k} [u^s] ds \\
\,& + \nabla_n (u-\ul{u}) \int _0^1 (H_z [u^s]
+ H_{x_{n} p_n} [u^s] + H_{z p_n} [u^s] \nabla_n u^s) ds \\
\,& + \nabla_n (u-\ul{u}) \sum \int _0^1 H_{p_n p_l} [u^s] \nabla_{ln} u^s ds \\
\leq \,& \nabla_{nn} (u - \ul{u})
\int _0^1 (H_{p_n} [u^s] + s H_{p_n p_n} [u^s] \nabla_n (u - \ul{u})) ds
+ C \\
\leq \,& \nabla_{nn} (u - \ul{u}) \int _0^1 H_{p_n} [u^s] ds + C
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
since $H_{p_n p_n} \leq 0$, $\nabla_{nn} (u - \ul{u}) \geq 0$
and $\nabla_{n} (u - \ul{u}) \geq 0$.
It follows that
\begin{equation}
\label{c-255}
\begin{aligned}
\nabla_n \varPhi (x_0, t_0)
\leq \,& - \eta (x_0, t_0) \nabla_{nn} (x_0, t_0) + \nabla_n H [u] (x_0, t_0) + C \\
\leq \,& \Big(- \eta (x_0, t_0) + \int _0^1 H_{p_n} [u^s] (x_0, t_0) ds\Big)
\nabla_{nn} u (x_0, t_0) + C.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
By \eqref{pbs-c-225} and \eqref{c-235},
\begin{equation}
\label{c-230}
\eta (x_0, t_0) - \int _0^1 H_{p_n} [u^s] (x_0, t_0) ds
\geq \frac{c_R}{2 \nabla_n (u - \ul{u}) (x_0, t_0)}
\geq \epsilon_1 c_R > 0
\end{equation}
for some uniform $\epsilon_1 > 0$ independent of $R$.
This gives
\begin{equation}
\label{cma-310}
\nabla_{nn} u (x_0, t_0) \leq \frac{C}{\epsilon_1 c_R}.
\end{equation}
So we have an {\em a priori}
upper bound for all eigenvalues of $\{U_{ij} (x_0, t_0)\}$.
Now by \eqref{lbd0}, there exists a constant $\nu_0 > 0$ such that
\[
\inf_{(x, t) \in \ol{SM_T}} \varphi_t (x, t) + \psi (x, t, u, \nabla u) \geq \nu_0.
\]
It follows that
$\lambda [\{U_{ij} (x_0, t_0)\}]$ is contained in a compact
subset of $\Gamma$ by \eqref{f5},
and therefore
\[ m_R = G [U_{\alpha \beta} (x_0, t_0)] - u_{t}(x_0, t_0) - \psi [u] (x_0, t_0) > 0 \]
when $R$ is sufficiently large.
Then \eqref{pbs-bs9} is valid and the proof of \eqref{hess-a10b} is completed.
\section{Gradient estimates}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
In this section we establish the gradient estimates to prove Theorem~\ref{p-th0}-\ref{jsui-th2} below.
Throughout the section,
we assume \eqref{f1}-\eqref{f2}, \eqref{A2}
and the following growth conditions hold
\begin{equation}
\label{A1-parabolic}
\left\{ \begin{aligned}
& p \cdot \nabla_x A^{\xi \xi} (x, t, z, p)
\leq \bar{\psi}_1 (x, t, z) |\xi|^2 (1 + |p|^{\gamma_1}) \\
& p \cdot \nabla_x \psi (x, t, z, p) + |p|^2 \psi_z (x, t, z, p)
\geq - \bar{\psi}_2 (x, t, z) (1 + |p|^{\gamma_2})
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation}
for some functions $\bar{\psi}_1, \bar{\psi}_2 \geq 0$ and constants
$\gamma_1, \gamma_2 > 0$.
Since the proofs of Theorem~\ref{p-th0}-\ref{jsui-th2} are similar
to those of Theorem 6.1-6.3 in \cite{GJ}, we only provide a sketch here.
For more details we refer the reader to \cite{GJ} where the elliptic
Hessian equations are treated.
\begin{theorem}
\label{p-th0}
Let $u \in C^3 (\bM_T)$ be an
admissible solution of (\ref{eqn}).
Assume, in addition, that
\begin{equation}
\label{gj-I105}
\lim_{\sigma \rightarrow \infty} f (\sigma {\bf 1}) = + \infty
\end{equation}
where ${\bf 1}= (1, \ldots, 1) \in \bfR^n$ and
there exists a constant $c_0 > 0$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{A3}
A^{\xi \xi}_{p_k p_l} (x,t,p) \eta_k \eta_l \leq - c_0 |\xi|^{2} |\eta|^{2}
+ c_0 |g (\xi, \eta)|^2, \;
\forall \, \xi, \eta \in T_x M.
\end{equation}
Suppose that $\gamma_1 < 4$, $\gamma_2 = 2$
in \eqref{A1-parabolic},
and that there is an admissible function $\ul u \in C^2 (\bM_T)$.
Then
\begin{equation}
\label{3I-R60}
\max_{\bM_T} |\nabla u|
\leq C_3 \big(1 + \max_{\mathcal{P} M_T} |\nabla u|\big)
\end{equation}
where $C_3$ is a positive constant depending on $|u|_{C^0 (\bM_T)}$ and $|\ul u|_{C^1_x (\bM_T)}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $w = |\nabla u|$ and $\phi$ a positive function to be determined.
Suppose the function $w \phi^{-a}$
achieves a positive maximum at an interior point $(x_0, t_0) \in M_T - \mathcal{P} M_T$
where $a < 1$ is a positive constant.
Choose a smooth orthonormal local frame $e_1, \ldots, e_n$
about $x_0$ such that $\nabla_{e_i} e_j = 0$ at $x_0$
and $\{U_{ij} (x_0, t_0)\}$ is diagonal.
The function $\log w - a \log \phi$ attains its maximum
at $(x_0, t_0)$ where for $i = 1, \ldots, n$,
\begin{equation}
\label{g1-p}
\frac{\nabla_i w}{w} - \frac{a \nabla_i \phi}{\phi} = 0,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{g1-p'}
\frac{w_t}{w} - \frac{a \phi_t}{\phi} \geq 0
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{g2-p}
\frac{\nabla_{ii} w}{w} + \frac{(a - a^2) |\nabla_{i} \phi|^2}{\phi^2}
- \frac{a \nabla_{ii} \phi}{\phi} \leq 0.
\end{equation}
Note that
\[ w \nabla_i w = \nabla_{l} u \nabla_{il} u, \ w w_t = \nabla_l u (\nabla_l u)_t. \]
By (\ref{hess-A70}), (\ref{g1-p}) and \eqref{gs1},
\begin{equation}
\label{g3-p}
\begin{aligned}
w \nabla_{ii} w
= \,& \nabla_{l} u \nabla_{iil} u + \nabla_{il} u \nabla_{il} u
- \nabla_i w \nabla_i w \\
= \,& (\nabla_{lii}u+ R^{k}_{iil} \nabla_{k} u) \nabla_{l} u
+ \Big(\delta_{kl} - \frac{\nabla_{k} u \nabla_{l} u}{w^2} \Big)
\nabla_{ik} u \nabla_{il} u \\
\geq \,& (\nabla_l U_{ii} - A^{ii}_{p_k} \nabla_{lk} u - A^{ii}_{x_l}) \nabla_l u
- C |\nabla u|^2\\
= \,& \nabla_{l} u \nabla_l U_{ii} - \frac{a w^2}{\phi} A^{ii}_{p_{k}} \nabla_{k} \phi
- \nabla_l u A^{ii}_{x_l} - C w^2.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
By \eqref{gs1}, \eqref{g1-p} and \eqref{g1-p'},
\begin{equation}
\label{p-g11'}
\begin{aligned}
F^{ii} \nabla_{l} u \nabla_l U_{ii}
= \,& \nabla_{l} u \psi_{x_l} + \psi_u |\nabla u|^2
+ \psi_{p_k} \nabla_{l} u \nabla_{lk} u + \nabla_l u \nabla_l u_t\\
\geq \,& \nabla_{l} u \psi_{x_l} + \psi_u |\nabla u|^2
+ \frac{a w^2}{\phi} \psi_{p_k} \nabla_k \phi + \frac{a w^2}{\phi} \phi_t.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Let
$\phi = (u - \ul u) + b > 0$, where $b = 1 + \sup_{M_T} (\ul u - u)$.
By \eqref{A3} we have
\begin{equation}
\label{g3.5}
\begin{aligned}
- A^{ii}_{p_{k}} \nabla_{k} \phi
= \,& A^{ii}_{p_{k}} (x, t, \nabla u) \nabla_{k} (\ul u - u) \\
\geq \,& A^{ii} (x, t, \nabla \ul{u}) - A^{ii} (x, t, \nabla u)
+ \frac{c_0}{2} (|\nabla \phi|^2 - |\nabla_i \phi|^2).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
We may assume that $c_0$ is sufficiently small and that
\[\frac{2 a - 2 a^2 - c_0 a \phi}{2 \phi^2} > 0\]
by choosing $a$ sufficiently small.
Thus, by (\ref{g2-p}), \eqref{g3-p}, \eqref{p-g11'} and \eqref{g3.5}, we find
\begin{equation}
\label{g10-p}
\begin{aligned}
0 \geq \,& \frac{a}{\phi} F^{ii} (\ul U_{ii} - U_{ii})
+ \frac{a c_0 |\nabla \phi|^2}{2 \phi} \sum F^{ii}
+ \frac{2a - 2a^2 - c_0 a \phi}{2 \phi^2} F^{ii} |\nabla_{i} \phi|^2\\
& - \frac{1}{w^2} F^{ii} A^{ii}_{x_l} \nabla_{l} u
+ \frac{1}{w^2} \psi_{x_l} \nabla_{l} u + \psi_u + \frac{a}{\phi} \psi_{p_k} \nabla_k \phi
+ \frac{a}{\phi} \phi_t - C \sum F^{ii}\\
\geq \,& \frac{a}{\phi} F^{ii} (\ul U_{ii} - U_{ii})
+ \frac{a c_0 |\nabla \phi|^2}{2\phi} \sum F^{ii} - C \sum F^{ii}\\
& + \frac{a}{\phi} (\psi (x, t, u, \nabla u) - \psi (x, t, u, \nabla \ul u))\\
& - \frac{1}{w^2} F^{ii} A^{ii}_{x_l} \nabla_{l} u
+ \frac{1}{w^2} \psi_{x_l} \nabla_{l} u + \psi_u
+ \frac{a}{\phi} (u - \ul u)_t
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Choose $B > 0$ sufficiently large such that (see \cite{GJ})
\[ F (2 B g + \ul U) \geq F (B g) \;\; \mbox{in $\bM_T$}. \]
Therefore, by the concavity of $F$,
\begin{equation}
\label{g12}
\begin{aligned}
F^{ii} (\ul{U}_{ii}- U_{ii})
& \geq F (2 B g + \ul U) - F (U) - 2 B \sum F^{ii}\\
& \geq F (Bg) - 2 B \sum F^{ii} - \psi (x, t, u, \nabla u) - u_t.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
It follows from \eqref{A1-parabolic}, \eqref{gj-I105}, \eqref{g10-p} and \eqref{g12} that
\begin{equation}
\label{g10-p'}
\begin{aligned}
0 \geq \,& \frac{a}{\phi} F (Bg) - C - (C + 2B) \sum F^{ii}
+ \frac{a c_0 |\nabla \phi|^2}{2\phi} \sum F^{ii} \\
& - \frac{1}{w^2} F^{ii} A^{ii}_{x_l} \nabla_{l} u
+ \frac{1}{w^2} \psi_{x_l} \nabla_{l} u + \psi_u\\
\geq \,& (\frac{a c_0 |\nabla \phi|^2}{2\phi} - 3 B - C |\nabla u|^{\gamma_1 - 2})\sum F^{ii}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
provided $B$ is chosen sufficiently large. Thus, we get a bound $|\nabla u (x_0, t_0)| \leq C$
and so the proof of Theorem \ref{p-th0} is completed.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}
\label{p-th1a}
Let $u \in C^3 (\bM_T)$ be an
admissible solution of (\ref{eqn}) with $u \geq \ul u$ in $M_T$.
Assume, in addition, that \eqref{sub},
\eqref{A4} and \eqref{A1-parabolic} hold for $\gamma_1, \gamma_2 < 2$
in \eqref{A1-parabolic} and that
$(M^n, g)$ has nonnegative sectional curvature.
Then \eqref{3I-R60} holds.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Since $(M^n, g)$ has nonnegative sectional curvature, in orthonormal local
frame,
\[ R^{k}_{iil} \nabla_{k} u \nabla_{l} u \geq 0. \]
In the proof of Theorem \ref{p-th0}, similar to \eqref{g3-p}, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{g3-p-1}
\begin{aligned}
w \nabla_{ii} w
\geq \nabla_{l} u \nabla_l U_{ii} - \frac{a w^2}{\phi} A^{ii}_{p_{k}} \nabla_{k} \phi
- \nabla_l u A^{ii}_{x_l}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
It follows from \eqref{sub-bar}, \eqref{A1-parabolic}, \eqref{g2-p}, \eqref{p-g11'} and \eqref{g3-p-1} that
\begin{equation}
\label{g10-p-1}
\begin{aligned}
0 \geq \,& \frac{a}{\phi} \mathcal{L} (\ul u - u) + \frac{1}{w^2} \nabla_{l} u \psi_{x_l}
+ \psi_u - \frac{\nabla_{l} u}{w^2} F^{ii} A^{ii}_{x_l}
+ \frac{a - a^2}{\phi^2} F^{ii} |\nabla_{i} \phi|^2\\
\geq \,& \frac{a}{\phi} \theta (1 + \sum F^{ii}) - C |\nabla u|^{\gamma_1 - 2} \sum F^{ii}
- C |\nabla u|^{\gamma_2 - 2} + \frac{a - a^2}{\phi^2} F^{ii} |\nabla_{i} \phi|^2
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
provided $|\nabla u|$ is sufficiently large. Choosing $a$ sufficiently small, we can obtain
a bound $|\nabla u (x_0, t_0)| \leq C$ and \eqref{3I-R60} holds.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}
\label{jsui-th2}
Let $u \in C^3 (\bM_T)$ be an
admissible solution of (\ref{eqn}) in $M_T$. Assume, in addition, that
\eqref{A1-parabolic} hold for $\gamma_1, \gamma_2 < 4$,
\begin{equation}
\label{f4}
f \mbox{ is homogeneous of degree one, }
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{f6}
f_j (\lambda) \geq \nu_1 \Big(1 + \sum f_{i} (\lambda)\Big) \mbox{ for any }
\lambda \in \Gamma \mbox{ with } \lambda_j < 0,
\end{equation}
where $\nu_1$ is a uniform positive constant
and there exist a continuous function $\bar{\psi} \geq 0$ and a positive constant
$\gamma < 2$ such that when $|p|$ is sufficiently large,
\begin{equation}
\label{p-A5}
p \cdot D_p \psi (x, t, z, p),
\; - p \cdot D_p A^{\xi \xi} (x, t, z, p)/|\xi|^2
\leq \bar{\psi}(x, t, z) (1 + |p|^{\gamma}),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{p-A500}
- \psi (x, t, z, p) \leq \bar{\psi}(x, t, z) (1 + |p|^{\gamma}),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{p-G20**}
|A^{\xi \eta} (x, t, z, p)|
\leq \bar{\psi} (x, t, z) |\xi||\eta| (1 + |p|^{\gamma}),
\;\; \forall \, \xi, \eta \in T_x \bM; \xi \perp \eta.
\end{equation}
Then \eqref{3I-R60} holds.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
In the proof of Theorem \ref{p-th0}, we take
$\phi = - u + \sup_{M_T} u + 1$.
By the concavity of $A^{ii}$ with respect to $p$,
\begin{equation}
\label{p-G20}
A^{ii} = A^{ii} (x, t, \nabla u)
\leq A^{ii} (x, t, 0) + A^{ii}_{p_k} (x, t, 0) \nabla_k u
\end{equation}
Thus, from \eqref{f4}, \eqref{p-A500} and \eqref{p-G20}, we find
\begin{equation}
\label{p-g17}
\begin{aligned}
- F^{ii} \nabla_{ii} \phi = F^{ii} \nabla_{ii} u = F^{ii} U_{ii} - \,& F^{ii} A^{ii}
= u_t + \psi - F^{ii} A^{ii}\\
\geq \,& u_t + \psi - C (1 + |\nabla u|) \sum F^{ii}\\
\geq \,& u_t - C (1 + |\nabla u|) \sum F^{ii} - C |\nabla u|^{\gamma}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
By virtue of \eqref{g2-p}, \eqref{g3-p}, \eqref{p-g11'}, \eqref{A1-parabolic},
\eqref{p-A5} and \eqref{p-g17}, we see that for $a < 1$,
\begin{equation}
\label{g18-p}
\begin{aligned}
0 \geq & \frac{(a - a^2)}{\phi^2} F^{ii} |\nabla_{i} u|^2
+ \frac{\nabla_{l} u \psi_{x_l}}{w^2} + \psi_u
- \frac{a}{\phi} \psi_{p_k} \nabla_k u - \frac{a}{\phi} u_t \\
& + \frac{a}{\phi} F^{ii} A^{ii}_{p_{k}} \nabla_{k} u
- F^{ii} \frac{\nabla_l u A^{ii}_{x_l}}{w^2}
+ \frac{a}{\phi} u_t\\
& - C |\nabla u|^{\gamma} - C (1 + |\nabla u|)\sum F^{ii} \\
\geq & c_1 F^{ii} |\nabla_{i} u|^2 - C (|\nabla u|^{\gamma_2 - 2} + |\nabla u|^\gamma)\\
& - C(1 + |\nabla u| + |\nabla u|^{\gamma_1 - 2} + |\nabla u|^\gamma) \sum F^{ii}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
provided $|\nabla u|$ is sufficiently large.
Without loss of generality we assume
$\nabla_{1} u (x_{0}, t_0) \geq \frac{1}{n} |\nabla u (x_{0}, t_0)| > 0$.
Recall that $U_{ij} (x_0, t_0)$ is diagonal. By \eqref{g1-p}, \eqref{p-G20} and
\eqref{p-G20**}, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{p-G30}
\begin{aligned}
U_{11} = \,& - \frac{a}{\phi} |\nabla u|^2 + A^{11}
+ \frac{1}{\nabla_1 u} \sum_{k \geq 2} \nabla_k u A^{1k}\\
\leq \,& - \frac{a}{\phi} |\nabla u|^2
+ C (1 + |\nabla u| + |\nabla u|^{\gamma-2}) < 0
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
provided $|\nabla u|$ is sufficiently large. Therefore, by \eqref{f4},
\[ f_{1} \geq \nu_{0} \Big(1 + \sum^n_{i = 1} f_{i}\Big) \]
and a bound $|\nabla u (x_0, t_0)| \leq C$ follows from \eqref{g18-p}.
\end{proof}
{\bf Acknowledgement.}
This is an improvement of part of my thesis. I wish to thank my adviser
Professor Bo Guan for leading me to this problem and many useful suggestions
and comments.
|
\section{Introduction}
\IEEEPARstart{O}{ver} the past decades, the amount of audio data in our sonic environment have considerably grown. Recent research fields such as eco-acoustics \cite{ECOACOUSTICS2014, krause} start to massively record environmental sounds around the world in order to measure potential animal biodiversity modification over large temporal scales due to human activity or climate change \cite{NessSST13, stowell13a, stowell13b}. Other research fields focus on human activities for context inference and surveillance \cite{heittola13,1540194,Heittola2013,park14}.
If research on Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) \cite{Rabiner93} and Music Information Retrieval (MIR) \cite{Muller07} are now well established, research addressing automatic analysis of complex environmental acoustic scenes remains relatively young. In particular, those open research avenues suggest a large range of experimentation in order to 1) gain knowledge about the important characteristics of those acoustic scenes and how they can be modeled, 2) propose new algorithmic approaches to contribute to the above cited applications area: eco-acoustics and urban sensing. Being relatively new research fields, only few data sets are available, though this number may grow as the interest of scientific and engineering communities for such tasks increases, see \cite{Giannoulis:2013a} and \cite{salamon14} for research effort in human environments related tasks.
This paper focuses on building an evaluation framework for the task of detecting events of interest in acoustic scenes using simulated data. It builds upon the IEEE AASP Challenge on Detection and Classification of Acoustic Scenes and Events (DCASE), which was organised by the Centre for Digital Music of Queen Mary University of London and by the Institute for Research and Coordination in Acoustics/Music (IRCAM), under the auspices of the Audio and Acoustic Signal Processing (AASP) technical committee of the IEEE Signal Processing Society in 2013 \cite{giannoulis2013detection}. The DCASE Challenge is the second challenge dedicated to this task after the CLEAR Challenge \cite{clear}.
During the formal definition of the event detection task of this challenge, besides important questions about evaluation metrics, an interest rose about the potential benefit of considering simulated data to enlarge the scope of evaluation of the submitted systems. Varying the power level of the background, the density of the events, their intra class diversity, all seemed important aspects to would be desirable to study though costly to tackle with recorded and annotated data. To this end, a simulation protocol was needed, which would be based on a morphological model of environmental acoustic scenes. As discussed in details in Section \ref{sec:discussion}, we acknowledge that the use of simulated data shall not be considered as sufficient for the final evaluation of engineering systems. That being said, the above described potential benefits are still sufficient to justify pursuing that avenue of research.
The aim of the morphological model proposed in this paper is to generate acoustic scenes as a ``\,skeleton of events on a bed of texture\,''
\cite{nelken_ear_2013}. As the final use of the simulated scenes are to be analyzed by event recognizers trained on recorded data, one shall minimize both the discrepancy between the simulated scenes and recorded ones and its potential impact. Thus, we do not consider approaches based on actual synthesis of sounds. It thus departs significantly from models used in research fields such as wave field synthesis \cite{wavefield}, binaural or spatial scene synthesis \cite{1315647}, acoustic event synthesis \cite{verron20103} and texture synthesis \cite{schwarz2011state, mcdermott_sound_2011,turner2008modeling}.
The proposed model is based on several sequences of sound events issued from the same source, where each sound event is drawn from a collection of carefully chosen sound samples. The morphological aspects of the scene, \textit{i.e.} which sound sample is played at what time and which level, are then modeled in an abstract manner, allowing us to control high level properties of the scene. The contribution of this paper is threefold: 1) propose a computational model for the generation of simulated data sets, 2) motivate important morphological aspects of the model based on perceptual considerations, and 3) consider this simulation paradigm to gain knowledge about the behavior of several event detection systems developed by different research teams worldwide initially submitted to the DCASE challenge \cite{Giannoulis:2013a}.
To this end, Section~\ref{sec:soundcollection} motivates some design choices, and details the structure of the so called ``\,sound collections\,'', that is, the input data of the simulation process. Section~\ref{sec:model} presents the proposed model of acoustic scenes which underlines the simulation process. Sections~\ref{sec:corpussimulation} and \ref{sec:experiments} present the evaluation framework for event detection systems using simulated acoustic scenes. Then, the use of simulated data to evaluate detection algorithms is discussed in Section~\ref{sec:discussion}.
\section{The notion of sound collection}
\label{sec:soundcollection}
\subsection{Auditory scene as a sum of sound sources}
\label{sec:asa}
As a simulation process couldn't practically deal with each acoustic event that may occur in an acoustic scene separately, the proposed model adopts a ``\,source-driven\,'' approach by considering an acoustic scene as a sum of sound sources. This approach is consistent with the way humans perceive their sonic environment. Studies addressing the Auditory Scenes Analysis (ASA)\cite{bregman1994auditory} problem, and more specifically the sound segregation process\cite{snyder2007toward}\cite{ciocca2007auditory}\cite{carlyon2004brain}\cite{ballas1987interpreting}, show that humans make sense from their sonic world by isolating information related to individual sound sources. Considering a bottom-up approach, the segregation process relies on generic rules involving Gestalt-like principles \cite{ballas1987interpreting} to group sounds with similar acoustic indicators (common onset, spectral regularity and harmonicity), as well as similar perceptual attributes (timbre, loudness, perceived location and pitch) into perceptual entities called ``\,auditory streams\,''. Recently, several neurophysiological studies have shown evidence of the existence of auditory streams\cite{nelken2008neurons}.
Besides ASA studies which mostly consider pure tones or simple complex sounds \cite{ciocca2007auditory}, more recent studies adopting a psycho-linguistic approach to describe recorded sounds, have also demonstrated the existence of top-down source-driven grouping processes involved in sound perception. Investigating the qualitative evaluation of urban acoustic scenes using categorization tasks and linguistic analysis, studies of Dubois and colleagues \cite{dubois2006cognitive}\cite{raimbault_urban_2005} have shown that listeners categorize sound environments on the basis of semantic features, that is the meaning attributed to the recalled sound sources.
Considering both the ASA and the psycho-linguistic approach, it seems intuitive for the simulation process to consider separately the sound activity of each sound source of the scene. In practical terms, to materialize these sound activities, each sound source has to be related to a collection of sound recordings. But this approach introduces fundamental questions about the very nature of such a collection. It first questions the existence of a standardized taxonomy of sounds. Such taxonomy must be a hierarchical classification system putting together sounds according to their shared characteristics. Each group must be labeled in a way that a specific name may describe its corresponding class, an instance of it, but also at which level of the classification it fits. Unfortunately, if such systems exist for plants, animals or colors, it is not the case for sounds\cite{niessen_categories_2010}. Main reasons are:
\begin{itemize}
\item Sound description and identification are highly subjective. In other words, a same sound may be described quite differently according to the subject. This is due to the relative lack of basic lexicalized terms to describe acoustic phenomena \cite{guastavino_ideal_2006}
\item Sound description and identification are highly context dependent, that is, sound source identification depends on the nature of the other co-occurring sound sources \cite{gygi2011incongruency, ballas1987interpreting, niessen2008disambiguating}
\end{itemize}
Even if there is no systematic way to build a sound collection, one may take into account some perceptual considerations to guarantee a certain level of ecological validity. Those considerations are addressed in the next sections.
\subsection{Action and Sources}
\label{sec:as}
Event detection tasks evaluate if an algorithm is able to detect a specific set of sound classes. Ideally, to prevent from low generalization capability, the training set of a given class shall be consistent, that is, class exemplars should be representative of the diversity of the sounds suggested by the class label that may occur in the real world. In our case, the class exemplars are the recordings of a sound collection.
Some perceptual considerations can be taken into account to guide the collection building process. First, one may look at the way humans classify~/ categorize sounds. As explained by \cite{houix_lexical_2012}, ``\,Categorization is a cognitive process that unites different entities of an equivalent status\,''. Among other categorization strategies, several studies show that humans categorize sounds according to 1) the type of source (agent, object, functions) and~/ or 2) the action~/ movement causing the sounds \cite{guyot1997, gygi2007similarity, marcell2000confrontation, vanderveer1997, ballas1987interpreting, dubois2006cognitive}.
Human categorization occurs at several levels. Rosch \cite{rosch1978cognition} proposed three levels of categorization for real-world objects namely superordinate, basic, and subordinate. The higher the level, the higher is the abstraction degree of the categories. Considering sound perception, Guyot et al. \cite{guyot1997} proposed a framework where listeners identified sound categories of abstract concepts at a supeordinate level (noise generated be a mechanical excitation), action at the basic level (grating, scratching, rubbing) and
source at the subordinate level (Dishes, Pen sharpening, Door). Although Houix et al. \cite{houix_lexical_2012} found some differences by showing that sounds seem ``\,to be categorized as sound sources first and only second as actions\,'', it appears that source and action are adequate verbal descriptors for category.
One way to make a sound collection consistent is to consider low-level categories as the intra-category diversity decreases with the level. Considering that, one may label a sound collection using a couple ``\,source-action\,'' (\textit{passing-car}), or at least one of the two, in order to minimize the expected diversity of its recordings. Any name referring to higher category levels may lead to sound collections comprising a too large variety of objects. Such definition of collection then raise two issues:
\begin{itemize}
\item building such collections would suppose the availability of a large number of recorded sounds to be representative of the diversity suggested by the collection label;
\item adopting a data-centered approach, such collections may lead to a misinterpretation of the results of a detection task for someone who did not build them, as the nature of the entities suggested by the collection labels are ambiguous (ex: a sound collection of \textit{traffic sounds} vs. a sound collection of \textit{passing-car}).
\end{itemize}
Considering the source-action couple is not sufficient. The experimenters must also choose generic labels for the couple. To do so, one may refer to the work of Gaver \cite{gaver1993world} who proposed a phenomenological taxonomy of everyday sounds, the work of Niessen et al. \cite{niessen_categories_2010} who assessed the consensus of categories mentioned in 166 papers of different research domain using linguistic analysis, and recently, the work of Salamon et al. \cite{salamon14} who built a taxonomy of urban sounds based on the work of Brown et al. \cite{brown_towards_2011}.
This section shows evidence that labeling a class using the source-action nomenclature helps us to reduce the expected intra-class diversity. However, it does not address the issue of inter-class diversity. Indeed, a naive source-driven approach supposes to record in a source-wise way all the sound activities that may occur in an environment. Considering dense environments such as cities or forest, this may raise important practical issues. To circumvent this problem, one may assume that all the sources do not carry the same potential information, and are not required to be recorded separately.
\subsection{Texture vs. Event}
\label{sec:Informativenes}
The human brain may easily distinguish between a voice sound and a background of other competing sounds \cite{carlyon2004brain}. Considering the example of an urban acoustic scene, global traffic hubbub sounds are typically uninformative, compared with closer human sounds \cite{southworth1969sonic}.
Maffiolo \cite{maffiolo_caracterisation_1999} showed the existence of two distinct cognitive processes depending on the listener's ability to identify separate sound events. By asking subjects to categorize recordings of urban environments and using linguistic analysis of the verbal descriptions of the categories, she found two cognitive categories of sound environments called respectively ``\,event sequences\,'' and ``\,amorphous sequences\,''. Event sequences (sound environments in which distinct events or sequences of events can be identified) are processed analytically, that is, based on the meaning of the identified sound sources, whereas amorphous sequences (sound environments in which no event can be isolated) are processed holistically using global acoustical indicators (intensity, spectral content). The distinction observed by Maffiolo was validated by Guastavino \cite{guastavino_ideal_2006}. Using semantic analysis of verbal descriptions of specific sounds populating the urban environment, Guastavino showed that verbal descriptions of low pitched sounds may be divided into two categories called ``\,source events\,'' (sound events which can be attributed to a sound source), and ``\,background noise\,'' (where no identifiable event can be isolated).
What comes out from these studies is that sound perception highly depends on semantic features (source identification), but also on the informativeness of the isolated source. Sound sources that carry information of interest are processed separately, whereas the other are processed together in a single stream.
Based on this notion of informativeness, another common distinction is made between two perceptual objects called ``\,sound events\,'' and ``\,sound textures\,''. Based on previous studies on vision, McDermott and Simoncelli \cite{mcdermott_sound_2011, mcdermott2013summary} showed that the perception of sound textures may derive from simple statistics of early auditory representations. These summary statistics would be sufficient to recognize sounds having some temporal homogeneity.
That said, there are few formal definitions concerning the texture object \cite{schwarz2011state}. The most notable attempt has been made by Saint-Arnaud \cite{saint1995classification} and Saint-Arnaud and Popat \cite{saint1995analysis}. From their experiment, they derived the following properties (quoted from \cite{saint1995classification}): \\
\begin{itemize}
\item \textit{Sound textures are formed of basic sound elements, or atoms;}
\item \textit{atoms occur according to a higher-level pattern, that can be periodic or random, or both;}
\item \textit{the high-level characteristics must remain the same over long time periods (which implies that there can be no complex message);}
\item \textit{the high-level pattern must be completely exposed within a few seconds (``\,attention span\,'');}
\item \textit{high level randomness is also acceptable, as long as there are enough occurrences within the attention span to make a good example of the random properties.} \\
\end{itemize}
Considering these properties, a texture may be understood as a composite object with two hierarchical levels, the top level being the high level pattern, and the leaf level being the atom. The nature of an atom remains adaptable as the latter may be considered at several time scales. Thus and to some extent, texture may be considered as a concatenation of recordings, each of them being a sequence of atoms. In this case, these recordings must comprise at least the high level pattern of the texture, that is, if we consider a texture of `gallop', recordings of atom sequences must be at least composed of the first three sounds of hoofs.
To summarize the previous statements, it appears that all sounds are not processed as a sum of distinct events:\\
\begin{itemize}
\item amorphous sequences that convey low semantic information are processed holistically;
\item sound textures with stable acoustic properties over long period are processed using summary statistics of these acoustics properties.
\end{itemize}
To circumvent the issue of recording a representative number of sound collections to simulate an acoustic scene, one can take into account those considerations, and use recordings of mixed sound sources, provided that they are amorphous sequences or textures. We believe that there exist some links between the notions of amorphous sequences and textures. Both trigger holistic processing based on global acoustical properties for amorphous sequences \cite{maffiolo_caracterisation_1999, dubois2006cognitive} and summary statistics for textures \cite{mcdermott2013summary}, and both convey a low potential information content
\cite{saint1995classification}). Yet, amorphous sequences are described as ``\,background sounds\,'' with no identifiable events, whereas the texture definition comprises sequences of events such as ``\,gallop\,'' that do not meet this last criterion. Considering that, one can consider an amorphous sequence to be a texture, as the physical characteristics of an amorphous sequence remain stable over time, but the reverse is not systematic.
\subsection{Definition of a sound collection}
\label{sec:collection}
From the considerations discussed above, we derive two types of sound collections to be used as basic elements by the simulation process: the ``\,event collections\,'' and the ``\,texture collections\,''. For both collections, a stream is modeled as being a temporal sequence of sound recordings coming for the same sound collection. For the texture collection, each recording is an atom sequence, or more precisely, a sequence of sound events which follow a periodic or a stochastic pattern. The nature of the sequence to be recorded depends on the type of texture considered. For a texture with a periodic pattern such as gallop, recordings are event sequences comprising at least the first three sounds of hooves. And for a texture with a stochastic pattern such as ``\,rain\,'', the recordings are simply samples of rain sounds. This method offers a certain flexibility, as it makes it possible to quickly generate various versions of a same texture with few recorded samples, by varying the apparition order of the
sequence.
Obviously for a texture to be realistic, sequences have to come from the same recording session. Moreover, as the human brain is very sensitive to repetition of identical sounds, even when they are individual chunks of white noise \cite{agus_rapid_2010}, a sequence shall not be concatenated with itself.
To summarize, the proposed source-driven model uses collections as basic element for the simulation process:
\begin{itemize}
\item Each collection is a group a sound recordings.
\item Insofar as possible, the label of the collection should be of the form ``\,source + action\,'' and labels of source and action must be generic.
\item There are two types of collections called respectively the event collections, and the texture collections.
\item Sound recordings of a same event collection come from the same sound source.
\item Sound recordings of a same texture collection are atomic sequences emitted by one or a mixture of sound sources.
\item Sound recordings of a texture collection must at least comprise the high-level pattern of the texture (\textit{e.g.} three sounds of hooves for the gallop texture).
\item A texture built from the concatenation of recordings must convey a low semantic information and~/ or have stable acoustic properties over time.
\end{itemize}
\section{Proposed Model} \label{sec:model}
\subsection{Design choices}
Building on the above discussed matters, the proposed simulation process considers an acoustic scene as a sum of sound sources. Each sound source activity is symbolized as a semantic sound track, which is a sequence of acoustic samples all emitted by the considered sound source (see Figure \ref{fig:controlParameters}). To generate each semantic sound track, the model takes into account a set of four parameters being respectively:
\begin{enumerate}
\item the mean / variance of the Event to Background power Ratio (EBR) between acoustic samples
\item the mean / variance time interval between consecutive onsets of acoustic samples
\item the mean / variance duration between acoustic samples
\item the start / end times of the track
\end{enumerate}
As motivated in Section \ref{sec:Informativenes}, the model distinguishes between sound events and texture. A track of events is made of discrete sound samples, whereas a track of texture consists of one continuous sound, or a concatenation of samples (see Figure \ref{fig:controlParameters}). Thus, for texture track, the mean/variance time interval between samples as well as the variance EBR are set to $0$.
Each semantic track, texture or event, is related to a specific sound collection. As discussed in Section \ref{sec:soundcollection} a sound collection may be seen as a group of similar recordings, each of which comprising sound signals that are emitted by the same sound source. For the purpose of this study, the notion of sound collection greatly overlaps the notion of sound class, as this term is understood when tackling automatic detection tasks.
The resulting simulation model is depicted on Figure \ref{fig:sequencingModel}. First, the experimenter selects a number of sound sources or class to be used, each of which being related to a specific sound collection. Second, the experimenter sets the simulation parameters depending on the nature of the track (event or texture). Those parameters can also be estimated from pre-existing annotated recorded sound scenes. According to those parameters, the simulation process computes the number of samples used in each semantic track. Lastly, samples are randomly drawn from the corresponding sound collection using a discrete uniform distribution.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{sequencingModel3.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:sequencingModel} Schematic of the simulation process.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\def<desired width>{\columnwidth}
\begingroup%
\makeatletter%
\providecommand\color[2][]{%
\errmessage{(Inkscape) Color is used for the text in Inkscape, but the package 'color.sty' is not loaded}%
\renewcommand\color[2][]{}%
}%
\providecommand\transparent[1]{%
\errmessage{(Inkscape) Transparency is used (non-zero) for the text in Inkscape, but the package 'transparent.sty' is not loaded}%
\renewcommand\transparent[1]{}%
}%
\providecommand\rotatebox[2]{#2}%
\ifx<desired width>\undefined%
\setlength{\unitlength}{832.06474609bp}%
\ifx\svgscale\undefined%
\relax%
\else%
\setlength{\unitlength}{\unitlength * \real{\svgscale}}%
\fi%
\else%
\setlength{\unitlength}{<desired width>}%
\fi%
\global\let<desired width>\undefined%
\global\let\svgscale\undefined%
\makeatother%
\begin{picture}(1,0.37539404)%
\put(0,0){\includegraphics[width=\unitlength]{controlParameters2.pdf}}%
\put(0.00575811,0.32512232){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{\tiny event }}}%
\put(0,0.18795398){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{\tiny texture }}}%
\put(0.45764387,0.07194046){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{\footnotesize \textit{time}}}}%
\put(0.07563472,0.12026615){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{\tiny fade In/Out}}}%
\put(0.08172171,0.02294988){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[b]{\smash{\tiny Texture}}}%
\put(0.30597838,0.02294988){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[b]{\smash{\tiny Event
}}}%
\put(0.90093639,0.0226837){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[b]{\smash{\tiny Event and texture}}}%
\put(0.80635234,0.12026615){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{\tiny fade In/Out}}}%
\put(0.40981616,0.33324077){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{\tiny EBR}}}%
\put(0.61450068,0.22251218){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{\tiny time intervals}}}%
\put(0.36263174,0.31999939){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{\scriptsize $\mu^a_{i}$}}}%
\put(0.36533509,0.35639){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{\scriptsize $\sigma^a_{i}$}}}%
\put(0.62814314,0.25892034){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{\tiny $\mu^t_{i}$}}}%
\put(0.70334704,0.25836979){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{\tiny $\sigma^t_{i}$}}}%
\put(0.08285587,0.00359984){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[b]{\smash{\tiny start time}}}%
\put(0.30283388,0.00359984){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[b]{\smash{\tiny start time}}}%
\put(0.89944959,0.00359984){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[b]{\smash{\tiny end times}}}%
\end{picture}%
\endgroup%
\caption{\label{fig:controlParameters} Two semantic sound tracks (event and texture) and their controlling parameters.}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Formal Definition}
\label{Proposed model}
The proposed model is source-driven as it uses as basic elements semantic sound tracks, gathering sounds coming from the same collection of either sound events or sound textures (see Figure~\ref{fig:sequencingModel}). The nature of the recordings depends on the type of collection (event of texture) which is considered. After selecting the classes to be used, the putative recorded samples are sequenced to generate the sound environment. The sequencing process depends on the type of collection. Ideally, the sound collection design has to fulfill some perceptual constraints for the simulation to be ecologically valid, \textit{e.g.} to produce realistic scenes, as described in Section \ref{sec:soundcollection}.
Considering that $s(n)$ is a given acoustic scene composed of $C$ sound classes $c_i$, the proposed model is such that:
\begin{equation}
s(n)=\sum_{i=1}^{C}t_{i}(n)
\end{equation}
Where each $n$ is the time index, $t_i$ is a semantic sound track. For the sake of simplicity, we only detail here the model of an event track, then explain the adaptation of the model to texture tracks.
$t_i$ is defined as a sequence of $n_i$ sound events $e_i^k(n)$ randomly chosen among the $|c_i|$ samples in class $c_i$: for each $k$ in $[1..n_i]$, $e_i^k = c_{i, \mathcal{U}(1, |c_i|)}$, where $\mathcal{U} (x, y)$ represents an uniformly distributed integer random value between $x$ and $y$ included. Each event is scaled by an amplitude factor sampled from a real normal distribution with average $\mu^a_{i}$ and variance $\sigma^a_{i}$. The interval separating the onset times of consecutive samples for track $i$ is, similarly, randomly chosen following a normal distribution with average $\mu^t_{i}$ and variance $\sigma^t_{i}$. Formally, each sequence $t_{i}$ is thus expressed as:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq1}
t_{i}(n)= \sum_{j=1}^{n_i} \mathcal{N}(\mu^a_{i},\sigma^a_{i})c_{i, \mathcal{U} (1, |c_i|)}(n-n^j_i)
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq2}
n_i^j=n_i^{j-1} + \mathcal{N}({\mu^t_{i},\sigma^t_{i}})
\end{equation}
where $n_i^0$ is set to $0$ by convention. The signal of an event is defined in such a way that $e(n)=0$ if $n<0$ or beyond the signal's duration.
In the case of a texture track, two implementation differences must be observed to maintain a perceptually acceptable output: first, signal amplitude is only drawn at random once, and that value is applied to all samples; second, sample start times are not randomized but chosen so that the texture recordings chosen from class $c_i$ will be played back-to-back with sufficient overlap to create an equal-power cross-fade between them, thus generating a continuous, seamless track.
While implementing this model for the generation of acoustical sound scenes, additional treatments and constraints are applied in order to improve perceptual quality. Namely, the fading of the onset and offsets of events and the whole track, and the fact that the same sound sample cannot be sequenced consecutively.
\section{Corpus simulation}
\label{sec:corpussimulation}
This section describes the different corpora of simulated acoustic scenes considered in the experiments described in Section \ref{sec:experiments}. All the scenes are simulated using the DCASE challenge test set annotations for the `Office Live' (OL) task \cite{giannoulis2013detection}. We run the same automatic event detection algorithms used for the DCASE challenge, and compare the results obtained with the simulated scenes to those obtained with the real scenes of the DCASE test set.
The root corpus is the test set considered in the DCASE challenge. It is called ``\,test-QMUL\,''. This corpus is composed of 11 recordings of office live scenes roughly one minute long. Scenes have been recorded in 5 different acoustic environments. The audio events have been divided into 16 sound event classes to be annotated: door knock, door slam, speech, human laughter, clearing throat, coughing, drawer, printer, keyboard click, mouse click, object (specifically pen, pencil or marker) put on table surfaces, switch, keys (put on table), phone ringing, short alert (beep) sound and page turning. Two different annotations coming from two distinct individuals have been used to measure the algorithm performances, thus leaving us with 22 scene-annotator couples. There is no time overlap between events.
Four corpora of simulated scenes are generated as depicted in Figure \ref{fig:databases}. They are respectively called ``\,instance-QMUL\,'', ``\,abstract-QMUL\,'', ``\,instance-IRCCYN\,'' and ``\,abstract-IRCCYN\,''. The labels ``\,IRCCYN\,'' and ``\,QMUL\,'' refer to the two different datasets of event recordings used to generate the corpora which have been recorded in different offices, the ones of Queen Mary University of London (QMUL) for the former and the ones of the Insitute of Research on Communications and Cybernetics of Nantes (IRCCYN). The labels ``\,instance\,'' and ``\,abstract\,'' correspond to two distinct simulation processes.
To generate the two QMUL corpora, we use recordings of audio events that have been extracted from recordings done during the preparation of the DCASE challenge, but unused during the challenge, see \cite{Giannoulis:2013a} for further information on recording conditions. The extracted samples were therefore recorded in the same conditions than the test-QMUL corpus. Depending on the sound class considered, 3 to 23 events per class are extracted. We also use event-free background recordings (texture) coming from the same acoustic environments than those of the test-QMUL corpus. These background recordings are used to generate the background noise (texture) of the instance-QMUL and abstract-QMUL corpora.
The two IRCCYN corpora are generated using new recordings of sound events with respect to the sound classes of the DCASE challenge. All recordings were performed at IRCCYN in a calm environment using the shotgun microphone AT8035 connected to a ZOOM H4n recorder. 20 samples of each class are used to generate the instance-IRCCYN and abstract-IRCCYN corpora, which corresponds to the cardinality of the DCASE challenge train set in terms of event classes \cite{Giannoulis:2013a}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=.44]{databasesTasslp.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:databases} Generation process of the corpora considered in this evaluation. As part of the DCASE challenge, systems were trained on QMUL Train and tested on QMUL Test during the DCASE challenge.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{``\,Instance\,'' simulation process}
\label{sec:instance}
The instance simulation process simulates acoustic scenes with the same temporal structure and Event to Background Ratios (EBRs) than the annotation of the test-QMUL corpus. The EBR of an event of $N$ sample length is obtained by computing the ratio in decibel between the event $E_{rms}$ and the background $B_{rms}$ root means square measures.\\
\begin{equation}
EBR = 20log_{10}\left( \frac{E_{rms}}{B_{rms}} \right)
\end{equation}\\
with
$$X_{rms}=\left({\dfrac{1}{N}\sum\limits_{n=1}^{N}x(n)^{2}}\right)^{1/2}$$
x(n) may be replaced by $e(n)$ and $b(n)$, the sound pressures at sample $n$ of respectively the sound event and the background noise. \\
For each event of each scene-annotator couple of the test-QMUL corpus, the onset-offset times and an approximation of the EBR are considered. As it is not possible to isolate the background under the events, the background level needed to compute the EBR is obtained using a event-free sequence of each real scene. These onsets-offsets and EBR are then used to generate the simulated scenes. For each simulated scene, at each onset of the corresponding annotator-couple scene, we randomly place an audio event belonging to the same audio class. To ensure that samples of recorded audio events are not too long comparing to the annotated ones, recordings are cut off to the annotation length if the recording duration is larger than the annotation duration of at least 0.5 seconds.
Each event has its amplitude scaled to the same EBR than the test-QMUL corpus. Instance simulation process provides us with simulated scenes with temporal structures and sound levels that are close as possible as those of the real corpus test-QMUL.\\
\subsection{``\,Abstract\,'' simulation process}
\label{sec:abstract}
For the abstract simulation process, the goal is to abstract temporal structures and EBRs of the real scenes. To do so, the model described in \ref{Proposed model} is instantiated using estimations of the $\mu^a_{i}$, $\sigma^a_{i}$, $\mu^t_{i}$ and $\sigma^t_{i}$ parameters (see eq. \ref{eq1} and \ref{eq2}). Estimation is done for each annotator-scene couple, using both the sound signals and the annotations of the test-QMUL corpus.
To generate the simulated scenes, EBRs and time intervals between events are respectively obtained from the Normal distributions $\mathcal{N}(\mu^a_{i},\sigma^a_{i})$ and $\mathcal{N}({\mu^t_{i},\sigma^t_{i}})$.
Similarly to the instance simulation process, event recordings are chosen randomly. For practical considerations, the start and termination times of the class sequence (semantic sound track) are the same as the ones of the test-QMUL corpus. To ensure that the recorded samples are not significantly longer compared to the annotation times, the sample duration of a considered sound class $i$ has its duration $D$ thresholded as follows: $D-\mu_i-\sigma_i>5$, with $\mu_i$ and $\sigma_i$ being respectively the average and standard deviation of the duration of the events belonging to the class $i$ in a given annotation. Setting the lower bound to 5 seconds allows us to minimize the impact of such operation on short impulsive sounds.
\section{Experiments} \label{sec:experiments}
\subsection{Evaluation Metric}
The performance of event detection systems can be evaluated following several metrics. In order to improve legibility of the following, we shall retain one evaluation metric that is considered to be the most informative for our study.
Among the four metrics considered in the DCASE Challenge\cite{Giannoulis:2013a}, namely the Acoustic Event Error Rate (AEER) \cite{clear}, the Precision, Recall, and F-measure, the F-measure is selected as the most common and interpretable one.
Another variation is that those metrics can be computed over each frame or on event boundaries. In the latter case, the detection of the onset boundary can be considered solely or together with the offset. As annotating and consequently detecting the duration and the offset of events is notoriously difficult, we focus on the detection of the onset as the main objective. Furthermore, in order to achieve more comparable results across datasets and to ensure that repetitive events do not
dominate the accuracy of an algorithm, the metric shall be class normalized. That is:
\begin{equation}
f = \frac{1}{C} \sum_{i=1}^{C} f_i
\end{equation}
where $f_i$ is the F-measure achieved by the system while detecting event $i$. Thus, by considering the Class-Wise Event onset based F-measure (CWEBF), performance evaluation is more invariant to event duration and distribution. We thus select this metric that was also collectively agreed upon by DCASE participants through the challenge mailing list.
\subsection{Detection systems}
Together with a Baseline system provided by the organizers, 8 detection systems have been evaluated at the DCASE challenge. Those systems roughly follow the processing chain shown on Figure \ref{fig:schematic} with some variety on the implementation of the different nodes. Features are most commonly Mel-Frequency Cepstral Coefficients (MFCC)s \cite{Davis80a} but other sets fo spectral features are also considered, with or without pre-processing such as denoising. The classifier of choice is the 2 layer Hidden Markov Model (HMM) \cite{18626} where the second layer models the transition between events but other classifiers are also considered such as Random Forests (RF), Support Vector Machines (SVM) or Non-negative Matrix Factorization (NMF).
All those algorithmic differences as well as their specific tuning result in specific behaviors that are interesting to evaluate in different testing conditions, especially those which evaluate their generalization capabilities.
\begin{figure*}
\center
\tikzset{
mynode/.style={rectangle,rounded corners,draw=black, top color=white, text centered},
}
\tikz \draw [o->] (0,0) -- (.8\textwidth,0)
node[mynode, pos=0.2] {Pre-processing*}
node[mynode, pos=0.4] {Features}
node[mynode, pos=0.58] {Classification}
node[mynode, pos=0.82] {Post-processing*}
node[pos=0.2, below=10pt] {denoising}
node[pos=0.4, below=10pt] {MFCCs}
node[pos=0.58, below=10pt] {HMM}
node[pos=0.82, below=10pt] {smoothing};
\caption{Schematic of event detection systems (nodes with a * are not systematically used). Below, state-of-the-art design choices are given as examples.}
\label{fig:schematic}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{Summary of submitted event detection systems.}
\label{tbl:EDall}
\vspace{-1.5ex}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|} \hline
\textbf{System} & \textbf{Method} \\ \hline
CPS\hfill \cite{CPS} & Segmentation - Likelihood ratio test classification \\ \hline
DHV \hfill \cite{DHV} & MFCCs (features) - HMMs (detection) \\ \hline
GVV \hfill\cite{GVV} & NMF (detection) - HMMs (postprocessing) \\ \hline
NVM\hfill \cite{NVM} & Hierarchical HMMs + Random Forests (classification) \\ \hline
NR \hfill \cite{NR2} & MFCCs (features) - SVMs (classification) \\ \hline
SCS \hfill\cite{SCS} & Gabor filterbank (features) - HMMs (classification) \\ \hline
VVK \hfill\cite{VVK} & MFCCs (features) - GMMs (detection) \\ \hline
Baseline \hfill\cite{Giannoulis:2013a} & NMF with learned bases (detection) \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\vspace{-3.5ex}
\end{table}
\subsection{Datasets}
Five corpora called respectively test-QMUL (described in Section \ref{sec:corpussimulation}), instance-QMUL, abstract-QMUL, instance-IRCCYN and abstract-IRCCYN are used for the evaluation. This section details the corpus specificities. Figure \ref{fig:databases} illustrates the corpora generation process.
All corpora with the labels ``\,QMUL\,'' or ``\,IRCCYN\,'' are obtained using respectively the QMUL or IRCCYN event datasets (see section \ref{sec:corpussimulation}). Similarly, all corpora with the labels ``\,instance\,'' or ``\,abstract\,'' are obtained using respectively the instance or abstract simulation process (see Sections~\ref{sec:instance} and \ref{sec:abstract} resp.).
The instance-QMUL corpus is composed of 4 sub-corpora called respectively ``\,insQ-EBR\_6\,'', ``\,insQ-EBR\_0\,'', ``\,insQ-EBR\_-6\,'' and ``\,insQ-EBR\_-12\,''. For theinsQ-EBR\_0 sub-corpus, EBRs of test-QMUL scenes are preserved. To measure the impact of different EBRs on the algorithm performances, we generate three other sub-corpora (insQ-EBR\_6, insQ-EBR\_-6 and insQ-EBR\_--12) by adding three offsets, one for each sub-corpora, to the EBRs of the test-QMUL scenes. The offsets are of $+6$dB, $-6$dB and $-12$dB.
For all the sub-corpora of the instance-QMUL corpus (insQ-EBR\_6, insQ-EBR\_0, insQ-EBR\_-6 and insQ-EBR\_-12) as well as the other corpora (abstract-QMUL, instance-IRCCYN, abstract-IRCCYN), each scene is simulated 10 times, each time using different recording instances. Each of these corpora~/ sub-corpora is composed of 220 simulated scenes ($22*10$) corresponding to the 22 scene-annotator couples of the test-Q scenes replicated 10 times.
\subsection{Results on QMUL datasets}
Granted with permission of the authors of the submitted systems, we ran the above described systems on the simulated datasets on the same computing servers as the ones used for the challenge with the same computing environment. Also, a rerun of the systems over the QMUL Test set has been done in order to ensure replication of the published results.
Table \ref{tab:qmul} shows the class-wise event based F-measure in percent achieved by the evaluated systems over the QMUL Test set and the simulated sets QMUL Instance and QMUL Abstract. The baseline, CPS, GVV and SCS systems performed equivalently across the 2 datasets. The DHV system performed better, but not by a significant margin. The VVK, NVM, and NR2 systems have their performance decreased, by a significant margin for the latter two. The CPS system submitted to the DCASE Challenge had an implementation issue that prevent it to run correctly at the time of the challenge, giving poor results that are consistently replicated over the simulated datasets. For this reason, the CPS system will not be discussed further in the remaining of the paper. Leaving aside the NR2 and NVM systems, the ranking of the systems are same for the 3 datasets. This result comfort us with the use of such simulation scheme to replicate and extend evaluation results achieved on recorded and annotated datasets.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
dataset & testQ & insQ & absQ \\
\hline
Baseline & \textbf{ 9.0$\pm$4.8} & \textbf{10.5$\pm$3.0$^*$} & \textbf{ 9.9$\pm$3.5} \\
CPS & \textbf{0.7$\pm$0.8} & \textbf{0.8$\pm$1.3} & \textbf{0.8$\pm$1.4$^*$} \\
DHV & \textbf{30.7$\pm$8.4} & \textbf{34.5$\pm$7.5$^*$} & \textbf{34.0$\pm$7.9} \\
GVV & \textbf{13.2$\pm$8.0} & \textbf{15.0$\pm$6.4$^*$} & \textbf{14.6$\pm$6.2} \\
NR & \textbf{21.5$\pm$6.5$^*$} & 6.8$\pm$5.7 & 7.4$\pm$5.8 \\
NVM & \textbf{28.2$\pm$5.9$^*$} & 9.7$\pm$9.6 & 10.8$\pm$9.9 \\
SCS2 & \textbf{41.5$\pm$7.6$^*$} & \textbf{39.3$\pm$8.2} & \textbf{39.4$\pm$8.2} \\
VVK & \textbf{24.6$\pm$6.8$^*$} & \textbf{19.7$\pm$8.7} & \textbf{19.2$\pm$9.2} \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Results of the evaluated systems on the QMUL datasets. Results in bold are equivalent per row(paired t-test at 0.05 significance level) to the best performance per row (depicted with a $^*$).}
\label{tab:qmul}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{cllllll}
System & testQ & insQ & absQ \\
\hline
Baseline & 3.14 (drawer) & 8.63 (drawer) & 7.40 (drawer) \\
CPS & 2.66 (knock) & 9.04 (doorslam) & 7.84 (doorslam) \\
DHV & 8.44 (drawer) & 6.88 (drawer) & 8.01 (keyboard) \\
GVV & 3.08 (pageturn) & 3.78 (pageturn) & 3.55 (pageturn) \\
NR & 4.33 (keyboard) & \textbf{25.35} (doorslam) & \textbf{20.68 } (doorslam) \\
NVM & 1.26 (laughter) & \textbf{22.48} (cough) & \textbf{19.22 } (cough) \\
SCS & 1.18 (alert) & 2.70 (drawer) & 1.72 (doorslam) \\
VVK & 1.81 (alert) & 8.73 (doorslam) & 8.20 (doorslam) \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Maximal number of false positive averaged over scenes and corresponding event.}
\label{tab:fp}
\end{table}
We shall now investigate further the reasons explaining the behavior of the NVM and NR2 systems. In test mode, both systems first compute features and then run a classifier on them. Therefore, features were first checked for inconsistent values. The minimal and maximal values did not change across datasets, and the distribution of the features are indeed different across datasets but not by a large margin.
Close inspection of the inter-class confusion matrices for each systems revealed that for the two systems the classification node may be responsible for this performance. Indeed, one event is triggered almost all the time which drastically increase the false alarm rate. This explains for a large part the decrease of performance of the NR and NVM systems. This behavior can easily be seen on Table \ref{tab:fp} which displays the maximal number of false positive averaged over scenes of each datasets and their corresponding event; on the simulated datasets, the doorslam event for NR and cough event for NVM are falsely triggered very often.
We conclude that this decrease of performance is most probably not due some potential synthesis inconsistencies produced by the simulation process but more due to an over fit of the classification node. Considering that both systems are the only submissions based on discriminative approaches, SVMs and RFs for the NR2 and NVM respectively, we may conjecture that the training framework of the DCASE challenge is not well suited for such classification schemes.
System performance when the EBR is varied is now studied. Figure \ref{ebr} shows their performance, where 0 dB of EBR roughly corresponds to the EBR level of the QMUL Test set. As expected, most of the systems have their performance decreasing with respect the decrease of the EBR. The ranking is preserved, and the spread between the 3 lowest performing systems greatly reduces with respect the decrease of the EBR. The only system that does not follow this trend is the SCS system, which maintains a stable performance across all EBR ranges. This may be due to an effective signal enhancement which is an important pre processing node of this system \cite{SCS}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{ebr.pdf}
\caption{\label{ebr} Class wise event based F-measure in percent achieved by the systems on the QMUL instance datasets with varying EBR.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Results on IRCCYN datasets}
When tackling a classification task, an important issue is whether the classification system under evaluation is able to generalize to unseen data whose annotation is consistent with the one used for training and tuning.
To evaluate this generalization capability, it is useful to consider results achieved by the systems on the IRCCYN datasets, where the background and events are recorded in a different environment than the one used for recording the training data.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
dataset & testQ & insI & absI \\
\hline
Baseline & \textbf{9.0$\pm$4.8$^*$} & 5.9$\pm$2.9 & 5.6$\pm$2.9 \\
DHV & \textbf{30.7$\pm$8.4$^*$} & 10.0$\pm$5.8 & 9.5$\pm$5.6 \\
GVV & \textbf{13.2$\pm$8.0$^*$} & 5.6$\pm$3.7 & 5.5$\pm$3.6 \\
NR & \textbf{21.5$\pm$6.5$^*$} & 4.6$\pm$3.4 & 5.4$\pm$4.5 \\
NVM & \textbf{28.2$\pm$5.9$^*$} & 3.1$\pm$3.1 & 3.2$\pm$3.0 \\
SCS & \textbf{41.5$\pm$7.6$^*$} & 35.4$\pm$7.2 & 34.0$\pm$6.7 \\
VVK & \textbf{24.6$\pm$6.8$^*$} & 6.6$\pm$5.7 & 7.3$\pm$6.3 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Results of the evaluated systems on the IRCCYN datasets. Results in bold are equivalent (t-test per row at 0.05 significance level) to the best performance (depicted with a $^*$).}
\label{tab:irccyn}
\end{table}
Whereas the expected behavior with the use of the QMUL instance and abstract datasets was a equivalent performance compared to the ones achieved on test QMUL, the expected behavior with the IRCCYN dataset is a drop in performance. As can be seen on Table \ref{tab:irccyn}, this drop is significant for all the systems. More importantly, all the systems except the SCS one achieve similar performance when compared to the baseline on the IRCCYN datasets, meaning that for most systems, the performance gain may solely be due to an over adaptation of the system to the training data. Figure~\ref{irccyn} summarizes the results, where the good behavior of the SCS system can be clearly seen.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{irccyn.pdf}
\caption{\label{irccyn} Class-wise event based F-measure achived by the different systems on the QMUL and IRCCYN datasets.}
\end{figure}
\section{Discussion} \label{sec:discussion}
In the light of the results discussed above, we believe that considering carefully designed simulated data is useful for gaining knowledge about the properties and behaviors of the systems under evaluation, thus helping the designer in his algorithmic choices and their evaluation. Important factors influencing the performance such as the noise level, the level of polyphony, the intra-class diversity (acoustical difference between training and testing data) can be evaluated independently, without the burden of experimentally recording data which the desired properties and manually annotating them.
Even though the sole use of synthetic data for validating a computational approach is clearly not sufficient, we believe that the sole use of real data may not be sufficient either, should one wish to gain deep knowledge about the impact of some design and parametrization issues involved in the implementation of an engineering system.
Indeed, real data which is well annotated is most of the time a scarce resource as the careful design of a large evaluation dataset is a demanding task. Moreover, depending on the task at hand, which may not be always well posed, the annotation can be a critical issue leading to some compromise that will greatly contribute to the difficulty of evaluating the performance of the algorithms.
We thus believe that considering simulated data is an in between approach, that together with final validation using real data may be very useful in order to produce more knowledge about the engineering systems under evaluation. We shall stress that such approach is taken in more mature fields, for example robust ASR where challenges are conducted using simulated data such as the CHIME challenges \cite{chime1, chime2}. The simulated acoustic scenes datasets have been generated using a dedicated set of Matlab functions publicly available\footnote{\url{https://bitbucket.org/mlagrange/simscene/downloads}}.
\section{Conclusion}
A morphological model of acoustic scenes has been presented. Following a collection based approach, it generates a set of sound tracks which are sequences of event realizations drawn from specifically tailored sound sample collections. Its potential for generating simulated corpuses of office events scenes is evaluated, by building upon the results obtained thanks to the IEEE AASP DCASE challenge on the detection of events in an office environment.
We believe that considering those simulated corpora allows us to gain important knowledge about the behavior of the systems under evaluation. As most of the systems under evaluation were built for monophonic inputs (one event occurring at a given time), this paper focused on modifying the acoustical properties of the background or the events. Future research will focus on the influence of the degree of overlap when facing polyphonic scenes, potentially with temporal interactions between events, both for single events (e.g. repetitions for a single event) as well as interactions between event classes.
\section*{Acknowledgment}
The authors would like to thank Mark Plumbley for his support. Research project partly funded by ANR-11-JS03-005-01.
\ifCLASSOPTIONcaptionsoff
\newpage
\fi
|
\section{Introduction}
New physics beyond the Standard Model (BSM) in the framework of some new strongly-interacting gauge
theory with a composite Higgs mechanism is an attractive BSM scenario
with related lattice work reviewed recently~\cite{Kuti:2014epa}.
Of course we hear voices that pursuing the composite Higgs scenario is overtaken by recent findings at the LHC. After all, a light
Higgs-like scalar was found, consistent with SM predictions, and composite states have not been found below the TeV scale. In contrast,
the voices continue, strongly coupled BSM gauge theories are Higgs-less with resonances predicted below the TeV scale,
just like in the original technicolor idea~\cite{Weinberg:1979bn,Susskind:1978ms}.
The facts do not seem to support this skeptical view
which originates from naively scaled properties of Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) to the TeV region.
Related old technicolor guessing games were lacking
any credible predictive power close to the conformal window where gauge theories are nearly scale invariant, in sharp contrast to QCD which is not.
In fact, there is no evidence that compositeness and a light Higgs scalar are incompatible.
Recent developments are hinting compatibility,
like in near-conformal gauge theories where a light composite scalar could perhaps emerge on the Electroweak scale with a
resonance spectrum far separated above the TeV scale, perhaps within the reach of Run 2 at the LHC.
Work in progress is reported here on a particularly interesting gauge theory with a fermion doublet in the
two-index symmetric (sextet) representation of the SU(3) color gauge group~\cite{hong2004,dietrich2005,plb2012,degrand2012}.
Our observations suggest that the model is very close to the conformal window and a light composite scalar
appears to emerge with $0^{++}$ quantum numbers.
From chiral symmetry breaking we find three massless Goldstone pions in the spectrum.
With Electroweak interactions turned on, the model exhibits the simplest composite Higgs mechanism
and leaves open the possibility
of a light composite scalar state with quantum numbers of the Higgs impostor emerging as perhaps the
pseudo-Goldstone dilaton-like state from spontaneous symmetry breaking of scale invariance.
Even if scale symmetry breaking is entangled with
$\chi{\rm SB}$ without dilaton interpretation,
a light Higgs-like scalar state can emerge from the new gauge force close to the conformal window.
The main goal of our Higgs project is to investigate these important problems
with ab initio lattice simulations of the sextet model.
In Section 2 we introduce the Electroweak embedding of the strongly coupled sextet gauge theory, comment
on the intriguing features of the lowest baryon state in the minimal sextet model and its extensions, and describe
the new data sets developed since our last report~\cite{Fodor:2014pqa,Fodor:2014zca}.
In section 3 we investigate Goldstone dynamics and Electroweak scale setting
from chiral symmetry breaking as premier ingredients of the composite Higgs mechanism.
We also analyze cutoff dependent taste breaking effects in the non-Goldstone pion-like spectrum of staggered fermions.
In Section 4 we test the GMOR relation from the spectrum of the Dirac operator and the related chiral condensate.
In Section 5 we present new results on the light ${\rm 0^{++}}$ scalar and outline future plans.
In Section 6 we begin to develop and test mixed action based improved analysis of ${\rm \chi SB}$ with new run plans
at fixed topology to cross over from the p-regime to the epsilon-regime of ${\rm \chi SB}$.
In Section 7 we probe the scale-dependent running coupling from the
perturbative UV scale to the scale of chiral symmetry breaking.
\section{Electroweak embedding and computational framework}
\noindent{\bf Quantum numbers and Electroweak symmetry breaking pattern}
The two fermion flavors of the model transform in the complex two-index symmetric (sextet) representation of the SU(3) color gauge group
which implies ${\rm SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1})$ flavor symmetry for the gauge force of the theory.
The fermions are assembled into a left-handed weak isospin doublet ${\rm q_L}$ and two right-handed weak isospin singlets ${\rm q_R}$ with
\begin{align}
q^{(i,j)}_L =
\begin{bmatrix}
u^{(i,j)}_L \\ d^{(i,j)}_L
\end{bmatrix}, \qquad\qquad
&
q^{(i,j)}_R =
\begin{bmatrix}
u^{(i,j)}_R, & d^{(i,j)}_R
\end{bmatrix},
\label{eq:1}
\end{align}
where ${\rm i,j=1,2,3}$ label the color indices of the symmetric tensor elements.
The ABJ anomaly would spoil the renormalizability of the gauge theory so
the fermion gauge coupling must not introduce anomalous Ward indentities. This requires
the trace ${\rm tr(\{T^a(R),T^b(R)\}T^c(R))}$ to vanish for fermion flavor group
representation R with representation matrix ${\rm T^a(R)}$.
In the sextet model, the fermions are either doublets or singlets under the flavor group SU(2).
The matrix ${\rm T^a}$ will be either the Pauli matrix ${\rm \tau^a}$
or the U(1) hypercharge Y. Since the SU(2) group is anomaly-free,
${\rm tr(\{\tau^i,\tau^j\}\tau^k)=2\delta^{ij}tr(\tau^k)=0}$, it is easy to see that ${\rm tr (Y)=tr(Y^3)=0}$
are the two anomaly condition to satisfy.
The absence of gauge anomalies thus requires
a traceless weak hypercharge operator
for the left-handed fermion doublet. Choosing the generator of the U(1) group as ${\rm Y=2(Q-T_3)}$ for
the weak hypercharge Y, with charge Q and the
third component ${\rm T_3}$ of weak isospin, requires half-unit of charge for the left-handed fermions which form a weak isospin doublet,
\begin{eqnarray}
q^{(Q)}_L =
\begin{bmatrix}
u^{(1/2)}_L \\ d^{(-1/2)}_L
\end{bmatrix}.
\label{eq:2}
\end{eqnarray}
The right-handed u-fermion will have hypercharge ${\rm Y=1}$ and the right-handed d-fermion will have hypercharge ${\rm Y=-1}$
with consistent charge assignments
\begin{eqnarray}
q^{(Q)}_R =
\begin{bmatrix}
u^{(1/2)}_R, & d^{(-1/2)}_R
\end{bmatrix},
\label{eq:3}
\end{eqnarray}
satisfying the ${\rm tr(Y^3)=0}$ anomaly condition.
The chiral ${\rm SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R}$ symmetry of the theory is dynamically broken to the diagonal vector ${\rm SU(2)_V}$
subgroup. This ${\rm \chi SB}$ is responsible for breaking ${\rm SU(2)_W\times U(1)_Y}$ to ${\rm U(1)_{em}}$.
The residual ${\rm SU(2)_V}$ symmetry is the electroweak analog of isospin and the approximate weak isospin invariance
of the electroweak force and the new gauge force ensure that the ${\rm \rho}$-parameter is approximately one.
There is also an exact U(1) symmetry in the theory which is unaffected by chiral symmetry breaking protecting the conserved baryon number.
Baryon number and charge conservation are keeping the lightest baryon stable against the new gauge force and weak decays.
\vskip 0.1in
\noindent{\bf Baryon construction in the sextet model}
The charge assignment has intriguing implications for the baryon spectrum of the sextet model. The sextet representation of fermions with
SU(3) color gauge group will impose a symmetric color wave function for baryon states as three-fermion systems. This is in sharpe contrast
to QCD where the color wave function of the nucleon is antisymmetric. The non-relativistic limit of the flavor-spin-spatial part of the baryon wave function will
look like the wave function of triton in terms of symmetries~\cite{Blatt:1958}. It follows from the construction of Eqs.~(\ref{eq:1}-\ref{eq:3})
that the lightest baryons form a stable isospin doublet of (uud) and (udd) states which carry half-integer charges with opposite sign.
Detailed properties of the sextet baryons with lowest mass in the 3 TeV range were reported at the conference~\cite{Santanu:2015}.
Dark matter related relic sextet baryon issues are expected to come into focus only if the model will deliver a viable composite Higgs
mechanism which remains the primary focus of our investigations.
\vskip 0.1in
\noindent{\bf Dark matter}
The lowest stable baryon state in the sextet model is in the fractionally
charged massive particle (FCHAMP) category of dark matter speculations regarding the
evolution history of the Universe~\cite{DeRujula:1989fe,Langacker:2011db}.
It is difficult and ultimately imperative to estimate the relic abundance of the
fractionally charged and stable sextet baryon. Only qualitative arguments can be given that the very small relic abundance
is likely to escape existing experimental limits and theoretical requiem~\cite{Langacker:2011db}.
Sextet baryons and antibaryons are produced in the Electroweak phase transition which is expected to be of second order
with two fermion flavors in the chiral limit. Charge symmetric baryon and antibaryon densities in thermal equilibrium will
continue to decrease well below the critical temperature ${\rm T_c}$ until at freeze-out temperature ${\rm T_*}$
the expansion rate will set the
density to its relic abundance level from the solution of the Boltzman equation~\cite{Steigman:1979kw}.
The freeze-out temperature and the related relic abundance level are very sensitive to the annihilation rate of baryons and
antibaryons in the sextet model. As a general trend, the stronger the interaction, the longer the particles
remain in equilibrium (larger ${\rm x_*=M_b/T_*)}$ and the fewer survive (${\rm \sim e^{-x_*}}$ ).
Earlier technicolor estimates which were based on scaled up QCD calculations of annihilation cross sections are
irrelevant for the new theory which is close to the conformal window.
The expected relic abundance is minuscule but more quantitative calculations are required with some sense of urgency
to settle this interesting question.
Some surviving sextet baryon asymmetry in the early evolution of the Universe could affect the above argument based on a symmetric
sextet baryon-antibaryon distribution. B-violation as required by the first of the Sakharov conditions can be associated with
the non-Abelian anomaly of the left-handed fermion current in nontrivial background gauge field configurations
outside perturbation theory ~\cite{Cline:2006ts}. For the second Sakharov condition,
the origin of C and CP violation, if any, is left undetermined in the new theory and the well-known effects related to sphaleron
dynamics could wash out any early sextet baryon asymmetry generated before the Electroweak phase transition~\cite{Cline:2006ts}.
Explaining dark matter would probably require an extension of the minimal sextet model by adding
a new lepton doublet with quantum number assignments of the doublets and singlets
following the QCD pattern.
It could make the lowest baryon state neutral but still requires efficient C and CP violation of ill-understood origin.
As an alternate extension, a third fermion flavor could be added which is massive and remains an Electroweak singlet.
\vskip 0.1in
\noindent{\bf Algorithms, codes, and run parameter sets}
We use the tree-level Symanzik-improved gauge action for all simulations reported here.
The conventional $\beta=6/g_0^2$ lattice gauge coupling is defined as the overall
factor in front of the well-known terms of the Symanzik lattice action.
The link variables in the staggered fermion matrix are exponentially smeared with two
stout steps~\cite{Morningstar:2003gk}; the precise definition of the staggered stout action was given earlier in~\cite{Aoki:2005vt}
and the RHMC algorithm has been deployed in all runs. The fermion flavor doublet requires rooting in the algorithm.
For molecular dynamics time evolution we apply multiple time scales~\cite{Urbach:2005ji} and the
Omelyan integrator~\cite{Takaishi:2005tz}. We have highly efficient codes running on BG/Q, gpu,
and commodity cluster platforms.
Our error analysis of hadron masses is based on correlated fitting with double jackknife
procedure on the covariance matrices~\cite{DelDebbio:2007pz}.
The time histories of the fermion condensate, the gauge field energy on the gradient flow, the topological charge,
and correlators are all used to monitor autocorrelation times in the simulations.
We have new simulation results at $\beta=3.2$ and $3.25$ for fermion masses
${\rm m=0.002, 0.003, 0.004}$ on
$32^3\times64$, $40^3\times80$, and $48^3\times96$ lattice volumes.
We also have new runs at $\beta=3.15$ with ${\rm m=0.003, 0.004, 0.006, 0.008}$
and at $\beta=3.30$ with ${\rm m=0.005, 0.006, 0.008, 0.010}$ on
$32^3\times64$ lattice volumes.
\section{ Goldstone spectrum and Electroweak scale setting}
If the chiral ${\rm SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R}$ symmetry of the model is dynamically broken to the diagonal vector ${\rm SU(2)_V}$
three associated Goldstone pions facilitate
the minimal realization of the Higgs mechanism after the Electroweak interactions are turned on.
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[height=5cm]{Figures/Mpi2LinFit_b3p20.pdf}&
\includegraphics[height=5cm]{Figures/Mpi2LinFit_b3p25.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[height=5cm]{Figures/FpiLinFit_b3p20.pdf}&
\includegraphics[height=5cm]{Figures/FpiLinFit_b3p25.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.2in
\caption{\footnotesize The leading order fits are shown at two values of ${\rm \beta=6/g^2_0}$
for the fermion mass dependence of the Goldstone pion from chiral perturbation theory ${\rm (\chi PT)}$
without logarithmic loop corrections. Ignoring taste breaking the fundamental ${\rm B}$ parameter of
the chiral Lagrangian is given by ${\rm C_M/2}$ in leading order (LO).
The fits of $F_\pi$ include the linear NLO analytic term from ${\rm \chi PT}$.
All fits are based on the staggered pion correlator with
exact PCAC relation using random wall noise vectors.
We have similar analysis for ${\rm M^2_{\pi}}$ and ${\rm F_{\pi}}$ at ${\rm \beta=3.15~and~3.30}$ as well. }
\label{fig:PionSpectrum}
\end{figure}
As shown in Figure~\ref{fig:PionSpectrum}, our results are consistent with chiral symmetry breaking
exhibiting consistent Goldstone pion behavior under fermion mass deformations. The Electroweak scale in finite
lattice spacing units is set from the pion decay constant ${\rm F_\pi}$ in the chiral limit with ${\rm F=250~GeV}$ in continuum physics
notation. The preliminary results of Figure~\ref{fig:PionSpectrum} represent work in progress with moving parts which include
continuing refinement of the fitting procedures on our large new data set, the unfinished analysis of taste breaking in staggered
chiral perturbation theory, new runs closer to the p-regime of leading chiral logarithms, and the influence of a light scalar state
on the analysis of chiral perturbation theory. In Section 6 we will briefly sketch new directions
with crossover from the p-regime to the epsilon regime and Random Matrix Theory (RMT) applying mixed actions in the analysis.
\vskip 0.1in
\noindent{\bf Taste breaking cutoff effects}
Since the determination of the Goldstone decay constant ${\rm F}$ in the chiral limit is critically important for the determination of the
light scalar mass and the separated resonance spectrum, we will briefly describe taste breaking effects which will influence the final outcome
of the analysis.
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[height=5cm]{Figures/scPion2LinFit_b3p20.pdf}&
\includegraphics[height=5cm]{Figures/ijPion2LinFit_b3p20.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[height=5cm]{Figures/scPion2LinFit_b3p25.pdf}&
\includegraphics[height=5cm]{Figures/ijPion2LinFit_b3p25.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.2in
\caption{\footnotesize LO fits from the analytic mass dependence of the chiral Lagrangian without logarithmic
chiral loop corrections are shown for two non-Goldstone pions at two values of ${\rm \beta=6/g^2_0}$.
We have similar fits at ${\rm \beta=3.30}$. The scPion is degenerate with the i5Pion (not shown)
in the same SO(4) multiplet~\cite{Lee:1999zxa}.}
\label{fig:non-Goldstone}
\end{figure}
To illustrate cutoff dependent taste breaking effects, spectra of selected non-Goldstone pion states are analyzed
in Figure~\ref{fig:non-Goldstone} with the definition of the relevant correlators and
quantum numbers given in~\cite{Fodor:2011tu,Fodor:2012ty}. In the fermion mass range of our data set the taste breaking pattern
is different from QCD where the residual ${\rm \Delta}$ mass shifts of the non-Goldstome pions are equispaced
in the chiral limit with approximately degenerate SO(4) taste multiplets and with parallel slopes for finite fermion mass deformations
of Goldstone and non-Goldstone pion states~\cite{Lee:1999zxa}.
For example, as part of the equispaced split of degenerate SO(4) multiplets in QCD, the observed approximate split
${\rm \Delta_{ij} \sim 2\Delta_{sc}}$ of two multiplets appears to have collapsed in the sextet model from our fitting procedure.
The other distinct difference from QCD is the non-parallel slopes which fan out
in Goldstone and non-Goldstone mass deformations of the pion spectrum as shown
in Figure~\ref{fig:non-Goldstone}. While the ${\rm \Delta}$ additive mass shifts are LO taste breaking effects
in the chiral Lagrangian~\cite{Lee:1999zxa,Aubin:2003mg}, the taste breaking slope corrections ${\rm \delta}$
can plausibly be identified with NLO analytic terms in the chiral analysis~\cite{Sharpe:2004is}. The corrected mass
relation is ${\rm M^2_{NLO} = M^2_{LO}(1+\delta)}$
where ${\rm \delta}$ depends on the taste quantum number of the pion state.
Several relations
constrain the ${\rm \delta}$ taste breaking corrections~\cite{Sharpe:2004is}.
For example the relation ${\rm \delta_{\pi} = -\delta_{ij}}$ immediately implies that the fitted slope of the Goldstone pion
must receive significant taste breaking and
cutoff dependent correction in the linear fit of Figure~\ref{fig:PionSpectrum} since the slopes of the Goldstone pion and ijPion fan out
considerably in Figure~\ref{fig:non-Goldstone}. We can infer from the measured slopes the important
relation ${\rm \delta_{\pi} = - (c_{ij} - c_M)/(c_{ij} + c_M)}$ to determine the leading cutoff correction to
the fundamental ${\rm B}$ parameter of the chiral Lagrangian from the fit parameter ${\rm c_M}$ as
${\rm 2B=c_M/(1+\delta_{\pi})}$.
The correction factor ${\rm \delta_{\pi}}$ decreases from -0.207 to -0.087 as ${\rm \beta}$ is varied
from 3.20 to 3.30 with decreasing lattice spacing.
Work on cutoff corrections to the decay constant ${\rm F}$ are in progress.
The small ${\rm \Delta}$ mass shifts in the chiral limit and the significant fan-out taste breaking structure of the slopes led us to generate
a new data set below the
fermion mass region ${\rm m=0.002-0.006}$.
This new effort crossing over from the p-regime toward the epsilon regime and RMT using mixed action based analysis
will be outlined in Section 6.
\section{Chiral condensate and GMOR}
The consistency of the fundamental parameters ${\rm F ~ and~B}$ and the direct
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[height=5cm]{Figures/SpectralDensityZero.pdf}&
\includegraphics[height=5cm]{Figures/SpectralDensityNegative.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[height=5cm]{Figures/topology3p0.pdf}&
\includegraphics[height=5cm]{Figures/FullSpectrum.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.2in
\caption{\footnotesize Tests on the spectral density of the staggered Dirac operator are performed on our largest ${\rm 48^3\times 96}$
lattice volumes at ${\rm \beta=3.20}$ with two different fermion masses. Our new Chebyshev expansion is also shown.}
\label{fig:condensate}
\end{figure}
determination of the non-vanishing fermion condensate ${\rm \Sigma}$ in the chiral limit is tested by the
GMOR relation ${\rm 2BF^2 = \Sigma}$ where summation over two fermion flavors is included~\cite{GellMann:1968rz}.
Access at ${\rm \beta=3.20}$ to the numerical estimate ${\rm 2BF^2} = 0.00497$ within the range of a few percent error is provided
by the analysis of data and fits shown in Figure~\ref{fig:PionSpectrum} and Figure~\ref{fig:non-Goldstone}.
The slope correction ${\rm \delta_{\pi}}$ is a significant factor in the analysis.
The Banks-Casher relation~\cite{Banks:1979yr} relates the condensate ${\rm \Sigma}$ to the spectral density
${\rm \rho(\lambda,m)}$ of the Dirac operator,
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho(\lambda,m) = \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \langle \delta(\lambda - \lambda_k) \rangle/V, \quad
{\rm with}\quad
\lim_{\lambda \rightarrow 0} \lim_{m \rightarrow 0} \lim_{V \rightarrow \infty} \rho(\lambda,m) = \Sigma/(2\pi),
\label{eq:Banks}
\end{eqnarray}
where the spectral density is determined as the ensemble average over the Dirac eigenvalue density in finite volume ${\rm V}$.
In Eq.~(\ref{eq:Banks}) the condensate $\Sigma = - \langle \bar{\psi} \psi \rangle$ for two fermion flavors is determined by the eigenvalue density.
Figure~\ref{fig:condensate} shows a select subset of recent analysis of the spectral density
of runs with ${\rm 48^3\times 96}$ lattice volume at ${\rm \beta=3.20}$ for the two lowest fermion masses ${\rm m=0.002,0.003}$.
The lower left panel is the topological history of the ${\rm m=0.002}$ run on the gradient flow at flow time ${\rm t=20}$. The upper left panel
shows the spectral density (with the ${\rm 2\pi}$ factor absorbed) for a select subset of gauge configurations with topological charge ${\rm Q=0}$ and
the upper right panel with ${\rm Q=-1}$. The results on the spectral density ${\rm \rho (\lambda=0,m)}$, at the lowest values of ${\rm \lambda}$
reached for the ${\rm \lambda\rightarrow 0}$ limit, are not sensitive to the two values of the topological charge tested. Agreement with GMOR is remarkably
good from the independent few percent level determination of ${\rm 2BF^2} = 0.00497$ as discussed above. The new analysis removes earlier
inconsistencies from the sextet GMOR relation~\cite{Fodor:2012ty}.
Continued work is necessary for a more complete analysis of the systematic effects. Comprehensive finite size scaling analysis,
the chiral limit ${\rm m\rightarrow 0}$ of the spectral density, and the scale-dependent renormalization of the condensate remain
important unfinished goals.
The determination of the spectral density from the low eigenvalues of the Dirac operator has a limited range
and becomes increasingly difficult for larger volumes. In several applications, like the anomalous dimension of the mode number density,
it is important to determine ${\rm \rho(\lambda,m)}$
for a large range of ${\rm \lambda}$ and in large lattice volumes.
Recently we developed and tested a new stochastic method with random noise vectors
which is capable of calculating the entire spectral density function and
mode number distribution of the Dirac operator with great efficiency~\cite{kuti:condensate}.
The method is based on a high precision finite resolution Chebyshev approximation
to the Dirac delta function in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Banks}). At any given value of ${\rm \lambda}$ in the spectrum
we can extrapolate to infinite polynomial order in the Chebyshev expansion utilizing well-known asymptotic
properties of ${\rm T_n(\lambda)}$ Chebyshev polynomials
at fixed ${\rm \lambda}$ in the ${\rm n\rightarrow \infty}$ limit. The expansion used here is different from
the mode number approximation introduced earlier at a fixed value of ${\rm \lambda}$~\cite{Giusti:2008vb}.
The lower right panel of Figure~\ref{fig:condensate}
displays a typical result on our largest sextet lattice volume, averaged over gauge configurations for the full
eigenvalue spectrum. When magnifying the low infrared part of the spectral density with the same expansion,
the two upper panels show the convergence rate of the Chebyshev approximation as a function of the the polynomial order
when compared with the direct diagonalization of the Dirac operator. Polynomial order in the ${\rm n=6000}$ range is almost
indistinguishable from the data and the extrapolation procedure works well from lower orders.
There is a variety of interesting applications where this method can be further explored.
\section{The ${\mathbf 0^{++}}$ light scalar and the resonance spectrum}
The most important goals of our lattice Higgs project are
to establish the emergence of the light scalar state with $0^{++}$ quantum numbers and the resonance spectrum perhaps far
separated from the light composite scalar.
\vskip 0.1in
\noindent{\bf The light scalar state}
The ${\rm f_0}$ meson (in QCD terminology) has ${\rm 0^{++}}$ quantum numbers and acts as the scalar state in the sextet model.
Close to the conformal window, the ${\rm f_0}$ meson
of the sextet model is not expected to be similar to its counterpart in QCD. If it turns out to be light, it could replace the elementary Higgs particle
and pose as the Higgs impostor.
Two types of different ${\rm 0^{++}}$ operators, the fermionic one and the gluonic one (${\rm 0^{++}}$ glueball), are expected to mix.
Such mixing was not included in the pilot study~\cite{Fodor:2014pqa} but becomes an important goal of our ongoing effort.
\begin{figure}[hbt!]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.39}{\includegraphics{Figures/jkHiggs.pdf}}
\scalebox{0.495}{\includegraphics{Figures/scalar2.pdf}}
\caption{\footnotesize The left panel shows earlier results on $32^3 \times 64$ lattice volumes at $\beta=3.20$~\cite{Fodor:2014pqa}.
The right panel shows some representative new result on a large lattice volume using correlated fitting
and Principal Component Analysis (PCA).}\label{analysis}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
A particular flavor-singlet correlator is needed to capture the ${\rm 0^{++}}$ scalar state with vacuum quantum numbers. It
requires connected and disconnected diagrams of fermion loop propagators on the gauge configurations.
The connected diagram corresponds to the non-singlet correlator ${\rm C_{\rm non-singlet}(t)}$.
The correlator of the disconnected diagram is ${\rm D(t)}$ at time separation ${\rm t}$.
The ${\rm f_0}$ correlator ${\rm C_{\rm singlet}(t)}$ is defined as ${\rm C_{\rm singlet}(t) \equiv C_{\rm non-singlet}(t) + D(t)}$.
The transfer matrix has the spectral decomposition of the ${\rm C_{\rm singlet}(t)}$ correlator in terms of the
sum of all energy levels ${\rm E_i(0^{++}), i=0,1,2,...}$ and their parity partners ${\rm E_j(0^{-+}), j=0,1,2,...}$
but at large time separation ${\rm t}$ the lowest states ${\rm E_0(0^{++}) }$ and ${\rm E_0(0^{-+})}$ dominate.
They correspond to ${\rm m_{f_0}}$ and ${\rm m_{\eta_{\rm sc}}}$.
The relevant non-singlet
staggered correlator can be fitted well with non-oscillating $a_0$ contribution and oscillating $\pi_{\rm sc}$ contribution, with the
non-Goldstone pion $\pi_{\rm sc}$ discussed in Section 3.
We estimate the connected and disconnected diagrams with stochastic source vectors of fermion propagators.
To evaluate the disconnected diagram, we need to calculate closed loops of quark propagators.
We introduce $Z_2$ noise sources on the lattice where each source is defined on individual time-slice $t_0$ for color $a$.
The scheme can be viewed as a ``dilution'' scheme which is fully diluted in time and color and even/odd diluted in space.
The left panel of Figure~\ref{analysis} shows the earlier preliminary results from the pilot study
on $32^3 \times 64$ lattice volumes at $\beta=3.20$~\cite{Fodor:2014pqa}.
From our new analysis a representative example of the scalar effective mass fit is shown at $\beta=3.20$
as the right panel of Figure~\ref{analysis}
on a large $48^3 \times 96$ lattice volume and probes the light scalar deeper toward the chiral limit at fermion mass ${\rm m=0.002}$.
Further work is needed on the light ${\rm f_0}$ scalar with ${\rm 0^{++}}$ quantum numbers.
The lower left panel of Figure~\ref{fig:condensate} indicates
large autocorrelation times in the topological history of the RHMC algorithm.
The effects of slowly changing topology on the fitted mass values of ${\rm f_0}$ are not sufficiently
tested although sensitivity to the topological charge remains within the statistical accuracy of the runs.
Fermion mass deformations of the low-lying ${\rm f_0}$ state and the Goldstone pion are expected to be entangled
which requires the modification of ${\rm \chi PT}$. Precise extrapolation
to vanishing fermion mass in the chiral limit remains a challenging problem in the presence of the
light ${\rm f_0}$ state.
\vskip 0.1in
\noindent{\bf The emerging spectrum}
It is important to investigate the chiral limit of composite hadron states separated
from the Goldstones and the light scalar by finite mass gaps. The baryon mass gap in the chiral limit provides further evidence
for ${\rm \chi SB}$ with preliminary results reported at this conference~\cite{Santanu:2015}.
Resonance masses of parity partners provide important additional information with split parity masses in the chiral limit.
This is particularly important for consistency with ${\rm \chi SB}$ and for a first estimate of the S parameter
when probing the model via Electroweak precision tests~\cite{Peskin:1991sw}.
A remarkable spectrum is emerging which is sketched in Figure~\ref{fig:LHC} for illustration only.
Although with more work needed to confirm, the sextet model appears to be close to the conformal window and
due to $\chi{\rm SB}$ exhibits
the right Goldstone spectrum for the minimal realization of the composite Higgs mechanism with a light scalar
separated from the associated resonance spectrum in the 2 TeV region.
Chiral symmetry breaking and a very small beta function, perhaps slowly walking as hinted by preliminary results in Section 7, are
not sufficient to guarantee a light dilaton-like state as the natural explanation for the emergence of the light scalar.
Consistent with our observations, a light Higgs-like scalar is still expected to emerge near the conformal window as a composite state
with $0^{++}$ quantum numbers, not necessarily with dilaton interpretation.
This scalar state has to be light but is not required to match exactly the observed ${\rm 126~GeV}$
mass. The light scalar
from composite strong dynamics gets lighter
from electroweak loop corrections, dominated by the large negative mass shift from
the top quark loop~\cite{Foadi:2012bb,Cacciapaglia:2014uja,DiChiara:2014uwa}.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=4.5in]{Figures/LHC1.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.2in
\caption{\footnotesize Schematic view of the emerging resonance spectrum.
The parameters ${\rm \kappa~and~r_t}$ are defined in ~\cite{Foadi:2012bb}.}
\label{fig:LHC}
\vskip -0.1in
\end{figure}
\section{Mixed action on the gradient flow and the epsilon regime}
The alternative to safe extrapolation from a regime of competing scalar and pion masses to the massless fermion limit
requires crossover to the epsilon regime of ${\rm \chi PT}$ at low enough scale ${\rm \lambda}$ where Goldstone dynamics begins
to decouple from the scalar state. This is difficult to do and requires significant resources.
To control taste braking we cannot go to lattice spacings larger than the one set by ${\rm \beta=3.20}$. The value of ${\rm F\sim 0.025}$ at this
lattice spacing requires large ${\rm 48^3\times 96}$ lattice volumes to control the ${\rm F\cdot L \geq 1}$
condition which is necessary for convergent expansion in all regimes of ${\rm \chi PT}$, including the epsilon regime.
Even for our largest ${\rm V=48^3\times 96}$ and ${\rm V=40^3\times 80}$ lattice volumes control with
${\rm F\cdot L \sim 1-1.2}$ is just barely sufficient.
For the lowest fermion mass ${\rm m=0.002}$ the scaling variable ${\rm m\Sigma V\sim 100}$ is very large characterizing the p-regime
of ${\rm \chi PT}$ we used earlier in the analysis. Reaching the epsilon regime would require an order of magnitude decrease in
the scaling variable ${\rm m\Sigma V}$
which presents a considerable algorithmic challenge and requires substantial resources.
Decreasing the fermion mass an order of magnitude
to ${\rm m=0.0002}$ would increase the cost, scaling with ${\rm \sim 1/m}$ and calling for algorithmic improvements.
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[height=5.5cm]{Figures/Quartet_A.pdf}&
\includegraphics[height=5.5cm]{Figures/Quartet_B.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[height=5.5cm]{Figures/flow_scPion.pdf}&
\includegraphics[height=5.5cm]{Figures/flow_RMT.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.2in
\caption{\footnotesize The upper right panel demonstrates the correct index theorem
and the lower right panel displays the lowest eigenvalues in the epsilon regime.}
\label{fig:quartets}
\end{figure}
We developed a promising new strategy to overcome the problem by performing ${\rm \chi PT}$ analysis in the crossover to the epsilon regime
with partial quenching and a related mixed action.
We take the p-regime gauge configurations of the lowest fermion masses on the largest lattice volumes
and analyze the fermion condensate and the Dirac spectrum after gradient flow times ${\rm t=2~or~3}$ with the valence fermion action
where the original gauge link variables are replaced with the ones at flow time ${\rm t}$. This strategy
can be viewed as a mixed action based analysis. The first encouraging results are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:quartets}.
The upper left panel shows the infrared part of the Dirac spectrum on the original gauge
configurations with strong taste breaking evidenced by the absence of degenerate quartets. After gradient flow time ${\rm t=3}$
degenerate eigenvalue quartets emerge with the correct count of the topology dependent zero modes from the index theorem
showing restored taste symmetry in the valence action. The lower left panel illustrates
the degeneracy of the Goldstone pion with non-Goldstone pions (scPion in the plot). The lower right panel shows that
the epsilon regime is reached with the scaling variable ${\rm \lambda\Sigma_{flow} V\sim 10}$ where the fermion mass is replaced by the scale
of the Dirac spectrum (${\rm m\rightarrow\lambda)}$ and ${\rm \Sigma_{flow}}$, not RG invariant, is reduced by
almost a factor of ten.
\vskip -0.8in
\section{The scale dependent renormalized coupling and beta function}
An important and independent consistency condition of the model would be provided
by matching the scale dependent renormalized coupling of the perturbative regime to the scale dependent
coupling of the non-perturbative phase associated with $\chi{\rm SB}$.
We proposed a gauge coupling earlier
$g(\mu = 1/L)$, running with the scale set by the finite volume~\cite{Fodor:2012td}
and defined on the gradient flow of the gauge field~\cite{Luscher:2010iy}.
Since the gradient flow at flow time $t$ probes the gauge field on the scale $\sqrt{8t}$, the running coupling can be defined as a
function of $L$ in finite volume $V=L^4$ while holding $c=(8t)^{1/2}/L$ fixed:
${\rm \alpha_{c}(L)=4\pi\langle t^2E(t)\rangle /[3(1+\delta (c)]}$.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.35}{\includegraphics{Figures/g2_flow.pdf}}
\scalebox{0.35}{\includegraphics{Figures/t0_chiralfit.pdf}}\\
\scalebox{0.35}{\includegraphics{Figures/t0_chirallimit.pdf}}
\scalebox{0.35}{\includegraphics{Figures/sextet_beta.pdf}}
\vskip -0.1in
\caption{\footnotesize Two different schemes for scale dependent couplings
are illustrated with explanation in the text.}\label{fig:beta_function}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.15in
\end{figure}
This volume dependent coupling is
particularly suitable to study the perturbative
regime and departures from it~\cite{Fodor:2012td}.
The measured renormalized couplings are very accurate and the scheme defines a one-parameter family
which can be adjusted for different goals~\cite{Fodor:2014cpa,Fodor:2014cxa}.
For illustration, preliminary post-conference results of the step beta function for the sextet model with two flavors
are shown in the lower right panel of Figure~\ref{fig:beta_function}.
In the non-perturbative phase with ${\rm \chi SB}$ we are interested in a scale-dependent
and volume independent renormalized coupling.
At fixed lattice size, bare coupling, and fermion mass m
we determine the appropriate flow time ${\rm t(g^2, m)}$ to match any targeted
flow-dependent renormalized coupling ${\rm g^2}$ calculated from ${\rm \langle t^2E(t)\rangle}$.
Assuming that the footprint of the operator on the gradient flow is sufficiently small
compared to the Compton wavelength of the pion for p-regime
analysis, the dependence of ${\rm t(g^2, m)}$ on ${\rm m}$ can be replaced by ${\rm t(g^2, M^2_\pi)}$ in
${\rm \chi PT}$ of pion dynamics with
linear dependence of ${\rm t(g^2, M^2_\pi)}$ on ${\rm M^2_\pi}$ in leading order~\cite{Bar:2013ora}.
Any residual finite volume dependence can be corrected in ${\rm \chi PT}$.
This strategy is illustrated by the step by step procedure in Figure~\ref{fig:beta_function}.
The upper left panel shows the determination of the flow time ${\rm t(g^2, m)}$ of the targeted coupling ${\rm g^2}$
and the upper right panel is in surprisingly good agreement with the linear behavior in ${\rm M^2_\pi}$.
At two different lattice spacings in the ${\rm m=0}$ chiral limit, the lower left panel shows the scale dependent renormalized
coupling ${\rm g^2(t_0)}$ as a function of scale variation with ${\rm t_0}$. A scale dependent and volume independent step
beta function can be determined from this procedure.
A more comprehensive analysis of the data is part of our ongoing investigations including the extrapolation of the step function
to vanishing lattice spacing and matching the two different scale dependent couplings of Figure~\ref{fig:beta_function}.
\vskip -0.5in
\section{Acknowledgement}
\vskip -.2cm
{\footnotesize We would like to thank Claude Bernard and Steve Sharpe for useful discussions
on several aspects of the staggered ${\rm \chi PT}$ analysis.
We acknowledge support by the DOE under grant DE-SC0009919,
by the NSF under grants 0970137 and 1318220, by the EU Framework Programme 7 grant (F
P7/2007-2013)/ERC No 208740, by OTKA under the grant OTKA-NF-104034, and by the Deutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft grant SFB-TR 55. Computational resources were provided by the DOE ALCC Award of
our collaboration for the BG/Q Mira computational platform of
Argonne National Laboratory, by the BG/Q Juqueen platform of FZJ, by USQCD at Fermilab, by the University of Wuppertal,
and by the Institute for Theoretical Physics,
E\"{o}tv\"{o}s University.
We are grateful to Szabolcs Borsanyi for helping us with his optimized code development for the BG/Q platform.
We are also grateful to Kalman Szabo and Sandor Katz
for their code development building on Wuppertal gpu technology~\cite{Egri:2006zm}. }
|
\section{Introduction }
For a flow $f^{t}:M\to M$ on a closed manifold $M$ with some hyperbolicity, it is well known that the number $\pi(T)$ of periodic orbits with period $\le T$ grows exponentially as $T\to\infty$ and the exponential rate coincides with the topological entropy $h_{\top}$ of the flow. The prime orbit theorem, due to Parry and Pollicott \cite[Theorem 9.3]{PP}, gives a more precise estimate in the case of topologically weakly mixing hyperbolic flows:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:PP}
\pi(T)=(1+o(1))\int_{1}^{T}\frac{e^{h_{\top}t}}{t}dt\quad \mbox{as $T\to\infty$.}
\end{equation}
This paper addresses estimates of the error term in this asymptotic formula.
For geodesic flows on surfaces with negative (variable) curvature, Pollicott and Sharp proved in \cite{PS} that the relative error term, denoted by $o(1)$ in the formula (\ref{eq:PP}) above, is actually exponentially small, that is, bounded by $Ce^{-\varepsilon T}$ with some $C>0$ and $\varepsilon>0$. More recently, this result is extended to higher dimensional cases by Giulietti, Liverani and Pollicott\cite{GLP} and Stoyanov\cite{Stoyanov}.
But not much is known about the exponential rate at which the relative error term decreases.
For the geodesic flows on surfaces with negative {\em constant} curvature, we have a much more precise asymptotic formula due to Huber, which reads
\begin{equation}
\pi(T)=\int_{1}^{T}\frac{e^{h_{\top}t}}{t}dt+\sum_{i=1}^{k}\int_{1}^{T}\frac{e^{\mu_{i}t}}{t}dt+\mathcal{O}\left(e^{\rho t}\right)\label{eq:Huber}
\end{equation}
where $\rho=(3/4)h_{\top}$ and $\mu_{i}$, $1\le i\le k$,
are real numbers satisfying $\rho<\mu_{i}<h_{\top}$.
(The exponents $\mu_{i}$ are related to small eigenvalues of the Laplacian on the surface. See \cite{Buser}.) But this result is known only for the case of constant curvature because the proof is based on the fact that the geodesic flow in such case is identified with the left action of a hyperbolic one-parameter subgroup of $SL(2,\mathbb{R})$ on its quotient space by the right action of a discrete subgroup.
Comparing these results, we are tempted to pose a question whether such a precise asymptotic formula as (\ref{eq:Huber}) is available for more general type of hyperbolic flows and by a more flexible method.
In this paper, we pursue this question in the case of suspension semiflows of angle multiplying maps on the circle and provide a positive answer under generic conditions on the roof function.
\section{The main results}
\subsection{Definitions}
We consider a class of (simplest possible) expanding semiflows. This kind of semiflows have been studied in \cite{Ruelle86, Pollicott99, Tsujii08} as a simplified model of Anosov flows.
First we fix a positive integer $\ell\ge2$ and consider the angle-multiplying map
\[
\tau:S^{1}\to S^{1},\quad\tau(x)=\ell x\;\mod\mathbb{Z}.
\]
Let $C_{+}^{\infty}(S^{1})$ be the space of positive-valued $C^{\infty}$
functions on $S^{1}$.
Then we consider the suspension semiflow of $\tau$ with roof function~$f\in C_{+}^{\infty}(S^{1})$:
\[
\mathbf{T}_{f}=\{T_{f}^{t}:X_{f}\to X_{f}\mid t\ge0\}.
\]
(See Figure \ref{fig:expandingsemiflow}.)
This is a semiflow on the set
\[
X_{f}:=\{(x,y)\in S^{1}\times\mathbb{R}\mid0\le y<f(x)\}\subset S^{1}\times\mathbb{R}
\]
and defined precisely by the expression
\[
T_{f}^{t}(x,y)=(\tau^{n(x,y+t;f)}(x),\; y+t-f^{(n(x,y+t;f))}(x))
\]
where
\begin{align}
& f^{(n)}(x)=\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}f(\tau^{i}(x))\label{eq:fn}
\intertext{and}
& n(x,t;f)=\max\{n\ge0\mid f^{(n)}(x)\le t\}.\label{eq:n}
\end{align}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\begin{overpic}[scale=0.35]{expandingsemiflow.eps}
\put(70,50){$X_f$}
\put(25,-5){$x$}
\put(65,-5){$\tau(x)$}
\end{overpic}
\end{center}
\caption{Expanding semiflow $\mathbf{T}_f$}
\label{fig:expandingsemiflow}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Spectral properties of transfer operators}\label{ss:heu}
By a heuristic argument,
the distribution of periods of periodic orbits of $\mathbf{T}_f$ is related to the spectra of the transfer operators
\[
\mathcal{L}^{t}\varphi(z)=\sum_{w:T_{f}^{t}(w)=z}\varphi(w).
\]
Indeed, computing
the flat trace of $\mathcal{L}^{t}$, defined as the integral of the Schwartz kernel $K^{t}(z,w)$ of $\mathcal{L}^t$ along
the diagonal $z=w$, we find
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ABT}
\mathrm{Tr}\,^\flat \mathcal{L}^t=\sum_{\gamma\in\Gamma}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{|\gamma|}{1-E_{\gamma}^{-n}}\cdot\delta(t-n|\gamma|)
\end{equation}
where $\Gamma$ is the set of prime periodic orbits
and $|\gamma|$ and $E_{\gamma}$ denote respectively the prime period
and the (coefficient of) linearized Poincar\'e map.
If we ignore the sum over $n\ge2$ and also the term $E_{\gamma}^{-n}$ in the denominator of the summands
(which are in fact relatively small), we would have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:principal}
\frac{1}{t}\cdot\mathrm{Tr}\,^\flat \mathcal{L}^{t}\;\sim\;\sum_{\gamma\in\Gamma}\delta(t-|\gamma|),\qquad\mbox{ and so}\qquad\int_{1}^{T}\frac{1}{t}\cdot\mathrm{Tr}\,^\flat \mathcal{L}^{t}dt\;\sim\;\pi(T).
\end{equation}
Therefore, if the flat trace $\mathrm{Tr}\,^\flat \mathcal{L}^{t}$ were related to the spectrum
of $\mathcal{L}^{t}$ as in the case of the usual trace, the asymptotics of $\pi(T)$ would be expressed in terms of the spectrum of $\mathcal{L}^{t}$. For this reason, we are going to study the spectral properties of the transfer operators $\mathcal{L}^t$.
Let us say that a function $\varphi:X_{f}\to\mathbb{C}$ is of class $C^{\infty}$
if $\mathcal{L}^{t}\varphi$ for $t\ge 0$ are $C^{\infty}$ functions on the interior $X_{f}^{\circ}$ of $X_f$ (as a subset of $S^1\times \mathbb{R}$) and each of their partial derivatives are bounded. This implies that $\varphi$ is not only $C^{\infty}$ on $X_{f}^{\circ}$ but also satisfies some conditions on its values and differentials on the boundaries. Let $C^{\infty}(X_{f})$
be the space of $C^{\infty}$ functions on $X_{f}$ (defined as above), which, equipped with the uniform $C^{r}$ norms $\|\varphi|_{X_{f}^{\circ}}\|_{C^{r}}$
for $r\ge0$, is a Fr\'echet space.
With this definition of $C^{\infty}(X_{f})$, we may regard $\mathcal{L}^{t}$ for $t\ge 0$ as a continuous
semigroup of operators
\[
\mathcal{L}^{t}:C^{\infty}(X_{f})\to C^{\infty}(X_{f}).
\]
To study spectral properties of $\mathcal{L}^{t}$, we will define Banach spaces
\[
C^{\infty}(X_{f})\subset\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(X_{f})\subset L^{2}(X_{f})
\]
for real numbers $r>0$
and integers $p\ge1$ and consider the natural extensions of $\mathcal{L}^t$ to them.
The next theorem gives a spectral property of $\mathcal{L}^{t}$ on $\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(X_{f})$
under some generic conditions on the roof function~$f$.
We write $h(f)$, $\chi_{\max}(f)$ and $\chi_{\min}(f)$ respectively for the topological entropy,
the maximum Lyapunov exponent and the minimum Lyapunov exponent:
\[
\chi_{\max}(f):=\lim_{t\to\infty}\frac{1}{t}\max_{z\in X_{f}}\log\|DT_{f}^{t}(z)\|,\qquad
\chi_{\min}(f):=\lim_{t\to\infty}\frac{1}{t}\min_{z\in X_{f}}\log\|DT_{f}^{t}(z)\|.
\]
We put
\[
\alpha(f):=\frac{\chi_{\max}(f)}{h(f)}.
\]
We always have $\alpha(f)\ge1$
from Ruelle inequality\cite{Mane} and may regard $\alpha(f)$ as a measurement of spacial
non-uniformity of expansion by the semiflow $\mathbf{T}_{f}$.
\begin{thm}
\label{th:spec} For any $f\in C_{+}^{\infty}(S^{1})$, any $r>0$ and any integer $p\ge 1$,
the transfer operators $\mathcal{L}^{t}$ for sufficiently large
$t>0$ extend to bounded operators
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cL}
\mathcal{L}^{t}:\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(X_{f})\to\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(X_{f}).
\end{equation}
For each integer $p\ge1$ and for each $\varepsilon>0$, there is an open dense subset\/ $\mathcal{U}_{p}(\varepsilon)\subset C_{+}^{\infty}(S^{1})$ such that, if $f\in\mathcal{U}_{p}(\varepsilon)$ and if $r>0$ is sufficiently large (see (\ref{eq:choice_r})),
the essential spectral radius of the operator (\ref{eq:cL}) for
sufficiently large $t>0$ is smaller than $\exp((\rho_p(f)+\varepsilon) t)$
where
\begin{equation}\label{eq:bound_ess}
\rho_{p}(f):=\frac{1}{2}\left(1+\frac{\max\left\{ p,\,\alpha(f)\right\} -1}{p}\right)\cdot h(f).
\end{equation}
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}
\label{rem:mui} The conclusion of the theorem above implies that the spectral set of (\ref{eq:cL}) on the region $|z|\ge\exp((\rho_p(f)+\varepsilon) t)$
consists of finitely many eigenvalues with finite multiplicities. Such
eigenvalues (counted with multiplicity) are written in the form $\exp(\mu_{i}t)$,
$i=1,2,\cdots,k$, with complex numbers $\mu_{i}$ that do not depend
on $t$. (See \cite[pp295]{Tsujii08}.)
\end{rem}
The case $p=1$ in the theorem above corresponds to the result in our previous paper \cite{Tsujii08}, where the bound is
\[
\rho_{1}(f)=\exp(\chi_{\max}(f)\cdot t/2)
\]
as $\alpha(f)\ge 1$. (See also \cite{Tsujii10,Tsujii12} for the corresponding results for contact Anosov
flows.) This bound is preferable
when $\alpha(f)$ is close to $1$, but the claim becomes vacuous when $\alpha(f)\ge2$ for $\rho_1(f)$ exceeds the topological entropy $h_{\top}(f)$. The improvement achieved in Theorem \ref{th:spec} is that we get better bounds by choosing different integers $p\ge1$ depending on $\alpha(f)\ge1$. For simplicity's sake, suppose that $f$ belongs to the residual subset $\mathcal{U}:=\cap_{p\in \mathbb{N}}\cap_{m=1}^\infty\,\mathcal{U}_{p}(1/m)\subset C_{+}^{\infty}(S^{1})$
and put
\[
\rho(f):=\min_{p\ge1}\rho_{p}(f).
\]
Letting
\footnote{This choice of $p$ is not always optimal.%
} $p(f)=\lceil\alpha(f)\rceil\ge1$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:rhobound}
\rho(f)\le\rho_{p(f)}(f) \le \left(1-\frac{1}{2p(f)}\right)h(f)<h(f).
\end{equation}
Therefore, by choosing suitable $p\ge 1$, we always get a bound for the
essential spectral radius of $\mathcal{L}^t$ that is strictly smaller than the spectral
radius $\exp(h(f)t)$.
\subsection{Asymptotics of the number of periodic orbits}
We next give a consequence of Theorem~\ref{th:spec} on the remainder
term of the prime orbit theorem. Let $\Gamma=\Gamma(f)$ be the set
of prime periodic orbits for the semiflow $\mathbf{T}_{f}$. For
a prime periodic orbit $\gamma\in\Gamma$, we denote its period
by $|\gamma|$. Let $
\pi(T)=\#\{\gamma\in\Gamma\mid|\gamma|\le T\}$.
\begin{thm}\label{th:generalized_huber}
Let $\varepsilon>0$ and suppose that the roof function $f\in C_{+}^{\infty}(S^1)$ belongs
to the open dense subset $\mathcal{U}_{p}(\varepsilon)\subset C_{+}^{\infty}(X_{f})$
given in Theorem \ref{th:spec} for $p\ge 1$. Then, with setting
\begin{equation}\label{eq:bar_rho}
\bar{\rho}=\bar{\rho}_p(f):=\frac{\rho_p(f)+h(f)}{2},
\end{equation}
we have an asymptotic formula
\begin{align*}
\pi(T)=\int_{1}^{T}\frac{e^{h_{\top}t}}{t}dt+\sum_{i=1}^{k'}\int_{1}^{T}\frac{e^{\mu_{i}t}}{t}dt+\mathcal{O}\left(e^{(\bar{\rho}+\varepsilon) t}\right),
\end{align*}
where $\mu_{i}$, $1\le i\le k'$, are those complex numbers in Remark \ref{rem:mui}
satisfying the condition $\bar{\rho}+\varepsilon<\Re(\mu_{i})<h(f)$.
\end{thm}
Note that,
if we let $p=p(f)=\lceil\alpha(f)\rceil\ge1$,
we have, from (\ref{eq:rhobound}), that
\[
\bar{\rho}_{p}(f)\le
\left(1-\frac{1}{4\lceil \chi_{\max}(f)/h(f)\rceil}\right)h(f)<h(f).
\]
\begin{rem}
The reason that we have the average $\bar{\rho}_p(f)$ instead of $\rho_p(f)$ in the statement of Theorem \ref{th:generalized_huber} above will appear in its proof given in Section \ref{sec:pf_th_huber}. (See Remark \ref{rem_bar_rho}.)
\end{rem}
In the following sections, we proceed as follows. In Section \ref{sec:generic}, we formulate a transversality condition on the roof function $f$ and decompose Theorem \ref{th:spec} into two theorems: Theorem \ref{thm:multiplicity} that proves prevalence of the transversality condition and Theorem \ref{thm:spectrum} that proves the conclusion of Theorem \ref{th:spec} from the transversality condition. We prove Theorem \ref{thm:spectrum} in Section \ref{sec:pf1} after preparation in Section \ref{sec:defcBonR}.
We insert the proof of Theorem \ref{th:generalized_huber} in Section \ref{sec:pf_th_huber} before we prove Theorem~\ref{thm:multiplicity} in Section \ref{sec:multi}, as it uses the argument in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:spectrum}.
\section{The generic condition}\label{sec:generic}
We set up notation on the dynamics of the semiflow $\mathbf{T}_{f}$
and formulate the transversality condition that defines the open dense
subset $\mathcal{U}_{p}(\varepsilon)$ in Theorem \ref{th:spec}.
\subsection{Differential of the semiflow $\mathbf{T}_{f}$}\label{ss:dif}
The differential $DT_{f}^{t}(z):\mathbb{R}^{2}\to\mathbb{R}^{2}$ at $z\in X_{f}$
is well-defined if $z$ and $T_{f}^{t}(z)$ are not on the (lower) boundary
of $X_{f}$. In general, we define
\[
DT_{f}^{t}(z)=\lim_{\varepsilon\to+0}DT_{f}^{t}(x,y+\varepsilon):\mathbb{R}^{2}\to\mathbb{R}^{2},
\]
where $DT_{f}^{t}(x,y+\varepsilon)$ for sufficiently small $\varepsilon>0$
is constant and hence the limit on the right hand side is well-defined.
For $t\ge0$, we set
\begin{equation}\label{eq:EF}
E(z,t;f)=\ell^{n(x,y+t;f)}\quad\mbox{and}\quad F(z,t;f)=\frac{\partial}{\partial x}f^{(n(x,y+t;f))}(x)
\end{equation}
where $n(x,t;f)$
and $f^{(n)}(x)$ are those defined in (\ref{eq:fn}) and (\ref{eq:n}). Then we have
\begin{equation}
DT_{f}^{t}(z)=\begin{pmatrix}E(z,t;f) & 0\\
F(z,t;f) & 1
\end{pmatrix}\label{eq:DT}
\end{equation}
We write $D^{\dag}T_{f}^{t}(z)$ for the transpose
of the inverse of $Df^{t}(z)$, that is,
\begin{equation}
D^{\dag}T_{f}^{t}(z):={}^{T}(Df^{t}(z))^{-1}=\begin{pmatrix}E(z,t;f)^{-1} & S(z,t;f)\\
0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}\label{eq:DdagT}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
S(z,t;f)=-E(z,t;f)^{-1}F(z,t;f).\label{eq:S}
\end{equation}
Then the minimum and maximum Lyapunov exponents of $\mathbf{T}_{f}$ are written
\begin{align*}
\chi_{\min}(f)&=\lim_{t\to\infty}\frac{1}{t}\log\left(\min_{z\in X_{f}}E(z,t;f)\right)
\intertext{and}
\chi_{\max}(f)&=\lim_{t\to\infty}\frac{1}{t}\log\left(\max_{z\in X_{f}}E(z,t;f)\right).
\end{align*}
For the topological entropy $h(f)$, we have
\[
\frac{1}{t}\log\left(\min_{z\in X_{f}}E(z,t;f)\right)\le h(f)\le\frac{1}{t}\log\left(\max_{z\in X_{f}}E(z,t;f)\right)
\]
for any $t>0$ and hence
\[
\chi_{\min}(f)\le h(f)\le\chi_{\max}(f).
\]
For $0<y_{\min}<y_{\max}$ and $\kappa_{0}>0$,
let $
\mathfrak{F}(y_{\min},y_{\max},\kappa_{0})\subset C_{+}^{\infty}(S^{1})$
be the open subset that consists of $f\in C_{+}^{\infty}(S^{1})$ satisfying
\[
y_{\min}<f(x)<y_{\max},\quad |f'(x)|< \kappa_0\quad ,|f''(x)|<\kappa_{0}\quad\mbox{for all \ensuremath{x\in S^{1}}.}
\]
If $f\in\mathfrak{F}(y_{\min},y_{\max},\kappa_{0})$, we have
\begin{equation}
\bar{\chi}_{\min}:=\frac{\log\ell}{y_{\max}}\le\chi_{\min}(f)\le h(f)\le \chi_{\max}(f)\le \bar{\chi}_{\max}:=\frac{\log\ell}{y_{\min}}.\label{eq:bound_Lyapunov}
\end{equation}
In what follows, we fix $0<y_{\min}<y_{\max}$ and $\kappa_{0}>0$ and confine our attention to the semiflows $\mathbf{T}_{f}$
with $f\in\mathfrak{F}(y_{\min},y_{\max},\kappa_{0})$. Since the subset
$\mathfrak{F}(y_{\min},y_{\max},\kappa_{0})$ exhausts $C_{+}^{\infty}(S^{1})$
in the limit $y_{\min}\to+0$, $y_{\max}\to+\infty$ and $\kappa_{0}\to+\infty$,
this causes no loss of generality.
We henceforth fix $r>0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:choice_r}
r> \bar{\chi}_{\max}/\bar{\chi}_{\min}\ge 1.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Cones in the flow direction}
Since the time-$t$-map $T^t_f$ is partially hyperbolic, its (push-forward) action on the cotangent
bundle
\[
D^{\dag}T_{f}^{t}:X_{f}\times\mathbb{R}^{2}\to X_{f}\times\mathbb{R}^{2},\quad D^{\dag}T_{f}^{t}(z,\xi)=(T_{f}^{t}(z),D^{\dag}T_{f}^{t}(z)\xi)
\]
admits a forward invariant cone field. We can set up such a cone field concretely as follows.
For real numbers $s$ and $\theta>0$, we define
\[
\mathbf{C}(s,\theta):=\{(\xi,\eta)\in\mathbb{R}^{2}\mid|\xi-s\eta|\le\theta|\eta|\}\subset\mathbb{R}^{2}.
\]
We fix a real number $\gamma_{0}$ satisfying $1/\ell<\gamma_{0}<1$
and set
\[
\mathbf{C}_{0}:=\mathbf{C}(0,\theta_{0}):=\{(\xi,\eta)\in\mathbb{R}^{2}\mid|\xi|\le\theta_{0}|\eta|\}\subset\mathbb{R}^{2}
\]
where
\[
\theta_{0}:=\frac{\kappa_{0}}{\gamma_{0}\ell-1}.
\]
Then we have that
\begin{equation}
(DT_{f}^{t})_{z}^{\dag}(\mathbf{C}_{0})=\mathbf{C}(S(z,t;f),E(z,t;f)^{-1}\theta_{0})\subset\mathbf{C}(0,\gamma_{0}\theta_{0})\subset\mathbf{C}_{0}\label{eq:DdagTcone}
\end{equation}
for all $z=(x,y)\in X_{f}$ and $t\ge f(x)-y$.
\subsection{Backward orbits}\label{ss:bo}
For each $z\in X_{f}$, the number of points in its backward orbit
\[
(T_{f}^{t})^{-1}(z)=\{w\in X_{f}\mid T_{f}^{t}(w)=z\}
\]
for time $t>0$ grows exponentially as $t\to0$. Indeed, for any
$\varepsilon>0$, there exists $C_{\varepsilon}>1$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:card_backward_orbit}
C^{-1}_{\varepsilon}e^{(h(f)-\varepsilon)t}<\#(T_{f}^{t})^{-1}(z)<C_{\varepsilon}e^{(h(f)+\varepsilon)t}\quad\forall z\in X_{f}, \quad \forall t\ge0.
\end{equation}
For $z=(x,y)\in X_{f}$, $t\ge0$ and $w\in(T_{f}^{t})^{-1}(z)$,
let
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sn}
0< s_{k(z,w;t)}(z,w;t)<\cdots<s_{2}(z,w;t)<s_{1}(z,w;t)\le t
\end{equation}
be the sequence of time $t$ at which the orbit $T_{f}^{s}(w)$, $0< s\le t$, crosses the lower boundary $S^{1}\times\{0\}$ of~$X_{f}$. By definition,
we have
\[
T_{f}^{s_{k}(z,w;t)}(w)\in\tau^{-k}(x)\times\{0\}\quad\mbox{for $1\le k\le k(z,w;t)$.}
\]
Since we are assuming that $f\in\mathfrak{F}(y_{\min},y_{\max},\kappa_{0})$, we have
\[
\lfloor t/y_{\max}\rfloor\le n(z,w;t)\le\lceil t/y_{\min}\rceil.
\]
Below we investigate transversality between the cones
\begin{equation}
(D^{\dag}T_{f}^{t})_{w}(\mathbf{C}_{0})=\mathbf{C}(S(w,t;f),E(w,t;f)^{-1}\theta_{0})\quad\mbox{for } w\in(T_{f}^{t})^{-1}(z)\label{eq:imageOfCones}
\end{equation}
in some generalized sense. Since much variety of angles of the cones $(D^{\dag}T_{f}^{t})_{w}(\mathbf{C}_{0})$ for $w\in (T_{f}^{t})^{-1}(z)$ causes technical difficulties in the following argument,
we classify the points $w\in (T_{f}^{t})^{-1}(z)$ with respect
to the value of $E(w,t;f)$ (whose reciprocal is proportional to the angle of $(D^{\dag}T_{f}^{t})_{w}(\mathbf{C}_{0})$). For an interval
$J=[a,b]$ with $0<a<b$, we set
\[
B(z,t;J;f)=\{w\in(T_{f}^{t})^{-1}(z)\mid e^{at}\le E(w,t;f)\le e^{bt}\}.
\]
We fix a $C^{\infty}$ function $\chi:\mathbb{R}\to[0,1]$ such
that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:chi}
\chi(t)=\begin{cases}
0, & \mbox{ if \ensuremath{t\ge2};}\\
1, & \mbox{ if \ensuremath{t\le1}.}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
For $s\in \mathbb{R}$, let $
\langle s\rangle=\chi(s)+(1-\chi(s))|s|$,
so that $\langle s\rangle \in [1,\max\{1,|s|\}]$ and that
\[
\langle s\rangle=
\begin{cases}
1, &\mbox{ if $|s|\le 1$;}\\
|s|, &\mbox{ if $|s|\ge 2$}.
\end{cases}
\]
\begin{defn}
For $z\in X_f$, $t>0$ and a $p$-tuple $\mathbf{w}=(\mathbf{w}(1),\cdots,\mathbf{w}(p))$
of points in $(T_{f}^{t})^{-1}(z)$, we set
\[
S(\mathbf{w},t;f)=\sum_{i=1}^{p}S(\mathbf{w}(i),t;f)
\]
and define $E(\mathbf{w},t;f)$ by the relation
\[
\frac{1}{E(\mathbf{w},t;f)}=\sum_{i=1}^{p}\frac{1}{E(\mathbf{w}(i),t;f)} .
\]
We define the function $W^{r}(\mathbf{w},t;f):\mathbb{R}^{2}\to\mathbb{R}^{2}$
by
\[
W^{r}(\mathbf{w},t;f)(\xi,\eta)=\left\langle \frac{E(\mathbf{w},t;f)\cdot |\xi-S(\mathbf{w},t;f)\eta|}{\theta_{0}\cdot \langle\eta\rangle}\right\rangle ^{r}.
\]
This function takes constant value
$1$ on the cone
\begin{equation}\label{eq:coneSE}
\mathbf{C}(S(\mathbf{w},t;f),E(\mathbf{w},t;f)^{-1}\theta_0)
\end{equation}
and grows rapidly as the point gets far from it.
\end{defn}
As a quantification of transversality between
p-tuples of cones in (\ref{eq:imageOfCones}),
we consider the quantity
\begin{equation}\label{eq:mult}
\sup_{\xi\in \mathbb{R}} \left(
\sum_{\mathbf{w}=(w(1),\cdots,w(p))\inB(z,t;J;f)^{p}}\frac{1}{W^{r}(\mathbf{w},t;f)(\xi,2)}\right).
\end{equation}
In the case $p=1$, boundedness of this quantity by some relatively small constant implies that most of the cones in (\ref{eq:imageOfCones}) are transversal to each other.
In the case $p>1$, it does not have such geometric meaning, but still useful in the argument below.
\begin{rem}
By definition, $W^{r}(\mathbf{w},t;f)(\xi,\eta)$ is constant on the intersection of a straight line through the origin with the region $|\eta|\ge 2$.
Hence the constant $2$ in $W^{r}(\mathbf{w},t;f)(\xi,2)$ above could be any constant $\eta_0$ such that $|\eta_0|\ge 2$.
\end{rem}
The next theorem gives a bound on (a slight modification of) the quantity (\ref{eq:mult})
under generic conditions on the roof function $f$. Before stating the theorem, let us make a guess on the bound. Note that each function
$\xi\mapsto W^{r}(\mathbf{w},t;f)(\xi,1)^{-1}$ decays rapidly on the outside of a neighborhood of $\xi=S(\mathbf{w},t;f)$ with width proportional to $E(\mathbf{w},t;f)^{-1}\le e^{-at}$.
Hence, if the values of $S(\mathbf{w},t;f)$ for $\mathbf{w}\inB(z,t;J;f)^{p}$
were distributed randomly and independently on the interval $[-p\theta_{0},p\theta_{0}]$
(as random variables on the space of roof functions $f$), the large deviation argument would tell that, for almost all roof functions $f$, the quantity (\ref{eq:mult}) should be bounded by
\[
e^{\varepsilon t} \max\{1,\exp(-at)\cdot(\sharp(T_{f}^{t})^{-1}(z))^{p}\}
\le \exp\left(\left(\max\{p\cdot h(f)-a,0\}+\varepsilon\right)t\right)
\]
in the limit $t\to \infty$, for arbitrarily small $\varepsilon>0$. The next theorem tells that this guess is basically true, but with slight modifications.
For an integer $n\ge 1$, let $\mathrm{Per}(\tau,n)$ be the set of periodic points of $\tau$ with period not greater than $n$ and, for $\delta>0$, let $\mathrm{Per}_\delta(\tau,n)$ be the open $\delta$-neighborhood of $\mathrm{Per}(\tau,n)$.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:multiplicity}
Let $p\ge 1$ be an integer.
For an interval $J=[a,b]$ with $0<a<b$ and real numbers $\varepsilon,\delta>0$, there exists $n_0=n_0(\varepsilon)$ and a prevalent\footnote{See remark below for the definition of this term "prevalent".} subset
\[
\mathcal{G}(J,n,\varepsilon,\delta;p)\subset\mathfrak{F}(y_{\min},y_{\max},\kappa_{0})
\]
for $n\ge n_0$,
such that the following claim holds for $f\in\mathcal{G}(J,n,\varepsilon,\delta;p)$:\newline
\indent For sufficiently large $t>0$ and for any $z=(x,y)\in X_{f}$ with $x\notin \mathrm{Per}_\delta(n,\tau)$, there exists a subset $\mathcal{E}=\mathcal{E}(z,t;f)\subset\tau^{-n}(x)$ with $\#\mathcal{E}\le p\lceil 10a/\varepsilon\rceil$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:mult2}
\sum{}^{*}\;\frac{1}{W^{r}(\mathbf{w},t;f)(\xi,2)}<\exp((\max\{p\cdot h(f)-a,0\}+p(b-a)+\varepsilon)t)
\end{equation}
for any $\xi\in [-\theta_0,\theta_0]$,
where the sum $\sum^{*}$ is taken over $p$-tuples $\mathbf{w}=(\mathbf{w}(1),\cdots\!,\mathbf{w}(p))$ in $B(z,t;J;f)^{p}$
with
\[
T_{f}^{s_{n}(z,\mathbf{w}(i);t)}(\mathbf{w}(i))\notin \mathcal{E}\times\{0\}\quad\mbox{for \ensuremath{i=1,2,\cdots,p}.}
\]
\end{thm}
Note that the point $T_{f}^{s_{n}(z,\mathbf{w}(i);t)}(\mathbf{w}(i))$ belongs to $\tau^{-n}(x)\times\{0\}$ from the definition of $s_{n}(z,w;t)$ in (\ref{eq:sn}).
\begin{rem}\label{rem:prevalence}
In the statement above, we used the notion of "prevalence" that is introduced in \cite{MR1161274, MR1191479, Yorke}. A measurable subset $S$ in a linear topological space $X$ is said to be \emph{shy} if there exists a Borel measure $\mu$ such that
$0<\mu(U)<\infty$ for some compact subset $U\subset X$ and $\mu(S+x)=0$ for any $x\in X$. ($\mu$ is called a transverse measure for $S$.) A shy subset has empty interior. Any countable union of shy subsets is again shy. (This is far from trivial.) A measurable subset $P$ is said to be \emph{prevalent} in $Q\subset X$ if $Q\setminus P$ is shy. (See \cite{Yorke} for the detail. See also \cite{MR1167374} for a similar but different notion which could be used alternatively.)
\end{rem}
The next theorem states that the transversality condition in the theorem above yields an estimate on the essential spectral radius of the transfer operator $\mathcal{L}^t$.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:spectrum} Let $p\ge 1$ be an integer and let $J_{\nu}=[a_{\nu},b_{\nu}]$, $1\le \nu\le \nu_0$,
be intervals such that the union of their interiors contains the interval $[\bar{\chi}_{\min},\bar{\chi}_{\max}]$.
For $1\le \nu\le \nu_0$, put
\begin{equation}\label{eq:boundEss}
\mu_{\nu}=\frac{(p-1)h(f)+\max\{p\cdot h(f)-a_{\nu},0\}+p(b_\nu-a_\nu)+b_{\nu}}{2p}.
\end{equation}
Suppose that $f_0$ belongs to the prevalent subset
\[
\mathcal{G}=\bigcap_{\nu= 1}^{\nu_0}\bigcap_{m=1}^\infty \bigcap_{m'=1}^\infty
\bigcap_{n\ge n_0(1/m)}\mathcal{G}(J_{\nu},n, 1/m, 1/m';p)\subset \mathfrak{F}(y_{\min},y_{\max},\kappa_{0})
\]
where $\mathcal{G}(J,n,\varepsilon,\delta; p)$ is that in
Theorem \ref{thm:multiplicity}. Then, for any $\eta>0$, there exists a neighborhood $\mathcal{V}$ of $f_0$ in $C^\infty_+(S^1)$ such that, if $f\in \mathcal{V}$, the essential spectral radius
of the transfer operator (\ref{eq:cL}) for sufficiently large $t$ is bounded by $e^{(\mu(f)+\eta) t}$ where
\begin{equation}\label{eq:muf}
\mu(f)=\max\{ \mu_{\nu}\mid \mathrm{int}\,J_{\nu}\cap [\chi_{\min}(f),\chi_{\max}(f)]\neq \emptyset \}.
\end{equation}
\end{thm}
For given $\eta>0$,
we can take the intervals $J_{\nu}=[a_{\nu},b_{\nu}]$, $1\le \nu\le \nu_0$,
narrow enough so that the quantity $\mu(f)$ is
bounded by
\[
\frac{\left(p-1+\max\{p,\alpha(f)\}\right)h(f)+\eta}{2p}= \rho_p(f)+\frac{\eta}{2p}.
\]
Therefore Theorem~\ref{th:spec} follows from Theorem~\ref{thm:multiplicity} and Theorem \ref{thm:spectrum}. (The first claim on boundedness of $\mathcal{L}^t$ is proved in Subsection \ref{ss:defcB}.)
\section{The Banach space $\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(\protect\mathbb{R}^{2})$}
\label{sec:defcBonR}
In this section, we define the Banach space $\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(\mathbb{R}^{2})$
and prove some related lemmas. (The definition resembles that of Besov spaces in \cite[Section 2.3.1]{Triebel}.)
We will construct
the Banach space $\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(X_{f})$ in (\ref{eq:cL}) using this Banach space as its local model.
(But, since $X_f$ is not a manifold, the construction is a little different from the usual one.)
\subsection{Definitions}
We introduce two partitions of unity on
$\mathbb{R}$:
\[
\{\chi_{n}:\mathbb{R}\to[0,1]\}_{m\in\mathbb{Z}_{+}}\quad\mbox{and}\quad \{\rho_{n}:\mathbb{R}\to[0,1]\}_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}.
\]
The former is the Littlewood-Paley
partition of unity, defined by
\[
\chi_{m}:\mathbb{R}\to[0,1],\quad\chi_{m}(t)=\begin{cases}
\chi(|t|), & \mbox{ if $m=0$;}\\
\chi(2^{-m}|t|)-\chi(2^{-m+1}|t|), & \mbox{ if $m\ge 1$}
\end{cases}
\]
where $\chi$ is that taken in Subsection \ref{ss:bo}.
The latter
is defined by
\[
\rho_{n}=\begin{cases}
\chi(\mathrm{sgn}(x) \sqrt{|x|}-n+1)-\chi(\mathrm{sgn}(x)\sqrt{|x|}-n+2), & \mbox{if $n\ge 1$};\\
\chi(\sqrt{|x|}+1), & \mbox{if $n=0$;}\\
\chi(\mathrm{sgn}(x) \sqrt{|x|}+n+1)-\chi(\mathrm{sgn}(x)\sqrt{|x|}+n+2), & \mbox{if \ensuremath{n\le-1}}.
\end{cases}
\]
Note that the support of the function $\rho_n$ is contained in the interval
\[
I_{n}=\begin{cases}
[(n-1)^{2},(n+1)^{2}], & \mbox{if $n\ge1$};\\
[-1,1], & \mbox{if $n=0$;}\\
[-(|n|+1)^{2},-(|n|-1)^{2}], & \mbox{if $n\le-1$}
\end{cases}
\]
which contains $\mathrm{sgn}(n)\cdot n^2$ and whose length is comparable with $|n|$.
Next we define the partition of unity
\[
\{\chi_{n,m}:\mathbb{R}^{2}\to[0,1]\mid n\in\mathbb{Z},m\in\mathbb{Z}_{+}\}
\]
on $\mathbb{R}^{2}$ by
\[
\chi_{n,m}:\mathbb{R}^{2}\to[0,1],\quad\chi_{n,m}(\xi,\eta)=\rho_{n}(\eta)\cdot\chi_{m}(\theta_{0}^{-1}\cdot\langle n\rangle^{-2}\cdot\xi).
\]
The support of the function $\chi_{n,m}$ is contained in the region
\[
\left([-2^{m+1}\langle n\rangle^2\theta_0,-2^{m-1}\langle n\rangle^2\theta_0]\cup [2^{m-1}\langle n\rangle^2\theta_0, 2^{m+1}\langle n\rangle^2\theta_0]\right)\times I_n
\]
when $m\ge 1$, and in $
[-2\langle n\rangle^2\theta_0, 2\langle n\rangle^2\theta_0])\times I_n
$ otherwise.
\begin{defn}
For a real number $r> 0$ and an integer $p\ge1$, we define the
norm $\|\cdot\|_{r,p}$ on the Schwartz space $\mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R}^{2})$
by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:norm_Brp}
\|u\|_{r,p}=\left(\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}(2^{rm}\cdot\|\mathcal{F}^{-1}\circ \mathcal{M}(\chi_{n,m})\circ \mathcal{F} u\|_{L^{2p}})^{2p}\right)^{1/2p}
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{F}$ and $\mathcal{M}(\varphi)$ denote the Fourier transform and the multiplication operator by $\varphi$ respectively, and $\|\cdot\|_{L^{2p}}$ denotes the $L^{2p}$ norm. Let $\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(\mathbb{R}^{2})\subset\mathcal{S}'(\mathbb{R}^{2})$
be the completion of $\mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R}^{2})$ with respect to this
norm. For a subset $K\subset\mathbb{R}^{2}$, we write $\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(K)$
for the subspace of $\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(\mathbb{R}^{2})$ that consists of elements
whose support is contained in the closure of $K$.
\end{defn}
\begin{rem}\label{rem:brpq} We could introduce another parameter $q\in \mathbb{R}$ and define the Banach space
$\mathcal{B}^{r,p,q}(\mathbb{R}^{2})$ as the completion of $\mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R}^{2})$ with respect to the norm
\[
\|u\|_{r,p,q}=\left(\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}(2^{rm}\cdot\langle n\rangle^{2q}\cdot\|\mathcal{F}^{-1}\circ \mathcal{M}(\chi_{n,m})\circ \mathcal{F} u)\|_{L^{2p}})^{2p}\right)^{1/2p}.
\]
We can develop our argument presented below for these more general Banach spaces (regardless of the choice of $q$) in parallel, with slight differences in constants. One advantage of considering such generalization is that we can prove that the eigenfunctions of $\mathcal{L}^t$ corresponding to the peripheral eigenvalues outside of the essential spectral radius belong to $C^\infty(
X_f)$. This is essentially because $\cap_{r,q} \mathcal{B}^{r,p,q}(\mathbb{R}^2)= C^\infty(\mathbb{R}^2)$ and because the peripheral eigenvalues and the corresponding eigenfunctions do not depend on the choice of Banach spaces. But we restrict our argument below to the case $q=0$ for simplicity's sake.\end{rem}
For technical argument in the next subsection,
we introduce slight variants of the Banach space $\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(\mathbb{R}^{2})$.
For real numbers $S$ and $E>0$, let $A_{S,E}:\mathbb{R}^{2}\to\mathbb{R}^{2}$
be the linear map defined by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ASE}
A_{S,E}\begin{pmatrix}x\\
y
\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}Ex\\
SEx+y
\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}E & 0\\
SE & 1
\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}x\\
y
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
The transpose of its inverse is
\[
A_{S,E}^{\dagger}\begin{pmatrix}\xi\\
\eta
\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}E^{-1} & -S\\
0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}\xi\\
\eta
\end{pmatrix}.
\]
The Banach space $\mathcal{B}_{S,E}^{r,p}(\mathbb{R}^2)$ is defined
as the push-forward of $\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(\mathbb{R}^2)$ by $A_{S,E}$. Precisely we define
\[
\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(\mathbb{R}^2)=\{u\in\mathcal{D}'(\mathbb{R}^2)\mid u\circ A_{S,E}\in \mathcal{B}^{r,p}(\mathbb{R}^2)\}
\]
and equip it with the norm
\begin{align}\label{eq:rpse}
\|u\|_{r,p,S,E}&:=E^{1/2p}\cdot \|u\circ A_{S,E}\|_{r,p}\\
&=\left(\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}(2^{rm}\|\mathcal{F}^{-1}\circ \mathcal{M}(\chi_{n,m,S,E})\circ\mathcal{F} u)\|_{L^{2p}})^{2p}\right)^{1/2p}\notag
\end{align}
where $\chi_{n,m,S,E}:=\chi_{n,m}\circ(A_{S,E}^{\dagger})^{-1}$.
\subsection{Basic estimates}
We provide a few basic lemmas related to the definitions introduced above. Note that the operator $\mathcal{F}^{-1}\circ \mathcal{M}(\chi_{n,m})\circ \mathcal{F}$ is written as a convolution operator
\[
\mathcal{F}^{-1}\circ \mathcal{M}(\chi_{n,m})\circ \mathcal{F} u=\hat\chi_{n,m}*u
\]
with $
\hat\chi_{n,m}=(2\pi)^{-1}\mathcal{F}^{-1} \chi_{n,m}$.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:Fxnm}For arbitrarily large $\nu>0$, there exists a constant
$C_{\nu}$ such that
\[
|\hat\chi_{n,m}(x,y)|\le C_{\nu}\cdot(2^{m}\langle n\rangle^{3})\cdot\langle 2^{m}\langle n\rangle^{2}|x|\rangle^{-\nu}\cdot\langle\langle n\rangle\cdot|y|\rangle^{-\nu}
\]
uniformly for integers $n$ and $m\ge 0$. In particular, the $L^1$ norm of $\hat\chi_{n,m}$ is uniformly bounded.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The family of functions
\[
X_{n,m}(\xi,\eta):=\chi_{n,m}(2^{m}\langle n\rangle^{2}\xi,\langle n\rangle(\eta-n|n|))
\]
for $n\in\mathbb{Z}$ and $m\in\mathbb{Z}_{+}$ are uniformly bounded in $\mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R}^{2})$ and therefore so are the family of functions
\[
\mathcal{F}^{-1}X_{n,m}(x,y)=(2^{-m}\langle n\rangle^{-3})\cdot
e^{i n|n| y}\cdot \mathcal{F}^{-1}\chi_{n,m}(2^{-m}\langle n\rangle^{-2}x,\langle n\rangle^{-1}y).
\]
This implies the conclusion of the lemma.
\end{proof}
Similarly we have
\begin{lem}\label{lem:Fxnm2}
The $L^1$ norm of $\hat\chi_{n,m,S,E}=(2\pi)^{-1}\mathcal{F}^{-1} \chi_{n,m,S,E}$ is bounded by a constant independent of $n$, $m$, $S$ and $E$.
\end{lem}
By abuse of notation, we will write $\hat{\chi}_{n,m}$ also for the convolution operator by $\hat{\chi}_{n,m}$, so that $\hat{\chi}_{n,m}u=\hat{\chi}_{n,m}*u=\mathcal{F}^{-1}\circ \mathcal{M}({\chi}_{n,m})\circ \mathcal{F} u$.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:xnm_trace}
For integers $n$ and $m\ge 0$ and for a bounded region $U\subset \mathbb{R}^2$, the convolution operator
\[
\hat{\chi}_{n,m}=\mathcal{F}^{-1}\circ \mathcal{M}({\chi}_{n,m})\circ \mathcal{F}:L^{2p}(U)\to L^{2p}(\mathbb{R}^2)
\]
is a trace class operator. There exists a constant $C_0>0$, independent of $n$, $m$ and $U$, such that
\[
\|\hat{\chi}_{n,m}:L^{2p}(U)\to L^{2p}(\mathbb{R}^2)\|_{\mathrm{Tr}\,}\le
C_0 \cdot 2^m \langle n\rangle^3\cdot |U|_{n,m}
\]
where $\|\cdot\|_{\mathrm{Tr}\,}$ denotes the trace norm and
\[
|U|_{n,m}:=\int \max_{(x,y)\in U}\left(
\langle 2^m \langle n\rangle^2 |x-x'|\rangle^{-2}\cdot
\langle \langle n\rangle |y-y'|\rangle^{-2} \right)dx' dy'.
\]
\end{lem}
\begin{rem}
Since we consider operators between Banach spaces, it might be more standard to use the term "nuclear operator" and "nuclear norm" instead of "trace class operator" and "trace norm".
For the definition and basic properties of trace class (or nuclear) operators, we refer \cite[Ch.~5]{GGK}.
\end{rem}
\begin{proof}
Let us set $\chi'_{n,m}:=\sum^*_{n',m'} \chi_{n',m'}$ where the sum $\sum^*$ is taken over $(n',m')$ such that $\mathrm{supp}\, \chi_{n',m'}\cap \mathrm{supp}\, \chi_{n,m}\neq \emptyset$. Since $\chi'_{n,m}\cdot \chi_{n,m}=\chi_{n,m}$, we may write the operator $\hat{\chi}_{n,m}$ as
\begin{align*}
\hat{\chi}_{n,m}u&= \hat\chi'_{n,m}* \hat\chi_{n,m}* u=\int \phi_{z'} u \,dz'
\end{align*}
where $\phi_{z'}$ is the rank one operator defined by
\[
\phi_{z'} u(z)= \left(\int \hat \chi_{n,m}(z'-z'') u(z'') dz''\right)\cdot \hat\chi'_{n,m}(z-z').
\]
From Lemma \ref{lem:Fxnm}, we have
\begin{align*}
&\|\phi_{z'}:L^{2p}(U)\to L^{2p}(\mathbb{R}^2)\|_{\mathrm{Tr}\,}\\
&\qquad \le C_0 \langle n\rangle^{3} 2^{m}\cdot \max_{(x,y)\in U}\left(
\langle 2^m \langle n\rangle^2 |x-x'|\rangle^{-2}
\langle \langle n\rangle |y-y'|\rangle^{-2} \right)
\end{align*}
for $z'=(x',y')$. Indeed the left hand side is bounded by
\[
\|\hat{\chi}_{n,m}\|_{L^{2p}}\cdot \|\hat\chi'_{n,m}\|_{(L^{2p})^*}= \|\chi_{n,m}\|_{L^{2p}}\cdot \|\hat\chi'_{n,m}\|_{L^q}
\]
with $q>0$ such that $q^{-1}+(2p)^{-1}=1$ and hence by $C_0 \langle n\rangle^{3} 2^{m}$ at least. Because $\nu>0$ in Lemma \ref{lem:Fxnm} is arbitrarily large, we can get the latter term on the right hand side in addition.
Finally we obtain the lemma by the triangle inequality.
\end{proof}
For the purpose of extracting the low-frequency part of functions, we consider the operators
\[
\mathcal{K}_{k}:\mathcal{S}'(\mathbb{R}^{2})\to\mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R}^{2}),\quad\mathcal{K}_{k}u=
\sum_{n,m: 2^m \langle n\rangle^2\le k}\hat{\chi}_{n,m}u
\]
for integers $k>0$.
If $U\subset\mathbb{R}^{2}$
is a bounded region, the operator $\mathcal{K}_{k}:\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(U)\to \mathcal{B}^{r,p}(\mathbb{R}^{2})$ is a trace class operator from Lemma \ref{lem:xnm_trace} and hence compact.
As a model of the semiflow $T_f^t$ viewed in local charts (that we will choose in the next section), we consider a $C^{\infty}$ diffeomorphism
\begin{equation}\label{eq:A}
A:V\to A(V)\subset\mathbb{R}^{2}, \quad A(x,y)=(Ex,y+g(Ex))
\end{equation}
where $E\ge 1$, $V:=(-E^{-1}\eta_{*},E^{-1}\eta_{*})\times\mathbb{R}\subset \mathbb{R}^2$ with some small $\eta_*>0$ and $g:(-\eta_{*},\eta_{*})\to\mathbb{R}$ is a $C^{\infty}$ function satisfying $|g'(x)|\le \gamma_0 \theta_0$.
Letting $\varphi:\mathbb{R}^{2}\to\mathbb{R}$
be a $C^{\infty}$ function whose support is contained in $(-\eta_*,\eta_*)\times \mathbb{R}$, we consider the transfer operator
\begin{equation}\label{eq:L_local}
L:C^{\infty}_0(V)\to C^{\infty}_0(A(V)),\quad Lu=(\varphi\cdot u)\circ A^{-1}.
\end{equation}
In the next proposition, we suppose that the function $\varphi(x,y)\in C^\infty_0(\mathbb{R}^2)$ satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{eq:py}
\left\|\frac{\partial^m \varphi}{\partial y^m}\right\|_{\infty}\le K_m\quad \mbox{for $m\ge 0$}
\end{equation}
for some given constants $K_m>0$. When we apply the proposition below in the next section, we will consider many different functions as $\varphi$, which satisfy the condition (\ref{eq:py}) for some uniform constants $K_m$.
\begin{prop}
\label{lm:local1}
If we have (in addition to the setting above) that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:var_g}
|g'(x)-g'(0)|<(1-\gamma_{0})\theta_{0}/E\quad
\mbox{for all $x\in (-\eta_*,\eta_*)$},
\end{equation}
the operator $L$ extends to a bounded operator
\[
L:\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(V)\to \mathcal{B}_{S,E}^{r,p}(A(\mathrm{supp}\,\varphi))\quad \mbox{where $S=g'(0)$.}
\]
There exists a constant $C_0>0$, which depends only on $p$, $r$ and the constants $K_m$'s in $(\ref{eq:py})$, such that we have
\[
\|L\circ(1-\mathcal{K}_{k}):\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(V)\to \mathcal{B}_{S,E}^{r,p}(A(\mathrm{supp}\, \varphi))\|\le C_{0} E^{1/2p}
\]
provided that we take sufficiently large $k>0$ according to $A$ and $\varphi$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Recall the linear map $A_{S,E}$ in (\ref{eq:ASE}). The diffeomorphism $A_{S,E}^{-1}\circ A$ satisfies the assumption on $A$ for the case $E=1$ and $S=0$. Recall also that $\mathcal{B}_{S,E}^{r,p}(\mathbb{R}^2)$ is defined as the push-forward of $\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(\mathbb{R}^2)$ by $A_{S,E}$ and equipped with the norm (\ref{eq:rpse}) having the factor $E^{1/2p}$. Hence, to prove the statement of the lemma, it is enough to prove it in the case $E=1$ and $S=0$ (and $\mathcal{B}_{S,E}^{r,p}(\mathbb{R}^2)=\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(\mathbb{R}^2)$ consequently).
We assume $E=1$ and $S=0$. Take $u\in\mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R}^{2})$ arbitrarily and set
\begin{align*}
&u_{n,m} =\hat{\chi}_{n,m}(u),\\
&v_{(n,m)\to(n',m')} =\hat{\chi}_{n',m'}(L u_{n,m})=\hat{\chi}_{n',m'}\circ L\circ\hat{\chi}'_{n,m}(u_{n,m})
\intertext{and}
&v_{n',m'} =\hat{\chi}_{n',m'}(Lu)=
\sum_{(n,m)} v_{(n,m)\to(n',m')}
\end{align*}
where ${\chi}'_{n,m}$ is that defined in the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:xnm_trace} and $\hat{\chi}'_{n,m}$ denotes the convolution operator by the function $(2\pi)^{-1}\mathcal{F}^{-1}{\chi}'_{n,m}$. Since $(1-\mathcal{K}_{k})$ on $\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(\mathbb{R}^2)$ is bounded uniformly in $k$ and cut off the low-frequency components, it suffices to show
\begin{equation}\label{eq:required}
\sum_{n',m'}(2^{rm'}\|v_{n',m'}\|_{L^{2p}})^{2p}\le C_0
\sum_{n,m} (2^{rm}\|u_{n,m}\|_{L^{2p}})^{2p}
\end{equation}
assuming that $u_{n,m}$ vanishes when $2^m \langle n\rangle^2\le k$ for some large $k$.
We estimate the operator norm of $\hat{\chi}_{n',m'}\circ L\circ\hat{\chi}'_{n,m}$ on $L^{2p}(\mathbb{R}^2)$. Let us set
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Delta1}
\Delta_{1}(n,n')=\begin{cases}
1, & \mbox{if }|n-n'|\le 3;\\
\max\{n,n'\}, & \mbox{otherwise}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{align*}
&\Delta_{2}(n,m,n',m')\\
&\qquad=\begin{cases}
1, &\mbox{if either $m'=0$ or $2^{m'}\langle n'\rangle^{2}\le 2^{m+4}\langle n\rangle^{2}$;}\\
\max\{2^{m}\langle n\rangle^{2},2^{m'}\langle n'\rangle^{2}\}, & \mbox{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
We are going to prove two estimates: One is that, for any $\nu>0$, there exists a constant $C_\nu>0$, depending only on $\nu$ and the constants $K_m$'s in (\ref{eq:py}), such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:basic_est}
\|\hat{\chi}_{n',m'}\circ L\circ\hat{\chi}'_{n,m}\|_{L^{2p}}\le C_\nu \Delta_{1}(n,n')^{-\nu}
\end{equation}
for any combination $(n,m,n',m')$.
The other is that, for any $\nu>0$, there exists a constant $C(A,\varphi,\nu)$, depending $\nu$, $A$ and $\varphi$, such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:vnm}
\|\hat{\chi}_{n',m'}\circ L\circ\hat{\chi}'_{n,m}\|_{L^{2p}}\le C(A,\varphi,\nu)\cdot\Delta_{1}(n,n')^{-\nu}\cdot\Delta_{2}(n,m,n',m')^{-\nu}
\end{equation}
for any combination $(n,m,n',m')$.
The required estimate (\ref{eq:required}) will follow from (\ref{eq:basic_est}) and (\ref{eq:vnm}).
By using H\"older inequality, we see that the left hand side of (\ref{eq:required}) is bounded by
\[
\sum_{n',m'}2^{2prm'}\!\left\|\sum_{n,m}v_{(n,m)\to (n',m')}\right\|_{L^{2p}}^{2p}\le
\sum_{n',m'}\sum_{n,m}\Delta_{n,m,n',m'}\cdot 2^{2prm}\left\|v_{(n,m)\to (n',m')}\right\|_{L^{2p}}^{2p}
\]
where
\[
\Delta_{n,m,n',m'}=C_0 \cdot 2^{2pr(m'-m)}\cdot 2^{|m'-m|}\cdot \langle n-n'\rangle^{2}
\]
with $C_0>0$ a constant depending only on $p$ and $r$.
The estimate (\ref{eq:vnm}) with large $\nu$ implies that the components $v_{(n,m)\to(n',m')}$ is very small
if $m'>0$ and $2^{m'}\langle n'\rangle^{2}> 2^{m+4}\langle n\rangle^{2}$. (Recall that we suppose
$u_{n,m}$ vanishes when $2^m\langle n\rangle^2\le k$ for some large $k$.)
Hence the sum on the right hand side above over such combinations $(n,m,m',m')$ are negligible or more precisely bounded by $c\cdot \sum_{n,m} (2^{rm}\|u_{n,m}\|_{L^{2p}})^{2p}$ and we may let the constant $c>0$ be arbitrarily small by letting $k$ large.
To the remaining components for which either $m'=0\le m$ or $2^{m'}\langle n'\rangle^{2}\le 2^{m+4}\langle n\rangle^{2}$ holds,
we apply the estimate (\ref{eq:basic_est}) with large $\nu$. Then we obtain the required estimate (\ref{eq:required}) by elementary computation.
To prove (\ref{eq:basic_est}) and (\ref{eq:vnm}), we look into the integral kernel of $\hat{\chi}_{n',m'}\circ L\circ\hat{\chi}'_{n,m}$ and estimate it by using integration by parts. Though the following argument is elementary and already presented in \cite{BT08}, we give it to some detail for completeness. (We will use a similar argument later, where we will omit the proof.)
To begin with, let us make the following observation which motivates the definitions of $\Delta_1(\cdot)$ and $\Delta_2(\cdot)$: There exists a small constant $c>0$ such that, for any $(\xi',\eta')\in \mathrm{supp}\, \chi_{n',m'}$ and any $(\tilde{\xi},\tilde{\eta})\in DA^{\dag}_w(\mathrm{supp}\, \chi'_{n,m})$ with $w\in V$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ydiff}
|\eta'-\tilde{\eta}|\ge c \max\{|n|,|n'|\}\quad \mbox{ if \quad$|n-n'|\ge 4$}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{align}\label{eq:xdiff}
|\xi'-\tilde{\xi}|\ge c \max\{2^{m}\langle n\rangle^{2}&,2^{m'}\langle n'\rangle^{2}\}\quad \mbox{if \; $m'>0$\; and\; $2^{m'}\langle n'\rangle^{2}> 2^{m+4}\langle n\rangle^{2}$}.
\end{align}
Next let us write the operator $\hat{\chi}_{n',m'}\circ L\circ\hat{\chi}'_{n,m}$ as an integral operator
\[
\hat{\chi}_{n',m'}\circ L\circ\hat{\chi}'_{n,m} u(z')=
(2\pi)^{-2}\int K(z',z)u(z) dz
\]
with the integral kernel
\begin{align}\label{eq:K}
K(&z',z)=\\
& \int e^{i\theta'\cdot (z'-w)+i\theta \cdot (A^{-1}(w)-z)}\cdot \chi_{n',m'}(\theta') \cdot \chi'_{n,m}(\theta) \cdot \varphi(A^{-1}(w)) d\theta d\theta' dw.\notag
\end{align}
To apply integration by parts, we consider the differential operators
\[
\mathcal{D}_1=\frac{1-i(\eta -\eta') \cdot \partial_y}{1+|\eta -\eta'|^2},
\quad
\mathcal{D}_2=\frac{1-i(DA^\dag_w\theta -\theta') \cdot \partial_w}{1+|DA^\dag_w\theta -\theta' |^2}\]
expressed in the coordinates $\theta=(\xi,\eta)$, $\theta'=(\xi',\eta')$ and $w=(x,y)$. These satisfy
\[
\mathcal{D}_j e^{i(\theta \cdot A^{-1}(w)-\theta'\cdot w)}=e^{i(\theta \cdot A^{-1}(w)-\theta'\cdot w)},\quad j=1,2.
\]
(For the case $j=1$, note that $A$ is written in the form (\ref{eq:A}).)
Hence
\begin{align*}
\int e^{i(\theta' \cdot A^{-1}(w)-\theta\cdot w)} \Phi(w) dw&=
\int \left(\mathcal{D}_je^{i(\theta' \cdot A^{-1}(w)-\theta\cdot w)}\right)\Phi(w) dw \\
&= \int e^{i(\theta' \cdot A^{-1}(w)-\theta\cdot w)}\cdot \left({}^t\mathcal{D}_j\right)\Phi(w) dw
\end{align*}
for $j=1,2$,
where ${}^t\mathcal{D}_j$ denotes the transpose of $\mathcal{D}_j$ with respect to the $L^2$ inner product.
We apply this formula with $j=1$ for several times if $|n-n'|\ge 4$ and then apply that with $j=2$ for several times if $m'>0$ and $2^{m'}\langle n'\rangle^{2}> 2^{m+4}\langle n\rangle^{2}$. As the result, we get the expression of the form
\[
K(z',z)=
\int e^{i\theta'\cdot (z'-w)+i\theta \cdot (A^{-1}(w)-z)}\cdot
\Psi(w,\theta, \theta') dw d\theta d\theta'
\]
where the integration with respect to the variables $\theta'$ and $\theta$ are taken over the supports of $\chi_{n',m'}$ and $\chi'_{n,m}$ respectively.
Using the estimates (\ref{eq:ydiff}) and (\ref{eq:xdiff}), we see, for arbitrarily large $\nu\ge 1$ and for any integers $\alpha,\alpha',\beta,\beta'\ge 0$, that
\[
|\partial^{\alpha}_{\xi}\partial^{\beta}_\eta \partial^{\alpha'}_{\xi'}\partial^{\beta'}_{\eta'}\Psi(w,\theta, \theta')|
\le
\frac{C_{\nu,\alpha,\beta,\alpha',\beta'}\cdot \Delta_{1}(n,n')^{-\nu}\cdot\Delta_{2}(n,m,n',m')^{-\nu}}
{\langle n\rangle^{\beta}\cdot \langle n'\rangle^{\beta'}
\cdot \langle 2^m\langle n\rangle^2 \rangle^{\alpha}\cdot
\langle 2^{m'}\langle (n')^2\rangle \rangle^{\alpha'}
}
\]
where the constants $C_{\nu,\alpha,\beta,\alpha',\beta'}$ depend on $A$ and $\varphi$ but not on $n$, $m$, $n'$ nor~$m'$.
This implies that, for arbitrarily large $\nu>0$, we have
\begin{multline}\label{eq:estK}
|K(z',z)|\le C(A,\varphi,\nu)\cdot\Delta_{1}(n,n')^{-\nu}\cdot\Delta_{2}(n,m,n',m')^{-\nu}\\ \cdot \int \rho_{n',m'}^{(\nu)}(z'-w) \cdot \rho_{n,m}^{(\nu)}(A^{-1}(w)-z) dw
\end{multline}
where
\[
\rho_{n,m}^{(\nu)}(x,y)=
2^m \langle n\rangle^{3}\cdot \langle 2^m \langle n\rangle^{2} |x-x'|\rangle^{-\nu}\cdot
\langle \langle n\rangle |y-y'|\rangle^{-\nu}.
\]
Hence we conclude the estimate (\ref{eq:vnm}) by Young's inequality.
Note that if we did not apply integration by parts using $\mathcal{D}_2$, we obtain the estimate
\begin{equation}\label{eq:estK2}
|\partial^\alpha_{\xi}\partial^\beta_\eta \partial^{\alpha'}_{\xi'}\partial^{\beta'}_{\eta'}\Psi(w,\theta, \theta')|
\le
\frac{C'_{\nu,\alpha,\beta,\alpha',\beta'}\cdot \Delta_{1}(n,n')^{-\nu}}
{\langle n\rangle^{\beta}\cdot \langle n'\rangle^{\beta'}
\cdot \langle 2^m\langle n\rangle^2 \rangle^{\alpha}\cdot
\langle 2^{m'}\langle (n')^2\rangle \rangle^{\alpha'}
}
\end{equation}
where the constants $C'_{\nu,\alpha,\beta,\alpha',\beta'}$ depend on $\nu$ and the constants $K_m$'s in (\ref{eq:py}) but not on $A$, $\varphi$, $n$, $m$, $n'$ nor~$m'$. Hence we obtain (\ref{eq:basic_est}) by a parallel argument.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}
\label{lm:pu} Let $U\subset\mathbb{R}^{2}$ be a bounded region.
Let $\rho_{i}:\mathbb{R}^{2}\to[0,1]$, $1\le i\le I$, be a finite set of $C^{\infty}$ functions with compact supports such that $\sum_{i=1}^{I}\rho_i (x)\equiv 1$ for $x\in U$.
Suppose that the functions $\rho_i$ satisfy the condition (\ref{eq:py}) with $\varphi=\rho_i$ for some constants $K_m$ for $m\ge 0$.
Then there exists a constant $C_0>0$, which depends only on $p$, $r$ and the constants $K_m$, such that, for sufficiently large $k>0$ (depending on the functions $\rho_j$), we have
\[
\sum_{i=1}^I\|\rho_{i}\cdot(1-\mathcal{K}_{k})u\|_{r,p}^{2p}\le C_{0}\|u\|_{r,p}^{2p}
\]
and
\[
\|(1-\mathcal{K}_{k})u\|_{r,p}^{2p}\le C_{0} \mu^{2p-1}\cdot\sum_{i=1}^I\|\rho_{i}\cdot u\|_{r,p}^{2p}
\]
for any $u\in \mathcal{B}^{r,p}(U)$, where $\mu$ is the intersection multiplicity
of the subsets
\[
X_i:=\{ x\in \mathbb{R}\mid (x,y)\in \mathrm{supp}\, \rho_{i} \mbox{ for some $y\in \mathbb{R}$}\} \quad\mbox{for $1\le i\le I$}.
\]
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
To get the claims of the lemma, we reconsider the argument in the proof of
Proposition \ref{lm:local1} in the case $A=\mathrm{Id}$ and $\varphi=\rho_i$, and pay extra attention to the localized property of the kernel of $\hat{\chi}_{n',m'}\circ L\circ\hat{\chi}'_{n,m}$ given in (\ref{eq:estK}) and (\ref{eq:estK2}). We omit the detail of the proof as it is easy to provide.
\end{proof}
\subsection{An $L^{p}$ estimate using transversality }
The next lemma is the key step of the argument in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:spectrum}.
\begin{prop}\label{lm:main}
Let $S(i)$ and $E(i)$,
$1\le i\le M$, be real numbers such that $|S(i)|\le \gamma_0\theta_0$ and $E(i)\ge \ell$. For a $p$-tuple
$\mathbf{i}=(\mathbf{i}(1),\mathbf{i}(2),\cdots,\mathbf{i}(p))\in\{1,2,\cdots,M\}^{p}$,
we define
\[
S(\mathbf{i}):=\sum_{k=1}^{p}S(\mathbf{i}(k)),\quad E(\mathbf{i}):=\left(\sum_{k=1}^pE(\mathbf{i}(k))^{-1}\right)^{-1}
\]
and set
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Delta}
\Delta=\max_{\xi}\sum_{\mathbf{i}\in\{1,2,\cdots,M\}^{p}}\langle(E(\mathbf{i})/\theta_{0})|\xi-S(\mathbf{i})|\rangle^{-r}.
\end{equation}
Then there exists a constant $C_0>0$, independent of $S(i)$ and $E(i)$, such that, for sufficiently large $k>0$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:main_claim}
\left\Vert \sum_{i=1}^{M}
(1-\mathcal{K}_{k})u_{i}\right\Vert_{r,p}^{2p}
\le
C_{0}
\max\left\{\frac{M^{2p-1}}
{{\displaystyle \min_{1\le i\le M}} E(i)^{2pr}},\; M^{p-1}\Delta\right\}\sum_{i=1}^{M}\|u_{i}\|_{r,p,S(i),E(i)}^{2p}
\end{equation}
for any $u_{i}\in \mathcal{B}_{S(i),E(i)}^{r,p}(\mathbb{R}^2)$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof} Inspecting the supports of the functions ${\chi}_{n,m}$ and ${\chi}_{n',m',S(i),E(i)}$, we find a constant $c_0>0$, independent of $S(i)$ and $E(i)$, such that
\[
{\chi}_{n,m} \cdot {\chi}_{n',m',S(i),E(i)}\equiv 0\qquad (\mbox{or } \;\;
\hat{\chi}_{n,m} * \hat{\chi}_{n',m',S(i),E(i)}= 0)
\]
if $|n-n'|\ge 3$ or if $m> 0$ and $m\ge m'-\log E(i)/\log 2+c_0$.
From Lemma~\ref{lem:Fxnm2}, the $L^1$ norm of the functions
$\hat{\chi}_{n,m}$ and $\hat{\chi}_{S(i), E(i),n',m'}$ are bounded by a constant independent of, $n$, $m$, $n'$, $m'$, $S(i)$ and $E(i)$ and therefore so are the operator norms of the convolution operators with these functions on $L^{2p}(\mathbb{R}^2)$.
Hence, by using H\"older inequality twice, we obtain that
\begin{align}
\label{eq:estimate_m_nonzero}
\sum_{n}\sum_{m>0}&
\left(2^{rm}
\left\|\hat{\chi}_{n,m}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{M}u_{i}\right)\right\|_{L^{2p}}\right)^{2p}
\\
&\le
M^{2p-1}
\sum_{n}\sum_{m>0}\sum_{i=1}^{M}2^{2prm}\|\hat{\chi}_{n,m}(u_{i})\|_{L^{2p}}^{2p}
\notag \\
&\le
M^{2p-1}
\sum_{i=1}^{M}\sum_{n}\sum_{m> 0}
\left\|\sum_{n'}\sum_{m'}2^{rm}\hat{\chi}_{n,m}\circ \hat{\chi}_{n',m',S(i),E(i)}(u_{i})\right\|_{L^{2p}}^{2p}
\notag \\
& \le
\frac{C_0\cdot M^{2p-1}}{\min_{1\le i\le M} E(i)^{2pr}}\sum_{i=1}^{M}
\sum_{n'}\sum_{m'}
2^{2prm'}\|\hat{\chi}_{n',m',S(i),E(i)}(u_{i})\|_{L^{2p}}^{2p}.
\notag
\end{align}
Notice that we excluded the components with $m=0$ in the estimate above.
Below we give an estimate on the components with $m=0$, which is more essential. Note that we may (and will) suppose that $|n|$ is large, by letting $k$ (in the definition of $\mathcal{K}_k$) be larger if necessary.
For a $p$-tuple $\mathbf{i}=(\mathbf{i}(1),\mathbf{i}(2),\cdots,\mathbf{i}(p))\in\{1,2,\cdots,M\}^{p}$, we write
\[
u_{\mathbf{i}}=\prod_{k=1}^p\hat{\chi}_{n,0} (u_{\mathbf{i}(k)})
\]
and estimate the $L^2$ norm of $\hat{\chi}_{S(\mathbf{i}),E(\mathbf{i}),\tilde{n},\tilde{m}}*u_\mathbf{i}$ for integers $\tilde{n}$ and $\tilde{m}\ge 0$.
Since the support of $\mathcal{F} u_{\mathbf{i}}$ is contained in the subset
\[
\sum_{k=1}^p \mathrm{supp}\, \chi_{n,0}:=\left\{\left.\sum_{k=1}^p x_i \;\right|\; x_i\in \mathrm{supp}\, \chi_{n,0}\right\}\subset \mathbb{R}^2,
\]
we have $\hat{\chi}_{S(\mathbf{i}),E(\mathbf{i}),\tilde{n},\tilde{m}}*u_\mathbf{i}=0$ unless
\begin{equation}\label{eq:relnn}
||\tilde{n}|^2-p|n|^2|\le p(2|n|+1)+2|\tilde{n}|+1.
\end{equation}
We henceforth suppose that $\tilde{n}$ satisfies (\ref{eq:relnn}).
Since we assume $|n|$ is large, this implies that the ratio $\tilde{n}/n$ is close to $\sqrt{p}$ and we have
$|\tilde{n}-\sqrt{p}n|\le 3(\sqrt{p}+1)$.
For convenience in the argument below, we introduce the functions
\[
\zeta_{n,m,S,E}(\xi,\eta):={\chi}_{n,m,S,E}(\xi,\eta)\cdot \chi(\theta_0^{-1}\cdot \langle n\rangle^{-2}\cdot \xi)
\]
on $\mathbb{R}^2$, which satisfy
\[
\sum_{m\ge 0} \zeta_{n,m,S,E}(\xi,\eta)=\rho_n(\eta)\cdot \chi(\theta_0^{-1}\cdot \langle n\rangle^{-2}\cdot \xi)=\chi_{n,0}(\xi,\eta).
\]
We write $\hat{\zeta}_{n,m,S,E}$ for the convolution operator by the function $(2\pi)^{-1}\mathcal{F}^{-1}\zeta_{n,m,S,E}$. Then we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:zeta}
\sum_{m\ge 0} \hat{\zeta}_{n,m,S,E}(u)=\hat{\chi}_{n,0}(u)
\end{equation}
and also
\[
\|\hat{\zeta}_{n,m,S,E}(u)\|_{L^{2p}}\le C_0 \|\hat{\chi}_{n,m,S,E}(u)\|_{L^{2p}}
\]
for a constant $C_0>0$ which depend only on the choice of the function $\chi(\cdot)$.
For a sequence $\mathbf{m}=(\mathbf{m}(1), \cdots, \mathbf{m}(p))\in (\mathbb{Z}_{\ge 0})^p$ of non-negative integers, put
\[
|\mathbf{m}|=\max_{1\le i\le p} \mathbf{m}(k).
\]
By inspecting the position of the supports of $\chi_{n,m,S,E}(\cdot)$ in the $\xi$-coordinate, we find a constant $C>0$, which depends only on $p$, such that, if $|\mathbf{m}|<\tilde{m}-C$, we have
\[
\mathrm{supp}\, \hat{\chi}_{\tilde{n},\tilde{m},S(\mathbf{i}),E(\mathbf{i})} \cap \left(\sum_{k=1}^p \mathrm{supp}\, \hat{\chi}_{n,\mathbf{m}(k),S(\mathbf{i}(k)),E(\mathbf{i}(k))}\right)=\emptyset
\]
and hence
\[
\hat{\chi}_{\tilde{n},\tilde{m},S(\mathbf{i}),E(\mathbf{i})} *\left(\prod_{k=1}^{p}\hat{\zeta}_{n,\mathbf{m}(k),S(\mathbf{i}(k)),E(\mathbf{i}(k))}(u_{\mathbf{i}(k)})\right)=0.
\]
From this and (\ref{eq:zeta}), we have
\[
\|\hat{\chi}_{\tilde{n},\tilde{m},S(\mathbf{i}), E(\mathbf{i})}(u_{\mathbf{i}})\|_{L^{2}}^{2} = \left\|
\sum_{|\mathbf{m}|\ge \tilde{m}-C}\prod_{k=1}^{p}\hat{\zeta}_{n,\mathbf{m}(k),S(\mathbf{i}(k)),E(\mathbf{i}(k))}(u_{\mathbf{i}(k)})
\right\|_{L^{2}}^{2}.
\]
By using Schwarz and H\"older inequality, we continue
\begin{align*}
& \le C_{0}\sum_{|\mathbf{m}|\ge \tilde{m}-C}
2^{|\mathbf{m}|}\left\|\prod_{k=1}^{p}\hat{\zeta}_{n,\mathbf{m}(k),S(\mathbf{i}(k)), E(\mathbf{i}(k))}(u_{\mathbf{i}(k)})\right\|_{L^{2}}^{2}\\
& \le C_{0}\sum_{|\mathbf{m}|\ge \tilde{m}-C}
2^{|\mathbf{m}|}\prod_{k=1}^{p}\left\|\hat{\zeta}_{n,\mathbf{m}(k),S(\mathbf{i}(k)),E(\mathbf{i}(k))}(u_{\mathbf{i}(k)})\right\|_{L^{2p}}^{2}
\end{align*}
and further
\begin{align*}
& \le C_{0}2^{-r\tilde{m}}\sum_{\mathbf{m}}\prod_{k=1}^{p}\left(2^{(r+1)\mathbf{m}(k)}\|\hat{\zeta}_{n,\mathbf{m}(k),S(\mathbf{i}(k)),E(\mathbf{i}(k))}(u_{\mathbf{i}(k)})\|_{L^{2p}}^{2}\right)\\
& \le C_{0}2^{-r\tilde{m}}\prod_{k=1}^{p}\left(\sum_{m=0}^\infty 2^{(r+1)m}\|\hat{\chi}_{n,m,S(\mathbf{i}(k)),E(\mathbf{i}(k))}(u_{\mathbf{i}(k)})\|_{L^{2p}}^{2}\right)
\end{align*}
where (and henceforth in the proof below) $C_0>0$ denotes constants depending only on $p$ and $r$ and its values may be different from place to place.
We therefore conclude
\begin{align}\label{eq:core_estimate}
&2^{r\tilde{m}}\|\hat{\chi}_{\tilde{n},\tilde{m},S(\mathbf{i}),E(\mathbf{i})}( u_{\mathbf{i}})\|_{L^{2}}^{2}\\
&\qquad\qquad \le C_{0}\prod_{k=1}^{p}\left(\sum_{m=0}^\infty 2^{2rm}\|\hat{\chi}_{n,m,S(\mathbf{i}(k)),E(\mathbf{i}(k))}(u_{\mathbf{i}(k)})\|_{L^{2p}}^{2}\right)\notag
\end{align}
where we used the fact $2r\ge r+1$ that follows from (\ref{eq:choice_r}).
Now we are going to prove the conclusion of the proposition. Recall the quantity $\Delta$ defined in (\ref{eq:Delta}) and write
\[
W_{\mathbf{i}}(\xi,\eta)=\big\langle(E(\mathbf{i})/\theta_{0})|\xi/\langle\eta\rangle-S(\mathbf{i})|\big\rangle^{r/2}.
\]
Then we have
\begin{align*}
\left\|\hat{\chi}_{n,0}\left(\sum_{i=1}^M u_{i}\right)\right\|_{L^{2p}}^{2p}
&=
\left\|
\sum_{\mathbf{i}} u_{\mathbf{i}} \right\|_{L^{2}}^{2}
\le\sum_{\mathbf{i},\mathbf{j}}\|W_{\mathbf{j}}^{-1}\cdot W_{\mathbf{i}}\cdot\mathcal{F} u_{\mathbf{i}}\|_{L^{2}}\cdot \|W_{\mathbf{i}}^{-1}\cdot W_{\mathbf{j}}\cdot\mathcal{F} u_{\mathbf{j}}\|_{L^{2}}\\
& \le\sum_{\mathbf{i},\mathbf{j}}\|W_{\mathbf{j}}^{-1}\cdot W_{\mathbf{i}}\cdot\mathcal{F} u_{\mathbf{i}}\|_{L^{2}}^{2}\\
& \le\left\|\sum_{\mathbf{j}}W_{\mathbf{j}}^{-2}\right\|_{\infty}\cdot \sum_{\mathbf{i}}\|W_{\mathbf{i}}\cdot\mathcal{F} u_{\mathbf{i}}\|_{L^{2}}^{2}\le\Delta\cdot \sum_{\mathbf{i}}\|W_{\mathbf{i}}\cdot\mathcal{F} u_{\mathbf{i}}\|_{L^{2}}^{2}.
\end{align*}
Since $W_{\mathbf{i}}(\xi,\eta)\le C_0 2^{r\tilde{m}/2}$ on the support of $ \chi_{\tilde{n},\tilde{m},S(\mathbf{i}(k)),E(\mathbf{i}(k))}$, we have from (\ref{eq:core_estimate}) that
\begin{multline*}
\left\| W_\mathbf{i} \cdot \mathcal{F} u_\mathbf{i}\right\|_{L^{2}}^{2}\le
C_0 \sum_{\tilde{n}:|\tilde{n}-n|\le 3(\sqrt{p}+1)} \;
\sum_{\tilde{m}=0}^{\infty}2^{r\tilde{m}}\|\hat{\chi}_{\tilde{n},\tilde{m},S(\mathbf{i}),E(\mathbf{i})}(u_{\mathbf{i}})\|_{L^{2}}^{2}\\
\le C_{0}\sum_{\tilde{n}:|\tilde{n}-n|\le 3(\sqrt{p}+1)}\;\prod_{k=1}^{p}\left(\sum_{m=0}^\infty 2^{2rm}\|\hat{\chi}_{n,m,S(\mathbf{i}(k)),E(\mathbf{i}(k))}(u_{\mathbf{i}(k)})\|_{L^{2p}}^{2}\right).
\end{multline*}
From the last two inequalities, we deduce
\begin{align}\label{eq:chi0}
&\sum_{n}\left\|\hat{\chi}_{n,0}\left(\sum_{i=1}^Mu_{i}\right)\right\|_{L^{2p}}^{2p}\\
&\le
C_{0}\Delta\cdot \sum_{n}\sum_{\tilde{n}:|\tilde{n}-n|\le 3(\sqrt{p}+1)}\sum_{\mathbf{i}}\prod_{k=1}^{p}\left(\sum_{m=0}^\infty 2^{2rm}\|\hat{\chi}_{n,m,S(\mathbf{i}(k)),E(\mathbf{i}(k))}(u_{\mathbf{i}(k)})\|_{L^{2p}}^{2}\right)
\notag\\
&\le
C_{0}\Delta\cdot \sum_{n}
\left(\sum_{i=1}^M\sum_{m=0}^\infty 2^{2rm}\|\hat{\chi}_{n,m,S(i),E(i)}(u_{i})\|_{L^{2p}}^{2}\right)^p
\notag\\
& \le
C_{0}\Delta M^{p-1}\cdot \sum_{i=1}^M \sum_{n}\sum_{m=0}^\infty 2^{2prm}\|\hat{\chi}_{n,m,S(i),E(i)}(u_{i})\|_{L^{2p}}^{2p}\quad \mbox{by H\"older inequality.}\notag
\end{align}
Finally note that
\[
\left\|\sum_{i=1}^{M}(1-\mathcal{K}_{k})u_{i}\right\|_{r,p}^{2p}
\le \sum_{n,m}{}^*
\left(2^{rm}
\left\|\hat{\chi}_{n,m}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{M}u_{i}\right)\right\|_{L^{2p}}\right)^{2p}
\]
where the sum $\sum^*_{n,m}$ is taken over $n$ and $m\ge 0$ such that$2^m\langle n^2\rangle\ge k$. By (\ref{eq:estimate_m_nonzero}) and (\ref{eq:chi0}), we obtain the conclusion of the proposition.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}\label{cor:bdd}
In Proposition \ref{lm:local1}, the operator $L$ is a bounded operator from $\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(V)$ to $\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(A(\mathrm{supp}\, \varphi))$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}It suffices to show that the inclusion $\iota:\mathcal{B}^{r,p}_{S,E}(A(\mathrm{supp}\, \varphi))\to \mathcal{B}^{r,p}(A(\mathrm{supp}\, \varphi))$ is bounded. This follows from Proposition \ref{lm:main} applied to the trivial case $M=1$.
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:spectrum}}\label{sec:pf1}
Below we set up a system of local charts on $X_f$ so that the flow $T^t_f$ looks smooth in each of them and then introduce the Banach space $\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(X_f)$ using such local charts and the Banach space $\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(\mathbb{R}^2)$. Once we have done with these, the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:spectrum} is not very difficult and obtained basically by applying the propositions (especially Proposition \ref{lm:main}) to the transfer operators induced on the local charts. Unfortunately a slight combinatorial complication is caused by the fact that we admit the "exceptional set" $\mathcal{E}$ in the definition of $\mathcal{G}(J,n,\varepsilon,\delta;p)$. In order to present the idea of the proof clearly, we first prove the conclusion of the theorem assuming a stronger condition where $\mathcal{E}=\emptyset$ in Subsection \ref{ss:pre} and then explain how we modify the argument to obtain the theorem in Subsection \ref{ss:pf_Thspec}.
\subsection{System of local charts on $X_{f}$ and the definition of $\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(X_{f})$}
\label{ss:defcB}
To begin with, we take two small real numbers $\eta_{0}>0$ and $\delta_{0}>0$
and consider the open rectangle
\[
R=(-\eta_{0},\eta_{0})\times(4\delta_{0},7\delta_{0})\subset Q=(-3\eta_{0},3\eta_{0})\times(0,11\delta_{0}).
\]
For each $a=(x_{0},y_{0})\in X_{f}$, we consider the two mappings
\begin{align*}
&\tilde{\kappa}_{a}:Q\to S^{1}\times\mathbb{R},\quad\tilde{\kappa}_{a}(x,y)=(x_{0}+x,y_{0}+y).
\intertext{and}
&\kappa_{a}:=\pi\circ \tilde{\kappa}_a:Q\to X_{f}
\end{align*}
where
\begin{equation}\label{eq:proj}
\pi:S^{1}\times\mathbb{R}_{+}\to X_{f},\quad\pi(x,y)=(\tau^{n(x,y;f)}(x),\,y-f^{(n(x,y;f))})
\end{equation}
and $\mathbb{R}_+=\{s\in \mathbb{R}\mid s\ge 0\}$.
(See Figure \ref{fig:kappa}.)
We suppose that $\eta_{0}$ and $\delta_{0}$ are so small that both of $\kappa_{a}$ and $\tilde{\kappa}_{a}$ are injective for any $a\in X_{f}$.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\begin{overpic}[scale=0.4]{kappa.eps}
\put(3,16){$Q$}
\put(3,5.5){$R$}
\put(44,23){$X_f$}
\put(90,23){$X_f$}
\put(60,38){$\pi$}
\put(60,30){$\pi$}
\put(25,28){$\tilde{X}_f$}
\put(18,35){$\tilde{\kappa}_a$}
\put(37,18){$a$}
\put(82,18){$a$}
\end{overpic}
\end{center}
\caption{The mappings $\tilde{\kappa}_a$, $\pi$ and $\kappa_a$.}
\label{fig:kappa}
\end{figure}
Next we take a finite subset $A$ of $X_{f}$ so that the images $\tilde{\kappa}_{a}(R)$
for $a\in A$ cover the subset
\[
\tilde{X}_{f}:=\{(x,y)\in S^{1}\times\mathbb{R}_+\mid 5\delta_{0}\le y\le f(x)+6\delta_{0}\}.
\]
Letting $\delta_0$ and the ratio $\eta_{0}/\delta_{0}$ be small, we may and do assume that
the intersection multiplicity of $\{\tilde{\kappa}_{a}(R)\}_{a\in A}$
is bounded by an absolute constant (say, by $4$).
We define the Banach space $\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(X_{f})$ as follows.
We suppose that the product space $\bigoplus_{a\in A}\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(R)$ is a Banach space with the norm
\[
\|\mathbf{u}\|_{r,p}=\left(\sum_{a\in A}\|u_{a}\|_{r,p}^{2p}\right)^{1/2p}\quad \mbox{for $\mathbf{u}=(u_{a})_{a\in A}\in\bigoplus_{a\in A}\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(R)$.}
\]
Then the operator
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Pi_extended}
\Pi:\bigoplus_{a\in A}\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(R)\to L^2(X_{f}),\quad\Pi((\varphi_{a})_{a\in A})=\sum_{a\in A}\varphi_{a}\circ\kappa_{a}^{-1}
\end{equation}
is bounded because $\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(R)\subset \mathcal{B}^{r,2}(R)\subset L^2(R)$.
\begin{defn}
Let $\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(X_{f})\subset L^2(X_f)$ be the image of (\ref{eq:Pi_extended}). This is a Banach space with respect to the norm
\[
\|u\|_{\mathcal{B}^{r,p}}=\inf\left\{\|\mathbf{u}\|_{r,p}\;\left|\; u=\Pi(\mathbf{u}),\mathbf{u}\in\bigoplus_{a\in A}\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(R)\right.\right\}.
\]
The operator $\Pi$ in (\ref{eq:Pi_extended}) is then restricted to a bounded operator
\[
\Pi:\bigoplus_{a\in A}\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(R)\to \mathcal{B}^{r,p}(X_{f})
\]
with operator norm $1$.
\end{defn}
We next define a bounded operator $\mathbf{I}:\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(X_{f})\to \bigoplus_{a\in A}\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(R)$ which makes the following diagram with $t=6\delta_0$ commutes:
\begin{equation}\label{cd:I}
\begin{tikzcd}
&\bigoplus_{a\in A}\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(R) \arrow{d}{\Pi}\\
\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(X_{f}) \arrow{ru}{\mathbf{I}} \arrow{r}{\mathcal{L}^{t}} &\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(X_{f})
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation}
\begin{rem}
It would be preferable if we let $t=0$ and defined the operator $\mathbf{I}$ as the left inverse of $\Pi$. This may be possible but will not be easy.
\end{rem}
Let $\beta:S^{1}\times\mathbb{R}\to[0,1]$ be a smooth function defined
by
\[
\beta(x,y)=\begin{cases}
\chi(\delta_{0}^{-1}(y-f(x)-5\delta_{0})+1), & \mbox{ if $ f(x)+5\delta_0\le y$;}\\
1, & \mbox{ if $6\delta_{0}<y<f(x)+5\delta_0$;}\\
1-\chi(\delta_{0}^{-1}(y-5\delta_{0})+1), & \mbox{ if $y\le 6\delta_{0}$}
\end{cases}
\]
where $\chi$ is the function defined in (\ref{eq:chi}).
This function is taken so that it satisfies
\[
\beta(x,y)=\begin{cases}
0,&\mbox{on the outside of $\tilde{X}_{f}$;}\\
1,&\mbox{when $6\delta_0\le y\le f(x)+5\delta_0$}
\end{cases}
\]
and also
\[
\beta(x,f(x)+y)+\beta(x',y)=1\quad \mbox{for any $x,x'\in S^1$ and $0\le y\le 6\delta_0$.}
\]
We then take $C^{\infty}$ functions $h_{a}:\mathbb{R}^{2}\to[0,1]$
supported on $R$ for $a\in A$ so that\footnote{Here and henceforth, we suppose that ${h}_{a}\circ \tilde \kappa_a^{-1}$ is a $C^\infty$ function on $S^1\times \mathbb{R}$ which takes value $0$ on the outside of $\tilde{\kappa}_a(Q)$. }
\[
\sum_{a}{h}_{a}\circ \tilde \kappa_a^{-1}\equiv\beta
\quad \mbox{on $S^{1}\times\mathbb{R}$.}
\]
For each $u\in C^\infty(X_f)$, we set
\[
\tilde{u}:\tilde{X}_f\to \mathbb{C},
\quad \tilde{u}(x,y)=\begin{cases}
(\mathcal{L}^{6\delta_0} u)(x,y),&\quad \mbox{ if $y\le 6\delta_0$;}\\
u(x,y-6\delta_0),&\quad \mbox{ if $y\ge 6\delta_0$.}
\end{cases}
\]
Since $(\mathcal{L}^{6\delta_0} u)(x,y)=u(x,y-6\delta_0)$
when $6\delta_0\le y\le f(x)$, this is a smooth function on $\tilde{X}_f$.
We define the operator $\mathbf{I}$ by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:bI}
\mathbf{I}(u)=(u_a)_{a\in A}, \quad u_a= h_a\cdot (\tilde{u} \circ \tilde{\kappa}_{a}) \quad\mbox{for $u\in C^\infty(X_f)$}.
\end{equation}
This operator extends to a bounded operator
$\mathbf{I}:\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(X_f)\to \bigoplus_{a\in A}\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(R)$, as we will see in the next paragraph, and makes the diagram (\ref{cd:I}) commutes.
Next we introduce the operator
\begin{equation}\label{eq:bLt}
\mathbf{L}^{t}:=\mathbf{I}\circ \mathcal{L}^{t-6\delta_0}\circ \Pi:\bigoplus_{a\in A}\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(R)\to\bigoplus_{a\in A}\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(R)
\end{equation}
for $t\ge 6\delta_0$. By applying Corollary \ref{cor:bdd} to each component, we see that this is a bounded operator.
(See Remark \ref{lem:boundedness} for more detail.)
Since $\mathbf{L}^{6\delta_0}=\mathbf{I}\circ \Pi$ is bounded in particular, so is $\mathbf{I}:\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(X_f)\to \bigoplus_{a\in A}\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(R)$ from the definition of $\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(X_f)$.
From (\ref{cd:I}), the diagrams
\begin{equation}
\begin{CD}\bigoplus_{a\in A}\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(R)@>{\mathbf{L}^{t}}>>\bigoplus_{a\in A}\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(R)\\
@V{\Pi}VV@V{\Pi}VV\\
\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(X_{f})@>{\mathcal{L}^{t}}>>\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(X_{f})
\end{CD}\label{cd:lift}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\begin{CD}\bigoplus_{a\in A}\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(R)@>{\mathbf{L}^{t}}>>\bigoplus_{a\in A}\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(R)\\
@A{\mathbf{I}}AA@A{\mathbf{I}}AA\\
\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(X_{f})@>{\mathcal{L}^{t}}>>\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(X_{f})
\end{CD}\label{cd:lift2}
\end{equation}
commute for $t\ge 6\delta_0$. In particular, the operator $\mathcal{L}^t:\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(X_{f})\to \mathcal{B}^{r,p}(X_{f})$ is bounded provided $t\ge 6\delta_0$.
It is not difficult to check that the operators
\[
\mathcal{L}^t:\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(X_{f})\to \mathcal{B}^{r,p}(X_{f})\quad\mbox{and}\quad
\mathbf{L}^{t}:\bigoplus_{a\in A}\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(R)\to \bigoplus_{a\in A}\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(R),
\]
have the same essential spectral radus and their peripheral eigenvalues on the outside of it coincide up to multiplicity.
The operator $\mathbf{L}^{t}$ for $t\ge 6\delta_0$ is expressed as a matrix of operators
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{L}^{t}(u_{a})_{a\in A}=\left(\sum_{a\in A}\mathcal{L}_{a\to b}^{t}u_{a}\right)_{b\in A}.\label{eq:bLt_exp}
\end{equation}
Each component $
\mathcal{L}_{a\to b}^{t}:\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(R)\to \mathcal{B}^{r,p}(R)$
is written in the form (\ref{eq:L_local}), {\it i.e.} $\mathcal{L}_{a \to b}^t u=(\varphi \cdot u)\circ A$ with
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Adef}
A=A^t_{a\to b}:R^t_{a\to b}\to \mathbb{R}^2 \quad \mbox{and}\quad \varphi=\varphi^{t}_{a\to b}(x,y):=h_b\circ A^t_{a\to b}(x,y)
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align}
&A^t_{a\to b}(x,y)=
\kappa_b^{-1}\circ T^t_f\circ \kappa_a(x,y)\label{def:Aab}
\intertext{
and }
&R^t_{a\to b}=\{z\in R\mid
T^t_f\circ \kappa_a(z)\in \kappa_b(R) \}.\label{def:Rab}
\end{align}
\begin{rem}
The mapping $A^t_{a\to b}$ is defined only on a relatively small open subset $R^t_{a\to b}$ in $R$, which will be fragmentary in the direction transversal to the flow when $t$ is large. It is locally written in the form (\ref{eq:A}) with $E\ge 1$ and with $g$ a $C^\infty$ function satisfying $|g'(x)|\le \gamma_0\theta_0$. Though the function $\varphi^t_{a\to b}$ is defined only on $R^t_{a\to b}$, we may extend it to a $C^\infty$ function on $\mathbb{R}^2$ with support contained in $Q$, by letting $\tilde{h}:\mathbb{R}^2\to [0,1]$ be a $C^{\infty}$ function such that
\[
\tilde{h}(z)=\begin{cases} 1,&\quad\mbox{on $R$;}\\
0,&\quad\mbox{on the outside of $Q$},
\end{cases}
\]
and
setting
\[
\varphi_{a\to b}^t(z)=\begin{cases}
\tilde{h}(z)\cdot h_b\circ A^t_{a\to b}(z),&\quad
\mbox{if $z\in Q$ and $T^t_f\circ \kappa_a(z)\in \kappa_b(R)$;}\\
0,&\quad \mbox{otherwise.}
\end{cases}
\]
In particular,
$\mathcal{L}_{a\to b}^{t}$ is smooth on $R$ in the sense that $\mathcal{L}^t_{a\to b}(C^\infty_0(R))\subset C^\infty_0(R)$.
\end{rem}
\subsection{Essential operator norm}
We introduce the notion of essential operator norm of a bounded operator.
This notion is particularly convenient in our argument about the essential spectral radius.
For a bounded operator $L:B\to B'$ between Banach spaces $B$ and $B'$, its essential operator norm, denoted by $\|L:B\to B'\|_{\mathrm{ess}}$, is the infimum of the operator norms of its perturbations by compact operators:
\[
\|L:B\to B'\|_{\mathrm{ess}}:=\inf\{\|L-K:B\to B'\|\mid K:B\to B' \mbox{ is compact}\}.
\]
Obviously this is bounded by the operator norm $\|L:B\to B'\|$.
Since composition of a compact operator with a bounded operator is again compact, we have
\[
\|L'\circ L:B\to B''\|_{\mathrm{ess}}\le \|L':B'\to B''\|_{\mathrm{ess}}\cdot \|L:B\to B'\|_{\mathrm{ess}}.
\]
The essential spectral radius of $L:B\to B$ is bounded by its essential norm:
\[
\rho_{\mathrm{ess}}(L|_{B})\le \|L^n|_{B}\|_{\mathrm{ess}}^{1/n}\le \|L|_{B}\|_{\mathrm{ess}}.
\]
Theorem \ref{thm:spectrum} will follow from the claim that, if $\varepsilon>0$ and if $f$ is sufficiently close to $f_0\in \mathcal{G}$, there exists some $t_*\ge 6\delta_0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:essnorm}
\left\|\mathbf{L}^{t_*}|_{\bigoplus_{a\in A}\mathcal{B}^{r,p,q}(R)}\right\|_{\mathrm{ess}}\le \exp((\mu(f)+\varepsilon) t_*).
\end{equation}
Indeed, from Corollary \ref{cor:bdd}, we have, for some $C>0$, that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:norm}
\left\|\mathbf{L}^{t}|_{\bigoplus_{a\in A}\mathcal{B}^{r,p,q}(R)}\right\|\le C\quad
\mbox{for $6\delta_0\le t\le t_*+6\delta_0$}.
\end{equation}
(See Remark \ref{lem:boundedness} for more detail.) Since
\begin{multline*}
\rho_{\mathrm{ess}}(\mathcal{L}^t|_{\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(X_f)})\le \|\mathcal{L}^{nt}|_{\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(X_f)}\|^{1/n}_{\mathrm{ess}}
= \|\Pi\circ \mathbf{L}^{t-6\delta_0}\circ \mathbf{I}\|_{\mathrm{ess}}^{1/n}\\
\le \|\Pi\|^{1/n}\cdot
\|\mathbf{L}^{t_*}\|_{\mathrm{ess}}^{\lfloor(nt-6\delta_0)/t_*\rfloor/n}
\cdot \|\mathbf{L}^{nt-\lfloor(nt-6\delta_0)/t_*\rfloor\cdot t_*}\|^{1/n}\cdot\|\mathbf{I}\|^{1/n},
\end{multline*}
we obtain the conclusion of Theorem \ref{thm:spectrum} by letting $n\to \infty$. In the following subsections, we prove the claim (\ref{eq:essnorm}).
\subsection{Reduction of the claim}\label{ss:reduce}
Below we show that the claim (\ref{eq:essnorm}) follows from the corresponding estimates on some localized transfer operators on local charts, to which we can apply Proposition \ref{lm:local1} and \ref{lm:main}. We proceed in a few steps.
First note that the claim (\ref{eq:essnorm}) follows if we show that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:reducedClaim1}
\|\mathcal{L}_{a\to b}^t:{\mathcal{B}}^{r,p}(R)\to {\mathcal{B}}^{r,p}(R)\|_{\mathrm{ess}}\le C_0\exp((\mu(f)+\varepsilon)t)
\end{equation}
for sufficiently large $t>0$ and for all $a,b\in A$, with $C_0$ a constant independent of~$t$.
To proceed, we take a finite family of $C^\infty$ functions
\[
\{\rho_j^t:\mathbb{R}^2\to [0,1]\}_{j=1}^{J(t)}
\]
for each $t>0$, such that $\sum_{j=1}^{J(t)} \rho_j^t\equiv 1$ on $R$ and that $\mathrm{supp}\, \rho_j^t\subset Q$. We assume that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\rho_{j}^t$ satisfies (\ref{eq:py}) with some constants $K_m>0$ uniform in $j$ and $t$,
\item the support $\rho_j^t$ is contained in a region of the form
$I_{j}^t\times \mathbb{R}$
where $I_j^t$ is a closed interval on $\mathbb{R}$, and
\item the intersection multiplicity of $I_j^t$, $1\le j\le J(t)$, is bounded by $2$ (say).
\end{itemize}
\begin{rem}
In the following subsections, we will assume that the length of the interval $I_j^t$ is very small when $t$ is large. It is important that the constants denoted by $C_0$ below do not depend on the choice of the functions $\rho_j^t$ (though they may depend on the constants $K_m$).
\end{rem}
Let us write the operator $\mathcal{L}^t_{a\to b}$ as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:rhoL}
\mathcal{L}^t_{a\to b}=\sum_{j=1}^{J(t)} \mathcal{M}(\rho_j^t)\circ \mathcal{L}_{a\to b}^t
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{M}(\rho_j^t)$ denotes the multiplication operator by $\rho_j^t$.
By the second claim of Lemma \ref{lm:pu}, we see that the inequality (\ref{eq:reducedClaim1}) follows if we prove
\begin{equation}\label{eq:reduced_claim2}
\|\mathcal{M}(\rho_j^t)\circ \mathcal{L}_{a\to b}^t:{\mathcal{B}}^{r,p}(R^t_{a\to b})\to {\mathcal{B}}^{r,p}(R)\|_{\mathrm{ess}}\le C_0 \exp((\mu(f)+\varepsilon)t)
\end{equation}
for all $1\le j\le J(t)$, $a,b\in A$ and for sufficiently large $t>0$, with a constant $C_0$ independent of $t$ and $j$.
We decompose the operator $\mathcal{M}(\rho_j^t)\circ \mathcal{L}_{a\to b}^t$ in (\ref{eq:reduced_claim2}) further.
For $w\in (T_f^{t})^{-1}(b)$, there is
a unique open neighborhood $U^{t}_{b,w}$ of the point $w+(0,6\delta_0)$ in $S^1\times \mathbb{R}_+$
that is mapped bijectively onto $\kappa_b(R)$ by $T_{f}^{t}\circ \pi$. (Recall (\ref{eq:proj}) for the definition of $\pi$.)
We define
\[
R^t_{a\to b, w}:=\kappa_a^{-1}(\pi(U^{t}_{b,w}))\cap R \subset R^t_{a\to b}\subset \mathbb{R}^2.
\]
Then $R^t_{a\to b}$ is the disjoint union of $R^t_{a\to b,w}$ for $w\in (T_f^{t})^{-1}(b)$ though some of $R^t_{a\to b,w}$ will be empty.
Correspondingly we define
\begin{align*}
&A_{a\to b,w}^{t}=A_{a\to b}^{t}|_{R^t_{a\to b, w}}:R^t_{a\to b, w}\to R
\intertext{and, for $1\le j\le J(t)$,}
&\rho^t_{a\to b,w,j}:R^t_{a\to b,w}\to [0,1], \quad
\rho^t_{a\to b,w,j}(z)=(h_b\cdot \rho_j^t)\circ A_{a\to b,w}.
\end{align*}
Then the operator $\mathcal{M}(\rho_j^t)\circ \mathcal{L}_{a\to b}^t$ is written as the sum
\[
\mathcal{M}(\rho_j^t)\circ \mathcal{L}^{t}_{a,b}=
\sum_{w\in (T_f^{t})^{-1}(b)} \mathcal{L}^{t}_{a\to b,w,j}:C^{\infty}_0(R)\to C^\infty_0(R)
\]
where $\mathcal{L}^{t}_{a\to b,w,j}=0$ if $R^t_{a\to b,w}=\emptyset$ and otherwise
\[
\mathcal{L}^{t}_{a\to b,w,j}u=(\rho^t_{a\to b,w,j}\cdot u)\circ (A_{a\to b,w}^{t})^{-1}.
\]
\begin{rem}Notice that the functions $\rho^t_{a\to b,w,j}$ satisfy the condition (\ref{eq:py}) with some constants $K_m>0$ uniform for $a$, $b$, $w$, $j$ and $t$.
\end{rem}
By the first claim of Lemma \ref{lm:pu}, the claim (\ref{eq:reducedClaim1}) follows if
we show that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:reduced_claim3}
\left\|\sum_{w\in (T_f^{t})^{-1}(b)}\mathcal{L}^{t}_{a\to b,w,j}:{\mathcal{B}}^{r,p}(R)\to {\mathcal{B}}^{r,p}(R)\right\|_{\mathrm{ess}}\le C_0 \exp((\mu(f) +\varepsilon)t)
\end{equation}
for sufficiently large $t$ and for all $a,b\in A$ and $1\le j\le J(t)$, with a constant $C_0$ independent of $t$, $a$, $b$ and $j$.
\begin{rem}\label{lem:boundedness}
Letting the lengths of the intervals $I^t_j$ in the definition of $\rho^t_j$ be small, we may apply Corollary \ref{cor:bdd} to each component $\mathcal{L}^{t}_{a\to b,w,j}:{\mathcal{B}}^{r,p}(R)\to {\mathcal{B}}^{r,p}(R)$ and see that they are bounded. Consequently the operator $\mathbf{L}^t$ in (\ref{eq:bLt_exp}) is bounded.
Further, since we may take the bound on the operator norm of $\mathbf{L}^t$ locally uniformly in $t$, we obtain (\ref{eq:norm}).
\end{rem}
\subsection{A preliminary argument for the Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:spectrum}}\label{ss:pre}
As we noted in the beginning of this section, in order to illustrate the main point of the argument clearly, we first prove the conclusion of Theorem \ref{thm:spectrum} under a stronger assumption. For $n\ge 1$ and $\varepsilon>0$, we define $\mathcal{G}'(J_\nu,n,\varepsilon;p)$ as the set of $f\in \mathfrak{F}(y_{\min},y_{\max},\kappa_0)$ such that, for sufficiently large $t>0$ and for any $z=(x,y)\in X_f$, the condition (\ref{eq:mult2}) holds for any $\xi\in [-\theta_0,\theta_0]$ with $\mathcal{E}=\emptyset$ in the summation. We assume that the roof function $f$ belongs to the set
\[
\mathcal{G}'=\bigcap_{\nu= 1}^{\nu_0}\bigcap_{m=1}^\infty
\bigcap_{n\ge 1}\mathcal{G}'(J_{\nu},n, 1/m;p)\subset \mathfrak{F}(y_{\min},y_{\max},\kappa_{0}).
\]
\begin{rem}
From the discussion preceding to Theorem \ref{thm:spectrum}, we expect that the subset $\mathcal{G}'$ above is also prevalent in $\mathfrak{F}(y_{\min},y_{\max},\kappa_0)$.
The proof of Theorem \ref{thm:spectrum} would be simpler if this was true, as we will see below. But some technical difficulties (related to interference between perturbations) prevent us from this. We therefore resort to a more involved argument presented in the next subsection.
\end{rem}
We continue the argument in the last subsection under the assumption as above. We assume that the lengths of the intervals $I_j^t$ in the choice of the functions $\rho^t_j$ are very small. (The precise
condition will be given in Remark \ref{rem:widthI}.)
Let us take and fix a point\footnote{We will ignore $j$'s such that $\mathrm{supp}\, \rho_j^t \cap R=\emptyset$.} $z_0=z_0(j)\in \mathrm{supp}\, \rho_j^t \cap R$.
For each $w\in (T_f^{t})^{-1}(b)$ with $R^t_{a\to b,w}\neq \emptyset$,
let $q=q(w)\in Q$ be the unique point satisfying $\kappa_a(q(w))\in U^t_{b,w}$ and
$T^t_f(\kappa_a(q(w)))=\kappa_b(z_0)$.
Then let $S(w)$ and $E(w)\ge 1$ be real numbers such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:SEdef}
(DA_{a\to b,w}^t)_{q(w)}=\begin{pmatrix}E(w) &0\\
-S(w)E(w) &1
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
We divide the set $(T_{f}^{t})^{-1}(b)$ into disjoint subsets $B_\nu$, $1\le \nu\le \nu_0$, so that
$w\in (T_{f}^{t})^{-1}(b)$ is contained in $B_\nu$ only if $E(w)\in [e^{a_\nu t}, e^{b_\nu t}]$.
Further, letting $t$ be sufficiently large, we may and do suppose that $B_{\nu}=\emptyset$ if
\begin{equation}\label{eq:JnuEmpty}
[\chi_{\min}(f), \chi_{\max}(f)]\cap \mathrm{int} J_\nu =\emptyset.
\end{equation}
Then the operator on the left hand side of (\ref{eq:reduced_claim3}) is expressed as
\[
\sum_{w\in (T_f^{t})^{-1}(b)}\mathcal{L}^{t}_{a\to b,w,j}=\sum_{\nu=1}^{\nu_0}\Psi_\nu\circ \Phi_\nu
\]
where
\[
\Phi_\nu:\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(R)\to \bigoplus_{w\in B_\nu} \mathcal{B}^{r,p}_{S(w),E(w)}(R),\quad
\Phi_\nu(u)=(\mathcal{L}^t_{a\to b,w,j}u)_{w\in B_\nu}
\]
and
\[
\Psi_\nu:\bigoplus_{w\in B_\nu} \mathcal{B}^{r,p}_{S(w),E(w)}(R)\to \mathcal{B}^{r,p}(R),\quad
\Psi_\nu((u_w)_{w\in B_\nu})=\sum_{w\in B_\nu} u_w.
\]
Here we suppose that $\bigoplus_{w\in B_\nu} \mathcal{B}^{r,p}_{S(w),E(w)}(R)$ is equipped with the norm
\[
\|(u_w)\|:=\left(\sum_{w\in B_\nu} \|u_w\|_{r,p,S(w),E(w)}^{2p}\right)^{1/2p}
\]
Then, from Lemma \ref{lm:pu} and Proposition \ref{lm:local1}, the essential operator norm of $\Phi_\nu$ is bounded by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:nonlinear}
C_0 \max_{w\in B_\nu} E(w)^{1/2p}\le C_0 \exp(b_\nu t/(2p)).
\end{equation}
\begin{rem}\label{rem:widthI}
To get the estimate (\ref{eq:nonlinear}), we apply Proposition \ref{lm:local1} to each $\mathcal{L}^{t}_{a\to b,w,j}$. For this purpose, we have to assume that the lengths of intervals $I_j^t$ in the choice of the functions $\rho^t_j$ are sufficiently small.
This is of course possible. The point is that the constant denoted by $C_0$ in (\ref{eq:nonlinear}) does not depend on the choice of $\rho_j^t$.
\end{rem}
From Proposition \ref{lm:main} and (\ref{eq:card_backward_orbit}), the essential operator norm of $\Psi_\nu$ is bounded by
\[
C_0 \exp( (h(f)+\varepsilon)t)(p-1)/2p)\cdot \Delta_\nu^{1/2p}
\]
where $\Delta_\nu$ is the quantity defined in Proposition \ref{lm:main} in the setting
\[
\{(S(i),E(i))\mid i=1,\cdots, M:=\# B_\nu\}=\{ (S(w),E(w))\mid w\in B_\nu\}.
\]
\begin{rem}
To deduce the estimate above, we used (\ref{eq:card_backward_orbit}) to bound $\# B_\nu$. Note also that, from the condition (\ref{eq:choice_r}) in the choice of $r$, the latter factor $M^{p-1}\Delta \ge M^{p-1}$ on the right hand side of the inequality (\ref{eq:main_claim}) of Proposition~\ref{lm:main} exceeds the former factor
$M^{2p-1}/(\min_{1\le i\le M} E(i))^{2pr} \lesssim \exp(-2pr\cdot \chi_{\min} t)M^{2p-1}$.
\end{rem}
Since we are assuming that $f\in \mathcal{G}'$, we have that
\[
\Delta_\nu \le \exp((\max\{p h(f)-a_\nu,0\}+p(b_\nu-a_\nu)+\varepsilon)t)
\]
for sufficiently large $t$, uniformly in $a,b\in A$ and $1\le j\le J(t)$.
Therefore we conclude that the essential operator norm of $\Psi_\nu\circ \Phi_\nu$ is bounded by
\[
\exp\!\left(\!\frac{b_\nu +(p-1)(h(f)+\varepsilon)+\max\{p h(f)-a_\nu,0\}+p(b_\nu-a_\nu)+2\varepsilon}{2p}\cdot t\!\right)
\]
provided that $t$ is sufficiently large.
By the definition of $\mu(f)$ in (\ref{eq:muf}) and arbitrariness of $\varepsilon>0$, this implies (\ref{eq:reduced_claim3}).
(Note that $\Psi_\nu\circ \Phi_\nu=0$ if (\ref{eq:JnuEmpty}) holds.)
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:spectrum}}\label{ss:pf_Thspec}
We explain how we modify the argument in the last subsection in order to get the same conclusion under the weaker assumption of Theorem \ref{thm:spectrum}. The idea is not difficult: we use the fact that the exceptional set $\mathcal{E}$ is relatively small as we formulate in (\ref{eq:cardSigma}) below.
We resume the argument in Subsection \ref{ss:reduce}.
Recall that we are considering an arbitrarily small number $\varepsilon>0$.
Let $m$ and $m'$ be large integers that we will specify in the course of the argument. We take $n\ge n_0(1/m)$ so large that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:condn}
\nu_0 p\cdot \lceil 10 m \bar{\chi}_{\max}\rceil \le \exp(\varepsilon n).
\end{equation}
In the following we assume that $f$ belongs to
\[
\bigcap_{\nu=1}^{\nu_0} \mathcal{G}(J_\nu,n,1/m,1/m';p).
\]
We take $t_0>0$ so that the conditions in the definitions of
$\mathcal{G}(J_\nu,n,1/m,1/m';p)$ for $\nu=1,\cdots, \nu_0$ hold for $t\ge t_0$.
From the definition of $\mathcal{G}(\cdot)$ in Theorem \ref{thm:multiplicity}, this implies that, for any $t\ge t_0$, any $z=(x,y)\in X_f$ with $x\notin \mathrm{Per}_{1/m'}(\tau,n)$ and $1\le \nu\le \nu_0$, there exists a subset $\mathcal{E}=\mathcal{E}_\nu(z,t;f)\subset \tau^{-n}(x)$ with $\#\mathcal{E}\le p\lceil 10 m a_\nu \rceil$ such that the condition (\ref{eq:mult2}) holds for any $\xi\in [-\theta_0,\theta_0]$ with $J=J_\nu$. We put
\[
\mathcal{E}(z,t;f)=\cup_{\nu=1}^{\nu_0} \mathcal{E}_\nu(z,t;f).
\]
From the condition (\ref{eq:condn}) in the choice of $n$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cardSigma}
\# \mathcal{E}(z,t;f)\le \exp(\varepsilon n).
\end{equation}
We may and do assume further that $t_0$ is so large that $t_0>2n\cdot y_{\max}$ and also
\begin{equation}\label{eq:backnu}
\frac{1}{t}\log |\det DT_f^t(w)|\in
[\chi_{\min}(f)-\varepsilon, \chi_{\max}(f)+\varepsilon ]
\quad \mbox{ for any $w\in X_f$ and $t\ge t_0$.}\end{equation}
We prove that (\ref{eq:reduced_claim3}) holds for all $a,b\in A$ and $1\le j\le J(t)$ if $t\ge t_0$ is sufficiently large. (Notice that the constant $C_0$ in (\ref{eq:reduced_claim3}) have to be uniform for $a,b$, $t$ and $j$.)
Suppose $t\ge t_0$ and consider arbitrary $a,b\in A$ and $1\le j\le J(t)$. We take a point $z_0=z_0(j)\in \mathrm{supp}\,\rho_j^t \cap R$ and write $\kappa_{b}(z_0)=(x_0,y_0)$.
For each point $x\in \tau^{-k}(x_0)$, we define
\[
t(k,x)=f^{(kn)}(x)+y_0
\]
so that $T^{t(k,x)}(x,0)=(x_0,y_0)=\kappa_b(z_0)$ for $x\in \tau^{-kn}(x_0)$.
Then, we construct the subsets $H_k\subset \tau^{-kn}(x_0)$ for $k\ge 0$ inductively as follows.
For $k=0$, we set $H_0=\{x_0\}$.
If $H_{k-1}$ for $k\ge 1$ has been defined, let $H_k$ be the set of points $x\in \tau^{-kn}(x_0)$ satisfying
\begin{itemize}
\setlength{\itemsep}{3pt}
\item[(H1)] $x':=\tau^{n}(x)\in \tau^{-(k-1)n}(x_0)$ belongs to $H_{k-1}$,
\item[(H2)] $t-t(k-1,x')>t_0$, and
\item[(H3)] (a) $x'\in \mathrm{Per}_{1/m'}(\tau,n)$, or else
(b) $x\in
\mathcal{E}((x',0),t-t(k-1,x');f)$.
\end{itemize}
\begin{rem} The condition (H2) ensures that the subset $\mathcal{E}((x',0),t-t(k-1,x);f)$ in the condition (H3) is well-defined.
\end{rem}
We check that the number of points in $H_k\subset \tau^{-kn}(x_0)$ is relatively small compared with $\#\tau^{-kn}(x_0)=\ell^{kn}$. Let us say that $x\in H_{k+\nu}$ is a descendant of $\nu$-th generation of $x'\in H_{k}$ if $\tau^{\nu n}(x)=x'$. Observe that
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] if $x'\notin \mathrm{Per}_{1/m'}(\tau,n)$, the number of its descendants of the first generation is bounded by $\exp(\varepsilon n )$ from (\ref{eq:cardSigma}), and
\item[(2)] if $x'\in \mathrm{Per}_{1/m'}(\tau,n)$, the number of its descendants of the first generation is $\ell^{n}$.
\end{itemize}
In the case (2) above, the bound on the number of descendants is not effective.
But, if the case (2) happens for $x'$, the same will not happen for most of its descendants for several generations. More precisely, for arbitrarily large $\nu_0>0$, we may let $m'$ be so large (depending on $n$) that the descendant of $x'$ of $\nu$-th generation with $\nu\le \nu_0$ is not contained in $\mathrm{Per}_{1/m'}(\tau,n)$ but for at most one exception. Therefore, letting $m'$ be large, we may suppose
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sk}
\#H_k\le C_0 \ell^n \exp(2\varepsilon k n )\quad \mbox{for $k\ge 0$}
\end{equation}
where $C_0>0$ is a constant depending only on $\varepsilon$.
Let $\mathcal{H}$ be the set of pairs $(k,x)$ of an integer $k\ge 0$ and a point $x\in H_k$.
We say that a pair $(k,x)\in \mathcal{H}$ is \emph{terminal} if
$t-t(k,x)\le t_0$ and write $\mathcal{H}_{\mathrm{term}}\subset \mathcal{H}$ for the set of such pairs. If a pair $(k,x)\in \mathcal{H}$ is terminal, there is no descendant of $x\in H_k$.
Using the definitions prepared above, we divide the set $(T^t_f)^{-1}(b)$ into several (disjoint) subsets. For each $w\in (T^t_f)^{-1}(b)$ with $R^t_{a\to b,w}\neq \emptyset$, let $q(w)\in R^t_{a\to b, w}$ be the point such that
\[
\tilde{q}(w):=\kappa_a(q(w))\in U^t_{b,w}\quad \mbox{and}\quad
T^t_{f}(\tilde{q}(w))=\kappa_b(z_0).
\]
For each $(k,x)\in \mathcal{H}$, let $Q(k,x)$ be the set of points $w\in (T_{f}^{t})^{-1}(b)$ with $R^t_{a\to b,w}\neq \emptyset$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:tf}
T_f^{s_{kn}(\tilde{z}_0,\tilde{q}(w);t)}(\tilde{q}(w))=(x,0)\quad\mbox{but}\quad
T_f^{s_{(k+1)n}(\tilde{z}_0,\tilde{q}(w);t)}(\tilde{q}(w))\notin H_{k+1}\times\{0\}
\end{equation}
where $\tilde{z}_0=(x_0,y_0)=\kappa_b(z_0)$. (Recall (\ref{eq:sn}) for the definition of $s_{k}(z,w;t)$.)
Clearly the set $(T^t_f)^{-1}(b)$ splits into the disjoint subsets $Q(k,x)$ for $(k,x)\in \mathcal{H}$, provided that we ignore $w\in (T_{f}^{t})^{-1}(b)$ with $R^t_{a\to b,w}= \emptyset$.
\begin{rem}
The former condition in (\ref{eq:tf}) implies that
\[
s_{(k-1)n}(\tilde{z}_0,\tilde{q}(w);t)=t-t(k-1,\tau^{n}(x))>t_0>2n\cdot y_{\max}
\]
and hence that $s_{(k+1)n}(\tilde{z}_0,\tilde{q}(w);t)$ in the latter condition is well-defined.
\end{rem}
In the case where a pair $(k,x)\in \mathcal{H}$ is terminal, we have $t-t(k,x)\le t_0$ by definition and we have $T_f^{t-t(k,x)}(\tilde{q}(w))=(x,0)$.
In particular, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cardkx}
\# Q(k,x)\le \ell^{t_0/y_{\min}}\qquad \mbox{if }(k,x)\in \mathcal{H}_{\mathrm{term}} .
\end{equation}
In the case where a pair $(k,x)\in \mathcal{H}$ is \emph{not} terminal, we decompose the subset $Q(k,x)\subset (T_{f}^{t})^{-1}(b)$ further. In this case, we have $t-t(k,x)>t_0$. Further, from the definition of $H_k$'s, we have, for $w\in Q(k,x)$, that
\[
T_f^{s_{kn}(\tilde{z}_0,\tilde{q}(w);t )}(\tilde{q}(w))=T_f^{t-t(k,x)}(\tilde{q}(w))=(x,0)\notin \mathrm{Per}_{1/m'}(\tau,n)
\]
and
\[
T_f^{s_{(k+1)n}(\tilde{z}_0,\tilde{q}(w);t )}(\tilde{q}(w))=(\tilde{x},0)\quad \mbox{with $\tilde{x}\notin \mathcal{E}((x,0),t-t(k,x);f)$.}
\]
From (\ref{eq:backnu}), we can divide $Q(k,x)$ into disjoint subsets $Q_{\nu}(k,x)$ for $1\le \nu\le \nu_0$ so that $w\in Q(k,x)$ belongs to $Q_{\nu}(k,x)$ only if
\begin{equation}\label{eq:eQ}
\det (DT_f^{t-t(k,x)}(\tilde{q}(w)))\in [e^{a_\nu (t-t(k,x))}, e^{b_\nu (t-t(k,x))}]
\end{equation}
and also that $Q_{\nu}(k,x)=\emptyset$ if (\ref{eq:JnuEmpty}) holds.
We now estimate the essential operator norm of the operator on the left hand side of the claim (\ref{eq:reduced_claim3}). We decompose the operator into several parts, correspondingly to the decomposition of $(T_f^{t})^{-1}(b)$ into $Q_\nu(k,x)$ for $(k,x)\in \mathcal{H}$, and estimates the essential operator norms of those parts. (We ignore $w\in (T_{f}^{t})^{-1}(b)$ with $R^t_{a\to b,w}= \emptyset$ since $\mathcal{L}^t_{a\to b,w,j}$ vanishes for such $w$.)
In general, we have
\[
\left\|\mathcal{L}^{t}_{a\to b,w,j}:{\mathcal{B}}^{r,p}(R)\to {\mathcal{B}}^{r,p}(R)\right\|_{\mathrm{ess}}\le C_0 e^{(\chi_{\max}(f)+\varepsilon)t/2p}
\]
by Proposition \ref{lm:local1} and Proposition \ref{lm:main} (in the trivial case of $M=1$ and $\Delta=1$.) Hence, by a simple estimate using (\ref{eq:sk}) and (\ref{eq:cardkx}), we obtain
\begin{multline*}\label{eq:term}
\left\|\sum_{(k,x)\in \mathcal{H}_{\mathrm{term}}}\sum_{w\in Q(k,x)}\mathcal{L}^{t}_{a\to b,w,j}:{\mathcal{B}}^{r,p}(R)\to {\mathcal{B}}^{r,p}(R)\right\|_{\mathrm{ess}}
\\
\le C_0
\left(
\sum_{k\le t/(n y_{\min})} \ell^{t_0/y_{\min}}\cdot \ell^n \exp(2\varepsilon kn)
\right)\cdot
e^{(\chi_{\max}(f)+\varepsilon)t/2p}
\end{multline*}
where the range of $k$ in the sum on the right hand side is restricted to $k\le t/(n y_{\min})$ because
$H_k$ is empty if $nk\cdot y_{\min}> t$. Since we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:muf2}
\mu(f)\ge \frac{(p-1)h(f)+\chi_{\max}}{2p}>\frac{\chi_{\max}}{2p}
\end{equation}
from the definition and since we may suppose that $\varepsilon>0$ is small, we see that the right hand side of the inequality above above is bounded by $e^{(\mu(f)+\varepsilon) t}$ when $t$ is sufficient large.
We next consider $(k,x)\in \mathcal{H}$ which is \emph{not} terminal.
First of all, observe that, for the case of $(0,x_0)\in H_0$, the argument in the last subsection applies to
\[
\sum_{w\in Q(0,x_0)} \mathcal{L}^{t}_{a\to b,w,j}:{\mathcal{B}}^{r,p}(R)\to {\mathcal{B}}^{r,p}(R)
\]
and we can conclude that the essential operator norm of this operator is bounded by $C_0 \exp((\mu +\varepsilon)t)$. (Note that the subset $Q(0,x_0)$ by definition does not contain the problematic elements $w\in (T^t_f)^{-1}(b)$ such that
$T^{s_n(\tilde{z}_0,\tilde{q}(w);t)}_f(\tilde{q}(w))\in \mathcal{E}(\tilde{z}_0,t;f)$.)
Below we see that a similar argument applies to the case $k>0$.
Suppose that $(k,x)\in \mathcal{H}$ is not terminal and $w\in Q(k,x)$.
We consider the local chart $\kappa_c:Q\to X_f$ for $c=(x,0)\in X_f$ so that the point $(x,6\delta_0)$ belongs to $\kappa_{c}(R)$. Let $V\subset Q$ be the neighborhood of $(0,6\delta_0)$ that is mapped by $T_f^{t(k,x)-6\delta_0}\circ \kappa_c$ bijectively onto $\kappa_b(R)$.
We define
\begin{align*}
E(w)&:=E(\tilde{q}(w),t-t(k,x);f):=\det (DT_f^{t-t(k,x)}(\tilde{q}(w)))\ge 1
\intertext{and}
S(w)&:=-F(\tilde{q}(w),t-t(k,x);f)/E(\tilde{q}(w),t-t(k,x);f)
\end{align*}
where $E(\cdot)$ and $F(\cdot)$ on the right hand sides are those in (\ref{eq:EF}), so that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:SEkxdef}
(DA_{a\to c}^{t-t(k,x)+6\delta_0})_{q(w)}=\begin{pmatrix}E(w) &0\\
-S(w)E(w) &1
\end{pmatrix}
\end{equation}
where $A^t_{a\to c}:R^t_{a\to c}\to R$ is defined by (\ref{def:Aab}) and (\ref{def:Rab}) with $b$ replaced by $c$.
Then we may express the operator
\[
\sum_{w\in Q(k,x)} \mathcal{L}^{t}_{a\to b,w,j}:{\mathcal{B}}^{r,p}(R)\to {\mathcal{B}}^{r,p}(R)
\]
as
\[
\sum_{w\in Q(k,x)}\mathcal{L}^{t}_{a\to b,w,j}=\Xi_{k,x}\circ\left(
\sum_{1\le \nu\le \nu_0} \Psi_{k,x,\nu}\circ \Phi_{k,x,\nu}\right)
\]
where the operators $\Xi_{k,x}$, $\Psi_{k,x,\nu}$ and $\Phi_{k,x,\nu}$ are defined as follows: The operators
\[
\Phi_{k,x,\nu}:\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(R)\to \bigoplus_{w\in Q_\nu(k,x)} \mathcal{B}^{r,p}_{S(w),E(w)}\left(V\right)
\]
and
\[
\Psi_{k,x,\nu}:\bigoplus_{w\in Q_\nu(k,x)} \mathcal{B}^{r,p}_{S(w),E(w)}\left(V\right)\to \mathcal{B}^{r,p}\left(V\right)
\]
are respectively analogues of the operators $\Psi_{\nu}$ and $\Phi_{\nu}$ considered in the last subsection and defined precisely by
\begin{align*}
&\Phi_{k,x,\nu}(u)=\left((\rho^t_{a\to b,w,j}\cdot u)\circ (A^{t-t(k,x)+6\delta_0}_{a\to c}|_{R^t_{a\to b,w}})^{-1}\right)_{w\in Q_\nu(k,x)}
\intertext{
and}
&\Psi_{k,x,\nu}\left((u_w)_{w\in Q_\nu(k,x)}\right)=\sum_{w\in Q_\nu(k,x)} u_w.
\end{align*}
On the other hand, we define
\[
\Xi_{k,x}:\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(V)\to \mathcal{B}^{r,p}(R),\quad \Xi_{k,x}u=u\circ (A^{t(k,x)-6\delta_0}_{c\to b}|_{V})^{-1}.
\]
For the operator $
\sum_{1\le \nu\le \nu_0} \Psi_{k,x,\nu}\circ \Phi_{k,x,\nu}$,
the situation is parallel to that considered in the last subsection and hence we can get the estimate
\[
\left\|\sum_{1\le \nu\le \nu_0} \Psi_{k,x,\nu}\circ \Phi_{k,x,\nu}:\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(R)\to \mathcal{B}^{r,p}\left(V\right)\right\|_{\mathrm{ess}}
\le C_0\exp((\mu(f)+\varepsilon)(t(k,x)+6\delta_0))
\]
applying Proposition~\ref{lm:local1}, Lemma \ref{lm:pu} and Proposition \ref{lm:main}.
For the operator $\Xi_{k,x}$, we have the estimate
\[
\|\Xi_{k,x}\|_{\mathrm{ess}}\le C_0
\exp((\chi_{\max}(f)+\varepsilon)(t-t(k,x)-6\delta_0)/2p)
\]
from Proposition~\ref{lm:local1} and Proposition \ref{lm:main} (in the trivial case of $M=1$ and $\Delta=1$).
Hence, noting (\ref{eq:muf2}), we obtain
\[
\left\|\sum_{w\in Q(k,x)}\mathcal{L}^{t}_{a\to b,w,j}:\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(R)\to \mathcal{B}^{r,p}(R)\right\|_{\mathrm{ess}}
\le C_0\exp((\mu(f)+\varepsilon)t)
\]
provided that $\varepsilon>0$ is sufficiently small.
Therefore we conclude (\ref{eq:reduced_claim3}) by summing these estimates for $(k,x)\in \mathcal{H}\setminus \mathcal{H}_{\mathrm{term}}$ and using (\ref{eq:sk}) and arbitrariness of $\varepsilon>0$.
We have proved that the conclusion of Theorem \ref{thm:spectrum} holds for $f\in \mathcal{G}$.
But notice that, to get the conclusion of Theorem \ref{thm:spectrum} for some $\eta>0$, it is actually enough to show the estimate (\ref{eq:reduced_claim3}) for $\varepsilon=\eta/2$ and some (very) large $t$ according to $\eta$ and $C_0$. Hence the conclusion remains true for small perturbations of $f$. This completes the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:spectrum}.
\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{th:generalized_huber}}\label{sec:pf_th_huber}
In this section, we justify the heuristic argument in Subsection \ref{ss:heu} and relate the distribution of the periods of prime periodic orbits of $T_f^t$ and spectral properties of the transfer operators $\mathcal{L}^t$. In principle, we follow the idea presented in the paper \cite{BT08} where a similar statement for hyperbolic diffeomorphisms is proved.
\subsection{A lift of the operator $\mathbf{L}^{t}$}
We first introduce a kind of lift (or extension) $\mathbb{L}^{t}$ of the transfer operator $\mathcal{L}^t$.
Let us recall the definitions of the Banach spaces $\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(\mathbb{R}^2)$ and $\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(X_f)$ in Section~\ref{sec:defcBonR} and \ref{sec:pf1} respectively. Using the notation appeared in those definitions, we define the operators
\[
\mathbb{I}:\bigoplus_{a\in A}C^{\infty}(R)\to\bigoplus_{a\in A}\prod_{m,n}\mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R}^{2}),
\qquad
\mathbb{I}^{*}:\bigoplus_{a\in A}\bigoplus_{m,n}\mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R}^{2})\to\bigoplus_{a\in A}C^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^2)
\]
by
\begin{align*}
&\mathbb{I}\left((u_{a})_{a\in A}\right)=\left(\hat{\chi}_{m,n}(u_{a})\right)_{a\in A,m\in\mathbb{Z}_{+},n\in\mathbb{Z}}
\intertext{
and}
&\mathbb{I}^{*}\left((u_{a,m,n})_{a\in A,m\in\mathbb{Z}_{+},n\in\mathbb{Z}}\right)\mapsto\left(u_{a}:=\sum_{m,n}\hat{\chi}'_{m,n}(u_{a,m,n})\right)_{a\in A}
\end{align*}
where $\chi'_{m,n}$ is the function introduced in the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:xnm_trace} and the ranges of the variables $m$ and $n$ are $\mathbb{Z}_{\ge 0}$ and $\mathbb{Z}$ respectively.
We have $\mathbb{I}^{*}\circ\mathbb{I}=\mathrm{Id}$
because $\{\chi_{m,n}\}$ is a partition of unity on $\mathbb{R}^2$ and $\chi'_{m,n}\cdot \chi_{m,n}=\chi_{m,n}$.
Let $\mathbb{B}^{r,p}$ be the Banach space obtained as the completion of the space $\bigoplus_{m,n}\mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R}^{2})$
with respect to the norm
\[
\|(u_{m,n})\|_{r,p}^{(\varepsilon_0)}=\left(\sum_{m,n}2^{2rpm}\cdot \varepsilon(m)\cdot\|u_{m,n}\|_{L^{2p}}^{2p}\right)^{1/{2p}}
\]
where
\[
\varepsilon(m)=\begin{cases}
\varepsilon_0,&\quad \mbox{if $m=0$;}\\
1,&\quad \mbox{otherwise}
\end{cases}
\]
with $\varepsilon_0>0$ a small constant that we will specify later. From the definition of the norm on $\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(\mathbb{R}^2)$, we see that the operators $\mathbb{I}$ and $\mathbb{I}^*$ extend to bounded operators
\[
\mathbb{I}:\bigoplus_{a\in A}\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(R)\to \bigoplus_{a\in A}\mathbb{B}^{r,p},\qquad
\mathbb{I}^*:\bigoplus_{a\in A}\mathbb{B}^{r,p}\to\bigoplus_{a\in A}\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(R).
\]
\begin{rem}
In the definition of the norm $\|\cdot\|_{r,p}^{(\varepsilon_0)}$ above, we put the factor $\varepsilon(m)$ by a technical reason. Of course,
the Banach space $\mathbb{B}^{r,p}$ (as a set) does not depend on the choice of the constant~$\varepsilon_0>0$. If $\varepsilon_0=1$, the operator $\mathbb{I}$ is an isometric injection by definition.
\end{rem}
For $t\ge 6\delta_0$, we define
\[
\mathbb{L}^{t}:\bigoplus_{a\in A}\mathbb{B}^{r,p}
\to \bigoplus_{a\in A}\mathbb{B}^{r,p},\quad\mathbb{L}^{t}=\mathbb{I}\circ\mathbf{L}^{t}\circ\mathbb{I}^{*}.
\]
Also, for a $C^\infty$ function $\varphi:\mathbb{R}\to \mathbb{R}$ compactly supported on $[6\delta_0,+\infty)$, we define
\[
\mathbb{L}^{\varphi}=\int \varphi(t)\cdot \mathbb{L}^{t} dt:\bigoplus_{a\in A}\mathbb{B}^{r,p}\to \bigoplus_{a\in A}\mathbb{B}^{r,p}.
\]
Note that the following diagram commutes:
\[
\begin{CD}
\bigoplus_{a\in A}\mathbb{B}^{r,p}@>{\mathbb{L}^{t}}>>\bigoplus_{a\in A}\mathbb{B}^{r,p}\\
@A{\mathbb{I}}AA @A{\mathbb{I}}AA\\
\bigoplus_{a\in A}\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(R)@>{\mathbf{L}^t}>> \bigoplus_{a\in A}\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(R)\\
@V{\Pi}VV @V{\Pi}VV\\
\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(X_f)@>>{\mathcal{L}^t}>\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(X_f)
\end{CD}
\]
The essential spectral radii of the three operators $\mathcal{L}^t$, $
\mathbf{L}^t$ and $\mathbb{L}^t$ in the commutative diagram above
are same and their peripheral eigenvalues outside of it coincide. Indeed, we have checked this relation between $\mathcal{L}^t$ and $\mathbf{L}^t$ in Subsection \ref{ss:defcB} and, similarly, can check this relation between $
\mathbf{L}^t$ and $\mathbb{L}^t$.
We define the flat trace of operators on $\bigoplus_{a\in A}\mathbb{B}^{r,p}$.
Let $\mathbb{B}_{a,m,n}^{r,p}$ be the Banach space
$L^{2p}(\mathbb{R}^{2})$ equipped with the norm $
\|u\|_{m}^{(\varepsilon_0)}=
2^{rm}\cdot \varepsilon(m)\cdot \|u\|_{L^{2p}}$.
Then a bounded operator $\mathbb{M}:\bigoplus_{a\in A}\mathbb{B}^{r,p}\to \bigoplus_{a\in A}\mathbb{B}^{r,p}$ may be regarded as a matrix of operators whose components are
\[
\mathbb{M}_{(a,m,n)\to(a',m',n')}:\mathbb{B}_{a,m,n}^{r,p}\to\mathbb{B}_{a',m',n'}^{r,p},\quad u\mapsto \pi_{a',m',n'}\circ \mathbb{M}\circ \pi_{a,m,n} u
\]
where $\pi_{a,m,n}$ is the projection to the $(a,m,n)$-component. If all the diagonal components $\mathbb{M}_{(a,m,n)\to(a,m,n)}$ are trace class operators and if
\[
\sum_{a,m,n}|\mathrm{Tr}\,\, \mathbb{M}_{(a,m,n)\to(a,m,n)}|<\infty,
\]
we define the flat trace of $\mathbb{M}$ by
\[
\mathrm{Tr}\,^\flat\,\mathbb{M}=\sum_{a,m,n}\mathrm{Tr}\,\, \mathbb{M}_{(a,m,n)\to(a,m,n)}.
\]
\begin{lem}
If\/ $\mathbb{M}$ is a trace class operator, its flat trace is well defined and we have
$\mathrm{Tr}\,^\flat\,\mathbb{M}=\mathrm{Tr}\,\,\mathbb{M}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}Suppose that $\mathbb{M}$ is a rank one operator of the form $\mathbb{M}u=y(u)\cdot x$ with
\[
x=(x_{a,m,n})\in \bigoplus_{a\in A}\mathbb{B}^{r,p}, \quad y=(y_{a,m,n})\in \bigoplus_{a\in A}(\mathbb{B}^{r,p})^*.
\]
Note that, letting $q>1$ be such that $q^{-1}+(2p)^{-1}=1$, we have
\[
\|y\|_{(\bigoplus_{a\in A}\mathbb{B}^{r,p})^*}=\left(\sum_{a,m,n}\|y_{a,m,n}\|_{(\mathbb{B}_{a,m,n}^{r,p})^*}^q\right)^{1/q}
\]
where
\[
\|v\|_{(\mathbb{B}_{a,m,n}^{r,p})^*}=2^{-rm}\cdot \varepsilon(m)^{-1}\cdot \|v\|_{L^{q}}.
\]
Hence we have, by H\"older inequality, that
\begin{align*}
\sum_{a,m,n}|\mathrm{Tr}\,\,\mathbb{M}_{(a,m,n)\to(a,m,n)}|&\le \sum_{a,m,n}\|x_{a,m,n}\|_{\mathbb{B}_{a,m,n}^{r,p}}\cdot
\|y_{a,m,n}\|_{(\mathbb{B}_{a,m,n}^{r,p})^*}\\
&\le \|x\|_{\bigoplus_{a\in A}\mathbb{B}^{r,p}}\cdot \|y\|_{\bigoplus_{a\in A}(\mathbb{B}^{r,p})^*}
\end{align*}
and also that
\[
\sum_{a,m,n}\mathrm{Tr}\,\,\mathbb{M}_{(a,m,n)\to(a,m,n)}= \sum_{a,m,n}y_{a,m,n}(x_{a,m,n}) =y(x).
\]
This and the definition of the trace norm give the conclusion.
\end{proof}
The flat trace may be defined for operators that are not of the trace class. We introduce such a class of operators.
We say that a bounded linear operator $\mathbb{M}:\bigoplus_{a\in A}\mathbb{B}^{r,p}\to \bigoplus_{a\in A}\mathbb{B}^{r,p}$ is \emph{triangular} if its components $\mathbb{M}_{(a,m,n)\to(a',m',n')}$ is zero whenever
\[
2^m\langle n\rangle^2\le 2^{m'}\langle n'\rangle^2.
\]
Obviously, if $\mathbb{M}$ is triangular, all of its diagonal components vanish and hence its flat trace is defined to be zero. Note that the sum and composition of two triangular operators are again triangular.
In the next subsection, we will see that the operator $\mathbb{L}^\varphi$ for a $C^\infty$ function $\varphi:\mathbb{R}\to \mathbb{R}$ compactly supported on $[t_0,+\infty)$ with sufficiently large $t_0$ is decomposed into a trace class operator and a triangular operator. Hence the flat trace is well defined for $\mathbb{L}^\varphi$. Note that the components of $\mathbb{L}^\varphi$ are written as
\[
\mathbb{L}_{(a,m,n)\to(a',m',n')}^{\varphi}:\mathbb{B}_{a,m,n}^{r,p}\to\mathbb{B}_{a',m',n'}^{r,p},\;\;u\mapsto \hat{\chi}_{m',n'}\circ \left(\int \varphi(t)\cdot \mathcal{L}_{a\to a'}^{t}dt\right)\circ \hat{\chi}'_{m,n} u.
\]
This is an integral operator with kernel $K^{\varphi}_{(a,m,n)\to(a',m',n')}(z',z)\in \mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R}^4)$ and hence is a trace class operator. If $(a,m,n)=(a',m',n')$, its trace is calculated as the integration of the kernel on the diagonal:
\[
\mathrm{Tr}\, \mathbb{L}_{(a,m,n)\to(a,m,n)}^{\varphi}=\int_{\mathbb{R}^2} K^{\varphi}_{(a,m,n)\to(a,m,n)}(z,z) dz.
\]
Since $
\sum_{m,n:2^m \langle n^2\rangle \le k} \hat{\chi}_{m,n}$
converges to the Dirac function $\delta_0$ as $k\to \infty$, we find
\begin{equation}\label{eq:comp_flattr}
\mathrm{Tr}\,^{\flat}\mathbb{L}^\varphi=\sum_{a,m,n}\mathrm{Tr}\, \mathbb{L}_{(a,m,n)\to(a,m,n)}^{\varphi}=\sum_{\gamma\in \Gamma}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}
\frac{|\gamma|\cdot \varphi(n|\gamma|)}{1-E_\gamma^{-n}}
\end{equation}
by straightforward computation. (Though this computation is not very simple, we ask the readers to check it.) Note that the right hand side is what we expect for $\int \varphi(t) \mathrm{Tr}\,^\flat \mathcal{L}^t dt$ from (\ref{eq:ABT}).
\subsection{A decomposition of the lifted operator }
We decompose the operator $\mathbb{L}^{t}$ for $t\ge t_0$ (resp. $\mathbb{L}^\varphi$ for $\varphi\in C^\infty_0([t_0,+\infty))$ into two parts as
\[
\mathbb{L}^{t}=\mathbb{L}^{t}_{\mathrm{trace}}+\mathbb{L}^{t}_{\mathrm{trace-free}}\quad (\mbox{resp. }\mathbb{L}^{\varphi}=\mathbb{L}^{\varphi}_{\mathrm{trace}}+\mathbb{L}^{\varphi}_{\mathrm{trace-free}})
\]
where $\mathbb{L}^{t}_{\mathrm{trace-free}}$ (resp. $\mathbb{L}^{\varphi}_{\mathrm{trace-free}}$) consists of its components $\mathbb{L}_{(a,m,n)\to(a',m',n')}^{t}$ (reps. $\mathbb{L}_{(a,m,n)\to(a',m',n')}^{\varphi}$) that satisfies the condition
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cond_tracefree}
2^{m'}\langle n'\rangle^2< 2^{m+4}\langle n\rangle^2 \exp(-(\chi_{\min}+\varepsilon) t)
\end{equation}
(resp. the same condition with $t=\min \mathrm{supp}\, \varphi\ge t_0$)
and the operator $\mathbb{L}^{t}_{\mathrm{trace-free}}$ (resp. $\mathbb{L}^{\varphi}_{\mathrm{trace-free}}$) consists of the remaining components.
Clearly the trace-free part $\mathbb{L}^{t}_{\mathrm{trace-free}}$ (resp. $\mathbb{L}^{\varphi}_{\mathrm{trace-free}}$) is triangular provided that $t_0$ is sufficiently large.
Below we present two lemmas, whose proofs are deferred to the next subsection.
The constants $r>0$ and $t_0>0$ are assumed to be sufficiently large.
The first lemma tells that the trace-free part is strongly contracting. This is a consequence of the choice of the weights in the definition of the Banach space $\mathbb{B}^{r,p}$ and may be rather obvious.
\begin{lem} \label{lm:T1}
For $t_0\le t\le 2t_0$, we have
\[
\left\|\mathbb{L}_{\mathrm{trace-free}}^{t}:\bigoplus_{a\in A}\mathbb{B}^{r,p}\to \bigoplus_{a\in A}\mathbb{B}^{r,p}\right\|\le \exp(\rho t)
\]
where $\rho=\rho_p(f)$. (See $(\ref{eq:bound_ess})$ for the definition of $\rho_p(f)$.)
\end{lem}
\begin{rem}
As we will see in the proof, we can actually prove the statement above for arbitrarily small $\rho$ by letting $r$ and $t_0$ larger.
\end{rem}
The next lemma proves that the trace class part $\mathbb{L}^\varphi_{\mathrm{trace}}$ is a trace class operator and also gives an estimates on its trace norm.
\begin{lem}\label{lm:T2}
For a bounded subset $\mathcal{X}$ in $C^\infty_0([-1,1])$, there exists a constant $C_*=C_*(\mathcal{X})$ such that, if $\varphi$ is supported on $[t_0,2t_0]$ and if
there exists an affine map $A(t)=\alpha t+\beta$ with $\alpha\in (0,1)$ such that the function
$\varphi\circ A(t)=\varphi(\alpha t+\beta)$ belongs to $\mathcal{X}$, then
\[
\|\mathbb{L}^{\varphi}_{\mathrm{trace}}\|_{\mathrm{Tr}\,}\le C_* \alpha
\quad{and}\quad
\|\mathbb{L}^t_{\mathrm{trace}}\circ \mathbb{L}^{\varphi}\|_{\mathrm{Tr}\,}\le C_* \alpha\quad \mbox{for $t_0\le t\le 2t_0$.}
\]
\end{lem}
\begin{rem}
The operator $\mathbb{L}^t_{\mathrm{trace}}$ itself will not be a trace class operator. In the proof of the lemma above, we use the fact that the integration with respect to the variable $t$ (with multiplication by $\varphi(t)$) in the definition of $\mathbb{L}^{\varphi}$ reduces the part of functions that have high frequency in the flow direction (that is, the $(a,m,n)$-components with $|n|$ large).
\end{rem}
We proceed with the proof of Theorem~\ref{th:generalized_huber}. Below we consider the situation assumed in Theorem~\ref{th:generalized_huber}.
We write $\mathbb{\Pi}$ for the spectral projector of $\mathbb{L}^t$ for the set of eigenvalues on the outside of the disk $|z|\le e^{(\rho+\varepsilon) t}$ where $\rho=\rho_p(f)$. Note that this spectral projector $\mathbb{\Pi}$ is of finite rank and does not depend on $t$ provided $t\ge t_0$. By letting $t_0$ be larger if necessary, we assume
\[
\|\mathbb{\Pi}\circ \mathbb{L}^t:\mathcal{B}^{r,p}(X_f)\to \mathcal{B}^{r,p}(X_f)\|\le \exp\left((\rho+\varepsilon) t\right)\quad \mbox{for }t\ge t_0.
\]
The next proposition is the key to the proof of Theorem~\ref{th:generalized_huber}.
\begin{prop}\label{lm:ftrace}
Suppose that $\mathcal{X}$ is a bounded subset in $C^\infty_0([-1,1])$ and that $\varphi$ is a $C^\infty$ function supported on $[t_0,2t_0]$ such that $\varphi\circ A(t)=\varphi(\alpha t+\beta)$ belongs to $\mathcal{X}$ for some affine map $A(t)=\alpha t+\beta$ with $\alpha\in (0,1)$.
Then we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:trace}
|\mathrm{Tr}\,^\flat((1-\mathbb{\Pi})\circ \mathbb{L}^{\varphi}\circ \mathbb{L}^T|\le C'_* \alpha^{-1}\cdot \exp({(\rho+\varepsilon) T})\qquad \mbox{for any $T\ge t_0$}
\end{equation}
where the constant $C'_*=C'_*(\mathcal{X},t_0)$ depends on the bounded subset $\mathcal{X}\subset C^{\infty}([-1,1])$, $t_0$ and $\varepsilon$, but not on $\alpha$ and $\beta$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let us write $T\ge t_0$ as a sum $
T=t_1+t_2+\cdots+t_m$ with $t_0\le t_i\le 2t_0$.
Since the operators $\mathbb{\Pi}$, $\mathbb{L}^t$ and $\mathbb{L}^{\varphi}$ commute and since $1-\mathbb{\Pi}$ is a projection operator, we may write
\begin{align*}
(1-\mathbb{\Pi})\circ \mathbb{L}^{\varphi}\circ\mathbb{L}^{T}
&= (1-\mathbb{\Pi})\circ\mathbb{L}^{t_m}\circ \mathbb{L}^{\varphi}\circ (1-\mathbb{\Pi})\circ\mathbb{L}^{t_{m-1}}\circ\mathbb{L}^{t_{m-2}}\circ\cdots \circ \mathbb{L}^{t_2}\circ \mathbb{L}^{t_1}
\\
&= (\mathbb{L}^{t_m}_{\mathrm{trace}}-\mathbb{\Pi}\circ \mathbb{L}^{t_m})\circ \mathbb{L}^{\varphi}\circ (1-\mathbb{\Pi})\circ\mathbb{L}^{t_{m-1}}\circ \cdots \circ \mathbb{L}^{t_2}\circ\mathbb{L}^{t_1}\\
&\qquad\qquad +\mathbb{L}_{\mathrm{trace-free}}^{t_m}\circ [ \mathbb{L}^{\varphi}\circ (1-\mathbb{\Pi})\circ \mathbb{L}^{t_{m-1}}\circ \cdots \circ \mathbb{L}^{t_2}\circ\mathbb{L}^{t_1}].
\end{align*}
Applying the same deformation to the operator in the last bracket $[\cdot]$ and continuing this procedure, we express the operator $(1-\mathbb{\Pi})\circ \mathbb{L}^{\varphi}\circ \mathbb{L}^T$ as the sum of
\begin{align*}
&\mathbb{L}_{\mathrm{trace-free}}^{t_m}\circ \cdots\circ \mathbb{L}_{\mathrm{trace-free}}^{t_1}\circ
\mathbb{L}_{\mathrm{trace-free}}^{\varphi},\qquad \mathbb{L}_{\mathrm{trace-free}}^{t_m}\circ \cdots\circ \mathbb{L}_{\mathrm{trace-free}}^{t_1}\circ
\mathbb{L}_{\mathrm{trace}}^{\varphi},\\
&\mathbb{L}_{\mathrm{trace-free}}^{t_m}\circ\cdots \circ \mathbb{L}_{\mathrm{trace-free}}^{t_{2}}\circ (\mathbb{L}^{t_1}_{\mathrm{trace}}-\mathbb{\Pi}\circ \mathbb{L}^{t_1})\circ \mathbb{L}^{\varphi}
\intertext{and}
&\mathbb{L}_{\mathrm{trace-free}}^{t_m}\circ\cdots \circ \mathbb{L}_{\mathrm{trace-free}}^{t_{k+1}}\circ (\mathbb{L}^{t_k}_{\mathrm{trace}}-\mathbb{\Pi}\circ \mathbb{L}^{t_k})\circ \mathbb{L}^{\varphi}\circ (1-\mathbb{\Pi})\circ \mathbb{L}^{t_{k-1}}\circ\cdots \circ \mathbb{L}^{t_1}
\end{align*}
for $k=2,\cdots, m$.
\begin{rem}
At the last stage of the development above, we find the term
\begin{multline*}
\mathbb{L}_{\mathrm{trace-free}}^{t_m}\circ\cdots \circ \mathbb{L}_{\mathrm{trace-free}}^{t_{2}}\circ \mathbb{L}^{\varphi}\circ (1-\mathbb{\Pi})\circ \mathbb{L}^{t_1} \\
=
\mathbb{L}_{\mathrm{trace-free}}^{t_m}\circ\cdots \circ \mathbb{L}_{\mathrm{trace-free}}^{t_{2}}\circ \mathbb{L}^{t_1}\circ (1-\mathbb{\Pi}) \circ \mathbb{L}^{\varphi}.
\end{multline*}
This term is decomposed into the first three terms above.
\end{rem}
Notice that the first operator above is triangular and hence its flat trace vanishes.
From Lemma \ref{lm:T1} and Lemma \ref{lm:T2},
the second operator is a trace class operator and its trace norm is bounded by
\[
\exp({\rho}(t_1+\cdots+t_m))\cdot C_* \alpha^{-1}.
\]
Similarly the trace norm of the other operators are bounded by
\[
\exp\left({\rho} \sum_{i=k+1}^m t_i\right)
\cdot \left(C_* \alpha^{-1}+C\right)\cdot
C\exp\left(({\rho}+\varepsilon) \sum_{i=1}^{k-1} t_i\right)
\]
for $k=1$ and $k=2,\cdots,m$ respectively, where $C$ is a constant depending only on the choice of $t_0$ and the rank of $\mathbb{\Pi}$. Hence the claim (\ref{eq:trace}) follows from the estimates above.
\end{proof}
Since the spectral projector $\mathbb{\Pi}$ is of finite rank, so is $\mathbb{\Pi}\circ \mathbb{L}^t$ and therefore we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Trflat}
\mathrm{Tr}\,^\flat\left(\mathbb{\Pi}\circ \mathbb{L}^{\varphi}\circ \mathbb{L}^t \right)=
\mathrm{Tr}\,\left(\mathbb{\Pi}\circ \mathbb{L}^{\varphi}\circ \mathbb{L}^t \right)=
\sum_{i=1}^{k'}\int \varphi(t) e^{\mu_i t} dt.
\end{equation}
Thus Proposition \ref{lm:ftrace} is convincing.
Below we give an argument to finish the proof. We first justify the relation (\ref{eq:principal}).
Let us put
\[
\tilde{\pi}(T)=
\sum_{\gamma\in\Gamma}\sum_{n=1}^{\lfloor T/|\gamma|\rfloor}\frac{1}{n}\cdot \frac{1}{1-E_{\gamma}^{-n}}.
\]
Note that, if we defined $\mathrm{Tr}\,^\flat \mathcal{L}^t$ by the formula (\ref{eq:ABT}), we might write it formally as
\[
\tilde{\pi}(T)=\int_{+0}^T \frac{1}{t}\cdot \mathrm{Tr}\,^{\flat} \mathcal{L}^t dt.
\]
The difference between $\pi(T)$ and $\tilde{\pi}(T)$ is bounded by
\begin{align*}
\sum_{\gamma\in\Gamma}\sum_{n=2}^{\lfloor T/|\gamma|\rfloor}\frac{n^{-1}}{1-E_{\gamma}^{-n}}+
\sum_{\gamma\in\Gamma:|\gamma|\le T}\frac{E_{\gamma}^{-1}}{1-E_{\gamma}^{-1}}
\le
\sum_{n=2}^{\infty}
\sum_{\gamma\in\Gamma:|\gamma|\le T/n}
1+
\sum_{\gamma\in\Gamma:|\gamma|\le T}2\cdot E_{\gamma}^{-1}.
\end{align*}
As we noted in Subsection \ref{ss:heu} this difference is negligible. By the general argument on the topological pressure of flows (see \cite[Theorem C]{Lu} for instance), we have
\begin{align*}
&\lim_{T\to \infty}\frac{1}{T}\log \sum_{\gamma\in\Gamma:|\gamma|\le T}1= P_{top}(T_f^t,0)=h(f)
\intertext{and}
&\lim_{T\to \infty}\frac{1}{T}\log \sum_{\gamma\in\Gamma:|\gamma|\le T}E_\gamma^{-1}= P_{top}(T_f^t,-\log \det DT_f^t) =0.
\end{align*}
Hence we have
\[
\lim_{T\to \infty}\frac{1}{T}\log |\tilde{\pi}(T)-\pi(T)|\le \frac{h(f)}{2}.
\]
That is, the difference between $\pi(T)$ and $\tilde{\pi}(T)$ converges to $0$ much faster than the error term in the conclusion of Theorem \ref{th:generalized_huber}.
Therefore it is enough to prove the statement with $\pi(T)$ replaced by $\tilde{\pi}(T)$.
In order to the last step of the proof, we introduce a few definitions.
Let
\[
\mu=(h(f)-{\rho})/2.
\]
For large $T\gg t_0$, we take $C^\infty$ functions
\begin{align*}
&\varphi_{i}^{T}:\mathbb{R}\to[0,1]\quad\mbox{ for }\lceil t_0\rceil+1 \le i\le \lfloor T\rfloor
\intertext{
and}
&\psi_{i}^{T}:\mathbb{R}\to[0,1]\quad\mbox{ for }0\le i\le k(T):=\lceil \mu T/\log2\rceil
\end{align*}
so that
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] The supports of $\varphi_{i}^{T}$ and $\psi_{i}^{T}$ are contained respectively in the intervals
\[
I_{i}=[i-1,i+1]\qquad\mbox{and}\quad J_{i}=[T- 2^{-i},T+2^{-k(T)}].
\]
\item[(ii)] Let $A_{i}:[0,1]\to I_{i}$ and $A'_{i}:[0,1]\to J_{i}$
be the (unique) orientation preserving affine bijections. Then the set of functions
\[
\{\varphi_{i}^{T}\circ A_{i}\}_{1\le i\le\lfloor T\rfloor}\mbox{ and }\quad\{\psi_{i}^{T}\circ A'_{i}\}_{1\le i\le k(T)}
\]
are contained in a bounded subset $\mathcal{X}\subset C^{\infty}_0([0,1])$ that is independent of~$T$.
\item[(iii)] If we put $\Psi_k(t):=\sum_{i=\lceil t_0\rceil+1}^{\lfloor T\rfloor}\varphi_{i}^{T}(t)+\sum_{i=0}^{k}\psi_{i}^{T}(t)$ for $1\le k\le k(T)$, we always have that $0\le \Psi_k(t)\le 1/t$ and that
\begin{align*}
&\Psi_{k(T)}(t)=\begin{cases}
1/t, & \quad\mbox{for $t\in[t_0+2,T]$;}\\
0, & \quad\mbox{for $t\le t_0$ and $t\ge T+2^{-k(T)}$}
\end{cases}
\intertext{
and, for $0\le k\le k(T)-1$,}
&\Psi_{k}(t)=\begin{cases}
1/t, & \quad\mbox{for $t\in[t_0+2,T-2^{-k}]$;}\\
0, & \quad\mbox{for $t\le t_0$ and $t\ge T$.}
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
\end{itemize}
We complete the proof of Theorem~\ref{th:generalized_huber} (assuming Lemma \ref{lm:T1} and \ref{lm:T2}). From the condition (iii) above and (\ref{eq:comp_flattr}), we have that
\[
\mathrm{Tr}\,^\flat \left(\int \Psi_{k(T)-1}(t) \mathbb{L}^{t} dt\right)\le \tilde{\pi}(T)\le
\mathrm{Tr}\,^\flat \left(\int \Psi_{k(T)}(t) \mathbb{L}^{t} dt\right) +\tilde{\pi}(t_0+2)
\]
Hence the difference $\left|\tilde{\pi}(T)-\mathrm{Tr}\,^\flat\left(\int_{1}^{T}(1/t) (\mathbb{\Pi}\circ \mathbb{L}^{t}) dt\right)\right|$ is bounded by
\begin{align*}
&\int \psi_{k(T)}(t) |\mathrm{Tr}\,^\flat (\mathbb{\Pi}\circ \mathbb{L}^{t})| dt\\
&\qquad +\sum_{i=\lceil t_0\rceil+1}^{\lfloor T\rfloor}
\left|\mathrm{Tr}\,^\flat ((1-\mathbb{\Pi})\circ \mathbb{L}^{\varphi_i^T})\right|
+\sum_{i=0}^{k(T)}
\left| \mathrm{Tr}\,^\flat ((1-\mathbb{\Pi})\circ \mathbb{L}^{\psi_i^T}) \right|
\end{align*}
plus a constant independent of $T$.
By the estimate (\ref{eq:trace}), we see that
the second and third terms are bounded by
\[
\sum_{k=1}^{\lfloor T\rfloor}C'_*\exp
\left(({\rho}+\varepsilon) k\right)\quad \mbox{ and }
\quad
C'_* \sum_{k=0}^{k(T)}
\exp(({\rho}+\varepsilon) T + k\log 2)
\]
respectively. Hence their sum is bounded by $C \exp((\rho+\mu+\varepsilon) T)$.
The first term is bounded by
$C \exp((h(f)-\mu+\varepsilon)T)$ because
\[
|\mathrm{Tr}\,^{\flat}(\mathbb{\Pi}\circ \mathbb{L}^t)|\le \mathop{\mathrm{rank}}\mathbb{\Pi} \cdot \exp((h(f)+\varepsilon) t)
\]
for sufficiently large $t$.
Therefore, from the choice of $\mu$, we obtain
\[
\left|\tilde{\pi}(T)-\int_{t_0}^{T}\mathrm{Tr}\,^\flat (\mathbb{\Pi}\circ \mathbb{L}^{t}) dt\right|\le C\exp((h(f)+{\rho}+\varepsilon)T/2).
\]
Clearly the conclusion of Theorem
\ref{th:generalized_huber} follows from this estimate and (\ref{eq:Trflat}).
\begin{rem}\label{rem_bar_rho}
In the last part of the argument above, we find the reason for the choice of
$\mu=(h(f)-\rho)/2$. This also explains why we had
the average $\bar{\rho}$ in the statement of Theorem
\ref{th:generalized_huber}.
\end{rem}
\subsection{Proof of Lemma \ref{lm:T1} and \ref{lm:T2}}
Lemma \ref{lm:T1} and \ref{lm:T2} follows form elementary estimates on the components of the operators $\mathbb{L}^t$ and $\mathbb{L}^{\varphi}$.
If we let $t_0>0$ be sufficiently large, we have the following two lemmas.
\begin{lem} \label{lm:bbL}
For any $\nu>0$, there exists a constant $C_{\nu}>0$ such that
\[
\|\mathbb{L}_{(a,m,n)\to(a',m',n')}^{t}:L^{2p}(R)\to L^{2p}(R)\|\le C_{\nu} \exp((\chi_{\max}+\varepsilon)t/p)\cdot \Delta_1(n,n')^{-\nu}
\]
for any $a,a'\in A$, for any integers $n$, $n'$, $m\ge 0$, $m'\ge 0$ and for any $t\ge t_0$, where $\Delta_1(n,n')$ is that defined in
(\ref{eq:Delta1}).
Further, if
\[
m'>0, \qquad 2^{m'}\langle n'\rangle^2> 2^{m+4}\langle n\rangle^{2}\cdot \exp(-(\chi_{\min}-\varepsilon)t)\quad \mbox{and }\quad t_0\le t\le 2t_0,
\]
we have
\[
\|\mathbb{L}_{(a,m,n)\to(a',m',n')}^{t}:L^{2p}(R)\to L^{2p}(R)\|\le C_{\nu} \cdot \max\{2^m\langle n\rangle^2,2^{m'}\langle n'\rangle^2\}^{-\nu}.
\]
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} The claim is proved by inspecting the kernel of $\mathbb{L}_{(a,m,n)\to(a',m',n')}^{t}$ and using integration by parts.
We omit the detail of the proof because the argument is parallel to that in the latter part of the proof of Proposition \ref{lm:local1}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{lm:bLvarphi}
Let $\mathcal{X}\subset
C^\infty([-1,1])$ be a bounded subset.
For any $\nu>0$, there exists a constant $C_{\nu}(\mathcal{X})$ such that, if $\varphi$ is supported on $[t_0,2t_0]$ and if
there exists an affine map $A(t)=\alpha t+\beta$ with $\alpha>0$ such that the function
$\varphi\circ A(t)=\varphi(\alpha t+\beta)$ belongs to $\mathcal{X}$, then we have
\begin{multline}
\|\mathbb{L}_{(a,m,n)\to(a',m',n')}^{\varphi}:L^{2p}(R)\to L^{2p}(R)\|\\
\le
C_{\nu}(\mathcal{X})\cdot \alpha\cdot \langle \alpha |n|^2\rangle^{-\nu} \cdot \Delta_1(n,n')^{-\nu}.
\end{multline}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We proof is again parallel to that of Proposition \ref{lm:local1}.
We write the integral kernel of the operator
\[
\mathbb{L}_{(a,m,n)\to(a',m',n')}^{\varphi}=\int \varphi(t) \cdot \mathbb{L}_{(a,m,n)\to(a',m',n')}^{t} dt
\]
explicitly and apply integration by parts. This time, we apply integration by parts also to the integration with respect to the variable $t$. (Note that
the mapping $A^t_{a\to a'}$ on local charts satisfies $
A^{t+\tau}_{a\to a'}(x,y)=A^{t}_{a\to a'}(x,y+\tau)$
when $|\tau|$ is small.) Then we obtain the factor $\alpha^{-1}\cdot \langle \alpha^{-1} |n|^2\rangle^{-\nu} $ in addition.
\end{proof}
From the first claim of Lemma \ref{lm:bbL} and the definition of $\mathbb{L}^t_{\mathrm{trace-free}}$, we obtain Lemma \ref{lm:T1}
provided that we let the constant $\varepsilon_0>0$ in the definition of $\|(u_{m,n})\|_{r,p}^{(\varepsilon_0)}$ be sufficiently small and let $t_0$ be sufficiently large.
To prove Lemma \ref{lm:T2}, we note
\[
\mathbb{L}_{(a,m,n)\to(a',m',n')}^{t}=\hat{\chi}'_{m',n'}\circ \mathbb{L}_{(a,m,n)\to(a',m',n')}^{t}.
\]
Recalling Lemma \ref{lem:xnm_trace}, we see that this implies the estimate
\begin{multline*}
\|\mathbb{L}_{(a,m,n)\to(a',m',n')}^{t}:L^{2p}(R)\to L^{2p}(R)\|_{\mathrm{Tr}\,}\\\le
C_0 2^{m'}\langle n'\rangle^{3}\cdot
\|\mathbb{L}_{(a,m,n)\to(a',m',n')}^{t}:L^{2p}(R)\to L^{2p}(R)\|
\end{multline*}
and the same estimate with $\mathbb{L}_{(a,m,n)\to(a',m',n')}^{t}$ replaced by $\mathbb{L}_{(a,m,n)\to(a',m',n')}^{\varphi}$.
Hence the estimates on the operator norms of $\mathbb{L}_{(a,m,n)\to(a',m',n')}^{t}$ and $\mathbb{L}_{(a,m,n)\to(a',m',n')}^{\varphi}$ in
Lemma \ref{lm:bbL} and Lemma \ref{lm:bLvarphi} give the corresponding estimates on the trace norm.
Finally we evaluate the sum of the trace norms of the components of $\mathbb{L}^\varphi_{\mathrm{trace}}$ and $\mathbb{L}^t_{\mathrm{trace}}\circ \mathbb{L}^\varphi$, by using the estimates thus obtained, and conclude Lemma \ref{lm:T2}. (Though this final step is not completely simple, we omit the detail because the estimates involved are straightforward and crude.)
\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:multiplicity}}
\label{sec:multi}
The proof of Theorem \ref{thm:multiplicity} presented below is basically in the same line as the corresponding argument in the author's previous paper~\cite{Tsujii08}. But we need to modify the argument in some places.
\subsection{Families of roof functions}
We consider the family of $C^\infty$ functions
\begin{equation}\label{eq:family}
f_{\mathbf{s}}(x)=f(x)+\sum_{k=1}^{K}s_{k}\cdot g_{k}(x)\quad \mbox{with parameter }\mathbf{s}=(s_{1},s_{2},\cdots,s_{K})
\end{equation}
for $f\in \mathfrak{F}(y_{\min},y_{\max},\kappa_{0})\subset C_+^\infty(S^1)$ and
$C^\infty$ functions
\begin{equation}\label{eq:function_gk}
g_{k}:S^{1}\to\mathbb{R},\quad1\le k\le K.
\end{equation}
The range of parameter will be restricted to
\[
R(\sigma)=\{\mathbf{s}=(s_{1},s_{2},\cdots,s_{K})\mid\;|s_{k}|\le\sigma\mbox{ for $1\le k\le K$}\}
\]
for some small $\sigma>0$. The choice of the functions $g_k\in C^\infty_+(S^1)$ and the constant $\sigma>0$ will be given in the course of the argument below.
We consider an interval $J=[a,b]$, as in the statement of Theorem~\ref{thm:multiplicity}. We suppose $0<\varepsilon<\min\{a,1\}$ and set
\begin{equation}\label{eq:q}
q=q(\varepsilon):=\left\lceil \frac{10a}{\varepsilon}\right\rceil.
\end{equation}
Below we consider an integer $n\ge 1$ and show that the conclusion of Theorem~\ref{thm:multiplicity} holds when $n$ is sufficiently large according to $\varepsilon$.
Let $x\in S^1$ and $m\ge 1$. For each $p$-tuple of points in $\tau^{-mn}(x)$,
\[
\mathbf{x}=(\mathbf{x}(i))_{i=1}^{p}\in (\tau^{-mn}(x))^p,
\]
we set
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Sbfw}
\hat{S}(\mathbf{x},k;f_{\mathbf{s}})= \ell^{-k}\sum_{i=1}^{p}
\frac{d}{dx}f_{\mathbf{s}}^{(k)}(\mathbf{x}(i)).
\end{equation}
For an array $X=(\mathbf{x}_1,\cdots,\mathbf{x}_q)$ of $q$ elements in $(\tau^{-mn}(x))^{p}$, we consider the map
\[
\Phi_{x,X}:\mathbb{R}^{K}\to\mathbb{R}^{q},\quad\Phi_{x,X}(\mathbf{s})=\left(\hat{S}(\mathbf{x}_j,mn;f_{\mathbf{s}})\right)_{j=1}^{q}.
\]
This is an affine map and its linear part does not depend on $f=f_{\mathbf{0}}$.
\begin{defn}
\label{def:indep} We say that an (ordered) array of $q$ elements in $(\tau^{-n}(x))^{p}$,
\begin{equation}
X=(\mathbf{x}_{1},\mathbf{x}_{2},\cdots,\mathbf{x}_{q})
\label{eq:setw}
\end{equation}
is {\em independent} if there is a component $\mathbf{x}_{j}(i(j))$ of $\mathbf{x}_j$ for each $1\le j\le q$
such that $\mathbf{x}_{j}(i(j))$ does not appear as a component of $\mathbf{x}_{j'}$ if $j'< j$.\end{defn}
The following claim is proved easily. (We omit the proof.)
\begin{lem}\label{lm:findingS}
For an array $\mathfrak{X}\subset (\tau^{-n}(x))^p$ of $p$-tuples in $\tau^{-n}(x)$, we set
\[
|\mathfrak{X}|:=\{ x'\in \tau^{-n}(x)\mid \mbox{$x'$ is a component of some $\mathbf{x}\in \mathfrak{X}$}\}\subset \tau^{-n}(x).
\]
If $\#|\mathfrak{X}|>p(q-1)$, there is an independent array of $q$ elements in~$\mathfrak{X}$.
\end{lem}
The next lemma explains the motivation for Definition \ref{def:indep}.
\begin{lem}
\label{lm:family}
There exist $n_0>0$ (depending on $q$ and hence on $\varepsilon$) such that, for any $\delta>0$ and any $n\ge n_0$, we can find a family of smooth functions $g_{k}:S^{1}\to\mathbb{R}$, $1\le k\le K$,
such that the following property holds for the family (\ref{eq:family}):
For any $x\in S^1\setminus \mathrm{Per}_\delta(\tau,n)$, any $m\ge 1$ and any array $\widetilde{\mathfrak{X}}=(\tilde{\mathbf{x}}_{1}, \tilde{\mathbf{x}}_{2}, \cdots, \tilde{\mathbf{x}}_{1})$ of $q$ elements in $(\tau^{-mn}(x))^{p}$ such that
\[
\mathfrak{X}:=\left(\mathbf{x}_{j}:=\big(\tau^{(m-1)n}\tilde{\mathbf{x}}_j(i)\big)_{i=1}^p\in (\tau^{-n}(x))^{p}\right)_{j=1,\cdots,q}
\]
is independent, we have
\[
\det D\Phi_{x,\tilde{\mathfrak{X}}}|_{Z}\ge 1
\]
for some $q$-dimensional subspace $Z\subset \mathbb{R}^{K}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let us consider an arbitrary point $s\in S^1\setminus \mathrm{Per}_\delta(\tau,n)$. For $\rho>0$, let $V_s(\rho)$ be the open \hbox{$\rho$-neighborhood} of $s$ in $S^1$. For $q\in \tau^{-n}(s)$, let $U_{s,q}(\rho)$ be the connected component of $\tau^{-n}(V_s(\rho))$ containing~$q$, so that $\tau^{-n}(V_s(\rho))$ is the disjoint union of $U_{s,q}(\rho)$ for $q\in \tau^{-n}(s)$.
Since $s\notin \mathrm{Per}(\tau,n)$, we have $\tau^{k}(q_0)\neq q_1$ for any distinct $q_0,q_1\in \tau^{-n}(s)$ and any $1\le k\le n$.
So we can choose $\rho(s)>0$ so small that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:disjoint}
\tau^{k}(U_{s,q_0}(\rho(s)))\cap U_{s,q_1}(\rho(s))= \emptyset
\end{equation}
for any $q_0,q_1\in \tau^{-n}(s)$ and any $1\le k\le n$. In particular,
if $x\in \tau^{-n}(V_s(\rho(s))$, we have $\tau^{k}(x)\notin \tau^{-n}(V_s(\rho(s))$ for $1\le k\le n$.
We take functions $g_{s,q}:S^{1}\to\mathbb{R}$ for $q\in \tau^{-n}(s)$ so that $g_{s,q}$ is supported on $U_{s,q}(\rho(s))$ and satisfies
\[
\frac{d}{dx} g_{s,q}(x)=2\ell^n\quad\mbox{on $U_{s,q}(\rho(s)/3)$\quad and }
\quad
\left|\frac{d}{dx} g_{s,q}(x)\right|<4\ell^n \quad\mbox{on $S^1$.}
\]
By compactness, we can and do take a finite subset $H\subset S^1$ so that $V_s(\rho(s)/3)$ for $s\in H$ cover $S^1\setminus \mathrm{Per}_\delta(\tau,n)$. Finally we define $g_k$, $1\le k\le K$, as a rearrangement of $g_{s,q}$ for $s\in H$ and $q\in \tau^{-n}(x)$.
We check that the conclusion of the lemma holds if we define the functions $g_k$, $1\le k\le K$, as above and if $n$ is sufficiently large.
Suppose that $x\in S^1$ and arrays $\tilde{\mathfrak{X}}$ and $\mathfrak{X}$ are given as in the statement of the lemma.
Since $\mathfrak{X}$ is independent, there is $1\le i(j)\le p$ for $1\le j\le q$ such that $\mathbf{x}_j(i(j))$ is not a component of $\mathbf{x}_{j'}$ if $j'<j$.
We take $s\in S^1$ so that $x\in V_s(\rho(s)/3)$ and select $1\le k(j)\le K$ for $1\le j\le q$ so that $g_{k(j)}$ corresponds to $g_{s,q}$ for $q\in \tau^{-n}(s)$ such that $\mathbf{x}_j(i(j))\in U_{s,q}(\rho(s)/3)$.
Let $Z$ be the $q$-dimensional subspace of $\mathbb{R}^{K}$ that contains the $s_{k(j)}$-axis for $1\le j\le q$.
Observe that $D\Phi_{x,\tilde{\mathfrak{X}}}|_{Z}$ is represented by the $q\times q$ matrix whose $(j,j')$-element is
\[
M_{j,j'}=\sum_{i=1}^p \sum_{l=0}^{mn-1}\ell^{l-mn}\frac{d}{dx} g_{k(j')}(\tau^{l}(\tilde{\mathbf{x}}_j(i))).
\]
We regard this matrix as the sum of $M^{(0)}=(M^{(0)}_{j,j'})_{j,j'}$ and $M^{(1)}=(M^{(1)}_{j,j'})_{j,j'}$ with
\[
M^{(0)}_{j,j'}=\sum_{i=1}^p \sum_{l=(m-1)n}^{mn-1}\ell^{l-mn}\frac{d}{dx} g_{k(j')}(\tau^{l}(\tilde{\mathbf{x}}_j(i)))
\quad\mbox{and}\quad
M^{(1)}_{j,j'}=M_{j,j'}-M^{(0)}_{j,j'}.
\]
From the disjoint property of the orbits of the supports of $g_{k(j)}$ that follows from (\ref{eq:disjoint}) and from the assumption that $\mathfrak{X}$ is independent, we observe that
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] $M^{(0)}$ is lower triangular in the sense that $M^{(0)}_{j,j'}=0$ if $j'>j$,
\item[(b)] the diagonal components of $M^{(0)}$ are $2k$ for some $1\le k\le p$, while the other components are bounded by $2p$ in absolute value, and
\item[(c)] $M^{(1)}$ is a $q\times q$ matrix whose elements are bounded by $4\ell^{-n}/(1-\ell^{-n})$.
\end{itemize}
Hence if $n\ge n_0$ for some large $n_0$ depending on $q$ (and $p$, $\ell$), we always have
\[
\det(D\Phi_{x,\tilde{\mathfrak{X}}}|_{Z})=\det(M^{(0)}+M^{(1)})\ge 1.
\]
This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
In the following, we fix the family of functions $g_i$ given in the lemma above.
\subsection{The exceptional set}
In this subsections, we investigate the situation where the roof function $f$ does \emph{not} belong to $\mathcal{G}(J,n,\varepsilon,\delta;p)$ and derive a few consequences.
So let us suppose that there is an arbitrarily large $t>0$ and a point $z_0=(x_0,y_0)\in X_f$ with $x_0\notin \mathrm{Per}_{\delta}(\tau,n)$ and $\xi_0\in [-\theta_0,\theta_0]$ such that, for any subset $\mathcal{E}\subset\tau^{-n}(x_0)$ with $\#\mathcal{E}\le pq=p\lceil 10a/\varepsilon\rceil$,
we have
\begin{equation}\sum{}^{*}\;\frac{1}{W^{r}(\mathbf{w},t;f)(\xi_0,1)}\ge \exp((\max\{p\cdot h(f)-a,0\}+p(b-a)+\varepsilon)t)\label{eq:mult3}
\end{equation}
where the sum $\sum^{*}$ is taken over $\mathbf{w}=(\mathbf{w}(1),\cdots,\mathbf{w}(p))\inB(z_0,t;J;f)^{p}$
such that $
T_{f}^{s_{n}(z_0,\mathbf{w}(i);t)}(\mathbf{w}(i))\notin \mathcal{E}\times\{0\}$ for \ensuremath{i=1,2,\cdots,p}.
We begin with a few basic estimates (which hold in general).
From the definition of $B(z_0,t;J;f)$, we have
\[
e^{at}\le E(w)=\ell^{k(z_0,w;t)}\le e^{bt},\quad\mbox{that is,}\quad
\frac{at}{\log \ell}\le k(z_0,w;t)\le \frac{bt}{\log \ell}
\]
for $w\in B(z_0,t;J;f)$, where $k(z_0,w;t)$ is that defined in (\ref{eq:sn}). Hence, if we set
\[
m:=\left\lfloor\frac{at}{n\log \ell}\right\rfloor,
\]
we have $mn\le k(z_0,w;t)$ and
\[
f^{(mn)}(T^{s_{mn}(z_0,w;t)}_f(w))\le t \le \frac{(m+1)n \log \ell}{a}\quad \mbox{for $w\in B(z_0,t;J;f)$.}
\]
Note that, for each $x\in \tau^{-mn}(x_0)$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:card_bx}
\#\{w\in B(z_0,t;J;f)\mid T^{s_{mn}(z_0,w;t)}_f(w)=x\}\le
\ell^{\lfloor bt/\log \ell\rfloor-mn}\le \ell^{n+1} e^{(b-a)t}.
\end{equation}
For each $\mathbf{x}=(\mathbf{x}(i))_{i=1}^p\in (\tau^{-n}(x_0))^p$, let us set
\[
\Delta^*(\mathbf{x})=\sum_{\tilde{\mathbf{x}}\to \mathbf{x}}{} \left\langle \ell^{mn}|\xi_0-\hat{S}(\tilde{\mathbf{x}},mn;f)|\right\rangle^{-r}
\]
where $\hat{S}(\tilde{\mathbf{x}},mn;f)$ is that defined in (\ref{eq:Sbfw}) (with $\mathbf{s}=0$) and the sum $\sum_{\tilde{\mathbf{x}}\to \mathbf{x}}$ is taken over those $\tilde{\mathbf{x}}=(\tilde{\mathbf{x}}(i))_{i=1}^p\in (\tau^{-mn}(x_0))^p$ satisfying
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cond_fmn}
\tau^{(m-1)n}(\tilde{\mathbf{x}}(i))=\mathbf{x}(i)\quad\mbox{and}\quad
f^{(mn)}(\tilde{\mathbf{x}}(i))\le \frac{(m+1)n \log \ell}{a}
\quad
\mbox{for $1\le i\le p$.}
\end{equation}
We claim that the assumption (\ref{eq:mult3}) implies
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sum_bx}
\sum_{\mathbf{x}\in (\tau^{-n}(x)\setminus \mathcal{E})^p}\Delta^*(\mathbf{x})\ge \exp\left(\left(\max\{p\cdot h(f)-a,0\}+\frac{\varepsilon}{2}\right)t\right)
\end{equation}
for any subset $\mathcal{E}\subset \tau^{-n}(x_0)$ with $\#\mathcal{E}\le pq$,
provided that $t$ is sufficiently large.
To check this claim, let us consider the quantity
\[
\Delta(\tilde{\mathbf{x}})
=\sum_{\tilde{\mathbf{w}}\to \tilde{\mathbf{x}}}\;\frac{1}{W^{r}(\tilde{\mathbf{w}},t;f)(\xi_0,2)}\quad \mbox{for $\tilde{\mathbf{x}}\in (\tau^{-mn}(x))^p$}
\]
where the sum $\sum_{\tilde{\mathbf{w}}\to \tilde{\mathbf{x}}}$ is taken over $\tilde{\mathbf{w}}=(\tilde{\mathbf{w}}(i))_{i=1}^p\inB(z,t;J;f)^{p}$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:bxtobw}
\tilde{\mathbf{x}}(i)=T^{s_{mn}(\tilde{\mathbf{w}}(i))}(\tilde{\mathbf{w}}(i))\quad \mbox{for $1\le i\le p$.}
\end{equation}
Then, from (\ref{eq:card_bx}), we have
\[
\Delta(\tilde{\mathbf{x}})\le C_0 (\ell^{n+1}\exp((b-a)t))^p\left\langle
\ell^{mn}|\xi_0-\hat{S}(\tilde{\mathbf{x}},mn;f)|\right\rangle^{-r}
\]
with $C_0$ a constant depending only on $r$ and $\theta_0$,
because
\[
\frac{1}{W^{r}(\tilde{\mathbf{w}},t;f)(\xi_0,2)}\le C_0 \left\langle
\ell^{mn}|\xi_0-\hat{S}(\tilde{\mathbf{x}},mn;f)|\right\rangle^{-r}
\]
for $\tilde{\mathbf{w}}\in B(z,t;J;f)^{p}$ satisfying (\ref{eq:bxtobw}). Hence, for $\mathbf{x}\in (\tau^{-n}(x_0)\setminus \mathcal{E})^p$,
\[
\sum_{\tilde{\mathbf{x}}\to \mathbf{x}} \Delta(\tilde{\mathbf{x}})
\le
C_0 (\ell^{n+1}\exp((b-a)t))^p \Delta^*(\mathbf{x}).
\]
If we take the sum of the left hand side above over $\mathbf{x}\in (\tau^{-n}(x_0)\setminus \mathcal{E})^p$, the total equals the left hand side of (\ref{eq:mult3}). Therefore we obtain the claim (\ref{eq:sum_bx}) provided that $t$ is sufficiently large.
We next give a consequence of (\ref{eq:sum_bx}). Let us write $\mathbf{y}_k$, $1\le k\le \ell^{pn}$, for the elements of $(\tau^{-n}(x_0))^p$ and suppose that they are sorted so that
$\Delta^{*}(\mathbf{y}_k)\ge \Delta^{*}(\mathbf{y}_{k'})$ if $k\le k'$.
For $1\le k\le \ell^{pn}$, let
\[
Y_k=\{ x\in \tau^{-n}(x_0)\mid \mbox{ $x$ is a component of $\mathbf{y}_{k'}$ for some $k'\le k$}\}.
\]
Let $k_*$ be the maximum of $1\le k\le \ell^{pn}$ such that
$\#Y_k \le pq$.
Set $\mathcal{E}=Y_{k*}$ in (\ref{eq:sum_bx}). Then, since $\Delta^*(\mathbf{x})\le \Delta^*(\mathbf{y}_{k_*})$ for $\mathbf{x}\in (\tau^{-n}(x_0)\setminus \mathcal{E})^p$, we have that
\[
\ell^{np} \cdot \Delta^*(\mathbf{y}_{k_*})\ge \exp\left(\left(\max\{p\cdot h(f)-a,0\}+\frac{\varepsilon}{2}\right)t\right).
\]
This implies
\begin{equation}\label{eq:delta_lower}
\Delta^*(\mathbf{y}_k)\ge \frac{1}{\ell^{np}}\exp((\max\{p\cdot h(f)-a,0\}+(\varepsilon/2))t)\quad \mbox{for $1\le k\le k_*$.}
\end{equation}
Since $\# Y_{k_*}> p(q-1)$,
we can choose an independent (ordered) array $(\mathbf{x}_k)_{k=1}^q$ from $\mathbf{y}_{k}$, $1\le k\le k_*$,
by using Lemma \ref{lm:findingS}.
In conclusion, we found an array $(\mathbf{x}_k)_{k=1}^q$ of $q$ elements in $(\tau^{-n}(x_0))^p$ that is independent and that (\ref{eq:delta_lower}) holds with $\mathbf{y}_k$ replaced by $\mathbf{x}_j$ for $1\le j\le q$.
Finally we reconsider about the choice of $x_0\in S^1$ and $\xi_0\in [-\theta_0,\theta_0]$.
Recall that these are given from our assumption that the condition in the definition of $\mathcal{G}(J,n,\varepsilon,\delta;p)$ does not hold for $f$. But, by continuity, it is possible to shift these points a little to so that they belong to some grids and that the conclusion of the argument above remains true for them (with slight difference in the constants). Precisely, for each $m>0$, we choose a set $P(m)$ of points in $S^{1}\times [-\theta_0,\theta_0]$ such that $\#P(m)\le C_0\ell^{2 (1+\varepsilon) m n}$
and that the $\ell^{- (1+\varepsilon) m n}$-neighborhood of those points cover
$S^{1}\times [-\theta_0,\theta_0]$. Then we can shift the point $(x_0,\xi_0)$ to a nearby point in $P(m)$ so that the conclusion at the end of the last paragraph remains true.
Let us summarize the argument in this subsection as follows:
\begin{lem} \label{lm:cons}
If $f\in\mathfrak{F}(y_{\min},y_{\max},\kappa_{0})$ does not belong to $\mathcal{G}(J,n,\varepsilon,\delta;p)$, we can find
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] an arbitrarily large integer $m\ge 1$,
\item[(b)] a point $(x_0,\xi_0)\in P(m)$,
\item[(c)] an independent array $(\mathbf{x}_k)_{k=1}^q$ of $q$ elements in $(\tau^{-n}(x_0))^p$,
\end{itemize}
such that
\[
\sum_{\tilde{\mathbf{x}}\to \mathbf{x}_k} \left\langle \ell^{mn}|\xi_0-\hat{S}(\tilde{\mathbf{x}},mn;f)|\right\rangle^{-r}\ge \exp\left(\left(\max\{p\cdot h(f)-a,0\}+\frac{\varepsilon}{2}\right)\frac{mn\log \ell}{a}\right)
\]
where the sum $\sum_{\tilde{\mathbf{x}}\to \mathbf{x}_k}$ is taken over $\tilde{\mathbf{x}}\in (\tau^{-mn}(x_0))^p$ satisfying (\ref{eq:cond_fmn}) with $\mathbf{x}=\mathbf{x}_k$.
\end{lem}
\subsection{The end of the proof}
Let $\varepsilon,\delta>0$ and $J=[a,b]$ are those given in the statement of Theorem \ref{thm:multiplicity}. We take functions $g_k:S^1\to \mathbb{R}$ for $1\le k\le K$ as in Lemma \ref{lm:family} and consider the families (\ref{eq:family}) for all $f\in \mathfrak{F}(y_{\min},y_{\max},\kappa_{0})$. (The choice of $\sigma>0$ will be given below.)
For each of such families, we
prove that $f_{\mathbf{s}}$ does \emph{not} belong to $\mathcal{G}(J,n,\varepsilon,\delta;p)$
only when the parameter $\mathbf{s}\in R(\sigma)$ belongs to a subset with zero Lebesgue measure. This implies that the subset $\mathcal{G}(J,n,\varepsilon,\delta;p)$ is a prevalent subset. \begin{rem}For the last statement, recall Remark \ref{rem:prevalence}. The Lebesgue measure on the finite dimensional subspace of $C^\infty(S^1)$ spanned by $g_k$, $1\le k\le K$, is the transverse measure to $\mathfrak{F}(y_{\min},y_{\max},\kappa_{0})\setminus \mathcal{G}(J,n,\varepsilon,\delta;p)$.
\end{rem}
Let $\eta>0$ be a small real number that we will specify later. (At least, we suppose that $\eta$ is much smaller than $\varepsilon$.)
Then let $\sigma>0$ be so small that
\[
e^{-\eta}\cdot f(x)\le f_{\mathbf{s}}(x)\le e^{\eta}\cdot f(x)
\qquad\mbox{and}\qquad
|h(f_{\mathbf{s}})-h(f)|<\eta
\]
for $\mathbf{s}\in R(\sigma)$ and $f\in \mathfrak{F}(y_{\min},y_{\max},\kappa_{0})$. For $x_0\in S^1$ and $m\ge 1$, let $B(x_0,mn)$ be the set of points $x$ in $\tau^{-mn}(x_0)$ satisfying
\begin{equation}\label{eq:fmn_bound}
f^{(mn)}(x) \le e^{\eta}\cdot \frac{ mn \log \ell}{a}.
\end{equation}
Note that, when $m$ is sufficiently large, we have
\[
\#B(x_0,mn)\le
\exp\left(h(f) \cdot e^{2\eta}\cdot \frac{mn\log \ell}{a}\right)
\]
For an integer $m\ge 1$, a point $(x_0,\xi_0)\in P(m)$, an array $(\mathbf{x}_j)_{j=1}^q$ of $q$ elements in $(\tau^{-n}(x_0))^p$ and
an array $(\tilde{\mathbf{x}}_j)_{k=1}^q$ of $q$ elements in $(\tau^{-mn}(x_0))^p$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Bx}
\tau^{(m-1)n}(\tilde{\mathbf{x}}_j(i))=\mathbf{x}_j(i)\quad \mbox{for $1\le i\le p$ and $1\le j\le q$,}
\end{equation}
we define the function
\[
\Xi_m((x_0,\xi_0);(\mathbf{x}_j)_{j=1}^q; (\tilde{\mathbf{x}}_j)_{j=1}^q):R(\sigma)\to \mathbb{R}
\]
on the parameter space $R(\sigma)$ by
\[
\Xi_m((x_0,\xi_0);(\mathbf{x}_j)_{j=1}^q; (\tilde{\mathbf{x}}_j)_{j=1}^q)(\mathbf{s})=
\prod_{j=1}^q \left\langle \ell^{mn}|\xi_0-\hat{S}(\tilde{\mathbf{x}}_j,mn,f_{\mathbf{s}})|\right\rangle^{-r}.
\]
If the array $(\mathbf{x}_j)_{j=1}^q$ is independent, we have from the choice of the functions $g_i$ that
\[
\int_{R(\sigma)} \Xi_m((x_0,\xi_0);(\mathbf{x}_j)_{j=1}^q; (\tilde{\mathbf{x}}_j)_{j=1}^q)(\mathbf{s}) d\mathbf{s} \le C_0 \ell^{-mnq}
\]
for a constant $C_0$ depending only on $r$.
Therefore we have
\begin{multline}\label{eq:int}
\sum{}^{**}
\int_{R(\sigma)} \Xi_m((x_0,\xi_0);(\mathbf{x}_j)_{j=1}^q; (\tilde{\mathbf{x}}_j)_{j=1}^q)(\mathbf{s}) d\mathbf{s} \\
\le C_0 \ell^{-mnq}\cdot \ell^{2(1+\varepsilon)mn}\cdot \exp\left(pq\cdot h(f) \cdot e^{2\eta}\cdot \frac{mn\log \ell}{a}\right)
\end{multline}
for sufficiently large $m$, where the sum $\sum^{**}$ is taken over combinations of
\begin{itemize}
\item a point $(x_0,\xi_0)\in P(m)$,
\item an independent array $(\mathbf{x}_j)_{j=1}^q$ of $q$ elements in $\tau^{-n}(x_0))^p$ and
\item an array $(\tilde{\mathbf{x}}_j)_{j=1}^q$ in
$(B(x_0,mn))^{p}\subset \tau^{-mn}(x_0))^p$ satisfying (\ref{eq:Bx}).
\end{itemize}
Let $\mathcal{X}\subset R(\sigma)$ be the set of parameters $\mathbf{s}\in R(\sigma)$ such that $f_{\mathbf{s}}$ belongs to $\mathfrak{F}(y_{\min},y_{\max},\kappa_{0})$ and does not satisfy the condition in the definition of $\mathcal{G}(J,n,\varepsilon,\delta;p)$.
From the conclusion in the last subsection given in Lemma \ref{lm:cons}, we see that
\[
\mathcal{X}\subset \limsup_{m\to \infty} \mathcal{X}_m
\]
where
$\mathcal{X}_m$ is the set of parameters $\mathbf{s}\in R(\sigma)$ such that
\[
\sum{}^{**}\Xi_m((x_0,\xi_0);(\mathbf{x}_j)_{j=1}^q; (\tilde{\mathbf{x}}_j)_{j=1}^q)(\mathbf{s})
\ge
\exp\left(q\left(p\cdot e^{-\eta}\cdot h(f)-a+\frac{\varepsilon}{2}\right)\frac{mn\log \ell}{a}\right)
\]
Comparing this with (\ref{eq:int}), we see that the Lebesgue measure of $\mathcal{X}_m$ is bounded by
\[
C_0 \exp
\left(\left(\frac{2a(1+\varepsilon)}{q}+(e^{2\eta}-e^{-\eta}) p\cdot h(f)- \frac{\varepsilon}{2}\right)
\cdot \frac{qmn\log \ell}{a} \right).
\]
From the choice of $q$ in (\ref{eq:q}), we can take small $\eta>0$ (and also $\sigma>0$ accordingly) so that this bound
decreases exponentially with respect to $m$.
Hence Lebesgue measure of $\mathcal{X}$ is zero by Borel-Cantelli lemma.
\bibliographystyle{abbrv}
|
\section{Introduction}
Advances in deep tissue optical microscopy have been a driving force in biology and neuroscience for the last twenty years. Two-photon excited fluorescence microscopy has emerged as a powerful tool to study synaptic, cellular and integrative processes. However, scattering in neural tissues has limited optical imaging to superficial cortex layers only -- even after surgical removal of the skull \cite{Ntziachristos2010}. Deeper cortical layers (layers 4 to 6) are of substantial biological interest due to their interactions with other brain regions such as the thalamus \cite{Dombeck2010}. Together with subcortical structures, e.g, the hippocampus, they still remain inaccessible without removing the overlying tissue. Thus, even small improvements in imaging depth and resolution are bound to reveal novel insights on the functioning of mammalian brains.
Efforts to increase the penetration depth of optical techniques have aimed to improve the quantity and focusing of ballistic photons by using regenerative amplifiers \cite{Beaurepaire2001}, longer wavelength lasers \cite{Horton2013} and adaptive optics \cite{Ji2012} as well as enhancing the collection of fluorescence photons \cite{Oheim2001}. Those efforts commonly sacrifice intensity in favor of resolution as the number of ballistic photons decreases exponentially with imaging depth. In an alternative approach, multiply scattered light itself can be used for imaging \cite{Vellekoop2008,Popoff2010}. Recently, the `optical memory effect' \cite{Feng1988} has emerged as a powerful tool to either enable the reconstruction of images from scattered light or to accelerate the imaging process\cite{Bertolotti2012,Katz2012,Nixon2013,Yang2014,Takasaki2014}. In essence, the memory effect (ME) describes an intrinsic isoplanatism of the scattering process for small angles even in strongly scattering media. By tilting the wavefront incident on a scattering medium, the emerging speckle patterns shifts accordingly and does not immediately decorrelate.
This isoplanatism can be exploited for adaptive optics imaging techniques. Spatial modulation of the incident wavefront permits focusing behind or inside turbid media if the transmission matrix is accessible (e.g., by placing a point source or detector behind the scattering layer) \cite{Nixon2013,Chaigne2013}. Since this comes at the cost of determining the transmission matrix for each image point, the ME plays a key role: if a focus is achieved, it can then be scanned over the ME range by simply introducing a linear phase tilt in the modulated wavefront \cite{Vellekoop2010}.
In a more recent approach, a light-emitting object hidden behind an opaque layer is numerically reconstructed from its transmitted speckle pattern \cite{Katz2014}. Due to the ME, the autocorrelation of the speckle pattern is essentially equal to the object's autocorrelation and numerical inversion yields the object itself. This method is both non-invasive and does not require sophisticated imaging equipment but its field of view is intrinsically limited by the ME range.
Albeit important for imaging, the ME is in theory very limited and scales inversely with the thickness $L$ of the medium. Furthermore, in theory, it can not be observed \textit{inside} a scattering medium where the concept of isoplanatism breaks down, but only in transmission at a distance from the output plane. This can be understood when considering a tilt of the incident wavefront, i.e., the introduction of a linear phase gradient. The ME effect states that such a gradient, if sufficiently small, is preserved during the scattering process and results in the same linear phase gradient imposed on the emerging distorted wavefront. This gradient at the output plane then becomes a shift of the speckle pattern only after propagation through space. We thus expect to see the same decorrelation with the tilt of incident angle of the intensity pattern at the output plane itself but without the shift that is useful for imaging.
Recent work in biomedical imaging with adaptive optics \cite{Tang2012,Kong2014} suggests otherwise: phase corrections compensating for random scattering remain valid for a field-of-view of several microns inside brain tissues. This paper investigates how strong forward scattering inside biological media provides a much larger ME range that predicted by multiply scattering theory, in particular at intermediary depths of $\sim$1\,mm. Complementing angular correlation measurements in neural tissues, we simulate the impact of anisotropic scattering on wave propagation through multiple forward scattering layers and qualitatively reproduce the experimental results.
\section{Memory effect in anisotropic media}
In the limit of weak disorder $l\gg\lambda$ where $\lambda$ is the wavelength and $l$ the mean free path (MFP), the ME is well described by a first order approximation to ensemble averaged\footnote{Ensemble average denotes the average over possible realizations of disorder (here: locations of scatterers).} correlations in the intensity transmission matrix. In a medium much thicker than the MFP ($l\ll L$) the correlation $C$ obeys \cite{Feng1988,Berkovits1989}
\begin{equation}
C(\Delta\phi)=\left(\frac{k|\Delta\phi | L}{\sinh(k|{\Delta\phi}| L)}\right)^2
\end{equation}
when following a tilt $\Delta\phi$ in both the incident wavefront and the emerging speckle pattern ($k=2\pi/\lambda$ denotes the wave number). As a figure of merit, we chose the angular difference $\Delta\phi_{1/5}$ at which the correlation drops to 1/5, the value at which visual resemblance to the reference image vanishes. This ME range scales linearly with the wavelength and is inversely proportional to the sample thickness:
\begin{equation}
\Delta\phi^\textrm{theo}_{1/5}\approx 2.369\ k^{-1}L^{-1}.
\end{equation}
Note that Eq. (1) does not depend on the specific realization of the material such as the location of scatters or the transport mean free path so long as photons are scattered multiple times before reaching the output plane $l\ll L$. For a sample thickness of $L = 1$\,mm and a wavelength of 532\,nm, the speckle correlation already drops to 1/5 at an angular shift of 11.5\,mdeg.
\begin{table}[t]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lcccl}
Tissue& $\lambda$ [nm] & $l$ [\SI{}{\micro\meter}] &$l^*$ [\SI{}{\micro\meter}] & Reference\\ \hline
Slice&532&(26)$^\textrm{a}$&214&\cite{Mesradi2013}\\
Slice&775&55.2&(552)$^\textrm{a}$&\cite{Kobat2009}\\
Slice&800&(34)$^\textrm{b}$&(338)$^\textrm{b}$&\cite{Mesradi2013}\\
Slice, old rat &800&47&(470)$^\textrm{a}$&\cite{Beaurepaire2001}\\
Slice, juvenile &800&89&(890)$^\textrm{a}$&\cite{Beaurepaire2001}\\
Slice&1280&106.4&(1064)$^\textrm{a}$&\cite{Kobat2009}\\ \hline
In-vivo&775&131&(1310)$^\textrm{a}$&\cite{Kobat2009}\\
In-vivo&800&200&(2000)$^\textrm{a}$&\cite{Beaurepaire2001}\\
In-vivo&830&200&(2000)$^\textrm{a}$&\cite{Kleinfeld1998}\\
In-vivo&920&129&(1290)$^\textrm{a}$&\cite{Tang2012}\\
In-vivo&1280&285&(2850)$^\textrm{a}$&\cite{Kobat2009}, \cite{Kobat2011}\\
In-vivo&1700&365&(3650)$^\textrm{a,c}$&\cite{Horton2013}\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Scattering properties of in-vivo and ex-vivo cortex tissues at different wavelengths. Values are obtained from references in the last column and values in parenthesis are deduced from the experimental data with (a) $g=0.88$ at 532\,nm and $g=0.9$ for $\lambda>775$\,nm \cite{Yaroslavsky2002}, (b) by extrapolating the fit in \cite{Mesradi2013} up to 800\,nm and (c) by neglecting water absorption.}\label{tab1}
\end{table}
The situation is expected to improve somewhat for biological tissues where the above conditions are no longer valid since waves are scattered preferentially in the forward direction in biological samples. This anisotropy is characterized by the average scattering angle
\begin{equation}
g=\int_{4\pi}p(\theta)\cos\theta\textrm d \Omega\ .
\end{equation}
Here, $p(\theta)$ denotes the probability of a photon being scattered into the angle $\theta$ relative to its incident direction with $\int_{4\pi} p(\theta)\textrm d \Omega=1$ and the solid angle $\Omega$. It is easy to see that isotropic scattering yields $g=0$ while complete forward scattering, i.e., no scattering at all, gives $g=1$. In the presence of such anisotropy, the relevant transport parameter is no longer $l$ but the transport mean free path (TMFP) $l^*$ with $l^* = l/(1-g)$ \cite{Akkermans2007}. While the $l$ is the average distance between scattering events, $l^*$ can be interpreted as the distance at which the direction of wave propagation has become independent from the initial direction. The condition for Eq. (1) now reads $l^*\ll L$ and is easily broken for large $g$-factors and intermediate sample thicknesses. This applies in particular to biological tissues that typically show large g-factors between 0.8 and 0.98 \cite{Cheong1990}. Scattering parameters of the rodent cortex from literature are given in Table \ref{tab1} for in-vivo and ex-vivo measurements. In that regime, the ME range is presumed to be larger than predicted by Eq. (1) and possibly present inside scattering samples as well where some directionality is preserved for distances inferior to $ l^*$.
However, the ME in this forward scattering regime is not well understood and we are not aware of any experimental studies to date linking speckle correlations with scattering anisotropy.
Here, we present a systematic study of the ME in chicken breast and rat cortex samples. We identify the anisotropy of scattering as a key factor for the extended correlation range by matching experimental results with a simulation of wave propagation through multiple forward scattering layers. In order to get a qualitative understanding of this effect, we introduce an effective thickness $L_\textrm{eff}$ that corresponds to the equivalent thickness of an diffusive medium producing the same memory effect. In essence, a larger memory effect corresponds to a thinner effective sample thickness.
\section{Experiment}
\begin{figure}[b]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{Figure1_Setup.pdf}
\caption{Experimental setup to measure the optical memory effect: A 532\,nm laser beam is focused on the axis of a mirror (M1) mounted on a rotation stage. This spot is imaged onto the sample through an objective (O1) with focal length $f_1=4.5$\,cm and a lens (L2) with focal length $f_2 = 50$\,cm. This results in a circular sample illumination area with 2.3\,mm diameter. The scattered light is captured by a CCD with $1024\times1280$ pixels where one pixel measures $5.3\times\SI{5.3}{\micro\meter}^2$. An optional diaphragm can be inserted in front of the sample to reduce the beam size.}
\label{2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[b]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=10cm]{Figure2_Shift.pdf}
\caption{(a) to (c) show speckle patterns excerpts from rat cortex samples at three different angles. Axes denote pixels from CCD camera, intensity in arbitrary units. Horizontal shift and decorrelation are visible when following the circled speckle. (d) Calculated correlations against offset for images (a) to (c) with 0\,deg as the reference image.}
\label{1}
\end{figure}
A sketch of the experimental setup for ME measurements is shown in Fig. \ref{2}. To measure the decorrelation of speckle patterns with changing incident angle, we focus a continuous wave laser beam (wavelength, 532\,nm) on the rotation axis of a mirror mounted on a motorized rotation stage and image that spot onto the scattering sample. The lenses’ focal lengths were chosen to provide 100/9 fold magnification and a corresponding increase in angular resolution. A CCD camera placed in the far field behind the sample then captures the transmitted light. By taking a series of images while rotating the mirror at constant speed, we capture speckle patterns for a series of incident angles with a fixed point of illumination. Such speckle patterns are shown for three incident angles in the case of brain slices in Fig. \ref{1}a-c. The correlation between two images is then calculated as a function of possible offsets between patterns, giving the actual correlation to its reference from the maximum value (Fig. \ref{1}d).
Measurements on a ground-glass diffuser and zinc oxide (ZnO) scattering sample were performed to confirm alignment and accuracy of the experimental setup. Albeit being completely opaque, ground glass diffusers effectively consist of a single scattering layer and thus have a very large ME range. In contrast, ZnO is an ideal multiply scattering sample: it does not absorb visible light but scatters it quite effectively with a refractive index contrast, $\Delta n\approx 2$ \cite{Coutts2006}. Correlation curves of a ZnO diffuser are well reproduced by multiple scattering theory (Fig. 3a) and the fit parameter $L_\textrm{eff}=\SI{648}{\micro\meter}$ is close to the actual layer thickness of $L=\SI{650}{\micro\meter}$. This gives us the expected small ME range of $\Delta\phi_{1/5}=17.5$\,mdeg.
Additionally, we confirmed that the angular correlation curves are independent of illumination spot size and thus speckle size for both isotropic and forward scattering (Fig. S1).
As model biological systems, we chose chicken breast muscle tissue and rat cortex slices, the first because it is readily available and the second since it is an actively researched system in neuroscience. To obtain an imaging geometry similar to in vivo experiments, three month old Wistar were transcardially perfused with 4\% paraformaldeide (PFA) in phosphate buffer. The cortices of extracted brains were then flattened and stored overnight in a solution of 4\% PFA between two glass slides separated by 1.5\,mm thick spacers. Tangential slices of different thicknesses were cut from the flattened cortices.
We mounted rat cortex samples in water and performed all measurements within 1-2 days after preparation while chicken breast samples were mounted as is. Respective correlation curves are shown in Fig. 3 and both effective thickness and ME range values are given in Table \ref{tab2}.
The most striking observation is that the fit parameter $L_\textrm{eff}$ is around one order of magnitude smaller than the actual thickness $L$, the ME range is thus much larger than for a multiple scattering sample of the same thickness.
\begin{table}[b]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{p{1mm}p{1mm}rrrr}
&&$L$ [\SI{}{\micro\meter}] &$L_\textrm{eff}$ [\SI{}{\micro\meter}] & $\Delta\phi_{1/5}^\textrm{theo}$ [mdeg] & $\Delta\phi_{1/5}^\textrm{exp}$ [mdeg] \\ \hline
\multicolumn{2}{c}{ZnO}& 650 & 648 & 17.7 &17.5 \\ \hline
\multirow{5}{*}{\rotatebox{90}{Chicken}}&\multirow{5}{*}{\rotatebox{90}{breast}}
& 850 & 29$\pm$1 & 13.5 & 476 \\
& & 1000 & 31$\pm$1 & 11.5 & 438 \\
& & 1170 & 69$\pm$3 & 9.8 & 203\\
& & 1660 & 93$\pm$9 & 6.9 & 208 \\
& & 2730 & 570$\pm$10 & 4.2& 21\\\hline
\multirow{5}{*}{\rotatebox{90}{Rat cortex}}&\multirow{3}{*}{\rotatebox{90}{top}}& 400 & 45$\pm$9 & 28.7 & 301\\
&& 800 & 388$\pm$8 & 14.3 & 30\\
&& 1600 & 650$\pm$20 & 7.2 & 17\\ \cline{2-6}
&\multirow{2}{*}{\rotatebox{90}{mid}}& 400 & 148$\pm$30 & 28.7 & 98 \\
&& 800 & 335$\pm$8 & 14.3&34 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Effective thickness $L$ and ME range for ZnO, chicken breast and rat cortex tissue. Uncertainties in sample thickness $L$ are about \SI{50}{\micro\meter} for tissues and \SI{8}{\micro\meter} for ZnO while error ranges for $L_\textrm{eff}$ are fitting uncertainties.}\label{tab2}
\end{table}
For chicken muscle tissue, a TMFP of $l^* = \SI{1.25}{\milli\metre}$ (MFP, $l = \SI{43.7}{\micro\metre}$) and an anisotropy factor of $g = 0.965$ have been measured \cite{Cheong1990}. Our sample thicknesses were chosen to range from less than one $l^*$ to above $2l^*$. But due to the inherent inhomogeneity of biological tissues, those values are likely to fluctuate both within and between samples. This becomes evident when comparing the \SI{1170}{\micro\metre} and \SI{1660}{\micro\metre} slices: although the thickness increases, we observe that the ME ranges slightly decreases. Keeping this variability in mind, there is still a clear trend emerging from the chicken breast measurements. The ME range is up to 35 times larger than expected for isotropic scattering but this difference decreases to a factor of 5 for the thickest sample. Eventually, it is expected to vanish entirely for samples much thicker than $l^*$, i.e., in the cm range. In addition to the extended ME range, we also observe a deviation from the theoretical $(x/\sinh x)^2$ bell shape of angular correlation curves towards a more exponential shape. For the thickest sample however, the ideal theory shape is recovered.
\begin{figure}[b]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=10cm]{Figure3_Data.pdf}
\caption{Angular correlation functions for (a) 0.65\,mm thick zinc oxide layer and ground glass diffuser as references, (b) chicken breast slices with thicknesses from 0.85\,mm to 2.73\,mm and (c) rat cortex slices from first series. Solid lines are fits with Eq. (1) and error bars (standard deviations over multiple measurements) are omitted if smaller than the marker size. (d) Ratio between experimental and theoretical (isotropic scattering) ME range for different sample thicknesses in multiples of $l^*$. Thickness values have an uncertainty of $\sim20$\% from variations in the TMFP. Simulated values are shown as black circles with simulated ratio of 1.08 at $50l^*$ (outside the plotted range).
}
\label{3}
\end{figure}
A similar picture emerges from the rat cortex samples. Two series of cortex slices were prepared to account for brain layers with different properties. The first series starts at the cortex surface (layer 1) and is labeled `top' in Table \ref{tab2} while the second starts at the cortex middle (label `mid') and the thickest sample consists of an entire flattened cortex. With a smaller TMFP of $200\pm50$\,\SI{}{\micro\metre} \cite{Nishidate2011,Mesradi2013} in rat cortices, all of our samples are thicker than $l^*$. Nevertheless, we observe the same qualitative differences in ME shape and range as for chicken tissue. We recover the ideal theory shape for angular correlation curves for the two thicker samples and at a thickness of $d\approx8l^*$, the experimental ME range is only twice as big as the theory value.
The change in ME curve shape indicates that the additional correlations are of a different nature than in the conventional ME. In multiply scattering media, the ME emerges from correlations between the input and output positions for light: a pencil beam incident on a thin slab spreads through the medium and emerges as a diffuse spot at the output plane, or a size roughly given by the thickness, but with a total loss of the incident direction. It corresponds to a macroscopic structure in the transmission matrix, with larger transmission amplitudes close to the diagonal in position space\cite{Judkewitz2014}. But in case of strong forward scattering and a sample thickness close to the TMFP, the direction of wave propagation is not completely randomized when passing through the sample. Instead, as Judkewitz et al. argue \cite{Judkewitz2014}, one input mode in k-space is transmitted only to a narrow cone of output directions around the incident k, thereby giving the transmission matrix a similar structure with large near-diagonal amplitudes in k-space. They derive translational (instead of angular) correlations arising from that k-space structure, even for a negligible traditional ME, i.e., for very thick slabs. In practice for our sample, we expect those correlations to contribute to the angular ME in forward scattering tissues as well.
In the above discussion, we have neglected the effects of absorption on the ME. In fact, absorption does increase angular correlations by narrowing the diffusive cone that would emerge from a pencil beam (larger near-diagonal amplitudes in the real space transmission matrix). Van Rossum and Nieuwenhuizen \cite{VanRossum1993} derived a modified version of Eq. (1) depending on the absorption coefficient $\kappa$ but resulting increases in correlation are very small even for strongly absorbing materials with $\kappa = L/2$ and retain the shape of Eq. (1). Therefore, we can safely exclude absorption effects as the origin of larger correlations.
Another question is whether correlations observed in the far field are retained close to the output plane where only a fraction of the scattered amplitudes contribute to the interference pattern. This is of special interest for imaging inside biological tissues where we ideally would like to scan a focus or exploit the memory effect inside a medium. We mimicked a ‘near field’ situation by placing a diaphragm immediately behind the sample output plane. Resulting correlations in the far field speckles thus correspond to angular correlations at the aperture. The obtained correlation curves were indeed the same as without diaphragm (Fig. S2). However, in a strongly multiple scattering sample, we do not expect an actual shift of the output plane intensity pattern since the ME relies on well-defined output modes in k-space. Instead, we would expect a mere decorrelation that only becomes a shift in the far field. While this control experiment is not a definite confirmation that ME is present inside tissues, we believe the combination of lower effective thicknesses together with the presence of translational invariance as measured in \cite{Judkewitz2014} is in agreement with the experimental observation of the ME inside tissues exploited in \cite{Tang2012,Kong2014} for imaging.
\section{Phase mask simulation}
\begin{figure}[b]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=10cm]{Figure4_Simulation.pdf}
\caption{(a) 2D cross-section of the light intensity in a simulation with five phase masks (dashed white lines), incident angle of 3\,deg. (b) Cross-section of the path difference $\lambda\Phi(x,y)/2\pi$ from a random phase mask. The resulting scattering angle $\theta_s$ is determined by the phase mask gradient. (c) Simulated angular correlation curves in the weak forward scattering regime. The sample consists of two phase masks with a distance of $100\lambda$ and $g$-factors from 0.7-0.98.}
\label{4}
\end{figure}
To confirm the scattering anisotropy as cause for a longer ME range, we aim to reproduce the impact of larger g-values on correlation curves in a multiple scattering simulation. Again, we are especially interested in optically thin samples with predominant forward scattering and therefore model the scattering process with a number of consecutive phase masks (Fig. 4a). Each of those phase masks $\Phi(x,y)$ is created from a random matrix by multiplying its Fourier spectrum with a 2D Gaussian function and thus determining the frequencies of its spatial fluctuations. By changing the Gaussian's width, we change the scattering angles $\theta_s$ and thus the $g$-factor via (Fig. 4b)
\begin{equation}
\theta_s (x,y)=\arctan \left(\frac{\lambda}{2\pi} |\nabla \Phi(x,y)|\right)
\end{equation}
At a phase mask $n$, the scalar electric field $E$ accumulates a phase of $e^{i\Phi_n (x,y)}$ and we use the Rayleigh-Sommerfeld equation \cite{Marathay2004}, an extract solution to the scalar Helmholtz equation, for light propagation.
There are two obvious shortcomings of this simplified model: First, phase masks allow for forward scattering only and all back scattering is thus assumed to be negligible and second, scattering events take place only at certain planes unlike the reality of randomly distributed scatters with anisotropies on a large range of length scales \cite{Mourant2000}. We trade accuracy for shorter computation times but nevertheless are able to control MFP (distance between phase masks), $g$-factor and TMFP of the scattering process.
Keeping the above in mind, we still see good qualitative agreement in both ME range and curve shape. We simulated correlation curves for anisotropy factors from 0.70-0.98 while keeping all remaining parameters fixed. As expected, we see the strongest impact of g on correlation curves in case of only a few scattering events and strong forward scattering (Fig. 4 c,d). We qualitatively reproduce the curve shape for high $g$-values and retrieve the bell-like shape from multiple theory at lower $g$-values.
In a second series of simulations, we kept the MFP (distance between phase masks) fixed at \SI{43}{\micro\metre} while varying the total sample thickness from ~$0.1l^*$ to $50l^*$. The resulting ME ranges are shown in Fig. 3d together with experimental values. As expected, the ratio between simulated forward scattering and theoretical multiple scattering ME range again increases with thinner samples. However, the simulation somewhat underestimates the impact of anisotropy and $\Delta\phi_{1/5}^\textrm{exp}/\Delta\phi_{1/5}^\textrm{theo}$ is uniformly bigger than the simulated values. This comes as a surprise since we expect the exclusion of backward scattering to produce stronger correlations. The discrepancy might originate from the discrete scattering planes in our model. Usually, distances between scattering events are distributed around the MFP and some photons undergo less scattering events than others (‘snake photons’). The phase mask simulation assumes the same number of scattering events for all photons and might thus reduce speckle correlations.
Even though angular correlations are underestimated, we can still qualitatively reproduce the cusped curve shape for weak forward scattering in thin slices together with the transition to the theory shape of Eq. (1) for stronger scattering in thicker samples.
\section{Conclusion}
Several emerging imaging techniques for scattering media rely on angular correlations of the transmitted light \cite{Bertolotti2012,Katz2012,Katz2014}. We have shown here that anisotropic scattering can extend the range of this optical memory effect by more than an order of magnitude when propagation through tissues.
Both the experiments and our phase mask simulation show that the preservation of directionality during scattering results in correlations that become visible in the distinct exponential like shape of angular correlation curves. From our measurements on chicken and rat tissues, we expect that diffraction-limited imaging with a field-of-view of 50-100\,mdeg through a tissue layer of 1\,mm should be possible at wavelength of 533\,nm. The ME range scales linearly with $\lambda$ and the TMFP is known to increase by factor of 5-10 in the near infrared and for in-vivo compared to in-vitro slices (see Table \ref{tab1}). At common wavelengths used in two-photon fluorescence microscopy, the ME range should increase accordingly.
Further improvements might be achieved through several methods. First, translational correlations that arise from anisotropic scattering \cite{Judkewitz2014} could well be exploited together with temporal and spectral correlation alongside the traditional angular ME to further increase the field-of-view. Second, we have seen that the ME is strongest for photons that have undergone only a limited number of scattering events. Combining traditional gating techniques that only retain snake photons \cite{Search} with imaging processes that use scattered light should yield further improvements for both field-of-view and imaging depth.
With an emerging better understanding of speckle correlations in anisotropic media, we expect imaging techniques that utilize scattered photons to become far more powerful for applications in biological imaging or photostimulation.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
This work was funded by European Research Council Grant 278025 and the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (Investissements d'Avenir ANR-10-LABX-54 MEMO LIFE, ANR-11-IDEX-0001-02 PSL* Research University). We thank Prof. Georg Maret for enabling Sam Schott's stay at institut Langevin and his support of the project and David Martina for technical help in the development of the experimental setup.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
The Cold Dark Matter (CDM) model of the Universe, characterized by ordinary matter (about 5\%), a vacuum dark energy (more than 68\%), and Dark Matter (DM, 27\%), with an equation of state resembling a positive-cosmological-constant ($\Lambda$) type fluid (a.k.a. $\Lambda$CDM model) seems to be, at least currently, the cosmological scenario that best fits the plethora of the available cosmological and astrophysical data \cite{2014A&A...571A..16P}. At present, the nature of DM still elude us. Supersymmetry, which provides leading candidates for cold DM, has not been discovered as yet, thus prompting us to consider alternative candidates for DM such as axions, or sterile right-handed neutrinos with masses higher than 100~keV.
On the other hand, right-handed neutrinos with masses less than 50~keV may still play a role in particle physics today, as conjectured in the so-called right-handed neutrino minimal (non-supersymmetric) extension of the standard model ($\nu$MSM) proposed in \cite{2005PhLB..631..151A}, which has been proposed as a viable model for the so-called warm DM (WDM). This model involves three right-handed neutrino states, in addition to the three left-handed active neutrinos of the standard model (SM) sector, of which the lightest, of mass at most a few tens of keV, can live longer than the age of the Universe, thus constituting a viable DM candidate. Such relatively light right-handed neutrinos appear compatible with cosmological DM and Big-Bang-Nucleosynthesis constraints, provided their mixing angles with the active neutrinos of the SM sector are sufficiently small, as shown in figure~\ref{fig:DMsterile}. In general terms, the model appears to be consistent with a plethora of diverse astrophysical and cosmological data~\cite{2009PThPh.122..185S,2009ARNPS..59..191B,2009JCAP...05..012B,2009PhRvL.102t1304B}.
\begin{figure
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\hsize,clip]{M1theta1}
\caption{Cosmological constraints on the mass ($M_1$) and mixing ($\theta_1$) parameters of the lightest sterile neutrino state $N_1$ of the $\nu$MSM model, consistent with all the current astrophysical and cosmological data~\citep{2005PhLB..631..151A,2009PThPh.122..185S,2009ARNPS..59..191B,2009JCAP...05..012B,2009PhRvL.102t1304B}. This picture was taken from the original version in \cite{2009ARNPS..59..191B}.}
\label{fig:DMsterile}
\end{figure}
From the astrophysical point of view, the long-pursued study of galactic DM within the context of fundamental physical principles including thermodynamics and statistical physics dates from several decades already (see e.g. \cite{2008gady.book.....B}), given that DM halos show clear universal properties (\cite{2009Natur.461..627G} and refs. therein) and are well fitted by different phenomenological profiles that resemble isothermal equilibrium spheres \cite{2008AJ....136.2648D,2011AJ....142..109C,2014MNRAS.442.2717D,2015ARep...59..656S}. Due to the collisionless nature of DM particles at large scales, it has been recognized that the main mechanisms for the (quasi) relaxation of a DM halo within observable time-scales are collisionless processes such as phase-mixing and violent relaxation \cite{1967MNRAS.136..101L,2008gady.book.....B}. In contrast to the standard collisional scenarios relevant for (stellar-dominant) globular clusters, violent relaxation takes place within a much shorter timescale, appropriate for the time-varying (global) gravitational potential, leading the system to a long-lived quasi-stationary-state (QSS) that, as shown in \cite{1967MNRAS.136..101L,2002astro.ph.12205C,2002PhRvE..65e6123C,2005A&A...432..117C,2006PhyA..365..102C}, under sufficient mixing conditions can be well described in terms of Fermi-Dirac statistics. More specifically, this kind of Fermi-Dirac (coarse-grained) phase-space distribution can be obtained from a maximization entropy principle at fixed halo mass and temperature as clearly demonstrated in \cite{1998MNRAS.296..569C,1999GReGr..31.1105B,2002astro.ph.12205C,2002PhRvE..65e6123C,2005A&A...432..117C},\footnote{This procedure certainly implies the necessity for these QSS to be bounded in radius. This kind of configurations can be easily obtained within our model, by setting a cutoff in the momentum space of the original Fermi distribution as first realized in \cite{1992A&A...258..223I}, or, more recently and within our relativistic formalism in \cite{2013IJMPD..2260008R,2015mgm..conf.1730F}. In any case the main conclusions presented here do not depend on such a
cutoff that only fixes the outermost halo boundary conditions. Therefore, we shall adopt throughout this paper (for simplicity) the standard Fermi-Dirac statistics, with the momentum cutoff set to infinity.}, leading to mass-density equilibrium distributions typically composed by a condensed core surrounded by a dilute halo. This mechanism was first derived for classical particles (i.e. stars) in \cite{1967MNRAS.136..101L,1978ApJ...225...83S}, and then extended for indistinguishable fermionic particles in \cite{1996ApJ...466L...1K,2002PhRvE..65e6123C}. More recently, and within the context of fermionic DM, it has been argued \cite{2002PrPNP..48..291B,2008PhRvD..77d3518B,2013NewA...22...39D,2013pdmg.conf30204A,2014JKPS...65..801A,2014MNRAS.442.2717D,2015ARep...59..656S,2015MNRAS.451..622R} that a system of self-gravitating fermions, which we have referred to as inos, with masses in the keV regime, plays an important r\^ole in galactic structures. In the more general case of fermionic models allowing for central degeneracy \cite{2013pdmg.conf30204A,2014IJMPD..2342020A,2014JKPS...65..801A,2015ARep...59..656S,2015MNRAS.451..622R}, the density of the inos, which we propose here to be identified with right-handed Majorana neutrinos
\footnote{These neutrinos could be of the DM type appearing in $\nu$MSM~\cite{2005PhLB..631..151A}, but such an identification is not binding. Indeed, our inos can be also identified with sterile neutrinos which do not rely on active-sterile mixing, as the ones analyzed in \cite{2015PhRvD..92j3509P}, and thus consistent with all current cosmological/astrophysical constraints for masses in the keV - MeV range, similarly to the range obtained in section (3.2).}
, shows three physical regimes as a function of the distance from the center: 1) an homogeneous inner core where the inos are in a degenerate state; 2) the uniform density of the core is followed by a steeply decreasing density and an extended plateau in an intermediate region in which the ino's description needs still some quantum corrections; 3) and finally it ends with an asymptotic $\rho\propto r^{-2}$ classical Boltzmann regime. The latter regime is the responsible for the flatness of the rotation curves and therefore it has to fulfill, as an eigenvalue problem, a defined value of the circular velocity. It was further shown in \cite{2015MNRAS.451..622R} that this eigenvalue problem allows to determine the mass of the ino as well as the radius and mass of the inner quantum core. This kind of core-halo structure for DM in galaxies is consistent with the results obtained in \cite{1998MNRAS.296..569C,2002astro.ph.12205C,2002PhRvE..65e6123C} within a pure statistical approach. Interestingly, similar core-halo distributions have been obtained in modern 3-D numerical simulations in the framework of quantum-wave DM approaches \cite{2014PhRvL.113z1302S}. Moreover, such structures appear to characterize more generally long-range collisionless interacting systems, including plasmas and kinetic spin models \cite{2014PhR...535....1L}.
The initial conditions for such a core-halo galactic QSS are provided by the aforementioned collisionless relaxation processes, which imply specific fermionic phase-space distributions as the ones used here. These quantum fermionic distribution functions, with relatively large values of central degeneracy parameters, stabilize the galaxy structures by avoiding a thermodynamic runaway, and thus the gravothermal catastrophe, thanks to the Pauli principle. This is in contrast to what happens in the case of Boltzmann-like configurations~\cite{2014MNRAS.442.2717D}, where a gravothermal catastrophe (similar to one occurring in globular clusters) is an inevitable outcome, even for collisionless DM particles \cite{1990PhR...188..285P,1998MNRAS.296..569C}. The precise choice of the free parameters for the appropriate Fermi distribution, once the QSS is achieved,
is dictated by the correct values of the observed halo parameters (circular and/or dispersion velocities, total mass), as well as the desired quantum core mass and compactness, to account for the observed properties of the central massive object.
The novel approach introduced in \cite{2015MNRAS.451..622R} was applied to different types of galaxies ranging from dwarfs to large spiral galaxies. For ino masses $m\sim10$~keV/$c^2$, one finds excellent agreement with the DM halo observables (see \cite{2015ARep...59..656S,2015MNRAS.451..622R}, for details). At the same time, the approach is capable of providing a theoretical correlation between the inner quantum core and the halo mass, which can be compared with observations \cite{2015MNRAS.451..622R}. We also evaluated the possibility of an alternative interpretation to the black hole in SgrA*, in terms of the high concentration of DM in the inner quantum core. We concluded that, although a compact degenerate core mass $M_c\sim4\times 10^6 M_\odot$ is definitely possible with an ino of $m\sim10$~keV$/c^2$, the core radius is larger by a factor $\sim 10^2$ than the one obtained from the observational limits imposed by the of S-star trajectories such as S1 and S2 orbiting around SgrA* \cite{2008ApJ...689.1044G,2009ApJ...707L.114G}.
To solve this problem, we propose here the inclusion of specific (self) interactions among the inos, which, as we shall demonstrate below,
allows for higher central degeneracies and higher compactness of the inner quantum core. At this point it is important to stress that, already in \cite{1978ApJ...225...83S}, two-particle interactions were predicted to be non-negligible within the dense degenerate cores, due to the appearance of the exclusion principle, in agreement with the ansatz considered here. Moreover, the necessity for considering self-interactions in dense and very-low temperature fermionic systems, such as the ones studied in the current work, has been proven in laboratory experiments. Indeed, in \cite{2008RvMP...80.1215G}, it was argued that the behavior of ultra-cold atomic collisions in (effective) Fermi gases, such as $^6$Li, can be explained in terms of a grand-canonical many-body Hamiltonian with a term accounting for the (spin-enhanced) fermion-fermion interaction. At temperatures of a fraction of the Fermi energy, or, equivalently, for thermal de-Broglie wavelengths larger than the inter-particle mean distances, the self-interactions of the fermions become relevant, in analogy with the situation encountered in our self-interacting neutrino model. However, while in the case of laboratory physics an external trapping potential (such as the one due to magnetic fields) is needed, in the context of DM in galaxies, trapping is ensured by gravity.
The idea of self-interacting DM was first implemented in \cite{2000PhRvL..84.3760S,2001ApJ...547..574D} for cold DM particles with rest masses above $1$~MeV$/c^2$ (and up to $10$~GeV$/c^2$), consistent with the nature of the interactions and the mean free paths considered. In those works, self-interactions were applied uniquely at DM halo scales with typical densities of order $10^{-2} M_\odot/$pc$^3$, suggesting that total cross-sections over the particle mass of order $\sigma/m\sim0.1 - 100$~cm$^2$/g, would imply observational effects in the inner halo regions. It was further shown that a self-interacting DM regime with these values of $\sigma/m$, would generate shallower inner DM profiles, with a consequent reduction in the amount of sub-structures, thereby alleviating important problems of collisionless $\Lambda$CDM simulations, such as the core-cusp~\cite{2010AdAst2010E...5D} and the missing satellite problems~\cite{2011PhRvD..83d3506P}. However, at the same time, some tension with upper limits in the DM cross sections obtained from lensing analysis at galactic cluster scales has emerged. More recently, in \cite{2013MNRAS.430...81R}, motivated by a more refined analysis of the Bullet Cluster~\cite{2008ApJ...679.1173R}, a set of cosmological simulations within CDM were performed,
with the aim of studying further the effects of self-interacting dark matter (SIDM) on density cores of galaxies and galaxy clusters, concluding that $\sigma/m \sim 0.2$~barn~GeV$^{-1}= 0.1$~cm$^2$~g$^{-1}$ is consistent with all the observational constraints.
In the above works, the interactions of DM were modelled by pure classical mechanics descriptions, without making any reference to the details of the interactions. By the contrary, in the present paper, we analyze the possible consequences caused by a \emph{self-interacting relativistic field theoretical model} of Majorana fermions, with vector type interactions and fermion rest-masses in the keV$/c^2$ range, which can play the r\^ole of WDM in galaxies. In particular, we maintain the collisionless nature of the DM fermions at halo scales, and study the two-particle self-interaction effects for different interaction strengths, but only in the (sub-pc) region, where the dense fermionic quantum core arises \cite{2015MNRAS.451..622R}, reaching central densities as large as $10^{16-23}~M_\odot$~pc$^{-3}$. Our method is fundamentally different with respect to the one in other approaches (see, e.g., \cite{2013MNRAS.430...81R}). In such works the ansatz of self-interacting DM is assumed to study its effects on the central parts of halo density profiles coming from cosmological simulations, while we use that ansatz to study the self-interacting effects on the quantum cores of the DM profiles arising from first principle physics such as quantum statistics, thermodynamics and gravitation. At halo-distance scales, our assumption of a collisionless DM is understood by the fact that, the non-interacting fermionic DM distribution, leads naturally to cored inner halos (see figures~\ref{fig:1}--\ref{fig:3} below). Thus, within our fermionic DM model there is no need to make use of the SIDM hypothesis for the halo, as needed in standard $\Lambda$CDM cosmological simulations to alleviate the tension with observations. At the end of the concluding section \ref{sec:out}, we shall comment on how the above mentioned core-cusp discrepancy may be tackled by the current model, and compare briefly our results with predictions made by the standard cosmological N-body simulations of cold and warm DM models. We should stress though that, although many features related to the galactic structure, where the CDM model was challenged, may be explained by our self-interacting fermion (right-hand neutrino) model, the latter should not be viewed as a {\it panacea} for solving all the current open issues regarding that front. There may well be more than one DM species in the universe, and in this work we offer a proposal towards a solution to some important problems in galactic structure within the context of our self interacting (right-handed neutr)-``inos''.
Both approaches, those based on standard cosmological simulations and ours, can be thought as \textit{complementary} in attacking the problem of the distribution of DM in galaxies. Thus, it is of interest to compare and contrast any theoretical prediction of a self-interacting DM model with the parameters inferred from observations (and/or simulations), such as the total cross-section per unit mass $\sigma/m$ . For this purpose, we consider in this work DM self-interactions mediated by a massive-vector in the dark sector of minimal extensions of the Standard Model (SM), with a $SU(3)$x$SU(2)_{L,R}$x$U(1)$ group invariance, and compute the total cross-section $\sigma$ through an electroweak-like formalism ( see, appendix ~\ref{app:B}, for details). Then, we compare and contrast our theoretical predictions with the observational constraints in section \ref{sec:3.3}. We show that, the requirement that the cross-section per unit mass agree with the one constrained from observations and SIDM cosmological simulations~\cite{2013MNRAS.430...81R}, implies an allowed interaction-strength window $C_V \equiv (g_V/m_V)^2\in (2.6\times10^8,7\times10^8) G_F$ (where $G_F\approx 10^{-5}$~GeV$^{-2}$ is the Fermi coupling constant of the weak interaction), for particle masses in the range $m\in(47,350)$~keV, which as we argue here are in agreement with Galactic-core observables. Here $g_V$ and $m_V$ are the coupling constant of the interaction and the mass of the vector-meson mediator, respectively. Since our approach is not bound to standard $\Lambda$CDM-based conclusions, we also discuss further constraints on the interaction coupling associated with more extreme quantum-core effects. By linking the cross-section with the scattering-rate per particle $\Upsilon$, we also show here an absolute lower bound for the DM interaction strength (and $\sigma$), by calculating the scattering probability among the inos to occur at least once in the age of the galaxy. In this way, we obtain a minimum value for the coupling constant $C_V$.\footnote{It is understood that the coupling $C_V$ ``runs'' with the energy of the SIDM particle, but here we give its value technically at zero momentum. Within our low energy approximations the running of $C_V$ with the energy is very soft and negligible.}
The structure of the article is as follows: in the next section \ref{sec:rhn} we introduce the model of right-handed (Majorana) neutrinos with vector self-interactions, which could be either due to a vector field or describe contact current-current type of interactions. A numerical study of the induced core-halo structure for galaxies, assuming that the above model is the correct one to describe the DM in the Galaxy, is given in section \ref{sec:num}. The effects of the self-interaction in ensuring higher central degeneracies and higher compactness of the inner quantum galactic cores are demonstrated. Finally, discussion of the results and outlook are presented in section \ref{sec:out}. In particular, we specify the order of the vector interactions field strength as well as the minimum value of the fermion masses ($\sim47$~keV/$c^2$) for the model to provide a description of the core-halo structure in a variety of galaxies, from spiral to large elliptical, in agreement with observations. In case the inos are identified with the lightest right-handed Majorana neutrino in the $\nu$MSM, then there is only a narrow (but non trivial) regime of masses for which the model can be consistent with astrophysical/cosmological/galactic data in the sense considered in this paper and in particle physics applications of the $\nu$MSM. Some technical aspects are given in appendices.
\section{Self-interacting right-handed neutrinos} \label{sec:rhn}
We consider in this work a model for SIDM that is a minimal (non supersymmetric) extension of the Standard Model with a sterile neutrino. Such models are reminiscent (but different) of the general idea of the $\nu$MSM~\cite{2005PhLB..631..151A,2009PThPh.122..185S,2009ARNPS..59..191B}. Unlike $\nu$MSM, we allow our right-handed neutrinos to be self-interacting. In particular we concentrate on the lightest of the right-handed Majorana neutrino $N_1$,
which plays the role of DM, and we introduce phenomenologically, self-neutrino interactions through a massive-vector-meson $V_\mu$ mediator.
Our results regarding the DM particle creation mechanism, are only subject to the assumption that the fermions are of Majorana type (but the formalism is readily extendable to Dirac). This is the common feature we share with the $\nu$MSM, which from our point of view is another interesting and well-studied case of sterile neutrinos that we use for comparison, given the intriguing similarity of the allowed range of the sterile neutrino DM mass, $O(10^1)$~keV, which in our case is obtained from a very different approach.
The Lagrangian of the right-handed neutrino sector, including gravity, reads (we use units $\hbar=c=1$):
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal L}={\mathcal L}_{GR}+{\mathcal L}_{N_{R\,1}}+{\mathcal L}_V+{\mathcal L}_{I}\,
\label{eq:Ltotal}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
{\mathcal L}_{GR} &=& -\frac{R}{16\pi G},\\
{\mathcal L}_{N_{R\,1}} &=& i\,\overline{N}_{R\, 1}\gamma^{\mu}\, \nabla_\mu\,N_{R\,1}-\frac{1}{2}m\,\overline{N^c}_{R\, 1}N_{R\,1},\\
{\mathcal L}_V &=& -\frac{1}{4}V_{\mu\nu}V^{\mu\nu}+\frac{1}{2}m_V^2V_{\mu}V^{\mu} \label{eq:Lterms},\\
{\mathcal L}_{I}&=&-g_V V_\mu J_V^\mu=-g_V V_\mu \overline{N}_{R\, 1}\gamma^{\mu}N_{R\,1}\, ,\label{eq:Lint}
\end{eqnarray}
with $R$ the Ricci scalar for the static spherically symmetric metric background
\begin{equation}\label{metric}
g_{\mu \nu}={\rm diag}(e^{\nu},-e^{\lambda},-r^2,-r^2\sin^2\theta)~,
\end{equation}
where $e^{\nu}$ and $e^{\lambda}$ depend only on the radial coordinate, $r$. The quantity $m$ is the mass of the sterile neutrino, $\nabla_\mu=\partial_\mu\, -\, \frac{i}{8}\, \omega_\mu^ {ab}[\gamma_a, \gamma_b] $ is the gravitational covariant derivative acting on a Majorana spinor, with $\omega_{\mu }^{ab}$ the spin connection and $[ \, , \, ]$ the commutator. The right-handed sterile neutrinos $N_{R\,1}$ satisfy the Majorana four-spinor condition, $\Psi^c=\Psi$, together with $\overline{\Psi}=\Psi^T C$, where the conjugate spinor field $\Psi^c = C \overline{\Psi}^T $ and
$C$ is the unitary ($C^\dagger = C^{-1}$) charge conjugation operator, flipping the fermion chirality, i.e. $(\Psi_L)^c = (\Psi^c)_R $ is right-handed (R), whilst $(\Psi_L)^c = (\Psi^c)_L $ is left-handed (L). The definition of chirality (handedness) is the standard one, $\Psi_{L(R)} = \frac{1}{2} \Big(1 \mp \gamma^5 \Big) \, \Psi$, with the + (-) sign denoting Right-(Left)handed spinors, and $\gamma_5 = i \gamma^0 \gamma^1 \gamma^2 \gamma^3 $, with $\gamma^\mu$ the $4 \times 4$ Dirac matrices, satisfying $\gamma^\mu \gamma^\nu + \gamma^\mu \gamma^\nu = 2 g^{\mu\nu}$, where $g^{\mu\nu}$ is the (inverse) of the spherically symmetric space-time metric given above ((\ref{metric})).
The vector-meson mass is $m_V$, whose microscopic origin is not discussed here\footnote{It may well come from an appropriate Higgs mechanism in the dark sector (with a Higgs field that is not necessarily the one of the SM sector).}, and $V_{\mu\nu}=\partial_\mu V_\nu-\partial_\nu V_\mu$, where the ``Lorentz gauge condition'' $\partial^\mu V_\mu = 0$ has been applied for the vector-meson (VM) field $V_\mu$. Notice that the massive-vector-mesons $V_\mu$ should not be viewed as gauge bosons if the fermions are Majorana. As is well known, the Lorentz gauge condition emerges then as a consequence of their equations of motion. Latin indexes denote flat tangent space indexes and are raised and lowered with the Minkowski $\eta_{ab}$ metric.
For simplicity we assume a minimal-coupling form of the vector field with the sterile neutrino current $J^\mu_V$ in the
interaction term ${\mathcal L}_{I}$ in the lagrangian density. This current is conserved if decays of sterile neutrinos are ignored.
Such a coupling may also arise from linearisation of a Thirring-type four fermion vector current interaction $J^{\mu}_V \, J_{V \mu }$
by means of an auxiliary vector field $A_\mu$ (which acquires dynamics upon implementing quantum corrections).
In general one may add to (\ref{eq:Ltotal}) a Yukawa term, coupling the (three, in general) right-handed neutrinos to the active neutrino sector (see, e.g., the case of $\nu$MSM~\cite{2005PhLB..631..151A,2009PThPh.122..185S,2009ARNPS..59..191B})
\begin{equation}\label{yuk}
{\mathcal L}_{\rm Yuk} = F_{\alpha I} \, {\overline \ell}_\alpha \, N_{R\, I} \phi^c + {\rm h.c.}~, \quad I=1,2,3
\end{equation}
where $\ell_\alpha$ are the lepton doublets of the SM, $\alpha = e, \mu, \tau$, $F_{\alpha I}$ are appropriate Yukawa couplings, and $\phi^c$ is the SM conjugate Higgs field, \emph{i.e}. $\phi^c = i \tau_2 \phi^\star$, with $\tau_2 $ the $2 \times 2$ Pauli matrix. Upon considering such a coupling, one obtains the stringent X-ray and BBN constraints of the mixing angle and mass of $N_{R\, 1}$ depicted in figure~\ref{fig:DMsterile},
given that (\ref{yuk}) implies decays of the heavy neutrinos $N_I \rightarrow \nu H$, where $H$ denotes the Higgs excitation field, defined via: $\phi = \langle \phi \rangle + H $. In such a case $J^\mu_V$ is \emph{not} conserved in time. However, in the context of $\mu$MSM, the lightest of the heavy neutrinos decay time is longer than the age of the universe, hence the latter can be considered as stable for all practical purposes, thuds playing the r\^ole of dark matter.
For our purposes, as already mentioned, we concentrate here on this lightest neutrino and ignore such a mixing with the SM sector, setting $F_{\alpha 1} = 0$, in which case the lightest neutrino is absolutely stable. The important feature for us are the self-interactions of the right-handed neutrino, which will be used for ensuring phenomenologically correct values for the radius and mass of the galactic core. Since, as we shall see, the mass range we obtain is compatible with the one in figure \ref{fig:DMsterile}, one may switch on the Yukawa term in a full phenomenological study, including the SM sector, and in particular neutrino oscillations and Early Universe physics (e.g.~leptogenesis~\cite{2005PhLB..631..151A,2009PThPh.122..185S,2009ARNPS..59..191B}), without affecting our conclusions. This stems from the very weak nature of the Yukawa couplings $F_{\alpha I}$ as dictated by the seesaw mechanism which is assumed to be in operation here~\cite{2009PhRvL.102t1304B} so as to give a mass in the active neutrinos. For an order-of-magnitude estimate of such $\nu$MSM (subleading) contributions to the effective four-fermion right-handed Majorana neutrino interaction strength we refer the reader to appendix~\ref{app:C}.
A particularly interesting motivation to include coupling with the SM sector (active) neutrinos $\nu$, is to be able to obtain a possible indirect detection method for the `inos' through the decaying channel $N_{R\, 1} \rightarrow \nu + \gamma$, with a potential enhancement due to their self-interacting nature~\footnote{In the context of the Yukawa term (\ref{yuk}) such a decay pattern is obtained, e.g., from the decay of the Higgs to two photons.}. Particular attention should be paid to the recent observations by the Fermi satellite, providing evidence of a clear emission in the energy range $10$--$25$~keV from the central region of the Galaxy \cite{2015PhRvD..92d3503N}. The latter could find plausible explanation by means of a DM particle species with a mass of order $50$~keV/c$^2$, similar to the one obtained here.
Notice that in eq.~(\ref{eq:Lterms}) we included a kinetic term for the VM-field. However, in the mean-field approximation we shall employ in this work, such kinetic terms are irrelevant, thus allowing contact four-fermion interactions among the right-handed neutrinos of Nambu-Jona-Lasinio type to be studied in a similar way. In the latter case, the VM-field is auxiliary.
From (\ref{eq:Ltotal}) one obtains the following equations of motion for the various fields:
\begin{eqnarray}
G_{\mu\nu}+8\pi G T_{\mu\nu} &=& 0\, ,\label{eq:Einstein}\\
\nabla_\mu V^{\mu\nu}+m_V^2 V^\nu-g_V J_V^\nu &=& 0\, ,\\
\overline{N}_{R\, 1}\,i\gamma^{\mu}\overleftarrow{D_\mu}+\frac12 m\overline{N^c}_{R\, 1} &=& 0\, ,
\label{eq:eom1}
\end{eqnarray}
where $G_{\mu\nu}$ is the Einstein tensor and $T_{\mu\nu}$ is the total energy-momentum tensor of the free-fields composed by two terms: $T^{\mu\nu}_{N_{R\,1}}$ and $T^{\mu\nu}_V$, each of which satisfies the perfect fluid prescription
\begin{equation}
T^{\mu\nu}=(\mathcal{E}+\mathcal{P})u^\mu u^\nu-\mathcal{P}g^{\mu\nu}\, ,
\label{eq:EM}
\end{equation}
with $\mathcal{E}$ and $\mathcal{P}$ the energy-density and pressure which we define below.
\subsection{Relativistic mean-field approximation}
We now introduce the relativistic mean-field (RMF) approximation. In this approach, the system can be considered as corresponding to a static uniform matter distribution in its ground state\footnote{As it is shown in section \ref{sec:num}, this approximation is well justified when applied to all the fields (real and mediators) under the physical conditions of the quantum core, which is composed by a very large amount of fermions in a highly degenerate state, in some analogy with the physics of compact objects.}. Thus, the vector-meson field as well as the source currents are replaced by their mean values in this state, which,
on account of space translational invariance, are independent of the spatial coordinates $\vec x$; this and the requirement of rotational invariance imply that no spatial current exists, and only the temporal component of the current is non zero, i.e. $J_V^\mu \rightarrow \langle J_V^0\rangle=\langle\overline{N}_{R\, 1}\gamma^{0}N_{R\,1}\rangle
= \langle N_{R\, 1}^\dagger N_{R\, 1} \rangle$. The last expression within brackets denotes the finite number density of right-handed neutrino matter times the temporal component of the pertinent (average) velocity.
The RMF approximation allows one to solve the coupled system of differential equations (\ref{eq:Einstein}--\ref{eq:eom1}) rather straightforwardly, to obtain directly the mean-field vector-meson as
\begin{equation}
V_0=\frac{g_V}{m_V^2}J_0^V\,
\label{eq:V0}
\end{equation}
with the notation $\langle V_0\rangle\equiv V_0$ and
\begin{equation}\label{currentvelocity}
\langle J_V^0\rangle\equiv J_0^V=n\,u_0\, ,
\end{equation}
where $u_0=e^{\nu/2}$ is the time-component of the (average) future-directed four velocity vector, and we have used the normalization condition $u^\mu u_\nu=1$.
The Majorana spinors in the RMF approximation can be simply expressed as the corresponding momentum (Fourier) eigen-states with no $x-$dependent terms (see, e.g., \cite{2000csnp.conf.....G}) $\Psi(x)=\Psi(k)\, e^{-ik_{\mu}x^{\mu}}$.
Recalling that we are working here with a system comprising of a very large number $N$ of fermions in thermodynamic equilibrium at finite temperature $T$, we can assume that the fermion number density is expressed in terms of the Fermi-Dirac distribution function $f(k)$
\begin{equation}
n=e^{-\nu/2}\langle\overline{N}_{R\, 1}(k)\gamma^{0}N_{R\,1}(k)\rangle=\frac{g}{(2\pi)^3}\int d^3k\,f(k)\, .
\label{eq:nNR1}
\end{equation}
where $g$ is a spin-degeneracy factor for the Majorana spinors, the momentum integration is extended over all the momentum space, and $f(k)=(\exp[(\epsilon(k)-\mu)/(k_B T)]+1)^{-1}$. Here $\epsilon(k)=\sqrt{k^2+m^2}-m$ is the particle kinetic energy, $\mu$ is the chemical potential with the particle rest-energy subtracted off, $T$ is the temperature of the heat bath, and $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant. It is important to notice that we are working with the right-handed component of the full Majorana spinor $\Psi$, and so, although a full Majorana spinor (left plus right chiral states) is its own antiparticle implying a spin degeneracy $g=4$, this is not the case for the singlet right-handed component $N_{R\,1}$ (viewed as a spin $+1/2$ fermion of one helicity state), for which $g=1$. From now on we adopt this value for $g$.
\subsection{Thermodynamic equilibrium conditions and equations of motion}
We now introduce the thermodynamic equilibrium conditions. In the case of a self-gravitating system of semi-degenerate fermions at finite temperature in general relativity, in absence of any self-interactions (other than gravity) such conditions read \cite{2015MNRAS.451..622R}: $e^{\nu/2}T=$constant and $e^{\nu/2}(\mu+m)=$constant. The first equation corresponds to the Tolman condition \cite{1930PhRv...35..904T}, and the second to the Klein condition \cite{1949RvMP...21..531K}. In the presence of the vector-meson mediator interaction (\ref{eq:Lint}), it can be shown that only the Klein condition is modified; the generalized thermodynamic equilibrium conditions are (see, e.g., \cite{2011NuPhA.872..286R}, for details)
\begin{eqnarray}
e^{\nu/2}T &=& {\rm const.}~, \label{eq:Tolman} \\
e^{\nu/2}(\mu+m)+g_V\,V_0 &= & e^{\nu/2}(\mu+m+C_V\,n)= {\rm const.}
\label{eq:TolmanKlein}
\end{eqnarray}
where the term $g_V\, V_0$ is interpreted as a potential energy associated to the new meson field $V_\mu$. In deriving the middle equation of (\ref{eq:TolmanKlein}), we have used eqs.~(\ref{eq:V0}) and (\ref{currentvelocity}).
We can then finally write the full system of Einstein equations (\ref{eq:Einstein}) together with the thermodynamic equilibrium conditions (\ref{eq:TolmanKlein}) in the following dimensionless form\footnote{For $C_V=0$, the coupled system of differential equations (\ref{eq:eq1}--\ref{eq:tolman2}) reduces to the standard form presented in \cite{2015MNRAS.451..622R}.}
\begin{align}
\frac{d\hat M}{d\hat r}&=4\pi\hat r^2\mathcal{\hat E}, \label{eq:eq1} \\
\frac{d\nu}{d\hat r}&=2\frac{\hat M+4\pi\mathcal{\hat P}\hat r^3}{\hat r^2(1-2\hat M/\hat r)}, \\
\frac{d\theta}{d\hat r}&=-\frac{1}{2\beta}\frac{d\nu}{d\hat r}\frac{\left(1+\frac{C_Vm^2}{4\pi^3}\hat n
-\frac{C_Vm^2}{4\pi^3}\beta\frac{d\hat n}{d\beta}\right)}{\left(1+\frac{C_Vm^2}{4\pi^3}\frac{1}{\beta}\frac{d\hat n}{d\theta}\right)}\, ,\label{eq:eq3}\\
\beta&=\beta_0 e^{\frac{\nu_0-\nu(r)}{2}}\, , \label{eq:tolman2}
\end{align}
where the following dimensionless quantities were introduced: $\hat r=r/\chi$, $\hat n=Gm\chi^2$, $\hat M=G M/\chi$, $\mathcal{\hat E}=G \chi^2 \mathcal{E}$, $\mathcal{\hat P}=G \chi^2 \mathcal{P}$, with $m_p=\sqrt{1/G}$ the Planck mass, and we have introduced the dimensional factor $\chi=2\pi^{3/2}(1/m)(m_p/m)$ with units of length, scaling as $m^{-2}$. We have also introduced the temperature and degeneracy parameters $\beta=k_B T/m$, and $\theta=\mu/(k_B T)$, respectively; we have evaluated the constants of the equilibrium conditions of Tolman and Klein at the center $r=0$, which we indicate with a subscript `0'. We have also introduced the parameter
\begin{equation}\label{cv}
C_V\equiv g_V^2/m_V^2,
\end{equation}
which encodes information about the strength of the coupling of the effective interactions of the fermions (`inos') and the mass of the vector-meson mediator. The total energy-density and pressure $\mathcal{E}$ and $\mathcal{P}$ contained in (\ref{eq:EM}), can be split in two components,
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{E}= \mathcal{E}_\mathcal{C}+\mathcal{E}_V\, ,\quad \mathcal{P}= \mathcal{P}_\mathcal{C}+\mathcal{P}_V\, ,\label{eq:Pt}
\end{equation}
with $\mathcal{E}_\mathcal{C}$ and $\mathcal{P}_\mathcal{C}$ the contributions to the energy-density and pressure from fermions in the RMF approximation, calculated as $\langle T_0^0\rangle_{N_{R\,1}}=\mathcal{E}_\mathcal{C}$ and $\langle T_1^1\rangle_{N_{R\,1}}=\mathcal{P}_\mathcal{C}$ respectively. They are fully determined by the distribution function $f(k)$ (with particle helicity $g=1$)\footnote{Alternatively, this contribution to the energy can be expressed as the expectation value of the energy $\langle \overline{\Psi}\gamma_0k_0\Psi \rangle$, where $E(k)\equiv k_0$ are the energy eigenvalues of the corresponding Majorana Hamiltonian (see, e.g., \cite{2000csnp.conf.....G}).}
\begin{align}
&\mathcal{E}_\mathcal{C} = m\frac{1}{(2\pi)^3}\int f(k)\left[1+\frac{\epsilon(k)}{m}\right]\,d^3k,\label{eq:E}\\
&\mathcal{P}_\mathcal{C} = \frac13 \frac{1}{(2\pi)^3}\int
f(k)\left[1+\frac{\epsilon(k)}{2 m}\right]\epsilon\,d^3k,\label{eq:P}
\end{align}
while
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{E}_V=\mathcal{P}_V=\frac12 e^{-\nu}m_V^2V_0^2 = \frac12C_V\,n^2\, ,
\label{eq:EandPV}
\end{equation}
is the contribution from the VM-field. We shall next proceed to solve the system of equations (\ref{eq:eq1}--\ref{eq:tolman2}), including a discussion on the boundary conditions appropriate for the description of the Milky Way, as a self-consistency check of the approach.
\section{Numerical solutions}\label{sec:num}
We now apply the theoretical formalism presented above to study the DM distribution on different astrophysical objects from spiral to large elliptical galaxies, for given boundary conditions in agreement with observations. At the end, we give the DM particle mass and total cross section constraints arising from the numerical analysis of the boundary-value problem.
\subsection{Spiral galaxies: the Milky Way}
The boundary conditions in this case are given by the request of the observational agreement of the inner quantum core and halo part with the following Milky Way properties: 1) the compactness of its `dark' center (SgrA*), i.e. massive and compact enough to explain the dynamics of the S-cluster stars closest to the Milky Way's galactic center, 2) the DM outer halo mass $M_h$ and radius $r_h$, and 3) the onset of flat galactic rotation curve with the specific value of the circular velocity $v_h$ at $r_h$. It is important to recall that we define the radius of the inner quantum core $r_c$ as the distance at which the rotation curve reaches its first maximum, and the outer halo radius $r_h$ at the onset of the flattening rotation curve, which occurs at the second maximum (see also figure~1 in Ref.~\cite{2015MNRAS.451..622R}). Notice that the so called \textit{halo radius} (and mass) represent the one-halo scale length (and mass) associated with the fermionic model here presented, and corresponding with the turn-over of the density profiles in total analogy as other halo-scale lengths used in the literature such as $r_0$ or $r_{-2}$ as shown in figure~\ref{fig:1}. The rotation curve is given by the circular velocity
\begin{equation}
v(r)=\sqrt{\frac{G M(r)}{r-2 G M(r)}}.
\end{equation}
Following the above procedure, we shall constrain the physical conditions $\beta_0$ and $\theta_0$, together with the physical parameters, such as the sterile neutrino mass $m$, as well as the coupling parameter $C_V$. We recall that the non-interacting case $C_V=0$ of the model (\ref{eq:Ltotal}) has been recently solved in \cite{2015MNRAS.451..622R,2014JKPS...65..801A}, whose more general DM density profile shows the typical core-halo distribution composed of three different physical regimes as described in the introduction of the present article and demonstrated in figure~\ref{fig:1}.
\begin{figure}[!hbtp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{rhoDMvsNFW}
\caption{Comparison of the Ruffini-Arg\"uelles-Rueda (RAR) DM density profile \cite{2015MNRAS.451..622R} (non-interacting case $C_V=0$) with the Navarro-Frenk-White (NFW) one \cite{1997ApJ...490..493N}, and with a cored Einasto profile \cite{1965TrAlm...5...87E,1989A&A...223...89E}. The RAR profile is here given for the parameters: $\beta_0=1.251\times10^{-7}$, $\theta_0=30$ and $m=10.54$~keV$/c^2$. The NFW profile is $\rho_{NFW}(r)=\rho_0 r_0/[r(1+r/r_0)^2]$ with $\rho_0=5\times10^{-3} M_\odot$~pc$^{-3}$ and $r_0=25$~kpc, and the Einasto profile is given by $\rho_E(r)=\rho_{-2}\exp{[-2n(r/r_{-2})^{1/n}-1]}$, with $\rho_{-2}=2.4\times10^{-3} M_\odot$~pc$^{-3}$, $r_{-2}=16.8$~kpc, and $n=3/2$. The free parameters have been chosen to describe the typical properties of spiral galaxies \cite{2008AJ....136.2648D,2011AJ....142..109C}. This picture was taken from the original version in \cite{2015MNRAS.451..622R}.}\label{fig:1}
\end{figure}
Indeed, in figure~\ref{fig:1} a solution with $m\sim10$~keV$/c^2$ of the $C_V=0$ non-interacting model of \cite{2015MNRAS.451..622R}, is compared and contrasted with selected DM halo profiles used in the literature. In the sub-parsec core region and for core masses of $\sim 10^6 M_\odot$ typical of (Milky Way-like) galaxies, for an ino mass $\sim 10$~keV$/c^2$, the thermal de-Broglie wavelength, $\lambda_B=h/\sqrt{2\pi m k_B T}$, is larger than the inter-particle mean distance $l$ of the inos, justifying the quantum-statistical nature of the core. A degenerate core with a very low temperature was found in \cite{2015MNRAS.451..622R} to be compatible with the outer halo properties such as the halo radius, mass, and rotation curves of order $10^2~$km/s. In the Boltzmannian region, we have $\lambda_B/l\ll 1$ and, as shown in \cite{2015MNRAS.451..622R}, the specific value of the corresponding circular velocity in the flat region is intimately related to the temperature parameter, $\beta$.
We shall adopt here the ansatz that the self-interactions occur only in the quantum regime and thus within the core, where the thermal de-Broglie wavelength,
\begin{equation}
\lambda_B=\frac{h}{\sqrt{2\pi m k_B T}},
\end{equation}
is larger than the inter-particle mean distance $l$, i.e. $\lambda_B/l>1$. The reader should recall that at this quantum regime, two-particle interactions were predicted to be non-negligible~\cite{1978ApJ...225...83S}. To this end, we set:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:C}
C_V(r) =
\begin{cases}
C_0 & \quad {\rm at}\quad r<r_m\quad {\rm when}\quad \lambda_B/l>1\, , \\
0 & \quad {\rm at}\quad r\geqslant r_m\quad {\rm when}\quad \lambda_B/l<1\, ,
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $C_0$ is a positive constant and $r_m=r_c+\delta r$ is the core-halo matching point, with $r_c$ the core radius and $\delta r$ the thickness of the core-halo intermediate layer. As we shall show, $\delta r\ll r_c$, and thus the core-halo matching satisfies $r_m\approx r_c$. In the regime $r\geqslant r_m$, where the DM distribution is in a much more dilute state (i.e.~$\lambda_B/l\ll1$), there is the transition from the quantum degenerate state to the Boltzmannian one.
As we show below, the density profile obtained for the interacting case has a similar behavior, with the aforementioned three different regions, as the non-interactive case $C_V=0$ \cite{2015MNRAS.451..622R}. We normalize hereafter the coupling constant $C_0$, for the sake of reference, to the Fermi constant of the SM weak-interaction, i.e. we introduce the dimensionless constant $\overline{C}_0=C_0/G_F$. We define the SM Fermi constant only for normalization purposes, thus $C_0$ must not be thought as a fundamental interaction strength (i.e weak) of the SM. Indeed, the fact that the effective interactions considered here are mediated by a chargeless VM field playing the role of neutral-current interactions through the scattering channel, implies that the inos remain unaffected except for momentum transfer. Therefore, we here adopt a complete phenomenological analysis by studying the maximum possible range of effective interactions strengths which are in agreement with the Milky Way observables.
The mass $M_c$ of the degenerate quantum core must agree with the mass enclosed within the region bounded by the pericenter of the S2 star. At the same time, we use the pericenter of S2 as an upper limit to the core radius $r_{c(S2)}$, i.e. \cite{2008ApJ...689.1044G,2009ApJ...707L.114G}
\begin{equation}
M_c=4.4\times10^6\,M_\odot\, , \quad r_{c(S2)}=6\times10^{-4}\,{\rm pc}\, .
\label{eq:coreObs}
\end{equation}
There is an error of 8\% in the above value of $M_c$ due to the uncertainties in the measurement of the distance to the galactic center $R_0=8.33\pm 0.35$~kpc, while the error in the pericenter of the S2 star is of about 4\% \cite{2009ApJ...707L.114G}. The above parameters imply a central density of order $\sim10^{16} M_\odot/$pc$^3$, which is almost five orders of magnitude larger than the one obtained for the model without self-interactions \cite{2015MNRAS.451..622R} with the same core mass. It is important to make clear that any core radius $r_{\rm Sch}\lesssim r_c\lesssim r_{c(S2)}$ is accepted within our phenomenological treatment, implying central densities in the range $10^{16} M_\odot/$pc$^3\lesssim\rho_0\lesssim 10^{23} M_\odot/$pc$^3$, with $r_{\rm Sch}$ the Schwarschild radius of a black hole of $4.4\times10^6 M_\odot$. Indeed, as we show below, already for an ino mass $m\approx350$~keV/c$^2$ it is possible to obtain a critical core DM core of fully degenerate inos of mass $M_c=4.4\times10^6 M_\odot$ with a radius $r_c\approx 2.5 r_{\rm Sch}$. The critical objects are the last equilibrium configurations, just before undergoing gravitational collapse (see also Ref.~\cite{2014JKPS...65..809A}).
For the observables in the halo region we adopt the fitting procedure outlined in ref.~\cite{2009PASJ...61..153S}. According to that work, the DM best-fit distribution for the Milky Way is provided by the two-parameter Burkert profile with a specific central density parameter $\rho_B^0=2\times10^{-2} M_\odot/$pc$^3$, and a dark halo length scale parameter $h=10$~kpc. For our fermionic model, this corresponds to a halo radius $r_h$, defined at the maximum of the corresponding rotation curve at the onset of the flat behaviour, and leads to an associated halo velocity $v_h$ and mass $M_h$ given by (the reader is invited to observe the excellent matching between Burkert and fermionic profiles around $r_h$ in figure~\ref{fig:2}):
\begin{equation}\label{eq:haloObs}
r_h=32.4\, {\rm kpc}\, , v_h=155\, {\rm km/s}\, , M_h=1.75\times10^{11} M_\odot\, ,
\end{equation}
where the subscript $h$ indicates quantities at the halo radius. All the halo parameters are subject to an error of $\sim10\%$~\cite{2009PASJ...61..153S}. The above value of the circular velocity determinates the value of the temperature parameter at the halo, $\beta_0^h$. For these parameters, we obtain $\beta_0^h=1.065\times10^{-7}$.
We discuss now the core-halo transition. There, the generalized Tolman and Klein equilibrium conditions have to be fulfilled. The Tolman's condition together with the condition imposed by the continuity of the spacetime metric, lead to the continuity of the temperature parameter $\beta(r_m)=\beta_0^h$. Now, from the Klein's condition we can obtain the jump in the degeneracy parameter at the matching point $r_m$, where the (diluted) halo region begins:
\begin{eqnarray}
&\theta(r_m)=\theta_0^h - \frac{C_0 n(r_m)}{m\beta_0^h}\,,\\
&n(r_m)=\frac{\sqrt{2}m^3(\beta_0^h)^{3/2}}{\pi^2}(F_{1/2}+\beta_0^h F_{3/2})\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\theta_0^h$ is the value of $\theta$ from the halo side, and the generalized Fermi-Dirac integrals are evaluated at $r_m$: $F_j=\int_0^\infty dx \, x^j\, (1+\beta_0^h x/2)^{1/2}/[1+e^{x-\theta(r_m)}]$.
\subsection{Other galactic structures: large elliptical galaxies}
In analogy with the Milky Way case, we now apply our SIDM model to other galactic structures, such as large spiral and elliptical galaxies, where clear evidence exists for massive BH-like structures at their centre, together with a DM halo counterpart.
In order to give a \textit{universal} explanation for the galactic DM in terms of an ino mass and an interaction constant (or cross-section), we next apply our theory to larger galaxies for $m=47$~keV, and give the possible values of $C_V$ (\ref{cv}) in agreement with the different galaxy observables. We proceed with two different kinds of typical elliptical galaxies each harboring a different characteristic dark massive object at the center:
\begin{eqnarray}
\centering
& (i) & \qquad M_c=2.3\times10^8 M_\odot\, \qquad \rm{Elliptical} \label{eq:coreObsE},\nonumber\\
& (ii) &\qquad M_c=1.8\times10^9 M_\odot\, \qquad \rm{Large\,\, Elliptical},\label{example}
\end{eqnarray}
both contained within sub-pc scales \cite{2013degn.book.....M}. Notice that the above cases are representative examples and other intermediate cases between normal spiral galaxies and the large elliptical ones are also contained among the possible solutions of our model (see section \ref{sec:3.2}), but are not given explicitly here for the sake of brevity.~\footnote{Regarding the applicability of our approach to dwarf galaxies, we remark that the rather low central degeneracy values in the phase-space distribution of these systems~\cite{2015MNRAS.451..622R} lead to not very massive cores, therefore not exhibiting massive BH-like features (i.e. with masses $M_c\lesssim 10^4 M_\odot$ for $m\sim 10^1$~keV). Hence, they do not seem to constitute interesting cases for a detailed study of the effects of self-interacting DM.}
The halo parameters are chosen from the observationally inferred correlation between central mass concentrations and dark halo masses ($M_c$-$M_h$) as obtained in \cite{2002ApJ...578...90F} (see figure 5 there). This is in analogy with the study of \cite{2015MNRAS.451..622R}, but in our SIDM case we do reach the upper end of the correlation. Thus, typically, we should have
\begin{eqnarray}
\centering
& (i) &\qquad M_h=4.1\times10^{12} M_\odot\,, \qquad r_h=60\, {\rm kpc}\, ,\qquad \rm{Elliptical},\\
& (ii) & \qquad M_h=1.1\times10^{13} M_\odot\,, \qquad r_h=85\, {\rm kpc}\, \qquad \rm{Large\,\, Elliptical}.
\label{eq:haloObsE}
\end{eqnarray}
The values given above were considered at the one-halo scale-length of our model $r_h$ (located at the maximum of the halo rotation curve), which is similar to the NFW halo scale-length $r_s$ ($r_h\approx r_s/0.6$), where the halo mass was originally obtained in \cite{2002ApJ...578...90F}. These halo magnitudes, combined with
the DM halo morphology of our model, imply typical halo velocities of $v_h=540$~km/s in case (i), and $v_h=730$~km/s in case (ii). With these values, we finally obtain (analogously as done for the Milky Way in appendix~\ref{app:A}) the following temperature parameters at the halo: $\beta_0^h=1.3\times10^{-6}$, $\beta_0^h=2.4\times10^{-6}$ for (i) and (ii) respectively. The parameters of the model to be used for solving the above boundary conditions, are as follows: we keep the ansatz (\ref{eq:C}) for the interaction constant, while we set $m=47$~keV.
\subsection{Novel DM mass constraints}\label{sec:3.2}
Following the above procedure, we summarize in table~\ref{table:5.2} the solution of the boundary-value problem which fulfills the core and halo observables from Milky Way (\ref{eq:coreObs}),(\ref{eq:haloObs}), and Elliptical and large elliptical galaxies (\ref{eq:coreObsE})--(\ref{eq:haloObsE}) respectively. The calculations were done for the maximum allowed possible range of the interaction constant $\overline{C}_0$, central degeneracy $\theta_0$ and ino mass $m$. Even if the upper limit in the sterile neutrino mass ($m\lesssim 50$~keV$/c^2$) is imposed by cosmological and astrophysical constraints under the assumption of mixing with the SM sector (\emph{cf}. figure~\ref{fig:DMsterile}), we also explore larger (phenomenologically) values of the ino mass, which is possible for sterile neutrinos that do not interact
or have negilgible interactions through a Higgs portal
with the \textit{active} sector.
\begin{table*
\centering
\begin{tabular}{@{}c|c|c|c|c|c|c@{}}
\hline
\multicolumn{7}{c} {Milky Way ($M_c=4.4\times10^6 M_\odot$)} \\
\hline
$m$ (keV) & $\overline{C}_0$ & $\theta_0$ & $\beta_0$ & $r_c$ (pc) & $\delta r$ (pc) & $\theta(r_m)$\\
\hline
47 & 2 & $3.70\times10^3$ & $1.065\times10^{-7}$ & $6.2\times10^{-4}$ & $2.1\times10^{-4}$ & -29.3 \\
& $10^{14}$ & $3.63\times10^3$ & $1.065\times10^{-7}$ & $6.2\times10^{-4}$ & $2.2\times10^{-4}$ & -29.3 \\
& $10^{16}$ & $2.8\times10^3$ & $1.065\times10^{-7}$ & $6.3\times10^{-4}$ & $2.4\times10^{-4}$ & -29.3 \\
\hline
350 & 1 & $2.40\times10^6\,^{(\dag)}$ & $1.431\times10^{-7}$ & $1.3\times10^{-6}$ & $6.7\times10^{-7}$ & -37.3 \\
& $10^{14}$ & $1.27\times10^5$ & $1.104\times10^{-7}$ & $5.9\times10^{-6}$ & $9.4\times10^{-7}$ & -37.3 \\
& $4.5\times10^{18}$ & $1.7\times10^1$ & $1.065\times10^{-7}$ & $5.9\times10^{-4}$ & $2.0\times10^{-4}$ & -37.3\\
\hline
\multicolumn{7}{c} {Elliptical ($M_c^{cr}=2.3\times10^8 M_\odot$)} \\
\hline
47 & 2 & $1.76\times10^5\,^{(\dag)}$ & $1.7\times10^{-6}$ & $7.9\times10^{-5}$ & $3.9\times10^{-5}$ & -31.8 \\
& $10^{14}$ & $5.8\times10^4$ & $1.4\times10^{-6}$ & $1.4\times10^{-4}$ & $4.8\times10^{-5}$ & -31.8 \\
& $10^{16}$ & $1.5\times10^4$ & $1.3\times10^{-6}$ & $3.0\times10^{-4}$ & $7.0\times10^{-5}$ & -31.8 \\
\hline
\multicolumn{7}{c} {Large Elliptical ($M_c=1.8\times10^9 M_\odot$)} \\
\hline
47 & $10^{16}$ & $1.02\times10^4$ & $3.0\times10^{-6}$ & $3.8\times10^{-4}$ & $1.8\times10^{-5}$ & -32.8 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Set of model parameters for three different galaxy types analyzed that solve the corresponding boundary-value problem imposed by the given galaxy observables, from spiral (Milky Way) to large elliptical galaxies.$^{(\dag)}$ Critical central degeneracy parameters ($\theta_0^{cr}$), associated with the \textit{turning point} or last stable equilibrium solution \cite{2014JKPS...65..809A}.}
\label{table:5.2}
\end{table*}
Two important conclusions can be drawn from the numerical analysis presented in Table~\ref{table:5.2}:
I) For $m<47$~keV$/c^2$ and $m>350$~keV$/c^2$ there is no pair of parameters ($\overline{C}_0,\theta_0$) able to be in agreement with the Milky Way observables. While $m=47$~keV$/c^2$ is the lowest admissible particle mass up to which the core observational constraints are fulfilled (within observational errors), $m=350$~keV$/c^2$ is the uppermost bound set by the reaching of the critical core mass for gravitational collapse \cite{2014JKPS...65..809A}, $M_c^{cr}\propto M_{pl}^3/m^2\approx 4.4\times10^6 M_\odot$, where $M_{pl}$ is the Planck mass. For $m=47$~keV, one reaches the critical mass $M_c^{cr}\sim10^8 M_\odot$ corresponding to a massive BH alternative for elliptical galaxies (when $\mathcal{P}_V<\mathcal{P}_\mathcal{C}$); but it is also possible to reach core mass values as large as $M_c\sim 10^9 M_\odot$ (when $\mathcal{P}_V\sim\mathcal{P}_\mathcal{C}$), and applicable to massive BH alternatives in large elliptical galaxies. In the latter case the quantum core can reach radii as small as $r_c\approx 2 r_{\rm Sch}$ (see last line in table~\ref{table:5.2}), developing interior sound-wave speeds as large as $5 \%$ of the speed of light.
It is worth to notice that for all the galaxy types analyzed, there is a \textit{common window} of interaction coupling constant parameters ($\overline{C}_0$), the value $\overline{C}_0=10^{16}$ constitutes a very interesting case, allowing for a successful \textit{universal} application of the model all the way from spiral to large elliptical galaxies.\footnote{If, instead, the interaction constant is forced to agree with the N-body simulation results for the total DM cross-section (i.e. $\overline{C}_0=7\times10^{8}$ for $m=47$~keV, as detailed in section \ref{sec:3.3}), then the applicability of our model is reduced up to elliptical galaxies with dark compact cores of $\sim2\times10^8 M_\odot$.}
II) As the value of the coupling constant $\overline{C}_0$ increases from unity, the contribution to the total energy and pressure from the meson-vector field ($\sim C_0 n^2$) becomes more and more relevant. For instance, as can be seen in table \ref{table:5.2} in the Milky Way case, for $\overline{C}_0\sim10^{14}$ and for $m=47$~keV, a slightly lower value for the central degeneracy is needed to have the same core mass as compared with the $\overline{C}_0\sim 1$ regime. In other words, if the same central degeneracy as in the former $\overline{C}_0\sim1$ case is used, an increase of $\sim$~few $\%$ in the core mass $M_c$ would appear. For this lower ino mass bound, the self-interactions cannot exceed $\overline{C}_0\sim10^{16}$, because otherwise the now lower central degeneracy needed to compensate for the core mass, would be too low to fulfill with the upper core radius constraint $r_{c(S2)}$. More evident is the case when the ino mass reaches $m=350$~keV$/c^2$, where the highest interaction regime $\overline{C}_0\sim10^{18}$ fulfilling the core radius and mass, is reached at a central degeneracy about two orders of magnitude lower with respect to the $\overline{C}_0=1$ case.
\subsection{Cross-section constraints}\label{sec:3.3}
It is possible to establish, within our theoretical approach, a direct link between the total cross-section $\sigma$ and the interaction strength $C_0=(g_V/m_V)^2$. This will allow us to compare our results with the ones given in the literature, regarding
the total cross-section per DM mass, $\sigma/m$. To this end, we shall consider a four-fermion (elastic) scattering for the inos, with a massive-vector boson $V^\mu$ as mediator field.
The total cross-section in the center-of-mass (CoM) system for two incident right-handed Majorana neutrinos $N_{R\,1}$ with four-momentum ($p_i=(E,\bf{p_i})$), $i=1,2$, (with $E^2=p^2+m^2$) which collide through an elastic scattering picture, and produce two final identical particles with momentum ($p'_i=(E',\bf{p'_i=p_i})$), $i=1,2$ ($E'=E$) is given by (see appendix~\ref{app:B} for details)
\begin{equation}
\sigma^{tot}_{CoM}=\left(\frac{g_V}{m_V}\right)^4\frac{1}{4^3\pi^2}[29m^2+89p^2+89/3\frac{p^4}{p^2+m^2}]\, .
\label{eq:totalsigma}
\end{equation}
where we have used $\theta_{W}'=0$ since we only have one massive-vector mediator.
We now calculate the total $N_{R\,1}$-$N_{R\,1}$ scattering cross-section in the quantum core of the Galaxy. For this we use the following approximations leading to a simplified version of eqn.~(\ref{eq:totalsigma}). In a typical quantum-core (non-relativistic) one-particle momentum $p$ is given the Fermi momentum (at the core of the configuration) $p\sim p_F=(3\pi^2\hbar^3\rho_c/m)^{1/3}$. For typical core densities used in this work, $\rho_c\sim10^{16-23} M_\odot/pc^3$, and $m=47$--$350$ keV, which leads directly to the following `low-energy limit' $p^2\ll m^2$ for our particles. This is the opposite with what one generally finds in laboratory collision-particle experiments (i.e a `high-energy limit'), which is easily understood because the sterile neutrinos are in a very low temperature, and a high degenerate regime in the core. With all this, equation (\ref{eq:19}) reads
\begin{equation}
\sigma^{tot}_{core}\approx\frac{(g_V/m_V)^4}{4^3\pi}29m^2 \qquad (p^2/m^2\ll 1)\, .
\label{eq:20}
\end{equation}
Equation (\ref{eq:20}) links the (dimensionless) interaction constant of our inos (expressed relative to the (weak interactions) Fermi constant $G_F=1.166\times10^{-5}$~GeV$^{-2}$), (cf. (\ref{cv})),
\begin{equation}\label{cv2}
\overline{C}_V=\left(\frac{g_V}{m_V}\right)^2 G_F^{-1},
\end{equation}
with the total cross-section and the particle mass. Thus, if we constrain the total cross-section to the N-body simulation value $\sigma^{tot}/m=0.1$~cm$^2$/g \cite{2013MNRAS.430...81R}, our coupling constant $\overline{C}_V$ would be constrained to the value
\begin{eqnarray}
\overline{C}_V\in (2.6\times10^8,7\times10^8),
\end{eqnarray}
for ino masses in the range $m\in(47,350)$~keV. It worths noticing that for $C_V\sim 10^8 G_F$, the mass of the massive-vector meson would be constrained to values $m_V\lesssim 3\times 10^4$~keV, in order to satisfy $g_V\lesssim 1$ as requested by the self-consistency of the perturbation scheme we have applied to compute the cross-section.
We can further try to get an absolute lower bound for $C_V$. Interestingly, it can be obtained by answering the question as to which physical conditions need to be fulfilled by the keV particles in the galaxy for a self-interacting DM regime to appear. A conservative answer one might give is that $\sigma$ should be large enough so that a scattering probability among the inos should occur at least once during the age of the galaxy ($t_{age}$), that is, the product of the scattering-rate per particle ($\Upsilon$) times $t_{age}$ be larger than unity: $\Upsilon t_{age}\gtrsim 1$. For this we first calculate $\Upsilon$, which is linked to the cross-section $\sigma$ via \cite{1990eaun.book.....K}
\begin{equation}
\Upsilon=\sigma |v_{rel}| n,
\label{eq:scattrate}
\end{equation}
where $v_{rel}$ is the relative velocity of the interacting inos and $n$ the particle number density. The above formula can be written as an \textit{order of magnitude} expression as follows: $\Upsilon\sim \sigma/m^2 \,p\, \rho_0 $, with $p$ a typical momentum of the inos in the quantum core (i.e. $p\equiv p_F$) and $\rho_0$ the central density (valid in the low energy regime approximation). Then, by assuming typically $t_{age}\sim 10^{16}$~s (i.e. redshift $z\sim10$ at galaxy formation epochs), one obtains, for $m=47$~keV and $\rho_0\sim10^{16} M_\odot$/pc$^3$ (as for the Milky Way case, see table \ref{table:5.2}):
\begin{equation}
\sigma/m \gtrsim 10^{-18} \rm{cm}^2/\rm{g} \, ,
\end{equation}
directly implying from our cross-section formula within the low energy approximation (\ref{eq:20}), that $C_V \gtrsim 2 G_F$, that is the interaction strength can never be smaller than the weak interaction Fermi coupling.
\section{Discussion} \label{sec:out}
It is interesting to notice that the degenerate $\sim 10^1$~keV fermion core can reach core radii small enough to be suitable for the SgrA* observational constraints, as well as to reach BH-like compactness as in the case of larger elliptical galaxies. This alternative approach acquires special interest for ongoing and future observational campaigns (e.g. the BlackHole-Cam project\footnote{http://horizon-magazine.eu/space}), which would allow to verify the general relativistic effects expected in the surroundings of the central compact source in SgrA*; leading to a deeper scrutiny for the not-yet confirmed black hole hypothesis.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.49\hsize,clip]{rhoI3MW}
\includegraphics[width=.49\hsize,clip]{thetaI3MW}
\caption{\emph{Left}: mass density profiles for $m=47$~keV$/c^2$ in the interaction regime $\overline{C}_0=10^{16}$ where core and halo Milky Way observational constraints (\ref{eq:coreObs}--\ref{eq:haloObs}) are fulfilled, compared with the non-interacting case ($\overline{C}_0=0$) for the same ino mass in disagreement with the core observables. We also show for comparison the two parametric Burkert profile $\rho_B/[(1+r/h)(1+(r/h)^2)]$ with $\rho_B=2\times10^{-2} M_\odot/pc^3$ and $h=$10~kpc, which is the best DM halo fit of the Milky Way according to \citep{2009PASJ...61..153S}. \emph{Right}: degeneracy parameter profile in the interaction regime $\overline{C}_0=10^{16}$ for the same ino mass as in the Left panel.}\label{fig:2}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.49\hsize,clip]{rhoIM87like}
\includegraphics[width=.49\hsize,clip]{thetaIM87like}
\caption{\emph{Left}: mass density profiles for $m=47$~keV$/c^2$ in the same interaction regime as in figure~\ref{fig:2}, where the large elliptical core and halo observational constraints (\ref{eq:coreObsE}--\ref{eq:haloObsE}) are fulfilled. We also show for comparison the two-parameter Logaritmic profile $\rho_0^h[1+1/3(r/r_c^h)^2]/[1+(r/r_c^h)^2]^2$ with $\rho_0^h=2.0\times10^{-2} M_\odot/pc^3$ and $r_c^h=35$~kpc ($r_h\approx 2.4 r_c^h$), usually used in typical large elliptical galaxies~\citep{2011ApJ...729..129M}. \emph{Right}: degeneracy parameter profile in the interaction regime $\overline{C}_0=10^{16}$ for the same ino mass as in the left panel. Notice that the small bump in $\theta(r)$ around $r=r_c$ is absence in the non-interacting case, and thus it is originated from the presence of the meson-field in the system of equations (\ref{eq:eq1}--\ref{eq:tolman2})}.\label{fig:3}
\end{figure*}
In figures~\ref{fig:2} and \ref{fig:3} we show, for comparison, the overall density distribution $\rho(r)$ corresponding to the Milky Way and a large elliptical galaxy respectively, for a common self-interaction constant. For the Milky Way we show as well the $\rho(r)$ profile in the non-interacting case for the same ino mass $m=47$~keV$/c^2$. This comparison shows that, while in the non-interacting case ($\overline{C}_0=0$) the core observables (\ref{eq:coreObs}) \textit{are not} fulfilled, the presence of self-interactions allows to have higher degenerate cores satisfying both the core and halo Milky Way observables (\ref{eq:coreObs}--\ref{eq:haloObs}). It is important to notice that the density profile in the observationally well constrained halo region of figure~\ref{fig:2}, coincides with the one obtained in ref.~\cite{2015MNRAS.451..622R} in the absence of self-interactions for the same ino mass, and are in good agreement with the Burkert profile, best DM halo fit for the Milky Way, as shown in \cite{2009PASJ...61..153S}.
At this juncture we should point out that in our analysis above we did not discuss explicitly the r\^ole of baryonic matter, which of course is mainly concentrated through the central bulge and disk regions of galaxies. Its inclusion does not change the important conclusions of our work that the introduction of WDM fermion self interactions affects the core/halo structure and in particular induces higher central degeneracies and higher compactness of the inner quantum core. The key result presented here as well as in \cite{2015MNRAS.451..622R} is that the DM contribution is predominant in the inner core (below sub-pc scales), and in the halo region at the onset of the flat part of the given rotation curve; while in between baryonic matter prevails. Indeed, we can see from figure~\ref{fig:2} (left panel) that for the Milky Way, our model correctly predicts both the value and flattening of the circular velocity at distances $r\gtrsim 10$~kpc. A more complete quantitative analysis, including baryonic matter, is left for a future work.
We would also like to make one last, but not least, observation regarding the range of the self-interacting ino masses, $m \ge$ 47 ~keV/$c^2$. If we identify the inos with the (lightest) right-handed neutrino of the $\nu$MSM model~\cite{2005PhLB..631..151A,2009PThPh.122..185S,2009ARNPS..59..191B}, then the latter must have a very weak mixing angle with the SM lepton sector, and its mass must be less than 50~keV/$c^2$, otherwise the model would not be consistent with the current phenomenology, as can be seen from figure \ref{fig:DMsterile}. The above considerations, then, leave a very narrow range of the self-interacting `ino' mass $47 \le m \le 50$~keV/$c^2$, for the right-handed neutrino to play both a r\^ole as a WDM candidate and a provider of a core-halo galactic structure in accordance to observation. Such constraints are of course alleviated if any mixing of the ino with the standard model sector is avoided, as done in the current article. Nevertheless, we find quite intriguing the fact that, starting from two entirely different approaches, one from particle physics, and the other from pure galactic astrophysics, one finds a consistent regime of `ino' masses within the WDM range. We believe that this is not a coincidence, and the aim of the current paper was to alert readers from these different communities to this important fact.
Finally, before closing, it is appropriate, as announced in the introduction of the article, to place our fermionic keV DM approach in context with the current state of affairs of cosmological DM and structure formation and some of the important open issues still faced by
the $\Lambda$CDM cosmology~\cite{2009NJPh...11j5029P}, such as: (i) the core-cusp problem~\cite{2010AdAst2010E...5D}, (ii) the ``lost satellite'' problem~\cite{2011PhRvD..83d3506P} and (iii) the, so-called, ``too big to fail'' problem~\cite{2011MNRAS.415L..40B,2012MNRAS.422.1203B}, the latter being a discrepancy between the most massive subhaloes arising within CDM and the dynamics of the brightest dSph galaxies of the Milky Way. All these problems have their root in the fact that cold DM particles have too short free streaming length during the epochs of galaxy formation, and therefore they form too clumped and too many structures than those observed.
Our model provides a natural solution for (i) because the density profiles based on fermionic phase-space distributions develop always an extended plateau on halo scales (starting after the quantum core), in a way that resemble Burkert or cored Einasto profiles~\cite{2015MNRAS.451..622R} (see figures~\ref{fig:1} and \ref{fig:2}). Regarding the issues (ii) and (iii), it is important to bear in mind that our model does not directly deal with structure formation mechanisms, nor has employed (as yet) numerical simulations at such scales, and hence we are not in a position to make any concrete statement on these two issues. Nevertheless, for particle masses in the \emph{few} $10^{1-2}$ keV range as obtained here, it has been extensively shown by now that the behaviour in the power spectrum (up to $\sim $ Mpc scales) is practically indistinguishable from that of standard CDM particles \cite{2009ARNPS..59..191B}, thus maintaining the expected results from large-scale structure observations. There are issues, such as re-ionization, that we have still not examined, and thus at this stage we cannot make any concrete statements as to how much our model provides a substitute for CDM, although several of its features, as we have explained above, are indistinguishable from it. In fact, it may well be that there exist more than one DM species in the universe, and in this respect, our self interacting warm (right-handed neutr)``inos'' play an important r\^ole in the galactic-core structure, which was analyzed above, but a complete explanation/resolution of the large-scale structure problem in the cosmos may require synergies among different DM species, including CDM and WDM. More work is needed to arrive at firm conclusions in these matters.
In this respect we mention for completeness that several proposals have been made recently towards a resolution of these issues within standard $\Lambda$CDM N-body simulations, including the self-interacting DM approach of \cite{2013MNRAS.430...81R}, as well as baryonic feedback processes~\cite{2012MNRAS.422.1231G,2013MNRAS.433.3539G}. Moreover, within the realm of (Newtonian) N-body simulations, $\Lambda$WDM cosmologies based on particles of \emph{few} keV have been developed to tackle the aforementioned $\Lambda$CDM discrepancies (i)-(iii)~\cite{2012MNRAS.420.2318L,2014MNRAS.439..300L}. Particles with such a small mass can suppress structure formation on small scales, due to their larger free streaming length caused by appreciable thermal velocities. Nevertheless, the fact that recent observations suggest that the number of Milky Way satellites is an order of magnitude greater than that predicted by WDM numerical simulations, casts doubts for the \emph{few} keV WDM scenario \cite{2008ApJ...688..277T}. Moreover, such light ($1-3$~keV) particles are also in strong tension with actual lower keV bounds set by current Ly-$\alpha$ forest constraints~\cite{2009PhRvL.102t1304B,2013PhRvD..88d3502V}.
All these issues present serious challenges for N-body simulation-based cosmologies (i.e $\Lambda$WDM in this case), associated with the `too warm' nature of the particles involved. Interestingly, the fact that the particle mass in our model is `colder' by a few keV compared to those WDM models, implies that our model does not suffer from such standard WDM problems. This, together with the fact that the model tackled successfully the important core-cusp discrepancy, as mentioned above, and that it avoids several of the undesired halo features characterizing the $\Lambda$CDM paradigm, offers significant support to the idea that our self-interacting model of right-handed neutrinos provides a physically important DM species, which may co-exist harmonically with other DM structures in the universe. In this respect, we believe that complementary searches for such keV right-handed neutrinos, either in neutrino oscillation experiments or elsewhere, are important.
\acknowledgments
The work of N.E.M. is supported in part by the London Centre for Terauniverse Studies (LCTS), using funding from the European Research Council via
the Advanced Investigator Grant 267352 and by STFC (UK) under the research grant ST/L000326/1. C.R.A and J.A.R are supported by the International Center for Relativistic Astrophysics Network (ICRANet). C.R.A also acknowledges the support from CONICET-Argentina. J.A.R acknowledges support from the International Cooperation Program CAPES-ICRANet financed by CAPES-Brazilian Federal Agency for Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education within the Ministry of Education of Brazil.
|
\section{Introduction}
\lettrine[lines=2]{C}{hemical} Reaction Optimization (CRO) \cite{LamLi2010ChemicalReactionInspired} is a recently proposed population-based general-purpose metaheuristic optimization method. CRO mimics the interactions and transformations of the reactant molecules in chemical reactions to search for global optimums \cite{LamLi2012ChemicalReactionOptimization:}. CRO was designed as a general framework for optimization, and it was initially proposed to solve combinatorial optimization problems \cite{LamLi2010ChemicalReactionInspired}. It has been applied to solve a wide range of classical and real-world discrete problems, e.g. Quadratic Assignment Problem \cite{LamLi2010ChemicalReactionInspired}, Sensor Deployment Problem \cite{YuLiLam2012SensorDeploymentAir}, and Unit Commitment Problem \cite{YuLiLam2013OptimalV2GScheduling}. CRO demonstrated outstanding performance in these problems and was shown to be both effective and efficient in solving similar combinatorial problems.
Based on the CRO optimization framework, Lam \textit{et al.} proposed a variant of CRO, named Real-Coded Chemical Reaction Optimization (RCCRO), to solve continuous optimization problems \cite{LamLiYu2012RealCodedChemical}. RCCRO has four different operators for the elementary reactions to facilitate the optimization process (the details will be introduced in Section \ref{sec:CRO}). The encoding scheme, boundary handling scheme, and other ancillary schemes were also devised. RCCRO has also been applied to solve different benchmark and real-world problems, e.g. training artificial neural networks \cite{YuLamLi2011EvolutionaryArtificialNeural}, Optimal Power Flow problem \cite{SunLamLiXuYu2012ChemicalReactionOptimization}, and Cognitive Spectrum Allocation problem \cite{LamLiYu2013PowerControlledCognitive}. We also conducted research on exploring the nature of different operators in RCCRO. In our previous work, we attempted to use different probability distribution function to replace the Normal distribution adopted to perform neighborhood search \cite{YuLamLi2012RealcodedChemical}, and the results show no significant preference over the four distributions studied.
In the canonical design of RCCRO, the inter-molecular ineffective collision operator is largely similar to having two on-wall ineffective collisions occurring simultaneously, and the only difference between inter-molecular and on-wall ineffective collisions is their different energy handling schemes. This design can significantly alleviate the implementation effort as the neighborhood search operator, i.e. on-wall ineffective collision operator, is re-used. However, a potential drawback of this implementation is that the functionalities of these two elementary reactions overlap, which may lead to wasting the limited function evaluations. Moreover, the neighborhood search operator in the canonical RCCRO alters the value of one dimension of the input solution, which can effectively solve problems with minimal inter-dimensional correlation. But it is not efficient at solving problems with strong inter-dimensional correlation such as rotated functions. In order to resolve these drawbacks, this paper focuses on proposing new operators and schemes based on the canonical RCCRO framework.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. We introduce the canonical design of the CRO framework and the RCCRO design in Section \ref{sec:CRO}. The newly proposed inter-molecular ineffective collision operator and the adaptive collision scheme is presented in Section \ref{sec:CROAC}. Section \ref{sec:expsim} introduces the experimental setting we employed to analyze the performance of our algorithm as well as the simulation results and discussions. Finally this paper is concluded in Section \ref{sec:conclusion} with some potential future research.
\section{Chemical Reaction Optimization Framework} \label{sec:CRO}
In this section we will introduce the general framework of the canonical CRO and some implementation details of RCCRO. We will use CRO to refer to both CRO and RCCRO hereafter.
\subsection{Molecule}
Molecules are the basic operating agents of CRO. In CRO, each optimization task is considered as a chemical reaction occurring in a closed container with a population of molecules and an energy buffer. The molecules in the container move and collide with the wall or with other molecules. With the collisions, the properties of molecules involved are changed, allowing the algorithm to explore the solution space. Each molecule possesses the following attributes:
\begin{itemize}
\item A molecular structure refers to a feasible solution of the problem to be optimized. Each molecule possesses one molecular structure, which is modified by different operators invoked in the elementary reactions.
\item Potential Energy (PE) stands for the quality of the solution held by the molecule. In terms of optimization, PE is equivalent to the fitness value of the solution.
\item Kinetic Energy (KE) stands for the tolerance of the molecule to accept a worse molecular structure compared to the current one in terms of the solution quality. A larger KE means that the molecule can accept a much worse molecular structure than those molecules with less KE values.
\end{itemize}
Besides these properties, the molecules can also hold some other attributes to suit different optimization problems. The implementation of these attributes can be problem-independent.
\subsection{Elementary Reactions}
In CRO, the optimization task, i.e. the chemical reaction, is tackled by four kinds of elementary reactions, including on-wall ineffective collision (\textit{Onwall}), decomposition (\textit{Dec}), inter-molecular ineffective collision (\textit{Inter}), and synthesis (\textit{Syn}). They occur sequentially and randomly to manipulate the structures of the molecules involved. Among them, \textit{Onwall} and \textit{Dec} takes one molecule as input while \textit{Inter} and \textit{Syn} takes two molecules. \textit{Onwall} and \textit{Syn} output one molecule based on the input molecule(s), while \textit{Dec} and \textit{Inter} output two molecules. Thus \textit{Dec} and \textit{Syn} can alter the total population size. This dynamic population size property is a feature that distinguishes CRO from other metaheuristics.
\subsubsection{Neighborhood Search Operator}
In the canonical design of CRO, we use this neighborhood search operator as the basic molecular structure manipulatimg operator \cite{LamLi2012ChemicalReactionOptimization:}. It is employed in \textit{Onwall}, \textit{Dec}, and \textit{Inter}. This operator modifies one molecular structure using Gaussian perturbation value. Assume that the original molecular structure is $\omega$, and the newly generated molecular structure is $\omega^\prime$. We first randomly choose a dimension $i$ of $\omega$ to modify. Then a random number $\epsilon$ is generated from a zero-mean Normal distribution whose variance is a user-defined parameter $\textit{stepSize}$. Then the new molecular structure is generated by
\begin{equation}
\omega^\prime_i = \omega_i + \epsilon
\end{equation}
where $\omega_i$ stands for the $i$-th dimension of the molecular structure $\omega$.
\subsubsection{Elementary Reaction Operators}
Based on the neighborhood search operator, we further designed the four elementary reaction operators. The detailed implementations are elaborated as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item An \textit{Onwall} occurs when a molecule collides with the container and bounce back. During this elementary reaction, the structure of the involved molecule is manipulated using the neighborhood operator. The main purpose of this elementary reaction is to perform local search.
\item A \textit{Dec} occurs when a molecule collides with the container and breaks into two new molecules. During this elementary reaction, the structure of the input molecule is copied to the two new molecules. Then the new molecules go through a number of independent neighborhood operators. The main purpose of this elementary reaction is to jump out of local optimum.
\item An \textit{Inter} occurs when two molecules collide with each other and bounce back. In the canonical implementation of CRO, this elementary reaction is considered to be two \textit{onwalls} occurring simultaneously. The main purpose of this elementary reaction is also to perform local search.
\item A \textit{Syn} occurs when two molecules collide and merge into one new molecule. The detailed implementation of this elementary reaction can be found in \cite{LamLi2012ChemicalReactionOptimization:}. The main purpose of this elementary reaction is to maintain the population diversity \cite{YuLamLi2012RealcodedChemical}.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Searching Pattern}
CRO is composed of three phases: initialization, iteration, and the final phase. In initialization, all algorithm parameters are initialized, and the initial population is randomly generated. Then in the iteration phase, the algorithm manipulates the molecules to search for the global optimum in an iterative manner. In each iteration one elementary reaction is selected and conducted. This selection is controlled by the algorithm optimization parameters using a pre-defined deterministic scheme \cite{LamLi2012ChemicalReactionOptimization:}. After the elementary reaction is selected, a corresponding number of molecules are randomly picked to participate in the reaction. These molecules are then manipulated and go through an energy check to determine whether the reaction succeeds or not, i.e. whether the changes are adopted. The energy check is elaborated in \cite{LamLi2010ChemicalReactionInspired} and \cite{LamLiYu2012RealCodedChemical}, and the underlying concept is the conservation of energy. This phase iterates until the stopping criterion is met. Then the algorithm proceeds to the final phase and the optimum results are output. Interested readers can refer to \cite{LamLi2010ChemicalReactionInspired}, \cite{LamLi2012ChemicalReactionOptimization:}, and \cite{LamLiYu2012RealCodedChemical} for elaboration of the algorithm and its pseudocode.
\section{Chemical Reaction Optimization with Adaptive Collision} \label{sec:CROAC}
In this section we will elaborate our proposed inter-molecular adaptive collision scheme, which is composed of a new inter-molecular ineffective operator and an adaptive collision scheme. We call this algorithm CRO with Adaptive Collision (CRO/AC). In all discussions hereafter, without loss of generality, we only consider minimization problems.
\subsection{Inter-molecular Ineffective Collision Operator}
In the canonical design of CRO, the inter-molecular ineffective collision is considered to be two on-wall ineffective collisions occurring simultaneously. However, this implementation renders the effects of these two operators overlapping. So we propose a new \textit{Inter} operator to overcome this drawback.
When an \textit{Inter} takes place, two molecules are randomly selected from the current population to participate in the elementary reaction. Instead of conducting neighborhood operators on them as in canonical CRO, we first check their PE values, i.e. the fitness values of the solutions they hold. We use $\omega_s$ to denote the molecular structure of the molecule with a larger PE value, and $\omega_t$ to denote the one with a smaller PE value. This implies that $\omega_t$ is better than $\omega_s$ in terms of the solution quality.
After the two molecules are examined, we use a two-step approach to modify their structures. In the first step, we change $\omega_s$ to make it more similar to $\omega_t$. This can be accomplished by using the following:
\begin{equation}
\omega^\prime_{s,i} = (\omega_{t,i} - \omega_{s,i}) \times r_i + \omega_{s,i},
\end{equation}
where $\omega_{s,i}$ stands for the value of $i$-th dimension of $\omega_s$, $\omega^\prime_{s,i}$ stands for the newly generated structure for $\omega_s$, and $r_i$ is a random number uniformly generated in $[0,1)$. In this step, the random number $r_i$ is independently generated for each dimension.
The second step is to change $\omega_t$ to make it less similar to $\omega^\prime_s$, accomplished by:
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:interstep2}
\omega^\prime_{t,i} = (\omega_{t,i} - \omega^\prime_{s,i}) \times r_i + \omega_{t,i}.
\end{equation}
The purpose of this design is to avoid pre-mature convergence and maintain the population density. The first step significantly reduces the population density, which may lead to pre-mature convergence. This second step increases the density by a small margin, and acts as a counter-measure of getting stuck in local optimums. We will demonstrate the necessity of this step in Section \ref{sec:expsim}.
The remaining parts of the \textit{Inter} operator are unchanged. The new molecules will go through the energy conservation test to check whether this \textit{Inter} is deemed successful or not. If so, the changes made on these molecules, including molecular structures and molecule properties, are accepted. Otherwise these molecules remain unchanged. This ends an \textit{Inter} elementary reaction for CRO.
\subsection{Adaptive Collision Scheme}
One main difference of our proposed \textit{Inter} operator and the canonical design is that our operator can update the values of multiple dimensions in a solution. This operator is suitable for problems with large inter-dimensional correlations \cite{QinHuangSuganthan2009DifferentialEvolutionAlgorithm}, but may have equal or even poorer performance on those problems with no such correlations. Thus the ratio of occurrence of \textit{Onwall} and \textit{Inter} is critical to the performance. In the canonical design of CRO, this ratio is generally controlled by a user-defined parameter collision rate $collRate$ \cite{LamLi2010ChemicalReactionInspired}, and the value is usually set to be 0.2 \cite{LamLiYu2012RealCodedChemical}\cite{XuLamLi2011ChemicalReactionOptimization}. However, with the changes in the nature of \textit{Inter} operator, this value is no longer appropriate and we shall tune the parameter to tailor-make the algorithm for different optimization problems, but this tuning process can be very time-consuming. So we further devise an adaptive collision scheme for CRO to control the ratio of collision adaptively, using the information feedback from the optimization process \cite{BeyerDeb2001SelfAdaptiveFeatures}.
In our adaptive collision scheme, we add a new attribute to the system, namely the number of successful \textit{inters}, denoted $counter$. Initially, this attribute is set to zero, and at the beginning of each iteration, the value of $collRate$ is calculated using the following sigmoid function:
\begin{equation}
collRate = \frac{1}{1 + \exp(-6\times\frac{counter}{maxFE})},
\end{equation}
where $maxFE$ is the maximum allowed number of function evaluations. The plot of this function is demonstrated in Fig. \ref{fig:sigmoid}, where the x-axis is the value of $counter$ and the y-axis is the value of the corresponding $collRate$.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{fig/figure_1.pdf}
\caption{Sigmoid Function Used in Adaptive Collision Scheme}
\label{fig:sigmoid}
\end{figure}
The value of $counter$ is updated whenever an \textit{Onwall} or \textit{Inter} occurs and succeeds. If a successful \textit{Onwall} occurs, the value of $counter$ is reduced by one. Otherwise the value is increased by one. In this way, the algorithm can adjust the $collRate$ to favor either \textit{Onwall} or \textit{Inter}, to match the optimization problem being solved.
\input{tbl/benchmark.tex}
\subsection{Other Modifications}
In order to fully exploit the utility of our proposed inter-molecular collision scheme, we also make some other modifications to the implementation of the CRO framework.
In the canonical CRO design, the algorithm does not impose any mandatory constraints on the elementary reaction selection until the size of the population is reduced to one. The selection is controlled by the optimization parameters. When the population size is one, neither \textit{Inter} nor \textit{Syn} would occur as they need at least two molecules as inputs. However this behavior may potentially reduce the occurrence of \textit{Inter} and in return bias the ratio of \textit{Onwall} and \textit{Inter}. So we add a mandatory constraint to maintain this ratio.
In CRO/AC, the elementary reaction selection scheme works identically to the canonical design of CRO in the first step, i.e. a random number is first generated and compared with $collRate$. If the random number is larger, either \textit{Onwall} or \textit{Dec} will occur. Otherwise, an \textit{Inter} or \textit{Syn} will take place and here we impose the second mandatory condition. If the current population size is no larger than two, all later selection steps are skipped and an \textit{Inter} will occur. This modification can guarantee that the size of population is always larger than one, and there are always enough molecules in the container to perform an \textit{Inter} elementary reaction.
\section{Experimental Setting and Simulation Results} \label{sec:expsim}
In this section we will first introduce the benchmark functions adopted for performance evaluation and the experimental settings used. The simulation results, comparisons and discussions will also be presented.
\subsection{Benchmark Functions}
In order to evaluate our proposed CRO/AC, we conduct a series of simulations on 16 different benchmark functions. These benchmark functions are selected form the benchmark set proposed by Yao \textit{et al.} \cite{YaoLiuLin1999EvolutionaryProgrammingMade} and the latest benchmark problem set for the competition on real-parameter single objective optimization at CEC 2013 \cite{LiangQuSuganthanHernandez-Diaz2013ProblemDefinitionsand}. The former benchmark set has been adopted for testing performance by a wide range of metaheuristics in recent years \cite{HeWuSaunders2009GroupSearchOptimizer:}, and was adopted to test the performance of RCCRO \cite{LamLiYu2012RealCodedChemical}. As revealed in \cite{QinHuangSuganthan2009DifferentialEvolutionAlgorithm}, the current benchmark functions often suffer from two major problems: the global optimal points are located at the center of the search space, and the inter-dimensional correlation is weak. So we make a comprehensive test suite to resolve these problems by shifting and rotating some of the benchmark functions. The benchmark functions are listed in Table \ref{tbl:benchmark}. All benchmark functions are optimized in 30 dimensions, and the search spaces are defined to be $[-100, 100]$. The global optimum values of these benchmark functions are zero, and all simulation results smaller than $10^{-8}$ are considered to be zero \cite{LiangQuSuganthanHernandez-Diaz2013ProblemDefinitionsand}.
To evaluate the performance improvement of our proposed CRO/AC over CRO, we compare the simulation results between these two designs. Lam \textit{et al.} proposed three canonical CRO variants in \cite{LamLiYu2012RealCodedChemical}, where the major differences among them are the constraint handling schemes and synthesis operators. We use CRO/BP, CRO/HP, and CRO/BB to refer to RCCRO1, RCCRO2, and RCCRO3 described in \cite{LamLiYu2012RealCodedChemical}. We will compare the performance of CRO/AC with these three algorithms.
CRO/AC and all the CRO variants are implemented in Python 2.7 on Microsoft Windows 7. All simulations are performed on a computer with an Intel Core i7-3770 @ 3.4GHz CPU. In order to reduce statistical errors and generate statistically significant results, each benchmark function is repeated for 51 independent runs for each algorithm according to the suggestion by \cite{LiangQuSuganthanHernandez-Diaz2013ProblemDefinitionsand}. We use the maximum number of function evaluation (maxFE) as the termination criteria and maxFE is set to 300 000 for all benchmark functions, satisfying the requirement of \cite{LiangQuSuganthanHernandez-Diaz2013ProblemDefinitionsand}.
The parameters for all algorithms are set according to the recommendation of \cite{LamLiYu2012RealCodedChemical} for solving multimodal problems, i.e. population size is 20, \textit{stepsize} is 1, initial energy buffer is $10^5$, initial kinetic energy for molecules is $10^7$, molecular collision rate is 0.2, kinetic energy loss rate is 0.1, decomposition threshold is $1.5\times10^5$, and synthesis threshold is 10.
\subsection{Comparison of CRO/AC and Canonical CRO Variants}
\input{tbl/comparison.tex}
The mean values, standard deviations, and Student's t-test results obtained by CRO/AC and the three canonical CRO variants are presented in Table \ref{tbl:croacres}. The mean values in bold indicate superiority of the corresponding algorithm over the others. The t-test results are the calculated t-statistic, where a negative value means that CRO/AC outperforms the corresponding algorithm. The t-test values in italic indicate that the advantage is significant at a confidence level of 95\%. From the simulation results the following key points can be observed:
\begin{itemize}
\item CRO/AC performs better than all canonical CRO variants in most of the tested benchmark functions when comparing the mean simulation results. CRO/AC outperforms the others in 14 functions, and its performance in the remaining two functions ($f_{11}$ and $f_{12}$) are comparable to the CRO variants.
\item The t-test results further support our previous observation. CRO/AC outperforms other algorithms in all but three functions ($f_4$, $f_{11}$ and $f_{12}$). In $f_4$, CRO/AC outperforms CRO/HP and performs similarly with CRO/BP and CRO/BB. In the meantime CRO/AC generates more stable simulation results. In $f_{11}$, CRO/AC generates a slightly worse mean result, but the t-test results indicate no significant advantage of the other algorithms.
\end{itemize}
In terms of the computational time, a very small amount of additional time is required for our inter-molecular adaptive collision scheme. The total extra time is around 2\%--7\% of the computational time needed by the canonical CRO variants. As the benchmark functions we adopt are relatively less computationally intensive compared with most real-world problems, we believe that the extra time used by CRO/AC is not critical considering the significant performance improvement.
\subsection{Analysis on the Two-step Inter-molecular Ineffective Collision Operator and Adaptive Collision Scheme}
\input{tbl/comparison2.tex}
Section \ref{sec:CROAC} introduced our proposed inter-molecular ineffective collision operator, which is a two-step manipulation method. In this section we will show the necessity of incorporating the second step, i.e. (\ref{eqn:interstep2}). We construct a CRO/AC variant with one-step inter-molecular ineffective collision operator (CRO/AC/1step) which removes the second step of manipulating the input molecules. We also proposed an adaptive collision scheme which adaptively changes the value for the molecular collision rate. We construct CRO/AC/0.2 which sets the collision rate constantly to 0.2 during the entire search process. The same experimental settings and benchmark functions are applied to these algorithms, and the simulation results are presented in Table \ref{tbl:croacvar}. From these test results, we have the following observations:
\begin{itemize}
\item Both the two-step manipulation method and the adaptive collision scheme contribute to the performance improvement of CRO/AC. CRO/AC generates 10 best mean values among the 16 benchmark functions while CRO/AC/0.2 produces the best mean values pf the other six.
\item CRO/AC/0.2 tends to generate outstanding results in the uni-modal optimization functions ($f_1$--$f_4$), while CRO/AC is generally superior at solving multi-modal functions ($f_5$--$f_{16}$)
\item The less competitive results generated by CRO/AC/1step are potentially due to pre-mature convergence, which is caused by missing the second step manipulation that allows molecules to jump out of local optima.
\end{itemize}
The effect of the adaptive collision scheme can also be revealed by Fig. \ref{fig:collratechange}, where the changes on $collRate$ of $f_1$ and $f_5$ are plotted. From the figure we can see the adaptive scheme can adjust $collRate$ to different values according to the feedback from the optimization process.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{fig/figure_2.pdf}
\caption{$collRate$ Changes of $f_1$ and $f_{11}$}
\label{fig:collratechange}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion} \label{sec:conclusion}
CRO is a recently proposed simple and powerful metaheuristic optimization method which mimics the interactions and transformations of molecules in chemical reactions to search for the global optimum. CRO has been applied to solve both combinatorial and continuous optimization problems. In the canonical design of CRO for solving continuous optimization problems, the functionalities of on-wall ineffective collision and inter-molecular ineffective collision overlap, and this potentially hampers the performance of CRO. In this paper we propose a novel inter-molecular operator to overcome this drawback. This operator changes the values on multiple dimensions of a solution at one time, and is more efficient at solving problems with strong inter-dimensional correlation than the canonical design. In order to fully utilize the different optimization features of this new operator, we also devise an adaptive collision scheme to control the ratio of different elementary reactions. This scheme learns from the optimization feedback and adjusts the $collRate$ parameter of CRO to adapt the algorithm to different problems. We incorporate the new operator and the adaptive scheme into the CRO framework and propose a new algorithm CRO/AC.
To examine the performance improvement of CRO/AC over canonical CRO, we perform a series of simulations on a wide range of different benchmark functions. The simulation results indicate the superiority of our proposed CRO/AC over all the compared CRO variants. We also analyze the performance improvement contribution made by the new operator and the adaptive scheme, and find both of them are essential for CRO/AC to achieve better performance than the canonical CRO.
In the future we will perform a systematic analysis on the parameter selection for CRO/AC. All simulation in this paper adopted the parameter settings devised in \cite{LamLiYu2012RealCodedChemical}, which was originally designed for the canonical CRO and may be not suitable for CRO/AC. It is also an interesting topic to combine CRO/AC with the $stepSize$ adaptation scheme proposed in \cite{LamLiYu2012RealCodedChemical}. Last but not least, we will apply CRO/AC to real-world practical optimization problems to perform an overall study of the performance of CRO/AC.
\section*{Acknowledgement}
This research is supported in part by the University of Hong Kong Strategic Research Theme on Computation and Information. A.Y.S. Lam is supported in part by the Faculty Research Grant of Hong Kong Baptist University, under Grant No. FRG2/13-14/045.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
{\emph{Introduction}.}---Black holes have been a mystery since they were predicted by general relativity. From a classical viewpoint, a black hole is a complete black object of strong gravity, and nothing can escape from it. However, after the pioneering work by Hawking and Bekenstein~\cite{Hawking,Bekensteina,Bekensteinb}, such a system was found to possess temperature $T$ and entropy $S$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
T=\frac{\hbar\kappa}{2\pi ck_{B}},\quad S=\frac{k_{B}c^{3}A}{4\hbar G},
\end{equation}
with $\kappa$ and $A$ the surface gravity and event horizon area of the black hole. For simplicity, we adopt in the following the units $\hbar=c=k_{B}=G=1$. Then the gravity system is mapped to a thermodynamic system.
In Ref.~\cite{Bardeen}, four laws of black hole thermodynamics were established. Later, many works show that a black hole is not only a gravity system, but also a special thermodynamic system. Comparing with an ordinary thermodynamic system, understanding the microscopic origin of black hole entropy is a challenging problem, because the black hole entropy is proportional to the horizon area, i.e., $S\sim A$ rather than the volume. Such a subject attracts a great interest, especially on the microscopic degrees of freedom of a black hole, which, however, is still not completely clear.
Among the methods of counting black hole microstates and investigating the
microscopic origin of black hole entropy, string theory provides a natural framework. Through counting the number of states of a weakly coupled D-brane system and then extrapolating the result to the black hole phase, the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy formula was exactly derived for certain supersymmetric black holes by Strominger and Vafa~\cite{Vafa}. Similar calculations have been applied to other black holes~\cite{Maldacena,Callan,Horowitz,Emparan}. Despite the great success, such calculation is limited in supersymmetric and extremal black holes. For example, the explicit construction of the microstates for the most simple Schwarzschild and Kerr black hole solutions is still lacking. There are other ways to calculate black hole entropy, but almost all of them are based on the assumption that gravity is dual to a gauge theory or a strongly coupled conformal field theory, and black hole entropy and microstates are calculated under this duality. Nevertheless, what constitutes the states of a black hole is unclear. Furthermore, fuzzball theory \cite{Lunin,Mathur} states that black holes are actually spheres of strings with a definite volume from the microscopic level. However, it is still highly speculative.
Maybe the unsatisfactory understanding of the microscopic structure of a black hole brings us back to the old question: Does a black hole have a microscopic structure? For the fluid, its microscopic structure is very clear, i.e., its micromolecules carry the degree of freedom. How about a black hole? Its microscopic structure is completely unknown to us. In order to answer this question, we recall Boltzmann's insight: ``If you can heat it, it has microscopic structure". Such a viewpoint sheds insight into the microscopic structure of matter before achieving observational evidence in the past. Since a black hole can change its Hawking temperature by absorbing or emitting matter, we can conjecture that it should have a microscopic structure, even though we do not know its micromolecules. The aim of this Letter is to explore the possible microscopic structure of a charged anti-de Sitter (AdS) black hole completely from the thermodynamic viewpoint.
{\emph{Number density of the microscopic structure}.}---Next we will examine the number density of the black hole microscopic structure from the point of view of the thermodynamic phase transition. A powerful model to describe a phase transition is the van der Waals (vdW) fluid, which is the first, simplest, and most widely known example of an interacting thermodynamic system exhibiting a first-order liquid-gas phase transition. About sixteen years ago, it was found that the phase transition between small and large charged AdS black holes is of the vdW type in the canonical ensemble~\cite{Chamblin,Chamblin2}. However, until recently, the complete analogy between the vdW fluid and charged AdS black hole was established by treating the cosmological constant as a pressure, $P=-\Lambda/8\pi$~\cite{Dolan,Kubiznak}. The first step of analogy between the vdW fluid and black hole system is the equation of state. For a four-dimensional charged AdS black hole, it reads~\cite{Kubiznak}
\begin{equation}
P=\frac{T}{2r_{h}}-\frac{1}{2\pi (2r_{h})^{2}}+\frac{2Q^{2}}{\pi (2r_{h})^{4}}.\label{stateequation}
\end{equation}
Here $r_{h}$, $Q$ and $T$ are the horizon radius, temperature, and charge of the black hole, respectively. Comparing with the vdW fluid, the specific volume $v$ of the \emph{black hole fluid} can be identified as~\cite{Kubiznak}
\begin{equation}
v=2l_{P}^{2}r_{h},
\end{equation}
where we restore the dimension and Planck length $l_{P}=\sqrt{\hbar G/c^{3}}$. This concept has been applied to different black hole systems and is a great success in studying the small/large black hole (SBH/LBH) phase transition. Thus, we can understand $v$ as the specific volume of the \emph{black hole molecule}, which carries the degrees of freedom of black hole entropy.
On the side of the vdW fluid, the number density of micromolecules is a fundamental physical quantity to describe the thermodynamic system running in the phase diagram. And for the black hole fluid, we can introduce the concept, which is defined as
\begin{equation}
n=\frac{1}{v}=\frac{1}{2l_{P}^{2}r_{h}}.\label{NN}
\end{equation}
We will show that this concept could provide a preliminary knowledge on the microscopic structure of a black hole. With such a quantity $n$, the microscopic and macroscopic physical quantities of a thermodynamic system are closely related to each other through statistical mechanics. And novel interesting information will be revealed.
However, before pursuing this issue, we will turn back to the number density $n$. Its introduction seems to be somewhat incredible. In what follows we will give a natural interpretation for it.
From the holographic view, black hole entropy resides on the black hole horizon. Ruppeiner \cite{Ruppeiner0} proposed that the microscopic degrees of freedom of the black hole are carried by the Planck area pixels, i.e., $A/l_{P}^{2}$. Here, we assume that one microscopic degree of freedom occupies $\gamma$ Planck area pixels. Then the total number of the microscopic degrees of freedom is given by
\begin{equation}
N=\frac{A}{{\gamma}l_{P}^{2}}.
\end{equation}
Therefore, the effective number density $n$ for the AdS black hole can be calculated as \cite{Altamirano2}
\begin{equation}
n=\frac{N}{V}=\frac{3}{{\gamma}l_{P}^{2} r_{h}},
\end{equation}
where $V=\frac{4{\pi}r_{h}^{3}}{3}$ is the thermodynamic volume produced from the first law, $V=(\partial_{P}M)_{Q,S}$, rather than the volume of the sphere with the radius of the event horizon~\cite{Dolan,Kastor}. Taking ${\gamma}=6$, we will obtain the exact result Eq. (\ref{NN}). For a detailed discussion on the black hole microscopic degree of freedom, we refer the readers to Refs.~\cite{Padmanabhan0,Banerjee,Padmanabhan}.
Here we grasp that the number density $n$ defined here has a natural interpretation, and it can measure the number density of the virtual black hole molecules. Finding the relations between the thermodynamic quantities and number density can also provide an effective link between microscopic and macroscopic black hole physics.
{\emph{Thermodynamic phase transition}.}---The state equation (\ref{stateequation}) of a charged AdS black hole displays a vdW-like thermodynamic behavior. The SBH-LBH coexistence curve has a parametric form~\cite{Wei2014}
\begin{equation}
\frac{P}{P_{c}}=\sum_{i} a_{i}\Big(\frac{T}{T_{c}}\Big)^{i}, \label{coex4}
\end{equation}
with $a_{i}$ are dimensionless coefficients. This curve has a positive slope everywhere and terminates at the critical point $(P_{c}, T_{c}, v_{c})=(1/96\pi Q^{2}, \sqrt{6}/18\pi Q, 2\sqrt{6}Q)$, beyond which the SBH and LBH phases cannot be clearly distinguished. Near this critical point, the charged AdS black hole system shares the same critical exponents and scal ing laws with the vdW fluid. This strongly suggests that such a SBH/LBH phase transition is of the vdW type, and now it is widely accepted.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=7cm]{NnTT_1.eps}
\caption{The difference of the number densities between the small and large black holes.}\label{pnt}
\end{figure}
Recently there have been many groups finding the phase transition of the vdW type in different AdS black hole backgrounds. But there are few papers considering the physics going along or crossing the SBH-LBH coexistence curve. Studying such an issue will raise new interest in black hole thermodynamics.
When a SBH crosses the coexistence curve and becomes a LBH, the number density would have a discontinuous change. We show the behavior of the difference of the number density between the SBH and LBH along the curve in Fig.~\ref{pnt}, which displays that with an increase of the temperature, the difference $(n_{SBH}-n_{LBH})/n_{c}$ monotonically decreases. It vanishes when approaching the critical point, which implies that the microscopic structures of the SBH and LBH tend to be the same at that point. The temperature $T/T_{c}$ versus density $n/n_{c}$ phase diagram is plotted in Fig.~\ref{pttnn}. The maximum number density of the system is $n/n_{c}=2.44$, slightly smaller than $n/n_{c}=3$ of the vdW fluid~\cite{Johnston}, at which there is no free volume left for molecules to move. The experimental data of $Ne$, $Ar$, $O_{2}$ and other gases approximatively confirmed such a phase diagram. Indeed, we can conjecture that the similar phenomena also holds for the black hole.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=7cm]{TTNN_2.eps}
\caption{Phase diagram in the $T-n$ plane. The black hole system has a maximum number density at $n/n_{c}=2.44$, slightly smaller than $n/n_{c}=3$ of the van der Waals fluid.}\label{pttnn}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{SLbh_3.eps}
\caption{Sketch picture for the change of the black hole molecule specific volume crossing the SBH-LBH coexistence curve. Top green and bottom red circles denote the small and large black hole molecules, respectively. During the phase transition, the specific volume of the molecular and number density change accordingly. (A) $(P, T)=(0.85 P_{c}, 0.94 T_{c})$, $v=0.73v_{c}$ (top), $1.48 v_{c}$ (bottom). (B) $(P, T, v)=(P_{c}, T_{c}, v_{c})$.}\label{pslbh}
\end{figure}
We show in Fig.~\ref{pslbh} the sketch picture showing that phase transition occurs between the small and large black hole molecules when the back hole system crosses the coexistence curve. The green circles in the upper half plane correspond to the SBH molecules, and the red circles in the lower half plane to the LBH molecules. Plane (A) denotes the situation that the black hole crosses the coexistence curve with $(P, T, v)<(P_{c}, T_{c}, v_{c})$, and (B) for $(P, T, v)=(P_{c}, T_{c}, v_{c})$. From Fig.~\ref{pslbh}(A), we see that when the black hole crosses the coexistence curve, the number density $n$ and the specific volume $v$ suffer a gap corresponding to a first-order phase transition. However, when the black hole passes the critical point, see Fig.~\ref{pslbh}(B), they continuously change, which corresponds to a second-order phase transition.
Generally, if the microscopic structure of an ordinary thermodynamic system has a discontinuous change during the phase transition, then there must be a nonvanishing latent heat. For the case of a black hole with fixed charge, the latent heat $L$ of each black hole molecule transiting from one phase to another phase can be calculated from the following formula:
\begin{equation}
L=\frac{T\Delta S}{N}=T\Delta v\frac{dP}{dT}=T \left(\frac{1}{n_{\text{LBH}}}-\frac{1}{n_{\text{SBH}}}\right) \frac{dP}{dT},
\end{equation}
where the Clapeyron equation $dP/dT=\Delta S/\Delta V$ holding along the coexistence curve has been used. From this equation, one can see that, when the black hole system crosses the coexistence curve, there is a nonvanishing latent heat, while the latent heat vanishes when the system passes the critical point $T=T_{c}$ due to $n_{\text{LBH}}=n_{\text{SBH}}$, which can be found from Fig.~\ref{pnt} or Fig.~\ref{pslbh}(B).
{\emph{Thermodynamic geometry}.}---Now it is clear that the number density $n$ measuring the micromolecules of black hole freedom is a useful quantity to describe the SBH/LBH phase transition. For the vdW fluid, interactions between two molecules are approximated by
the so-called Lennard-Jones potential. It produces short-range repulsive interaction and longer-range attractive one. Analogous to this, one would like to ask what kind of interaction there is between two micromolecules of a black hole. In order to answer this question, exploration of the thermodynamic fluctuation theory is necessary. Fortunately, the well-known thermodynamic geometry, the Ruppeiner geometry~\cite{Ruppeiner}, constructed from the thermodynamic fluctuation theory, provides us a powerful tool.
The line element of the Ruppeiner geometry is defined in parameter space by taking the system entropy $S$ as its thermodynamic potential,
\begin{equation}
ds^{2}=\frac{\partial^{2}S}{\partial x^{\mu}\partial x^{\nu}}
\Delta x^{\mu}\Delta x^{\nu},\label{metric}
\end{equation}
where $\Delta x^{\mu}\equiv(x^{\mu}-x^{\mu}_{0})$ measures the fluctuation of the thermodynamic quantity $x^{\mu}$ from $x^{\mu}_{0}$, and $x^{\mu}_{0}$ corresponds to $ds^{2}=0$. Such a line element has a clear physical interpretation~\cite{Ruppeiner}: the less probable a fluctuation between two thermodynamic states, the further apart they are.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=7cm]{R_4.eps}
\caption{The Ruppeiner scalar curvature $R$ as a function of the pressure $P$ and number density $n$. The boundary marked as the thick blue line is related to the coexistence curve.}\label{pr}
\end{figure}
Based on the metric (\ref{metric}), one can construct a thermodynamic scalar curvature $R$ similar to that of GR. The authors in Ref.~\cite{Oshima} first emphasized the difference in the sign of $R$, i.e., $R>0$ ($R<0$) for the Fermi (Bose) ideal gas and $R=0$ for the classical ideal gas \cite{Rsign}. Further study shows that positive (negative) $R$ implies repulsive (attractive) interaction dominates in the thermodynamic system. Thus the sign of $R$ offers us direct information about the character of the interaction among the micromolecules of a thermodynamic system.
For the charged AdS black hole, we take $(M, P)$ fluctuation while with fixed charge $Q=1$. This case corresponds to a two-dimensional Riemannian geometry with the curvature scalar given by
\begin{equation}
R=-\frac{4(n/n_{c})^{4}+(n/n_{c})^{6}}{24\pi (n/n_{c})^{2}+12\pi (P/P_{c})}.\label{curvature}
\end{equation}
The behavior of $R$ is depicted in Fig.~\ref{pr}.
Note that in the range of $(n/n_{c}, P/P_{c})<(1, 1)$, small and large $n$ relate to the LBH and SBH, respectively. Between the small and large black holes, it is the intermediate black hole, which has been excluded from thermodynamic phase transition consideration for its instability. Thus, the curvature scalar $R$ has a gap among the SBH and LBH branches. This incommensurate $R$~\cite{Ruppeiner3} implies that the structures of the SBH and LBH are different, and it is difficult for the black hole molecules to transform from one phase to another unless providing the latent heat. At the asymptotic critical region $(n/n_{c}, P/P_{c})\sim(1, 1)$, the gap of $R$ in the coexisting SBH and LBH phases disappears. In such case, the structures of the SBH and LBH are similar. Phase transition between them can easily take place and the latent heat in the process tends to vanish, which is in accord with our above analysis. With further increase of the parameters such that $(n/n_{c}, P/P_{c})>(1, 1)$, $R$ continuously varies. This is due to the fade out of the intermediate black hole branch, and no clear boundary between the SBH and LBH branches.
Since $(n/n_{c})$ and $(P/P_{c})$ are always positive, $R$ is negative according to Eq. (\ref{curvature}). From thermodynamic fluctuation analysis~\cite{Ruppeiner2}, this case is related to the system of a weak attractive interaction between two black hole molecules. In a fixed AdS space, the very large black hole has $n/n_{c}\sim 0$, and thus the curvature scalar $R$ approaches zero. This reveals that the property of the very large black hole microscopic structure is similar to that of the classical ideal gas, and there exists no interaction between the micromolecules. While for the small black hole, the attractive interaction grows stronger with $(n/n_{c})^{4}$. Such patterns of $R$ might cast new sight on the nature of the AdS black hole microscopic properties.
{\emph{Summary}.}---Before ending this Letter, we briefly summarize it. We tried to explore the microscopic structure of a charged AdS black hole from the viewpoint of thermodynamic phase transition and thermodynamic geometry. After making a comparison with the vdW fluid, we introduced a new concept, the number density $n$, for the black hole with the assumption that it has a microscopic structure. Employing it, we studied the behaviors of the macroscopic thermodynamic variables. The result shows that when the system crosses the SBH-LBH coexistence curve, the specific volume of the black hole molecule suffers a sudden change, accompanied by a latent heat. However, when the system crosses the critical point, the latent heat vanishes, which implies a second-order phase transition. This is due to the fact that the specific volumes of the small and large black hole molecules tend to be the same when approaching that point. On the other hand, we found that the interaction between two black hole molecules is weak attractive from the viewpoint of the thermodynamic geometry. These results might cast new insight into the black hole microscopic structure. And it seems that the thermodynamic phase transition and thermodynamic geometry could offer us an effective method to study the microscopic properties of a black hole.
In this Letter, we showed two important quantities, the number density $n$ and specific volume $v$, to describe the black hole molecule. However, what the black hole microstates actually are is still unknown. Maybe the microscopic degrees of freedom carried by these molecules can be counted by the D-brane states. Or, more speculatively, one can think that a molecule is a sphere of strings following the fuzzball proposal. Thus, more effort is still needed in order to understand the real microscopic structure of a black hole from a much more basic viewpoint in the future.
Last, we would like to make a few comments. Here we only deal with the charged AdS black hole. How do non-AdS black holes behave? We conjecture that these black holes also have a microscopic structure from Boltzmann's insight. However, thermodynamic phase transition of the vdW type may not exist and thus the system behaves like the classical ideal gas. Furthermore, one can also consider rotating AdS black holes or black holes in higher-derivative gravity~\cite{Altamirano1,Altamirano2,Frassino2014,Wei}, where richer phase transition structure has been found and it may provide an extensive insight into the black hole microscopic structure.
{\emph{Acknowledgements}.}---We would like to thank the anonymous referees whose suggestions and comments largely helped us in improving the original manuscript. We also thank Professor Li-Ming Cao and Dr. Hai-Shan Liu for useful discussion. This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grants No. 11205074 and No. 11375075).
|
\section*{Alignment echoes}
Here we briefly summarize results for alignment echo in the systems that interact with electromagnetic field via the induced polarization (\ref{polarizable}). The kick transformation describing the angular velocity, $\omega$ and angle $\theta$ of a rotor at time $t$ after the first kick is given by the map (\ref{map}), in which $\sin (\theta_0 )$ is replaced by $\sin (2\theta_0 )$. By applying this transformation twice, we obtain the angular position of the rotor at time $\tau$ after the second kick that was applied at $t=T$:
\begin{equation} \label{angle}
\theta = \theta_0+\omega_0 T - \Omega_1 T \sin (2\theta_0) +\tau \left\{\omega_0 - \Omega_1 \sin (2\theta_0)-\Omega_2 \sin \left[2(\theta_0+\omega_0 T - \Omega_1 T \sin (2\theta_0))\right]\right\}
\end{equation}
Using this expression, we calculate the time-dependent alignment factor
\begin{equation} \label{alfactor}
\langle \cos^2 (\theta )\rangle= \frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\rm Re \langle e^{2i\theta}\rangle=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2(2\pi)^{3/2}}\rm Re\left[\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}d\theta_0 \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}d\omega_0 e^{-\omega_0^2/(2\sigma^2)} e^{2i\theta}\right]
\end{equation}
With the help of the well known formula
\begin{equation}\label{Bessel}
e^{iz\sin (\theta )}=\sum_{k=-\infty}^{k=+\infty}e^{i k \theta}J_{k}(z),
\end{equation}
we expand $\exp\{-2i\tau \Omega_2 \sin \left[2(\theta_0+\omega_0 T - \Omega_1 T \sin (2\theta_0))\right]\}$ in series of Bessel functions $J_k(2\Omega_2 \tau )$, combine together all the terms proportional to $\omega_0$ in the exponent, and perform the Gaussian integration. This yelds
\begin{equation}\label{step1}
\langle \cos^2 (\theta )\rangle=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{4\pi}\rm Re\sum_{k=-\infty}^{k=+\infty} J_k(2\Omega_2 \tau )e^{-2\sigma^2[\tau-(k-1)T]^2}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}d\theta_0 e^{-2i\Omega_1 [\tau - (k-1)T]\sin (2\theta_0)-2i(k-1)\theta_0}
\end{equation}
We perform the remaining integration in (\ref{step1}) with the help of the inverse Fourier transform of Eq. (\ref{Bessel}), shift the summation index by 1, and neglect terms with the negative index (they are exponentially small if $\sigma T >1$):
\begin{equation}\label{final}
\langle \cos^2 (\theta )\rangle= \frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\sum^{k=\infty}_{k=0}(-1)^k e^{-2\sigma^2[\tau-k T]^2} J_{k+1}[2\Omega_2 \tau ]J_k [2\Omega_1 (\tau-k T)]
\end{equation}
Expression (\ref{final}) describes alignment echoes happening at $\tau\sim kT$ ($k=1,2,3 ...$). The term for $k=0$ describes the transient response just after the second pulse. The alignment factor (\ref{final}) is very similar (up to the overall shift by 1/2, and rescaling the parameters) to the analytical expression for the orientation factor (\ref{echoanal}). Therefore, all the qualitative properties of the echo signals discussed before for the orientation process, are applicable to the alignment process as well.
\section*{Experimental setup}
A schematic representation of the experimental apparatus is presented in Fig. \ref{exp_setup}. The laser source is a Ti:Sapphire based, chirped-pulse amplified system delivering pulses centered at 800 nm with duration of 100 fs. The output pulses have a maximum energy of 3.5 mJ at 1 kHz repetition rate.
A Mach-Zehnder interferometer generates two pump pulses $\mathcal{P}1$ and $\mathcal{P}2$ with a relative delay $T$ adjustable through a computer controlled translation stage equipped with a corner cube reflector. These two pulses are linearly polarized in the same direction and focused inside a static cell using a plano-convex lens. The cell is filled with CO$_2$ molecules at room temperature under a pressure of 0.2 bar. The alignment echoes are observed by time-resolved birefringence measurements, a non-invasive method so far successfully applied to the detection of field-free molecular alignment \cite{Renard03}. A probe pulse is produced by inserting a beam splitter in the beam path just after the exit of the laser source. It is delayed using a second motorized translational stage, its energy is about two orders of magnitude lower than those of the pump pulses and its polarization is linear and set to +45$^\circ$ with respect to the polarization of the pump pulses. The transient molecular alignment induced by the pump pulses is revealed by the depolarization of the probe field recorded as a function of the delay $\tau$ between $\mathcal{P}2$ and the probe pulse. The depolarized field component is selected by a linear analyzer located after the cell and set at $-45^\circ$ with respect to the polarization of the pump pulses. The birefringence signal measured on the detector can be written as shown in Eq.(\ref{expal}) (see \cite{Faucher2011}). Finally, control over the energy of all beams is achieved using the combination of zero-order half wave-plates and Glan polarizers.
\begin{figure}[tb!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm,keepaspectratio]{exp_setup.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{(color online) Experimental set-up. A: Analyzer, BS: Beam Splitter, GP: Glan Polarizer, HWP: half wave-plate, PMT: Photo Multiplier Tube, L: Lens, DL: Delay Line, BD: Beam Dump. The relative polarizations of the different pulses together with the orientation of the analyzer along with a relative timing chart are shown in the insets. Here $T$ is the delay between $\mathcal{P}1$ and $\mathcal{P}2$, and $\tau$ is the delay between $\mathcal{P}2$ and the probe pulse. }
\label{exp_setup}
\end{figure}
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}
The two-dimensional $t$-$J$ model has been studied for many years as a model for the
copper oxide planes found in high temperature superconductors. Despite considerable
effort\cite{prelovsek} the basic thermodynamic properties of this model are still not well understood.
The calculation reported here investigates the entropy by means of its high temperature
series calculated to 12th order in inverse temperature $\beta$. In principle, knowing
the full temperature dependence of the entropy and the value of the free energy at one
temperature is sufficient to fully determine the free energy and thus all the thermodynamic
properties of the model. This more general calculation is left for a future publication.
In this paper our attention is restricted to the entropy per site $S$ and its density
derivative at fixed temperature $\partial S/\partial n|_T$.
The $t$-$J$ model Hamiltonian is given by
\begin{equation}
H = -t\sum_{\sigma\left<ij\right>}\left(c_{i\sigma}^{\dagger}c_{j\sigma}+c_{j\sigma}^{\dagger}c_{i\sigma}\right)
+J\sum_{\left<ij\right>}\vec{S}_i\cdot\vec{S}j,
\end{equation}
along with the constraint of no double occupancy. The high temperature series for the
Helmholtz free energy per site is calculated by a linked cluster expansion, taking the form
\begin{equation}
\beta F = \sum_{i=0}^N f_i (\beta J)^i,
\end{equation}
where the $f_i(n,t/J)$ are exact polynomials in terms of the electron density $n$
and the ratio of the model coupling constants $t/J$. For the calculation reported here
$N=12$ and we fix $t/J=2.5$. The series for the entropy per site is also calculated in terms of the $f_i$ as
\begin{equation}
S = k_{\rm B}\sum_{i=0}^N (i-1)f_i(\beta J)^i
\end{equation}
and the energy per site is
\begin{equation}
\beta E = \sum_{i=0}^N i f_i (\beta J)^i.
\end{equation}
\section{Details of the Calculation}
To reach low temperatures, the series expansion for the entropy needs to be extrapolated by
Pad\'{e} approximants. With the available 12th order series the direct extrapolation of the $t$-$J$
entropy only converges for $T\gtrsim J$. A low temperature scale remains unresolved in this calculation.
To improve the convergence we can try to extract this low
temperature scale by forming the series for
\begin{equation}\label{eq:deltas}
\Delta S(n,T) = S_{tJ}(n,T) - n_{AF}^*S_{AF}(J^*,T)-\alpha^* S_{TB}(n,T),
\end{equation}
where $S_{AF}$ is the entropy of the Heisenberg antiferromagnet (found by setting $n=1$ in the $t$-$J$ entropy),
$S_{TB}$ is the tight-binding model entropy and the starred parameters are adjusted to produce a function
$\Delta S$ with a simple temperature dependence that extrapolates well to low temperatures.
A least squares fit of the $[6/6]$ Pad\'{e} to a fourth order polynomial is calculated to extend $\Delta S$ to
$T=0$. For $n\ge0.55$
a reasonable $\Delta S$ can be found by setting $n_{AF}^*=n$, $\alpha^*=0$ and adjusting $J^*$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{af-ent}}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{entropy-parts-n088}}
\end{center}
\caption{a) Heisenberg model entropy vs. temperature. b) An example of the fitting procedure described in the text
for the $t$-$J$ model entropy at $n=0.88$. The $t$-$J$ entropy is the sum $S_{tJ}=n S_{AF}(J^*) +\Delta S$,
with $J^*=0.638173J$.}
\end{figure}
To extract $S_{tJ}$ we need to know $S_{AF}(T)$ which is determined by using a combination of high precision
Monte Carlo data\cite{sandvik1,sandvik2} and series expansion results for $E_{AF}(T)$. The entropy is found from the energy
by using the thermodynamic relations $E=F+T S$ and $F_{AF}(T)=E_{0AF}-\int_0^T S_{AF}(T')dT'$. The integal is evaluated by
the trapezoidal rule with step size $\Delta T=10^{-5}J$ and the temperature dependence of the energy is given by
$\tilde{E}_{AF}(T)=E_{AF}(T)-E_{0AF}$ with ground state energy $E_{0AF}=-0.669437J$\cite{sandvik3}. Using these expressions the
temperature dependence of the entropy $S_{AF}(T)$ is determined iteratively by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:afent}
S_{AF}(j\Delta T) = \frac{2\tilde{E}_{AF}(j\Delta T)}{(2j-1)\Delta T} + \frac{2}{(2j-1)}\sum_{i=1}^{j-1}S_{AF}(i\Delta T),
\end{equation}
where $j$ runs from $1$ to $500,000$ to cover the range $0\le T\le 5J$ and $\tilde{E}_{AF}(0)=S_{AF}(0)=0$.
Fig(1a) shows the result for the temperature dependence of $S_{AF}(T)$. Using the relation above between $F_{AF}(T)$, $S_{AF}(T)$
and the value $F_{AF}(5J)=-3.5043614J$ determined from the series expansion the ground state energy found by integrating
$S_{AF}(T)$ given by Eq(\ref{eq:afent}) is $E_{0AF}^{est}=-0.66947J$ and $E_{0AF}^{est}-E_{0AF}=-3.3\times10^{-5}J$, comparable
to the error estimates in the Monte Carlo data\cite{sandvik1,sandvik2}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{sovert0-045}}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{sovert050-150}}\\
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{sovert160-260}}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{sovert280-500}}
\end{center}
\caption{A selection of data plotted as $S/T$ vs. $n$. a) $0\le T/J\le 0.45$ in steps of $0.05$. The dashed line in the
inset is the tight-binding model $\gamma$. b) $0.5\le T/J\le 1.5$ in steps of $0.1$. c) $1.6\le T/J\le 2.6$ in
steps of $0.1$. d) $2.8\le T/J\le 5$ in steps of $0.2$.}
\end{figure}
The temperature dependence of the Heisenberg entropy $S_{AF}(T)$ can
be used as a known function to reverse the $\Delta S$ calculation and extract $S_{tJ}(n,T)$.
Fig(1b) gives an example of this procedure for $n=0.88$. Two temperature scales emerge from this analysis: a high
temperature scale $T\sim t$ and a low temperature scale $T\sim J^*$. For $n<0.55$
the $t$-$J$ entropy crosses over to the tight-binding model entropy and all the starred parameters in Eq(\ref{eq:deltas}) are
required. A complete discussion of this more complicated fitting procedure at low $n$ is deferred to a future publication,
though here we note to order $n$ the series coefficients for the $t$-$J$ model free energy are exactly the same as the tight-binding
model free energy so as $n\rightarrow 0$ we have $S_{tJ}\rightarrow S_{TB}$ at all temperatures.
\section{Results}
The extrapolation in temperature to find $S_{tJ}(n,T)$ is done separately for each $n$. For $0.10\le n \le 0.92$ the
spacing of densities is $\Delta n=0.01$, while tighter spacing is used for the highest and lowest density ranges. Data
were accumulated for $226$ densities, with $5,000$ temperature values for each density with a uniform spacing of
$\Delta T = 0.001 J$. A selection of the entropy data is shown in Fig(2), with $S_{tJ}/T$ plotted as a function of $n$
for a range of temperatures.
From the entropy data an interesting quantity to calculate is the density derivative at fixed temperature
$\partial S/\partial n|_T$. This derivative has been investigated in earlier calculations\cite{prelovsek}, but here we have
greatly improved density resolution allowing a more detailed investigation than before. The entropy initially grows
upon doping away from half filling and at high temperatures the configurational entropy goes through a maximum at $n=2/3$.
For noninteracting systems the configurational entropy maximum remains true for all temperatures. For example, the maximum
entropy for the tight-binding model is found at $n=1$ for all temperatures. Even for hard core bosons the entropy maximum
remains fixed at $n=0.5$ for all temperatures. The entropy maximum for the $t$-$J$ model is strongly temperature
dependent as shown in Fig(3).
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{thermopower-zero}
\end{center}
\caption{Red line: $\partial S/\partial n=0$ on a temperature vs. density plot. Green line: configurational entropy
maximum at $n=2/3$, independent of temperature. Blue line: approximate temperature scale $T=t$ for the deviation
of $\partial S/\partial n=0$ from the configurational entropy maximum. Magenta line: $T=0.2J$, approximately
room temperature where $\partial S/\partial n=0$ at $n=0.796$.}
\end{figure}
As the temperature decreases from $T\sim 5J$ to $T\sim J$ the entropy maximum moves up to $n=0.84$. In this
temperature range the interactions in the $t$-$J$ model are decreasing the entropy
at higher densities than would be expected from the configurational entropy. This is an indication of correlations
developing in this density and temperature range. The temperatures are too high for these to be antiferromagnetic
correlations and the density and temperature ranges don't match the pseudogap found in high temperature superconductors.
For $T\lesssim J$ the entropy maximum reverses and moves back to lower densities, with the temperature dependence decreasing
sharply down to $n=0.8$ and a low temperature tail below $T=0.2J$ extending down to $n=0.62$. Shastry\cite{shastry} has shown that
$\partial S/\partial n$ is an approximation for the thermopower. In experiments\cite{obertelli,honma} on cuprate
superconductors the thermopower
is observed to change sign as a function of doping. In particular the thermopower is zero at room temperature for
$23$\% doping in many cuprate superconductors\cite{obertelli,honma}. For $T=0.2J$ (corresponding to room temperature) the $t$-$J$ model entropy
maximum is at $20.4$\% doping.
Further information on the correlations developing at lower temperatures in the $t$-$J$ model can be found by considering
the full temperature and density dependence of $\partial S/\partial n$. By the equality of the mixed partial derivatives
of the free energy we also have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:dmuds}
\left.\frac{\partial\mu}{\partial T}\right|_n = -\left.\frac{\partial S}{\partial n}\right|_T,
\end{equation}
where $\mu$ is the chemical potential. The relation in Eq(\ref{eq:dmuds}) provides another means to interpret the
derivative. Fig(4) shows $\partial\mu/\partial T$ as a function of temperature for the range of densities where
$\partial S/\partial n=0$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{dmudt}
\end{center}
\caption{Plot of $\partial\mu/\partial T$ vs. temperature for the density range $0.7\le n\le 0.95$. The spacing
of the densities is $0.01$.}
\end{figure}
The low temperature positive peak in $\partial\mu/\partial T$ for $n\gtrsim0.8$ is due to the attractive antiferromagnetic
interaction between oppositely oriented spins decreasing the chemical potential at low temperatures. It costs less energy
to add an electron to the system when the temperature falls below the effective spin interaction energy. For
$n\lesssim0.8$ in Fig(4) the opposite happens: a fairly broad negative peak in $\partial\mu/\partial T$ develops. Below
this peak it costs more energy to add an electron to the system than for temperatures above the peak. For the full range
of densities shown in Fig(4) the high temperature limit of $\partial\mu/\partial T$ is positive.
\section{Conclusions}
The strong temperature dependence of $\partial S/\partial n=0$ shows the interactions in the $t$-$J$ model are producing
competing correlations. For $n\gtrsim0.84$ antiferromagnetic fluctuations are dominant at low temperatures. For $n\lesssim0.8$
the dominant fluctuations at low temperature are d-wave pair fluctuations as shown in Ref. \citen{putikka}. For densities
$0.8\lesssim n\lesssim 0.84$ there is a crossover between the two dominant fluctuations. The different fluctuations also
give very different temperature dependences to $\partial\mu/\partial T$. The antiferromagnetic
fluctuations reduce the energy needed to add an electron at low temperatures while the d-wave pair fluctuations increase
the energy needed to add an electron at low temperatures.
\ack
The author acknowledges the support of the Ohio Supercomputer Center.
\section*{References}
|
\section{Introduction}
Denote the number of partitions of $n$ in which exactly $k$ sizes of part appear by $\nu_k(n)$. For instance, $\nu_2(5) = 5$, counting $$4+1, 3+2, 3+1+1, 2+2+1, \text{ and } 2+1+1+1.$$ This easily stated function has been studied by Major P. A. MacMahon \cite{MacMahon}, George Andrews \cite{GEA1}, and more recently Tani and Bouroubi \cite{TandB}, the latter specifically interested in $\nu_2$. The author in a recent paper \cite{Keith1} stated several theorems concerning $\nu_2$ and ventured further conjectures regarding $\nu_2$ and $\nu_3$, which it is the purpose of this paper to prove and expand. Despite attention from these authors, results of the kind found in other areas of partition theory, such as congruences in arithmetic progressions, have not been forthcoming; here we provide several, with a proof strategy easily adaptable to future possible candidates.
Data on $\nu_k(n)$ relates to the study of overpartitions. An overpartition of $n$ is a partition of $n$ in which the last appearance of a given size of summand is either overlined or not. The overpartitions of 3 are \[ 3, \overline{3}, 2+1, \overline{2}+1, 2+\overline{1}, \overline{2}+ \overline{1}, 1+1+1, 1+1+\overline{1} .\]
Often attributed originally to Major MacMahon, overpartitions have seen a surge of interest in recent years since the 2004 publication of a paper by Corteel and Lovejoy \cite{CoLo}, placing them in the context of more recent work in partition theory.
Denote the number of overpartitions of $n$ by $\overline{p}(n)$. Then it is clear that $$\overline{p}(n) = 2 \nu_1 (n) + 4 \nu_2 (n) + 8 \nu_3(n) + \dots .$$ Thus data about $\nu_i(n)$ can inform or be informed by results on overpartitions. An example by Byungchan Kim \cite{Kim} is the theorem that $\overline{p}(n) \equiv 0 \pmod{8}$ if $n$ is neither a square nor twice a square; this is equivalent to the claim that for such numbers, $\frac{1}{2} \nu_1(n)$ and $\nu_2(n)$ are simultaneously both even or both odd.
Our main theorems include several on $\nu_2(An+B)$ mod 4 and $\nu_3$ mod 2:
\begin{theorem}\label{Nu2} $\nu_2(An+B) \equiv 0 \pmod{4}$ if $(A,B) \in \{(36,30), (72,42), (196,70), (252,114) \}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}\label{Nu3} For each of the $(A,B)$ above, $\nu_3(An+B) \equiv 0 \pmod{2}$.\end{theorem}
In order to prove Theorem \ref{Nu3}, we need several overpartition congruences modulo 16. The congruence for $(A,B) = (196,70)$ is already known; the others, and the generating function dissections we provide which prove them, are apparently new, although this is a field of active research. We record these below.
\begin{theorem}\label{OverPtns} $\overline{p}(An+B) \equiv 0 \pmod{16}$ for all $(A,B)$ above.\end{theorem}
There are many other candidate progressions. The proof techniques we give should be easily adaptable.
\phantom{.}
\noindent \textbf{Remark:} Between versions of this article, a paper appeared by Xinhua Xiong \cite{Xiong} in which $\overline{p}(n)$ is completely determined modulo 16 by the factorization of $n$. The overpartition identities in this paper would then also follow from Xiong's work and facts such as our candidate progressions never containing squares or sums of squares, along with observations regarding various primes appearing in their factorization. This work, plus the method elaborated below for $\nu_2$, together give a method for obtaining many progressions for $\nu_3$.
\phantom{.}
In the next section we give much of the background information necessary to verify the results in this paper, including useful formulas from MacMahon and Andrews for $\nu_i$, and several facts concerning modular forms which are central the methodology. The author sincerely thanks Jeremy Rouse for assistance provided on MathOverflow (\cite{MOJRouse}, \cite{MOJRouse2}) answering related questions, and a careful referee for correcting an oversight in an earlier draft.
In Section 3 we prove Theorem \ref{Nu2} by expanding Rouse' original method: we isolate as much as possible common to all such progressions using MacMahon and Andrews' results, reducing the proof in each individual case to a short catalog of necessary modular forms, and a Sturm calculation verifying a summatory congruence. In Section 4 we prove Theorem \ref{Nu3}, proving Theorem \ref{OverPtns} in the process, and discuss challenges and possible avenues of attack in proceeding further. The last section gives a number of open questions which we think are of general interest.
\section{Background Theorems}
Since partitions into exactly one size of part have Ferrers diagrams which are just rectangles of area $n$, $\nu_1(n)$ is just $d(n)$, the divisor function, which is perfectly understood. If the factorization of $n$ into primes is $n = p_1^{\alpha_1} p_2^{\alpha_2} \dots$, then $$d(n) = (\alpha_1 + 1)(\alpha_2 + 1) \dots.$$ We are thus more interested in $\nu_2$ and $\nu_3$.
MacMahon and Andrews gave generating functions for $\nu_k$ and, along with Karl Dilcher independently \cite{Dilcher}, all derived the identities
\begin{equation}\label{Nu2Eq} \nu_2(n) = \frac{1}{2}\left(\sum_{k=1}^{n-1} d(k)d(n-k) - \sigma_1(n) + d(n) \right)\end{equation}
and
\begin{multline}\label{Nu3Eq} \nu_3(n) = \frac{1}{3} d(n) - \frac{1}{2} \sigma_1(n) + \frac{1}{6} \sigma_2(n) - \frac{1}{2} \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} d(k) \sigma_1(n-k) \\ + \frac{1}{2} \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} d(k) d(n-k) + \frac{1}{6} \sum_{k=1}^{n-2} \sum_{j=1}^{n-k-1} d(k) d(j) d(n-k-j)\end{multline}
\noindent where $\sigma_k(n) = \sum_{d \vert n} d^k$. (Dilcher's identity is different in form but closely related.)
Using these ideas, the author showed in \cite{Keith1} that
\begin{theorem}\label{V2Mod2} If $n \equiv 2 \pmod{4}$, or $n$ has two or more primes appearing to odd order in its prime factorization, then $\nu_2(n) \equiv 0 \pmod{2}$.\end{theorem}
Together with Rouse, it was further shown that
\begin{theorem}\label{16Mod14} $v_2(16j+14) \equiv 0 \pmod{4}$.
\end{theorem}
Since the proof strategy for Theorem \ref{Nu2} is an expansion of this method, we sketch the proof for Theorem \ref{16Mod14} below.
One observes that for $n = 16j+14$, $\sigma_1(n) \equiv 0 \pmod{8}$ and that $d(n) \equiv d\left(\frac{n}{2}\right)^2 \pmod{8}$, so these can be removed from equation (\ref{Nu2Eq}) and it remains to show that $$\sum_{k=1}^{\frac{n-2}{2}} d(k) d(n-k) \equiv 0 \pmod{4}.$$
There are no odd terms, since $n$ is not the sum of two squares (observe quadratic residues mod 16), and therefore we wish to show that there are an even number of terms that are not multiples of 4. The only terms that are not multiples of 4 are those in which $k$ or $n-k$ is square, and the other term is 2 mod 4, i.e. $n-k$ or $k$ respectively is $p y^2$ for $p$ a prime, with $s_p(y) \equiv 0 \pmod{2}$ where $s_p(y)$ is the power of $p$ in the prime factorization of $y$.
Thus the theorem reduces to showing that there are an even number of representations of $n$ in the form $n=x^2+py^2$ with the appropriate conditions on the prime $p$, since for each such pair $k$ will be the smaller of the two terms $x^2$ or $py^2$. In order to analyze the parity of the number of such representations, we avail ourselves of the congruences
$$F(q) := \sum_{n=0}^\infty \sigma_1(2n+1) q^{2n+1} \equiv \sum_{n =1}^\infty q^{(2n+1)^2} \pmod{2}$$
and
$$G(q) := \frac{1}{2} \sum_{n=0}^\infty \sigma_1(8n+5) q^{8n+5} \equiv \sum_{{p \equiv 5 \pmod{8}} \atop {y \geq 1, 2 \vert s_p(y)}} q^{p y^2} \pmod{2}.$$
(When we state of functions $F(q) = \sum_{n=0}^\infty f(n)q^n$ and $G(q)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty g(n) q^n$ that $F(q) \equiv G(q) \pmod{c}$, we mean that $f(n) \equiv g(n) \pmod{c}$ for all $n$.)
With these functions, $$T(q) = F(q)G(q) + F(q^4)F(q^2)$$ \noindent has coefficients of parity equal to the number of representations we desire.
This construction is advantageous since $F(q)$ and $G(q)$ are modular forms, and thus, by the properties listed below, so is $T(q)$. Indeed we can calculate that $T(q)$ is a modular form of weight 4 for $\Gamma_0(64)$ and hence the Sturm bound is 32; a short calculation of the type described below shows that all coefficients are even, and thus the theorem is shown.
The facts in the preceding paragraph are due to the properties of modular forms. We refer the interested reader to any textbook on modular forms for a more detailed study; we here summarize the properties we need.
\begin{itemize}
\item A modular form is said to be of weight $k$ for $\Gamma_0(N)$ or $\Gamma_1(N)$, certain subgroups of the modular group on the upper half-plane. Its \emph{level} is the minimum possible $N$. Such a form is also of weight $k$ for any $\Gamma_0(cN)$ or $\Gamma_1(cN)$, $c \in \mathbb{N}$.
\item Modular forms of a given weight for $\Gamma_i(N)$ form vector spaces over $\mathbb{C}$.
\item The substitutions $q \rightarrow q^c$ for $c \in \mathbb{N}$ send forms of weight $k$ for $\Gamma_i(N)$ to forms of weight $k$ for $\Gamma_i(cN)$.
\item The product of two modular forms for $\Gamma_i(N)$ of weights $k$ and $\ell$ is a modular form for $\Gamma_i(N)$ of weight $k+\ell$.
\item For a form $f(q)$, if all coefficients of $q^i$ in $f$ for $i$ below the \emph{Sturm bound} are divisible by a given prime, then all coefficients of $f$ are so divisible. This bound is $\frac{k}{12} N \prod_{p \vert N} \left(\frac{p+1}{p}\right)$ (the product is over all primes dividing $N$) for a form in $\Gamma_0(N)$ of weight $k$ and level dividing $N$, and for a form in $\Gamma_1(N)$ is increased by a factor equal to the index of the subgroup of $\Gamma_0(N)$ for which $f(q)$ is a form.
\item If $f(q) = \sum_{n=0}^\infty a(n) q^n$ is a modular form of weight $k$ and level $N$ for $\Gamma_0(N)$, then for $m \vert N$, $g(q) = \sum_{n=0}^\infty a(mn) q^n$ is also a modular form of weight $k$ and level $N$ for $\Gamma_0(N)$, and if $\chi$ is a primitive Dirichlet character mod $M$, then $g(q) = \sum_{n=0}^\infty a(n) \chi (n) q^n$ is a modular form of weight $k$ for $\Gamma_1(N M^2)$.
\end{itemize}
The last property allows us to dissect modular forms as needed for our proofs, for by selecting characters that cancel properly when the forms are added, we may construct from the form $f(q) = \sum_{n=0}^\infty a(n) q^n$ a form $g(q) = \sum_{n=0}^\infty a(An+B) q^{An+B}$ of the same weight and higher level. The form constructed from such twists will likely lie in $\Gamma_1(N)$ for the required level, in which case the Sturm bound will be increased by a factor equal to the order of the subgroup of squares of Dirichlet characters of modulo $A$ in the group of all Dirichlet characters modulo $A$.
Our proofs will require the facts that $F(q)$ (defined above) is of weight 2 and level 4, and $H(q) := \sum_{n=0}^\infty \sigma_1(3n+1) q^{3n+1}$ is of weight 2 and level 9.
\section{Partitions into 2 sizes of part}
In \cite{Keith1} it was conjectured that $\nu_2(36n+30) \equiv 0 \pmod{4}$. This and more is true. We prove Theorem \ref{Nu2} by an expansion of the methodology above, executing the proof strategy in detail for $(A,B) = (36,30)$.
\begin{proof}
Set $n=36j+30$. We again observe that $\sigma_1(n) \equiv 0 \pmod{8}$ (since $3 \vert\vert n$ and at least one prime $6\ell+5$ appears to odd order in its factorization) and that $d(n) \equiv d(\frac{n}{2})^2 \pmod{8}$, and so again it suffices to show
\begin{equation}\label{ShortD2} \sum_{k=1}^{\frac{n-2}{2}} d(k) d(n-k) \equiv 0 \pmod{4}.
\end{equation}
By the same argument as before, we wish to show that there exist an even number of representations $n = x^2+py^2$, $s_p(y) \equiv 0 \pmod{2}$. There are now six possible residue classes for $x$, with several possible values mod 36 of $p$ and $y$ for each. We summarize these in the following table.
\begin{center}\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline $x^2 \pmod{36}$ & $py^2 \pmod{36}$ & Possible $(p,y^2) \pmod{36}$ \\
\hline 1 & 29 & $\{(29,1), (17,25) , (5,13)\}$ \\
\hline 13 & 17 & $\{(17,1), (5,25), (29,13)\}$ \\
\hline 25 & 5 & $\{(5,1) , (29,25), (17,13)\}$ \\
\hline 4 & 26 & $\{(2,13)\}$ \\
\hline 16 & 14 & $\{(2,25)\}$ \\
\hline 28 & 2 & $\{(2,1)\}$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}\end{center}
We construct the following modular forms. All $q$-series congruences are mod 2.
For $i = 1,25, \text{ or } 13$, with $\epsilon(i) = 1, 5, \text{ or } 7$ respectively,
$$F_{x,i}(q) := \sum_{j=0}^\infty \sigma_1(36j+i) q^{36j+i} \equiv \sum_{{j=0} \atop {j \equiv \pm \epsilon(i) \, (\text{mod }18})}^\infty q^{j^2}.$$
To illustrate for clarity, $F_{x,13} = \sum_{j=0}^\infty \sigma_1(36j+13) q^{36j+13}$, which is congruent modulo 2 to $\sum q^{j^2}$ with the sum taken over positive $j \equiv \pm 7 \pmod{18}$.
For $\ell = 4,16, \text{ or } 28$, with $\epsilon(\ell) = 2, 4, \text{ or } 8$ respectively,
$$F_{x,\ell}(q) := \sum_{j=0}^\infty \sigma_1(9j+\ell/4) \left(q^4\right)^{9j+\ell/4} \equiv \sum_{j=0}^\infty \sigma_1(36j+\ell) q^{36j+\ell} \equiv \sum_{{j=0} \atop {j \equiv \pm \epsilon(\ell) \, (\text{mod } 18)}}^\infty q^{j^2}.$$
For $m = 13, 7, \text{ or } 1$, we observe that $\sigma_1(18j+m) \equiv \sigma_1(36j+2m) \pmod{2}$. Let $\epsilon(m) = 7, 5, \text{ or } 1$, respectively. We construct for these $m$
$$G_{y,2m}(q) := \sum_{j=0}^\infty \sigma_1(18j+m) \left(q^2\right)^{18j+m} \equiv \sum_{j=0}^\infty \sigma_1(36j+2m) q^{36j+2m} \equiv \sum_{{j=0} \atop {j \equiv \pm \epsilon(m) \, (\text{mod } 18)}}^\infty \left(q^2\right)^{j^2}.$$
Finally, for $k = 29, 17, \text{ or } 5$, define
\begin{align*}
G_{y,29}(q) :=& \frac{1}{2} \sum_{j=0}^\infty \sigma_1(36j+29) q^{36j+29} \equiv \sum_{{p \equiv 29 \pmod{36}} \atop {{y \equiv \pm 1 \pmod{18}} \atop {s_p(y) \, \text{even}}} } q^{p y^2} + \sum_{{p \equiv 17 \pmod{36}} \atop {{y \equiv \pm 5 \pmod{18}} \atop {s_p(y) \, \text{even}}} } q^{p y^2} + \sum_{{p \equiv 5 \pmod{36}} \atop {{y \equiv \pm 7 \pmod{18}} \atop {s_p(y) \, \text{even}}} } q^{p y^2} \\
G_{y,17}(q) :=& \frac{1}{2} \sum_{j=0}^\infty \sigma_1(36j+17) q^{36j+17} \equiv \sum_{{p \equiv 17 \pmod{36}} \atop {{y \equiv \pm 1 \pmod{18}} \atop {s_p(y) \, \text{even}}} } q^{p y^2} + \sum_{{p \equiv 5 \pmod{36}} \atop {{y \equiv \pm 5 \pmod{18}} \atop {s_p(y) \, \text{even}}} } q^{p y^2} + \sum_{{p \equiv 29 \pmod{36}} \atop {{y \equiv \pm 7 \pmod{18}} \atop {s_p(y) \, \text{even}}} } q^{p y^2} \\
G_{y,5}(q) :=& \frac{1}{2} \sum_{j=0}^\infty \sigma_1(36j+5) q^{36j+5} \equiv \sum_{{p \equiv 5 \pmod{36}} \atop {{y \equiv \pm 1 \pmod{18}} \atop {s_p(y) \, \text{even}}} } q^{p y^2} + \sum_{{p \equiv 29 \pmod{36}} \atop {{y \equiv \pm 5 \pmod{18}} \atop {s_p(y) \, \text{even}}} } q^{p y^2} + \sum_{{p \equiv 17 \pmod{36}} \atop {{y \equiv \pm 7 \pmod{18}} \atop {s_p(y) \, \text{even}}} } q^{p y^2}.
\end{align*}
These modular forms have the following weights and levels: $F_{x,1}$, $F_{x,25}$, $F_{x,13}$, $G_{y,29}$, $G_{y,17}$, and $G_{y,5}$ are all dissections of $F(q)$ by characters mod 36, and so they are all of weight 2 for $\Gamma_1(36^2 \cdot 4) = \Gamma_1(5184)$. $F_{x,4}$, $F_{x,16}$, and $F_{x,28}$ are dissections of $H(q)$ by characters mod 9, thereafter magnified by the substitution $q\rightarrow q^4$, so they of weight 2 for $\Gamma_1(4\cdot 9^3) = \Gamma_1(2916)$. $G_{y,26}$, $G_{y,14}$ and $G_{y,2}$ are all dissections of $H(q)$ by characters mod 18, thereafter magnified by the substitution $q \rightarrow q^2$, so they are modular forms of weight 2 for $\Gamma_1(9 \cdot 18^2 \cdot 2) = \Gamma_1(5832)$.
The product of any two of these modular forms of weight 2 for $\Gamma_1(N_1)$ and $\Gamma_1(N_2)$ is a modular form of weight 4 for $\Gamma_1(lcm(N_1,N_2))$. For the odd $F$ and $G$, we have $F_{x,i} G_{y,j}$ of weight 4 for $\Gamma_1(5184)$. The even cases $F_{x,2i} G_{y,2j}$ are of weight 4 for $\Gamma_1(5832)$. Finally, the sum of all these is a modular form of weight 4 for $\Gamma_1(lcm(5184,5832))=\Gamma_1(46656)=\Gamma_1(6^6)$.
Define $S=\{1,25,13,4,16,28\}$ and set $$R(q) = \sum_{n=0}^\infty r(n) q^n = \sum_{i \in S} F_{x,i} (q) G_{y,30-i} (q).$$ Then $r(n)$ is 0 for terms other than $n=36j+30$, and for these terms is of the same parity as the number of representations of $n$ of the form sought.
If $R(q)$ were in $\Gamma_0(N)$, the Sturm bound for $R(q)$ would be $\frac{4}{12} 46656 \left(\frac{3}{2}\frac{4}{3}\right) = 31104$. However, $R(q)$ instead lies in $M_2(\Gamma_0(6^6)) \oplus M_2(\Gamma_0(6^6), \chi) \oplus M_2(\Gamma_0(6^6),\chi^2)$ where $\chi$ is some Dirichlet character of order 3, and thus $R(q)$ is a modular form of weight 4 for a subgroup of $\Gamma_0(6^6)$ of index 3, so the bound required is 93312.
It is a straightforward calculation to construct all these forms in Mathematica or another symbolic computation package, expand the series to the Sturm bound, and check that all coefficients up to $q^{93312}$ are even. Hence, all coefficients are even, and so the number of representations of $36j+30$ of the form required is also even. Thus, $\sum_{k=1}^{\frac{n-2}{2}} d(k) d(n-k) \equiv 0 \pmod{4}$, and the theorem holds.
For progressions $n=Aj+B$ with $A$ even in which $\sigma_1(n) \equiv 0 \pmod{8}$ and $d(n) \equiv d\left(\frac{n}{2}\right)^2 \pmod{8}$, the sum reduces the same way to showing $$\sum_{k=1}^{\frac{n-2}{2}} d(k) d(n-k) \equiv 0 \pmod{4}.$$ If the candidate progression is among those which can never contain sums of two squares, then we again reduce the question to analyzing the parity of the number of representations of $n$ of the form $x^2+py^2$, $s_p(y) \equiv 0 \pmod{2}$, which if $Aj+B$ is a suitable progression we can analyze exactly as before.
The other progressions of the theorem can be analyzed in such a fashion. We omit the repetitive details, noting only that for $A=72, 196, 252$ our multiples of the $\Gamma_0$ bound are 6, 21, and 9 respectively; the necessary parity checks can be easily verified by a symbolic computation package on a laptop computer. \end{proof}
\noindent \textbf{Remarks:} These are not exhaustive even of candidates of small moduli. We note that computation has not yet suggested a candidate progression in which the conditions described do \emph{not} hold. It would be reasonable to conjecture that the conditions are necessary:
\begin{conjecture}\label{Nu2Conj} If $\nu_2(An+B) \equiv 0 \pmod{4}$ for all $n$, then for all $n$ it holds that $\sigma_1(An+B) \equiv 0 \pmod{8}$, $d(An+B) \equiv d\left(\frac{An+B}{2}\right)^2 \pmod{8}$, and the progression $An+B$ never contains sums of two squares.
\end{conjecture}
\section{Partitions into 3 sizes of part}
We observed in the introduction that the result of Kim, that $\overline{p}(n) \equiv 0 \pmod{8}$ for $n \neq k^2, 2k^2$, is equivalent to the claim that for such $n$, $\frac{1}{2}\nu_1(n)$ and $\nu_2(n)$ are simultaneously both even or both odd. Once we have information on $\nu_i$ for $i < k$, information about overpartitions gives us information about $\nu_k$. We will prove Theorem \ref{Nu3} by first giving several facts about $\nu_1$ and $\nu_2$, then proving or employing congruences for $\overline{p}(An+B)$ modulo 16.
\phantom{.}
\noindent \emph{Proof of Theorem \ref{Nu3}.} Begin by observing that for $(A,B)$ one of the ordered pairs $\{(36,30), (72,42), (196,70), (252,114) \}$, $\nu_1(An+B) \equiv 0 \pmod{8}$ because at least three primes divide $An+B$ with odd exponent. To wit, $36n+30 = 6(6n+5)$, and 5 is a quadratic nonresidue modulo 6, so 2, 3, and some additional prime divide $36n+30$ to odd order. For $72n+42 = 6(12n+7)$, 7 is a quadratic nonresidue modulo 12; for $196n+70 = 14(14n+5)$, 5 is a quadratic nonresidue modulo 14; for $252n+114 = 6(42n+19)$, 19 is a quadratic nonresidue modulo 42.
We previously showed that $\nu_2(An+B) \equiv 0 \pmod{4}$ in each of these progressions. Therefore, we have $$\overline{p}(An+B) \equiv 2\cdot 8 + 4 \cdot 4 + 8 \cdot \nu_3(An+B) + \dots \pmod{16}.$$
Thus, if $\overline{p}(An+B) \equiv 0 \pmod{16}$ in these progressions, it must follow that $\nu_3(An+B) \equiv 0 \pmod{2}$. Hence we show Theorem \ref{OverPtns}.
\begin{proof}
The case $(A,B) = (196,70)$ is separate and follows immediately from Theorem 1.2 of Chen et. al in \cite{CHSZ}, which holds that $\overline{p}(7n) \equiv 0 \pmod{16}$ unless $7 \vert n$.
For the remaining cases, in which $36 \vert A$, we employ several identities from \cite{XiaYao}, beginning with congruence (4.29) of that paper. For compactness, we employ the notation $$f_i = \prod_{k=1}^\infty (1-q^{ik}).$$ It holds for $\ell > 0$ that ${f_i}^{2^\ell} \equiv {f_{2i}}^{2^{\ell-1}} \pmod{2^\ell}$, and more generally for $\ell > k \geq 0$ that $$2^k {f_i}^{2^{\ell-k}} \equiv 2^k {f_{2i}}^{2^{\ell-k-1}} \pmod{2^{\ell-k}}.$$
We will require two lemmas from \cite{CHSZ}. First is the 3-dissection of the overpartition function:
\begin{lemma}\label{OPmod3} $\frac{f_2}{{f_1}^2} = \frac{f_6^4 f_9^6}{f_3^8f_{18}^3} + 2q\frac{f_6^3f_9^3}{f_3^7}+4q^2\frac{f_6^2f_{18}^3}{f_3^6}$
\end{lemma}
Next is the 2-dissection of another quotient:
\begin{lemma}\label{ThreeEven} $\frac{f_3^3}{f_1} = \frac{f_4^3f_6^2}{f_2^2f_{12}} + q \frac{f_{12}^3}{f_4}$
\end{lemma}
Now, from equation (4.29) in \cite{CHSZ}, we extract the even terms and reduce the congruence to one modulo 16 to obtain
$$\overline{p}(6n) q^n \equiv \frac{f_2^4 f_{12}^{15}}{f_1^8 f_{6}^6 f_{24}^6} + 12q^3 \frac{f_{12}^3 f_{24}^2}{f_6^2} \pmod{16}.$$
We wish to extract from this identity those terms in which $n \equiv 5 \pmod{6}$. In the second summand, all $q^n$ have $n \equiv 0 \pmod{3}$, so we discard these. Take $\frac{f_2^4}{f_1^8}$ and employ Lemma \ref{OPmod3} to obtain
\begin{equation}\label{Fourth}\sum_{n=0}^\infty \overline{p}(6n)q^n \equiv \frac{f_{12}^{15}}{f_6^6 f_{24}^6} \left( \frac{f_6^4 f_9^6}{f_3^8f_{18}^3} + 2q\frac{f_6^3f_9^3}{f_3^7}+4q^2\frac{f_6^2f_{18}^3}{f_3^6} \right)^4 + \cdots \pmod{16}\end{equation}
\noindent where the elided terms do not have power $n \equiv 5 \pmod{6}$. Now expand the fourth power, disregarding all terms with an integer coefficient divisible by 16, and extract all those terms in which $n \equiv 2 \pmod{3}$:
$$\sum_{n=0}^\infty \overline{p}(18n+12)q^{3n+2} \equiv \frac{f_{12}^{15}}{f_6^6 f_{24}^6} \left( 24q^2 \frac{f_6^7 f_9^{18}}{f_3^{30} f_{18}^6} \right) \pmod{16}.$$
But since $24\frac{1}{f_3^{30}} \equiv 24 \frac{1}{f_6^{15}} \pmod{16}$, all powers in this congruence with odd coefficient are in fact congruent to 2 mod 6, and so no terms congruent to 5 mod 6 appear with nonzero coefficient modulo 16. The theorem is proved for $(A,B) = (36,30)$.
To prove the case $(A,B) = (72,42)$, we start from equation \ref{Fourth} and extract terms $7 \pmod{12}$. Begin with terms congruent to $1 \pmod{3}$:
$$\sum_{n=0}^\infty \overline{p}(18n+6)q^{3n+1} \equiv \frac{f_{12}^{15}}{f_6^6 f_{24}^6} \left( 8 q \frac{f_6^{15} f_9^{21}}{f_3^{31} f_{18}^9} \right) \equiv 8q \frac{f_9^3}{f_3} \pmod{16}.$$
We now employ Lemma \ref{ThreeEven} to obtain those terms that are 1 mod 6:
$$ \sum_{n=0}^\infty \overline{p}(36n+6) q^{6n+1} \equiv 8q \frac{f_{12}^3 f_{18}^2}{f_6^2 f_{36}} \equiv 8q f_{24} \pmod{16}.$$
Hence there are no powers $q^j$ with $j \equiv 7 \pmod{12}$ that have coefficients nonzero modulo 16.
Finally, to show the case $(A,B) = (252,114)$, we take the congruence above:
$$ \sum_{n=0}^\infty \overline{p}(6(6n+1)) q^{n} \equiv 8 f_{4} \pmod{16}.$$
\noindent and extract terms where $n \equiv 3 \pmod{7}$. But by the Pentagonal Number Theorem $f_4 = \sum_{n=-\infty}^\infty (-1)^n q^{2n(3n+1)},$ and for integer argument $2n(3n+1)$ only takes on residues 0, 1, 4, or 6 modulo 7. Thus, in the progression $(A,B) = (252,114)$ no coefficients are nonzero mod 16, and Theorem \ref{OverPtns} is proven. \end{proof}
Since Theorem \ref{OverPtns} holds, and the necessary conditions on $\nu_1$ and $\nu_2$ are fulfilled, it follows that $\nu_3 \equiv 0 \pmod{2}$ in the progressions studied. Thus Theorem \ref{Nu3} is proved. \hfill $\Box$
\section{Open Questions}
One could possibly use information about $\nu_k$ to prove statements about overpartitions, at least modulo powers of 2. In order to do so one would need to analyze $\nu_k$ without invoking overpartition congruences, analyzing the parity of the terms in the generating function as we did for Theorem \ref{Nu2}. At present we require information about $\nu_1$ and $\nu_2$ to obtain information on $\nu_3$. While it is conceivable that $\nu_3$ might possess arithmetic progressions in which all values are even without the same holding true for higher powers for $\nu_2$ and $\nu_1$, we believe there is good reason to think that this is not the case, and formally conjecture:
\begin{conjecture}\label{Nu3Conj} If $\nu_3(An+B) \equiv 0 \pmod{2}$ for some arithmetic progression, it also holds that $\nu_2(An+B) \equiv 0 \pmod{4}$.
\end{conjecture}
Why might this conjecture hold? Suppose one wishes to show $\nu_3(36j+30) \equiv 0 \pmod{2}$ by analyzing the parity of the terms in equation (\ref{Nu3Eq}). Suppose we have already shown for $n \equiv 30 \pmod{36}$ that $\nu_2(n) \equiv 0 \pmod{4}$, and we know $d(n) \equiv 0 \pmod{8}$, $\sigma_1(n) \equiv 0 \pmod{8}$, and $\sum_{k=1}^{n-1} d(k) d(n-k) \equiv 0 \pmod{8}$. (In any other arithmetic progression, if any three of these are true, all four are, because we may subtract the other terms in equation (\ref{Nu2Eq}) from $\nu_2(n)$.)
We may then subtract these terms from equation (\ref{Nu3Eq}) for $\nu_3(n)$ to obtain
\begin{multline*} \nu_3(n) = \frac{1}{3} d(n) - \frac{1}{2} \sigma_1(n) + \frac{1}{6} \sigma_2(n) - \frac{1}{2} \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} d(k) \sigma_1(n-k) \\ + \frac{1}{2} \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} d(k) d(n-k) + \frac{1}{6} \sum_{k=1}^{n-2} \sum_{\ell=1}^{n-k-1} d(k) d(\ell) d(n-k-\ell) \\
\equiv -\frac{1}{6}d(n) +\frac{1}{6} \sigma_2(n) - \frac{1}{2} \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} d(k) \sigma_1(n-k) \\ + \frac{1}{6} \sum_{k=1}^{n-2} \sum_{\ell=1}^{n-k-1} d(k) d(\ell) d(n-k-\ell) \pmod{2}.
\end{multline*}
It is not difficult to show that $d(36j+30) \equiv -\sigma_2(36j+30) \pmod{12}$ (both functions being multiplicative, one simply observes the values mod 6 of each factor) and hence we can write
\begin{multline*} \nu_3(n) \equiv -\frac{1}{3}d(n) - \frac{1}{2} \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} d(k) \sigma_1(n-k) \\ + \frac{1}{6} \sum_{k=1}^{n-2} \sum_{\ell=1}^{n-k-1} d(k) d(\ell) d(n-k-\ell) \pmod{2}.
\end{multline*}
We now note that many terms in the final sum can be cast out modulo 2. If exactly one of $k$, $\ell$, or $n-k-\ell$ is a nonsquare and the other two terms are not equal, we can group the six permutations of the three entries, the product of which are even, and discard them. If exactly one entry is a square, we can again do so -- we may have only three permutations, but the product is divisible by 4.
If all three are non-squares, the only term we cannot permute and cast out is when $k = \ell = 12j+10$, which may not have $d(12j+10) \equiv 0 \pmod{3}$. But $d(12j+10) = \frac{1}{2} d(36j+30)$. If we add one-sixth of the cube of this to $-\frac{1}{3}d(n)$, we obtain $\frac{1}{3} \cdot \frac{1}{16} d(n)(d(n)-4)(d(n)+4)$. In the latter product one term is divisible by 3 and since $d(n) \equiv 0 \pmod{8}$, the whole is an even integer.
If all three are squares, then they cannot be the same square (10 is not a quadratic residue mod 12) and thus they have 3 or 6 permutations; however, we may not be able to cast out such terms. For instance, $30=25+4+1$ and the six permutations thereof, and this is the only such representation of 30. We are also left with terms in which exactly one entry is a non-square and the other two are equal squares. We may multiply by 3 and take the representative of these in which $k = \ell$ are the squares. Thus, we end up interested in representations of $n$ by three squares, or twice a square and a non-square. (It is interesting that overpartition identities so often relate to identities concerning sums of squares.)
Now observe that in $\frac{1}{2} \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} d(k) \sigma_1(n-k)$, $\sigma_1(n-k) \equiv d(n-k) \pmod{2}$ unless $n-k$ is twice a square, and we already know that $\frac{1}{2} \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} d(k) d(n-k) \equiv 0 \pmod{4}$. Thus we can reduce the sought identity to
\begin{multline} \nu_3(n) \equiv -\frac{1}{2} \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} d(k)\sigma_1(n-k) \\ + \sum_{{j+k+\ell=n} \atop {0 < j < k < \ell \text{ distinct squares}}} d(j)d(k)d(\ell) + \frac{1}{2} \sum_{k=1}^{\lfloor \sqrt{(n-1)/2} \rfloor} d(k^2)^2 d(n-2k^2) \pmod{2}.\end{multline}
We know this is congruent to 0, by the previous work; the search for a direct proof seems like a natural question of interest.
Finally, in addition to the conjectures stated previously, a number of open questions present themselves.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Treat candidate progressions in a more unified fashion, probably via the theory of eigenforms. Can we show the existence of an infinite class of $(A,B)$ for which $\nu_2(An+B) \equiv 0 \pmod{4}$, and/or $\nu_3(An+B) \equiv 0 \pmod{2}$?
\item Numerical experimentation to date has found no progressions $An+B$ in which $\nu_2(An+B) \equiv 0 \pmod{N}$ for any $N$ other than 2 or 4; and none for $\nu(3)$ other than $N=2$. If different moduli occur, they may have large progression modulus $A$. Do these occur, and if so, how can they be efficiently found, or, are they forbidden?
\item Experimentation has yielded no progressions with nontrivial modulus for $\nu_k$ with $k > 3$. It is plausible that these never occur, since from the formulas in Andrews \cite{GEA1} these values involve sums concerning $d(k) \sigma_2(n-k)$, and $\sigma_2(j)$ is not part of the same framework of modular forms and their symmetries as $\sigma_1$. (When it appeared in $\nu_3(36j+30)$ it was a single term which cancelled with $d(n)$.) Again, can these occur, and if so where, or are they forbidden?
\item Elaborate on the relationships between $\nu_1$ and $\nu_2$, and between $\nu_2$ and $\nu_3$. State conditions necessary and/or sufficient for simultaneous congruences.
\item Complete the combinatorial proof for $\nu_3(36j+30)$ and generalize to other progressions.
\end{enumerate}
\section{Acknowledgements}
The author sincerely thanks Jeremy Rouse for assistance provided on MathOverflow \cite{MOJRouse, MOJRouse2}, and a careful anonymous referee for correcting an oversight in an earlier draft.
|
\section*{Introduction}
${\;\;\;}$The {\em twisted tensor product} of the associative unital algebras $A$ and $B$
is a new associative unital algebra structure built on the linear space $A\ot B$ with the help
of a linear map $R:B\ot A\rightarrow A\ot B$ called a {\em twisting map}. This construction,
denoted by $A\ot _RB$, appeared in several contexts and has various applications
(\cite{Cap}, \cite{VanDaele}). Concrete examples come especially from Hopf algebra theory,
like for instance the smash product.
It was proved in \cite{jlpvo} that twisted tensor products of algebras may be iterated. Namely, if
$A\otimes _{R_1}B$, $B\otimes _{R_2}C$ and $A\otimes _{R_3}C$ are twisted tensor products and
the twisting maps $R_1$, $R_2$, $R_3$ satisfy the braid relation $(id_A\otimes R_2)\circ
(R_3\otimes id_B)\circ (id_C\otimes R_1)=(R_1\otimes id_C)\circ (id_B\otimes R_3)\circ
(R_2\otimes id_A)$, then one can define certain twisted tensor products
$A\otimes _{T_2}(B\otimes _{R_2}C)$
and $(A\otimes _{R_1}B)\otimes _{T_1}C$ that are equal as algebras
(and this algebra is called the iterated twisted tensor product).
The Brzezi\'{n}ski crossed product, introduced in \cite{brz}, is a common
generalization of twisted tensor products of algebras and the Hopf crossed product (containing also
as a particular case the quasi-Hopf smash product introduced in \cite{bpvo}). If $A$ is an
associative unital algebra, $V$ is a linear space endowed with a distinguished element $1_V$ and
$\sigma :V\ot V\rightarrow A\ot V$ and $R:V\ot A\rightarrow A\ot V$ are linear maps
satisfying certain conditions, then the Brzezi\'{n}ski crossed product is a certain associative
unital algebra structure on $A\ot V$, denoted by $A\ot _{R, \sigma }V$.
In \cite{iterated} was proved that Brzezi\'{n}ski crossed products may be iterated, in the following sense.
One can define first a ''mirror version'' of the Brzezi\'{n}ski crossed product, denoted by
$W\overline{\otimes}_{P, \nu }D$ (where $D$ is an associative unital algebra, $W$ is a linear space and
$P$, $\nu $ are certain linear maps). Examples are twisted tensor products of algebras and the
quasi-Hopf smash product introduced in \cite{bpv}. Then it was proved that, if
$W\overline{\otimes}_{P, \nu }D$ and $D\ot _{R, \sigma }V$ are two Brzezi\'{n}ski crossed products
and $Q:V\ot W\rightarrow W\ot D\ot V$ is a linear map satisfying some conditions, then one can define
certain Brzezi\'{n}ski crossed products $(W\overline{\otimes}_{P, \nu }D)\ot
_{\overline{R}, \overline{\sigma }}V$ and $W\overline{\otimes }_{\overline{P}, \overline{\nu }}
(D\ot _{R, \sigma }V)$ that are equal as algebras. Iterated twisted tensor products of algebras
appear as a particular case of this construction, as well as the so-called quasi-Hopf two-sided smash
product $A\#H\#B$ from \cite{bpvo}.
The aim of this paper is to show that Brzezi\'{n}ski crossed products may be iterated in a
different way, that will also contain as a particular case the iterated twisted tensor product of algebras.
Namely, we prove that, if $A\ot _{R, \sigma }V$ and $A\ot _{P, \nu }W$ are two Brzezi\'{n}ski
crossed products and
$Q:W\ot V\rightarrow V\ot W$ is a linear map satisfying certain properties, then we can define
two Brzezi\'{n}ski
crossed products $A\ot _{S, \theta }(V\ot W)$ and
$(A\ot _{R, \sigma }V)\ot _{T, \eta }W$ that are equal as algebras.
Our inspiration for looking at this new way of iterating Brzezi\'{n}ski crossed products came
from the following result in graded ring theory: If $G$ is a group, $R$ is a $G$-graded ring,
$A$ and $B$ are two finite left $G$-sets, then there exists a ring isomorphism between the
smash products $R\#(A\times B)$ and $(R\# A)\# B$. This result was obtained in \cite[Corollary 3.2]{leo},
and it is useful in the study of the von Neumann regularity of rings of the type $R\# A$,
cf. \cite{leo}. The smash product $R\# A$ of the $G-$graded ring $R$ by a (finite) left $G-$set $A$ was
introduced in the paper \cite{nrv} and it is a particular case of a more general construction. If $H$ is a Hopf algebra, $R$ an $H-$comodule algebra and $C$ an $H-$module coalgebra, then we may consider the category $_{R}^{C}\mathcal{M}(H)$ of Doi-Koppinen Hopf modules (i.e. left $R-$modules and left $C-$comodules which satisfy certain compatibility relations). Then, the smash product \mbox{$R\symbol{35} A$} used in \cite{leo} is a particular smash product and it is the first example in the category $_{R}^{C}\mathcal{M}(H)$ (in the case when $H$ is the groupring $k[G]$, $R$ a $G-$graded ring and $C$ the grouplike coalgebra $k[A]$ on a $G-$set $A$).
\section{Preliminaries}\selabel{1}
${\;\;\;\;}$
We work over a commutative field $k$. All algebras, linear spaces
etc. will be over $k$; unadorned $\ot $ means $\ot_k$. By ''algebra'' we
always mean an associative unital algebra. The multiplication
of an algebra $A$ is denoted by $\mu _A$ or simply $\mu $ when
there is no danger of confusion, and we usually denote
$\mu _A(a\ot a')=aa'$ for all $a, a'\in A$. The unit of an algebra $A$ is
denoted by $1_A$ or simply $1$ when there is no danger of confusion.
We recall from \cite{Cap}, \cite{VanDaele} that, given two algebras $A$, $B$
and a $k$-linear map $R:B\ot A\rightarrow A\ot B$, with Sweedler-type notation
$R(b\ot a)=a_R\ot b_R$, for $a\in A$, $b\in B$, satisfying the conditions
$a_R\otimes 1_R=a\otimes 1$, $1_R\otimes b_R=1\otimes b$,
$(aa')_R\otimes b_R=a_Ra'_r\otimes (b_R)_r$,
$a_R\otimes (bb')_R=(a_R)_r\otimes b_rb'_R$,
for all $a, a'\in A$ and $b, b'\in B$ (where $r$ and $R$ are two different indices),
if we define on $A\ot B$ a new multiplication, by
$(a\ot b)(a'\ot b')=aa'_R\ot b_Rb'$, then this multiplication is associative
with unit $1\ot 1$. In this case, the map $R$ is called
a {\em twisting map} between $A$ and $B$ and the new algebra
structure on $A\ot B$ is denoted by $A\ot _RB$ and called the
{\em twisted tensor product} of $A$ and $B$ afforded by the map $R$.
We recall from \cite{brz} the construction of
Brzezi\'{n}ski's crossed product:
\begin{proposition} (\cite{brz}) \label{defbrz}
Let $(A, \mu , 1_A)$ be an (associative unital) algebra and $V$ a
vector space equipped with a distinguished element $1_V\in V$. Then
the vector space $A\ot V$ is an associative algebra with unit $1_A\ot 1_V$
and whose multiplication has the property that $(a\ot 1_V)(b\ot v)=
ab\ot v$, for all $a, b\in A$ and $v\in V$, if and only if there exist
linear maps $\sigma :V\ot V\rightarrow A\ot V$ and
$R:V\ot A\rightarrow A\ot V$ satisfying the following conditions:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&R(1_V\ot a)=a\ot 1_V, \;\;\;R(v\ot 1_A)=1_A\ot v, \;\;\;\forall
\;a\in A, \;v\in V, \label{brz1} \\
&&\sigma (1_V\ot v)=\sigma (v\ot 1_V)=1_A\ot v, \;\;\;\forall
\;v\in V, \label{brz2} \\
&&R\circ (id_V\ot \mu )=(\mu \ot id_V)\circ (id_A\ot R)\circ (R\ot id_A),
\label{brz3} \\
&&(\mu \ot id_V)\circ (id_A\ot \sigma )\circ (R\ot id_V)\circ
(id_V\ot \sigma ) \nonumber \\
&&\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;
=(\mu \ot id_V)\circ (id_A\ot \sigma )\circ (\sigma \ot id_V), \label{brz4} \\
&&(\mu \ot id_V)\circ (id_A\ot \sigma )\circ (R\ot id_V)\circ
(id_V\ot R ) \nonumber \\
&&\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;
=(\mu \ot id_V)\circ (id_A\ot R )\circ (\sigma \ot id_A). \label{brz5}
\end{eqnarray}
If this is the case, the multiplication of $A\ot V$ is given explicitly by
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\mu _{A\ot V}=(\mu _2\ot id_V)\circ (id_A\ot id_A\ot \sigma )\circ
(id_A\ot R\ot id_V),
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\mu _2=\mu \circ (id_A\ot \mu )=\mu \circ (\mu \ot id_A)$.
We denote by $A\ot _{R, \sigma }V$ this algebra structure and
call it the {\em crossed product} (or Brzezi\'{n}ski crossed product)
afforded by the data $(A, V, R, \sigma )$.
\end{proposition}
If $A\ot _{R, \sigma }V$ is a crossed product, we introduce the
following Sweedler-type notation:
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&R:V\ot A\rightarrow A\ot V, \;\;\;R(v\ot a)=a_R\ot v_R, \\
&&\sigma :V\ot V\rightarrow A\ot V, \;\;\;\sigma (v\ot v')=\sigma _1(v, v')
\ot \sigma _2(v, v'),
\end{eqnarray*}
for all $v, v'\in V$ and $a\in A$. With this notation, the multiplication of
$A\ot _{R, \sigma }V$ reads
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&(a\ot v)(a'\ot v')=aa'_R\sigma _1(v_R, v')\ot \sigma _2(v_R, v'), \;\;\;
\forall \;a, a'\in A, \;v, v'\in V.
\end{eqnarray*}
A twisted tensor product is a particular case of a crossed product
(cf. \cite{guccione}), namely, if $A\ot _RB$ is a twisted tensor product of
algebras then $A\ot _RB=A\ot _{R, \sigma }B$, where
$\sigma :B\ot B\rightarrow A\ot B$
is given by $\sigma (b\ot b')=1_A\ot bb'$, for all $b, b'\in B$.
\begin{remark}
The conditions (\ref{brz3}), (\ref{brz4}) and (\ref{brz5}) for $R$, $\sigma $
may be written
in Sweedler-type notation respectively as
\begin{eqnarray}
&&(aa')_R\ot v_R=a_Ra'_r\ot (v_R)_r, \label{brz6} \\
&&\sigma _1(y, z)_R\sigma _1(x_R, \sigma _2(y, z))\ot
\sigma _2(x_R, \sigma _2(y, z)) \nonumber \\
&&\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;=\sigma _1(x, y)\sigma _1(\sigma _2(x, y), z)\ot
\sigma _2(\sigma _2(x, y), z), \label{brz7}\\
&&(a_R)_r\sigma _1(v_r, v'_R)\ot \sigma _2(v_r, v'_R)
=\sigma _1(v, v')a_R\ot \sigma _2(v, v')_R, \label{brz8}
\end{eqnarray}
for all $a, a'\in A$ and $x, y, z, v, v'\in V,$ where $r$ is another copy of $R$.
\end{remark}
\section{The main result and examples}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\begin{theorem} \label{principala}
Let $A\ot _{R, \sigma }V$ and $A\ot _{P, \nu }W$ be two crossed products and
$Q:W\ot V\rightarrow V\ot W$ a linear map, with notation $Q(w\ot v)=
v_Q\ot w_Q$, for all $v\in V$ and $w\in W$. Assume that the following
conditions are satisfied: \\[2mm]
(i) $Q$ is unital, in the sense that
\begin{eqnarray}
&&Q(1_W\ot v)=v\ot 1_W, \;\;\; Q(w\ot 1_V)=1_V\ot w, \;\;\; \forall \;
v\in V, \; w\in W. \label{unitQ}
\end{eqnarray}
(ii) the braid relation for $R$, $P$, $Q$, i.e.
\begin{eqnarray}
&&(id_A\ot Q)\circ (P\ot id_V)\circ (id_W\ot R)=
(R\ot id_W)\circ (id_V\ot P)\circ (Q\ot id_A),
\end{eqnarray}
or, equivalently,
\begin{eqnarray}
&&(a_R)_P\ot (v_R)_Q\ot (w_P)_Q=(a_P)_R\ot (v_Q)_R\ot (w_Q)_P,
\;\;\; \forall \;a\in A, \; v\in V, \; w\in W. \label{braidcoord}
\end{eqnarray}
(iii) we have the following hexagonal relation between $\sigma $, $P$, $Q$:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&(id_A\ot Q)\circ (P\ot id_V)\circ (id_W\ot \sigma )=
(\sigma \ot id_W)\circ (id_V\ot Q)\circ (Q\ot id_V),
\end{eqnarray}
or, equivalently,
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\sigma _1(v, v')_P\ot \sigma _2(v, v')_Q\ot (w_P)_Q=
\sigma _1(v_Q, v'_q)\ot \sigma _2(v_Q, v'_q)\ot (w_Q)_q, \label{PQsigma}
\end{eqnarray}
for all $v, v'\in V$ and $w\in W$, where $q$ is another copy of $Q$. \\[2mm]
(iv) we have the following hexagonal relation between $\nu $, $R$, $Q$:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&(id_A\ot Q)\circ (\nu \ot id_V)=(R\ot id_W)\circ (id_V\ot \nu )\circ
(Q\ot id_W)\circ (id_W\ot Q),
\end{eqnarray}
or, equivalently,
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\nu _1(w, w')\ot v_Q\ot \nu _2(w, w')_Q=\nu _1(w_q, w'_Q)_R\ot
((v_Q)_q)_R\ot \nu _2(w_q, w'_Q), \label{RQniu}
\end{eqnarray}
for all $v\in V$ and $w, w'\in W$, where $q$ is another copy of $Q$.
Define the linear maps
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&S:(V\ot W)\ot A\rightarrow A\ot (V\ot W), \;\;\;
S:=(R\ot id_W)\circ (id_V\ot P), \\
&&\theta :(V\ot W)\ot (V\ot W)\rightarrow A\ot (V\ot W), \\
&&\theta :=(\mu _A\ot id_V\ot id_W)\circ (id_A\ot R\ot id_W)
\circ (\sigma \ot \nu )\circ (id_V\ot Q\ot id_W), \\
&&T:W\ot (A\ot V)\rightarrow (A\ot V)\ot W, \;\;\;
T:=(id_A\ot Q)\circ (P\ot id_V), \\
&&\eta :W\ot W\rightarrow (A\ot V)\ot W, \\
&&\eta (w\ot w')=(\nu _1(w, w')\ot 1_V)\ot \nu _2(w, w'), \;\;\; \forall \; w, w'\in W.
\end{eqnarray*}
Then we have a crossed product $A\ot _{S, \theta }(V\ot W)$ (with respect
to $1_{V\ot W}:=1_V\ot 1_W$), we have a crossed product
$(A\ot _{R, \sigma }V)\ot _{T, \eta }W$ and we have an algebra isomorphism
$A\ot _{S, \theta }(V\ot W)\simeq (A\ot _{R, \sigma }V)\ot _{T, \eta }W$
given by the trivial identification.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We prove first that $A\ot _{S, \theta }(V\ot W)$ is a crossed product,
i.e. we need to prove the relations (\ref{brz1})-(\ref{brz5}) with $R$
replaced by $S$, $\sigma $ replaced by $\theta $ etc. The relations
(\ref{brz1}) and (\ref{brz2}) follow immediately by (\ref{unitQ})
and the relations (\ref{brz1}) and (\ref{brz2}) for $R$, $\sigma $ and
$P$, $\nu $. Note that the maps $S$ and $\theta $ are defined explicitely by
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&S(v\ot w\ot a)=(a_P)_R\ot v_R\ot w_P, \\
&&\theta (v\ot w\ot v'\ot w')=\sigma _1(v, v'_Q)\nu _1(w_Q, w')_R\ot
\sigma _2(v, v'_Q)_R\ot \nu _2(w_Q, w'),
\end{eqnarray*}
for all $v, v'\in V$, $w, w'\in W$ and $a\in A$. We will denote by $R=r={\mathcal R}=
\overline{R}$, $Q=q=\overline{Q}$ and $P=p$ some more copies of $R$, $Q$ and
$P$. \\
\underline{Proof of (\ref{brz3})}:\\[2mm]
${\;\;\;}$$S\circ (id_V\ot id_W\ot \mu _A)(v\ot w\ot a\ot a')$
\begin{eqnarray*}
&=&S(v\ot w\ot aa')\\
&=&((aa')_P)_R\ot v_R\ot w_P\\
&\overset{(\ref{brz6})}{=}&(a_Pa'_p)_R\ot v_R\ot (w_P)_p\\
&\overset{(\ref{brz6})}{=}&(a_P)_R(a'_p)_r\ot (v_R)_r\ot (w_P)_p\\
&=&(\mu _A\ot id_V\ot id_W)((a_P)_R\ot (a'_p)_r\ot (v_R)_r\ot (w_P)_p)\\
&=&(\mu _A\ot id_V\ot id_W)\circ (id_A\ot S)
((a_P)_R\ot v_R\ot w_P\ot a')\\
&=&(\mu _A\ot id_V\ot id_W)\circ (id_A\ot S)\circ (S\ot id_A)(v\ot w\ot a\ot a'),
\;\;\;q.e.d.
\end{eqnarray*}
\underline{Proof of (\ref{brz4})}:\\[2mm]
$(\mu _A\ot id_V\ot id_W)\circ (id_A\ot \theta )\circ
(S\ot id_V\ot id_W)\circ (id_V\ot id_W\ot \theta )(v\ot w\ot v'\ot w'\ot v''\ot w'')$
\begin{eqnarray*}
&=&(\mu _A\ot id_V\ot id_W)\circ (id_A\ot \theta )\circ
(S\ot id_V\ot id_W)(v\ot w\ot \sigma _1(v', v''_Q)\nu _1(w'_Q, w'')_R\\
&&\ot
\sigma _2(v', v''_Q)_R\ot \nu _2(w'_Q, w''))\\
&=&(\mu _A\ot id_V\ot id_W)\circ (id_A\ot \theta )
(([\sigma _1(v', v''_Q)\nu _1(w'_Q, w'')_R]_P)_r\ot v_r\ot w_P\\
&&\ot
\sigma _2(v', v''_Q)_R\ot \nu _2(w'_Q, w''))\\
&=&([\sigma _1(v', v''_Q)\nu _1(w'_Q, w'')_R]_P)_r
\sigma _1(v_r, (\sigma _2(v', v''_Q)_R)_q)
\nu _1((w_P)_q, \nu _2(w'_Q, w''))_{\mathcal R}\\
&&\ot
\sigma _2(v_r, (\sigma _2(v', v''_Q)_R)_q)_{\mathcal R}\ot
\nu _2((w_P)_q, \nu _2(w'_Q, w''))\\
&\overset{(\ref{brz6})}{=}&(\sigma _1(v', v''_Q)_P(\nu _1(w'_Q, w'')_R)_p)_r
\sigma _1(v_r, (\sigma _2(v', v''_Q)_R)_q)
\nu _1(((w_P)_p)_q, \nu _2(w'_Q, w''))_{\mathcal R}\\
&&\ot
\sigma _2(v_r, (\sigma _2(v', v''_Q)_R)_q)_{\mathcal R}\ot
\nu _2(((w_P)_p)_q, \nu _2(w'_Q, w''))\\
&\overset{(\ref{brz6})}{=}&(\sigma _1(v', v''_Q)_P)_{\overline{R}}
((\nu _1(w'_Q, w'')_R)_p)_r
\sigma _1((v_{\overline{R}})_r, (\sigma _2(v', v''_Q)_R)_q)
\nu _1(((w_P)_p)_q, \nu _2(w'_Q, w''))_{\mathcal R}\\
&&\ot
\sigma _2((v_{\overline{R}})_r, (\sigma _2(v', v''_Q)_R)_q)_{\mathcal R}\ot
\nu _2(((w_P)_p)_q, \nu _2(w'_Q, w''))\\
&\overset{(\ref{braidcoord})}{=}&(\sigma _1(v', v''_Q)_P)_{\overline{R}}
((\nu _1(w'_Q, w'')_p)_R)_r
\sigma _1((v_{\overline{R}})_r, (\sigma _2(v', v''_Q)_q)_R)
\nu _1(((w_P)_q)_p, \nu _2(w'_Q, w''))_{\mathcal R}\\
&&\ot
\sigma _2((v_{\overline{R}})_r, (\sigma _2(v', v''_Q)_q)_R)_{\mathcal R}\ot
\nu _2(((w_P)_q)_p, \nu _2(w'_Q, w''))\\
&\overset{(\ref{brz8})}{=}&(\sigma _1(v', v''_Q)_P)_{\overline{R}}
\sigma _1(v_{\overline{R}}, \sigma _2(v', v''_Q)_q)
(\nu _1(w'_Q, w'')_p)_R
\nu _1(((w_P)_q)_p, \nu _2(w'_Q, w''))_{\mathcal R}\\
&&\ot
(\sigma _2(v_{\overline{R}}, \sigma _2(v', v''_Q)_q)_R)_{\mathcal R}\ot
\nu _2(((w_P)_q)_p, \nu _2(w'_Q, w''))\\
&\overset{(\ref{PQsigma})}{=}&
\sigma _1(v'_{\overline{Q}}, (v''_Q)_q)_{\overline{R}}
\sigma _1(v_{\overline{R}}, \sigma _2(v'_{\overline{Q}}, (v''_Q)_q))
(\nu _1(w'_Q, w'')_p)_R
\nu _1(((w_{\overline{Q}})_q)_p, \nu _2(w'_Q, w''))_{\mathcal R}\\
&&\ot
(\sigma _2(v_{\overline{R}}, \sigma _2(v'_{\overline{Q}}, (v''_Q)_q))_R)
_{\mathcal R}\ot
\nu _2(((w_{\overline{Q}})_q)_p, \nu _2(w'_Q, w''))\\
&\overset{(\ref{brz7})}{=}&
\sigma _1(v, v'_{\overline{Q}})
\sigma _1(\sigma _2(v, v'_{\overline{Q}}), (v''_Q)_q)
(\nu _1(w'_Q, w'')_p)_R
\nu _1(((w_{\overline{Q}})_q)_p, \nu _2(w'_Q, w''))_{\mathcal R}\\
&&\ot
(\sigma _2(\sigma _2(v, v'_{\overline{Q}}), (v''_Q)_q)_R)
_{\mathcal R}\ot
\nu _2(((w_{\overline{Q}})_q)_p, \nu _2(w'_Q, w''))\\
&\overset{(\ref{brz6})}{=}&
\sigma _1(v, v'_{\overline{Q}})
\sigma _1(\sigma _2(v, v'_{\overline{Q}}), (v''_Q)_q)
[\nu _1(w'_Q, w'')_p
\nu _1(((w_{\overline{Q}})_q)_p, \nu _2(w'_Q, w''))]_R\\
&&\ot
\sigma _2(\sigma _2(v, v'_{\overline{Q}}), (v''_Q)_q)_R
\ot
\nu _2(((w_{\overline{Q}})_q)_p, \nu _2(w'_Q, w''))\\
&\overset{(\ref{brz7})}{=}&
\sigma _1(v, v'_{\overline{Q}})
\sigma _1(\sigma _2(v, v'_{\overline{Q}}), (v''_Q)_q)
[\nu _1((w_{\overline{Q}})_q, w'_Q)
\nu _1(\nu _2((w_{\overline{Q}})_q, w'_Q), w'')]_R\\
&&\ot
\sigma _2(\sigma _2(v, v'_{\overline{Q}}), (v''_Q)_q)_R
\ot \nu _2(\nu _2((w_{\overline{Q}})_q, w'_Q), w'')\\
&\overset{(\ref{brz8})}{=}&
\sigma _1(v, v'_{\overline{Q}})
\{[\nu _1((w_{\overline{Q}})_q, w'_Q)
\nu _1(\nu _2((w_{\overline{Q}})_q, w'_Q), w'')]_R\}_r
\sigma _1(\sigma _2(v, v'_{\overline{Q}})_r, ((v''_Q)_q)_R)\\
&&\ot
\sigma _2(\sigma _2(v, v'_{\overline{Q}})_r, ((v''_Q)_q)_R)
\ot \nu _2(\nu _2((w_{\overline{Q}})_q, w'_Q), w'')\\
&\overset{(\ref{brz6})}{=}&
\sigma _1(v, v'_{\overline{Q}})
[\nu _1((w_{\overline{Q}})_q, w'_Q)_R
\nu _1(\nu _2((w_{\overline{Q}})_q, w'_Q), w'')_{\mathcal R}]_r
\sigma _1(\sigma _2(v, v'_{\overline{Q}})_r, (((v''_Q)_q)_R)_{\mathcal R})\\
&&\ot
\sigma _2(\sigma _2(v, v'_{\overline{Q}})_r, (((v''_Q)_q)_R)_{\mathcal R})
\ot \nu _2(\nu _2((w_{\overline{Q}})_q, w'_Q), w'')\\
&\overset{(\ref{RQniu})}{=}&
\sigma _1(v, v'_{\overline{Q}})
[\nu _1(w_{\overline{Q}}, w')
\nu _1(\nu _2(w_{\overline{Q}}, w')_Q, w'')_{\mathcal R}]_r
\sigma _1(\sigma _2(v, v'_{\overline{Q}})_r, (v''_Q)_{\mathcal R})\\
&&\ot
\sigma _2(\sigma _2(v, v'_{\overline{Q}})_r, (v''_Q)_{\mathcal R})
\ot \nu _2(\nu _2(w_{\overline{Q}}, w')_Q, w'')\\
&\overset{(\ref{brz6})}{=}&
\sigma _1(v, v'_{\overline{Q}})
\nu _1(w_{\overline{Q}}, w')_R
(\nu _1(\nu _2(w_{\overline{Q}}, w')_Q, w'')_{\mathcal R})_r
\sigma _1((\sigma _2(v, v'_{\overline{Q}})_R)_r, (v''_Q)_{\mathcal R})\\
&&\ot
\sigma _2((\sigma _2(v, v'_{\overline{Q}})_R)_r, (v''_Q)_{\mathcal R})
\ot \nu _2(\nu _2(w_{\overline{Q}}, w')_Q, w'')\\
&\overset{(\ref{brz8})}{=}&
\sigma _1(v, v'_{\overline{Q}})
\nu _1(w_{\overline{Q}}, w')_R
\sigma _1(\sigma _2(v, v'_{\overline{Q}})_R, v''_Q)
\nu _1(\nu _2(w_{\overline{Q}}, w')_Q, w'')_r\\
&&\ot
\sigma _2(\sigma _2(v, v'_{\overline{Q}})_R, v''_Q)_r
\ot \nu _2(\nu _2(w_{\overline{Q}}, w')_Q, w'')\\
&=&(\mu _A\ot id_V\ot id_W)(\sigma _1(v, v'_{\overline{Q}})
\nu _1(w_{\overline{Q}}, w')_R\ot
\sigma _1(\sigma _2(v, v'_{\overline{Q}})_R, v''_Q)
\nu _1(\nu _2(w_{\overline{Q}}, w')_Q, w'')_r\\
&&\ot
\sigma _2(\sigma _2(v, v'_{\overline{Q}})_R, v''_Q)_r
\ot \nu _2(\nu _2(w_{\overline{Q}}, w')_Q, w''))\\
&=&(\mu _A\ot id_V\ot id_W)\circ (id_A\ot \theta )
(\sigma _1(v, v'_{\overline{Q}})
\nu _1(w_{\overline{Q}}, w')_R\\
&&\ot \sigma _2(v, v'_{\overline{Q}})_R
\ot \nu _2(w_{\overline{Q}}, w')\ot v''\ot w'')\\
&=&(\mu _A\ot id_V\ot id_W)\circ (id_A\ot \theta )\circ
(\theta \ot id_V\ot id_W)(v\ot w\ot v'\ot w'\ot v''\ot w''), \;\;\;q.e.d.
\end{eqnarray*}
\underline{Proof of (\ref{brz5})}:\\[2mm]
${\;\;\;}$
$(\mu _A\ot id_V\ot id_W)\circ (id_A\ot \theta )\circ (S\ot id_V\ot id_W)\circ (id_V\ot
id_W\ot S)(v\ot w\ot v'\ot w'\ot a)$
\begin{eqnarray*}
&=&(\mu _A\ot id_V\ot id_W)\circ (id_A\ot \theta )\circ (S\ot id_V\ot id_W)
(v\ot w\ot (a_P)_R\ot v'_R\ot w'_P)\\
&=&(\mu _A\ot id_V\ot id_W)\circ (id_A\ot \theta )((((a_P)_R)_p)_r\ot v_r
\ot w_p\ot v'_R\ot w'_P)\\
&=&(((a_P)_R)_p)_r\sigma _1(v_r, (v'_R)_Q)\nu _1((w_p)_Q, w'_P)_{\mathcal R}
\ot \sigma _2(v_r, (v'_R)_Q)_{\mathcal R}\ot \nu _2((w_p)_Q, w'_P)\\
&\overset{(\ref{braidcoord})}{=}&(((a_P)_p)_R)_r\sigma _1(v_r, (v'_Q)_R)
\nu _1((w_Q)_p, w'_P)_{\mathcal R}
\ot \sigma _2(v_r, (v'_Q)_R)_{\mathcal R}\ot \nu _2((w_Q)_p, w'_P)\\
&\overset{(\ref{brz8})}{=}&\sigma _1(v, v'_Q)
((a_P)_p)_R
\nu _1((w_Q)_p, w'_P)_{\mathcal R}
\ot (\sigma _2(v, v'_Q)_R)_{\mathcal R}\ot \nu _2((w_Q)_p, w'_P)\\
&\overset{(\ref{brz6})}{=}&\sigma _1(v, v'_Q)
[(a_P)_p
\nu _1((w_Q)_p, w'_P)]_R
\ot \sigma _2(v, v'_Q)_R\ot \nu _2((w_Q)_p, w'_P)\\
&\overset{(\ref{brz8})}{=}&\sigma _1(v, v'_Q)
[\nu _1(w_Q, w')a_P]_R
\ot \sigma _2(v, v'_Q)_R\ot \nu _2(w_Q, w')_P\\
&\overset{(\ref{brz6})}{=}&\sigma _1(v, v'_Q)
\nu _1(w_Q, w')_R(a_P)_r
\ot (\sigma _2(v, v'_Q)_R)_r\ot \nu _2(w_Q, w')_P\\
&=&(\mu _A\ot id_V\ot id_W)\circ (id_A\ot S)(\sigma _1(v, v'_Q)
\nu _1(w_Q, w')_R\ot \sigma _2(v, v'_Q)_R\ot \nu _2(w_Q, w')\ot a)\\
&=&(\mu _A\ot id_V\ot id_W)\circ (id_A\ot S)\circ (\theta \ot id_A)
(v\ot w\ot v'\ot w'\ot a),
\end{eqnarray*}
so $A\ot _{S, \theta }(V\ot W)$ is indeed a crossed product. With a similar
computation one can prove that $(A\ot _{R, \sigma }V)\ot _{T, \eta }W$ is a
crossed product, so the only thing left to prove is that the multiplications of
$A\ot _{S, \theta }(V\ot W)$ and $(A\ot _{R, \sigma }V)\ot _{T, \eta }W$ coincide.
A straightforward computation shows that the multiplication of
$A\ot _{S, \theta }(V\ot W)$ is given by the formula
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&(a\ot v\ot w)(a'\ot v'\ot w')=a(a'_P)_{\mathcal R}\sigma _1(v_{\mathcal R},
v'_Q)\nu _1((w_P)_Q, w')_r\ot
\sigma _2(v_{\mathcal R},
v'_Q)_r\ot \nu _2((w_P)_Q, w').
\end{eqnarray*}
We compute now the multiplication of $(A\ot _{R, \sigma }V)\ot _{T, \eta }W$:\\[2mm]
${\;\;\;}$$(a\ot v\ot w)(a'\ot v'\ot w')$
\begin{eqnarray*}
&=&(a\ot v)(a'\ot v')_T\eta _1(w_T, w')\ot \eta _2(w_T, w')\\
&=&(a\ot v)(a'_P\ot v'_Q)\eta _1((w_P)_Q, w')\ot \eta _2((w_P)_Q, w')\\
&=&(a\ot v)(a'_P\ot v'_Q)(\nu _1((w_P)_Q, w')\ot 1_V)\ot \nu _2((w_P)_Q, w')\\
&=&(a\ot v)(a'_P\nu _1((w_P)_Q, w')_R\ot (v'_Q)_R)\ot \nu _2((w_P)_Q, w')\\
&=&a[a'_P\nu _1((w_P)_Q, w')_R]_r\sigma _1(v_r, (v'_Q)_R)\ot
\sigma _2(v_r, (v'_Q)_R)\ot \nu _2((w_P)_Q, w')\\
&\overset{(\ref{brz6})}{=}&a(a'_P)_{\mathcal R}(\nu _1((w_P)_Q, w')_R)_r
\sigma _1((v_{\mathcal R})_r, (v'_Q)_R)\ot
\sigma _2((v_{\mathcal R})_r, (v'_Q)_R)\ot \nu _2((w_P)_Q, w')\\
&\overset{(\ref{brz8})}{=}&a(a'_P)_{\mathcal R}\sigma _1(v_{\mathcal R},
v'_Q)\nu _1((w_P)_Q, w')_r\ot
\sigma _2(v_{\mathcal R},
v'_Q)_r\ot \nu _2((w_P)_Q, w'),
\end{eqnarray*}
and we can see that the two multiplications coincide.
\end{proof}
\begin{example}{\em
We recall from \cite{jlpvo} what was called there an iterated twisted tensor
product of algebras. Let $A$, $B$, $C$ be associative unital algebras,
$R_1:B\ot A\rightarrow A\ot B$, $R_2:C\ot B\rightarrow B\ot C$,
$R_3:C\ot A\rightarrow A\ot C$ twisting maps satisfying the braid
equation
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&(id_A\ot R_2)\circ (R_3\ot id_B)\circ (id_C\ot R_1)=
(R_1\ot id_C)\circ (id_B\ot R_3)\circ (R_2\ot id_A).
\end{eqnarray*}
Then we have an algebra structure on $A\ot B\ot C$ (called the iterated twisted
tensor product) with unit $1_A\ot 1_B\ot 1_C$ and multiplication
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&(a\ot b\ot c)(a'\ot b'\ot c')=a(a'_{R_3})_{R_1}\ot b_{R_1}b'_{R_2}\ot
(c_{R_3})_{R_2}c'.
\end{eqnarray*}
We define $V=B$, $W=C$, $R=R_1$, $P=R_3$, $Q=R_2$ and the linear maps
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\sigma :V\ot V\rightarrow A\ot V, \;\;\; \sigma (b\ot b')=1_A\ot bb', \;\;\;
\forall \;b, b'\in V, \\
&&\nu :W\ot W\rightarrow A\ot W, \;\;\;\nu (c\ot c')=1_A\ot cc', \;\;\;
\forall \; c, c'\in W.
\end{eqnarray*}
Then, for the crossed products $A\ot _{R, \sigma }V=A\ot _{R_1}B$,
$A\ot _{P, \nu }W=A\ot _{R_3}C$ and the map $Q$, one can check that the
hypotheses of Theorem \ref{principala} are satisfied and the crossed products
$A\ot _{S, \theta }(V\ot W)\equiv (A\ot _{R, \sigma }V)\ot _{T, \eta }W$
(notation as in Theorem \ref{principala}) coincide with the iterated twisted
tensor product.}
\end{example}
\begin{example}
Let $A\ot _{R, \sigma }V$ be a crossed product and $W$ an
(associative unital) algebra. Define the linear maps
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&P:W\ot A\rightarrow A\ot W, \;\;\; P(w\ot a)=a\ot w, \;\;\;
\forall \; a\in A, \; w\in W, \\
&&\nu :W\ot W\rightarrow A\ot W, \;\;\; \nu (w\ot w')=1_A\ot ww', \;\;\;
\forall \; w, w'\in W,
\end{eqnarray*}
so we have the crossed product $A\ot _{P, \nu }W$ which is just the ordinary
tensor product of algebras $A\ot W$. Define the linear map $Q:W\ot V
\rightarrow V\ot W$, $Q(w\ot v)=v\ot w$, for all $v\in V$, $w\in W$.
Then one can easily check that the
hypotheses of Theorem \ref{principala} are satisfied.
\end{example}
|
\section*{Acknowledgments}
The authors are grateful to K. Seki and H. Watanabe for valuable discussion.
Numerical computation have been performed with facilities at Supercomputer Center in ISSP, Information Technology Center,
University of Tokyo, and with the RIKEN Cluster of Clusters (RICC) facility.
This work has been supported in part
by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from MEXT Japan
under the Grant No. 25287096 and
by RIKEN iTHES Project.
|
\section{Introduction}
Since its introduction in 1915, Einstein's theory of General Relativity (GR) has been confirmed by experiment in every occasion \cite{Will2006}. However, GR has not yet been tested with great precision on scales larger than the solar system or for highly dynamical and strong gravitational fields \cite{Turyshev2008}. Those kinds of rapidly changing fields give rise to gravitational waves (GWs)---self propagating stretching and squeezing of spacetime originating in the acceleration of massive objects, like spinning neutron stars with an asymmetry in their moment of inertia (e.g.,~see \cite{Ostriker1969, Shklovskii1970}).
Although GWs are yet to be directly observed, detectors such as the Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO) expect to do so in the coming years, giving us a chance to probe GR on new grounds \cite{Harry2010, Weinstein2011}. Because GR does not present any adjustable parameters, these tests have the potential to uncover new physics \cite{Will2006}. By the same token, LIGO data could also be used to test alternative theories of gravity that disagree with GR on the properties of GWs.
Furthermore, when looking for a weak signal in noisy LIGO data, certain physical models are used to target the search and are necessary to make any detection possible \cite{Turyshev2008}. Because these are usually based on predictions from GR, assuming an incorrect model could yield a weak detection or no detection at all. Similarly, if GR is not a correct description for highly dynamical gravity, checking for patterns given by alternative models could result in detection where no signal had been seen before.
There exist efforts to test GR by looking at the deviations of the parametrized post--Newtonian coefficients extracted from the inspiral phase of compact binary coalescence events \cite{DelPozzo2011, Li2012, Agathos2014}. Besides this, deviations from GR could be observed in generic GW properties such as polarization, wave propagation speed or parity violation \cite{Will2006, Chatziioannou2012, Yunes2010}. Tests of these properties have been proposed which make use of GW burst search methods \cite{Horava2014}.
In this paper, we present methods to search LIGO--like detector data for continuous GW signals of any polarization mode, not just those allowed by GR. We also compare the relative sensitivity of different model--dependent and independent templates to certain kinds of signals. Furthermore, we provide expected sensitivity curves for GR and non--GR signals, obtained by means of blind searches over LIGO noise (not actual upper limits).
Section \ref{sec:background} provides the background behind GW polarizations and continuous waves, while sections \ref{sec:method} and \ref{sec:analysis} present search methods and the data analysis procedures used to evaluate sensitivity for detection. Results and final remarks are provided in sections \ref{sec:results} \& \ref{sec:conclusions} respectively.
\section{Background} \label{sec:background}
\subsection{Polarizations}
Just like electromagnetic waves, GWs can present different kinds of polarizations. Most generally, metric theories of gravity could allow six possible modes: plus ($+$), cross ($\times$), vector x (x), vector y (y), breathing (b) and longitudinal (l). Their effects on a free--falling ring of particles are illustrated in fig.~\ref{fig:circles}.
Transverse GWs ($+$, $\times$ and b) change the distance between particles separated in the plane perpendicular to the direction of propagation (taken to be the $z$-axis). Vector GWs are also transverse; but, because all particles in a plane perpendicular to the direction of propagation are equally accelerated, their relative separation is not changed. Nonetheless, particles farther from the source move at later times, hence varying their position relative to points with both different $x$--$y$ coordinates and different $z$ distance. Finally, longitudinal GWs change the distance between particles separated along the direction of propagation.
\begin{figure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.33\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{maxisi-polMethods-figure0}
\end{subfigure}\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.33\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{maxisi-polMethods-figure1}
\end{subfigure}\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.33\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{maxisi-polMethods-figure2}
\end{subfigure}\\
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.33\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{maxisi-polMethods-figure3}
\end{subfigure}\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.33\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{maxisi-polMethods-figure4}
\end{subfigure}\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.33\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{maxisi-polMethods-figure5}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Illustration of the effect of different GW polarizations on a ring of test particles. plus (+) and cross ($\times$) tensor modes (green); vector--x (x) and vector--y (y) modes (red); breathing (b) and longitudinal (l) scalar modes (black). In all of these diagrams the wave propagates in the \emph{z}--direction \cite{Will2006}.\label{fig:circles}}
\end{figure}
Note that, because of their symmetries, the breathing and longitudinal modes are degenerate for LIGO-like interferometric detectors, so it is enough to just consider one of them in the analysis. Also, this study assumes wave frequency and speed remain constant across modes, which restricts the detectable differences between polarizations to amplitude modulations.
In reality, however, GWs might only possess some of those six components: different theories of gravity predict the existence of different polarizations. In fact, due to their symmetries, $+$ and $\times$ are associated with tensor theories, x and y with vector theories, and b and l with scalar theories. In terms of particle physics, this differentiation is also linked to the predicted helicity of the graviton: $\pm$2, $\pm$1 or 0, respectively. Consequently, GR only allows + and $\times$, while scalar--tensor theories also predict the presence of some extra b component whose strength depends on the source \cite{Will2006}. Bolder theories might predict the existence of vector or scalar modes \emph{only}, while still being in agreement with all other non--GW tests.
Four-Vector Gravity (G4v) is one such extreme example \cite{Mead2015}. This vector--based framework claims to reproduce all the predictions of GR, including weak--field tests and total radiated power of GWs. However, this theory differs widely from GR when it comes to gravitational wave polarizations. Thus, one of the only ways to test G4v would be to detect a GW signal composed of x and y modes instead of + and $\times$.
\subsection{Signal} \label{sec:signal}
Because of their persistence, continuous gravitational waves (CGWs) provide the means to study GW polarizations without the need for multiple detectors. For the same reason, continuous signals can be integrated over long periods of time, thus improving the likelihood of detection. Furthermore, these GWs are quasi--sinusoidal and present well--defined frequencies. This allows us to focus on the amplitude modulation, where the polarization information is contained.
CGWs are produced by localized sources with periodic motion, such as binary systems or spinning neutron stars \cite{Zimmermann1979}. Throughout this paper, we target known pulsars (e.g.,~the Crab pulsar) and assume an asymmetry in their moment of inertia (rather than precession of the spin axis or other possible, but less likely, mechanisms) causes them to emit gravitational radiation. A source of this type can generate GWs only at multiples of its rotational frequency $\nu$. In fact, it is expected that most power be radiated at twice this value \cite{Jones2002}. For that reason, we take the GW frequency, $\nu_{\rm gw}$, to be $2\nu$. Moreover, the frequency evolution of these pulsars is well--known thanks to electromagnetic observations, mostly at radio wavelengths but also in gamma-rays.
Simulation of a CGW from a triaxial neutron star is straightforward. The general form of a such signal is:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:cgw}
h(t)= \displaystyle\sum\limits_{p}\ A_{p}(t;\psi|\alpha,\delta,\lambda,\phi,\gamma, \xi)~ h_{p}(t;\iota,h_{0},\phi_{0}, \nu, \dot{\nu}, \ddot{\nu}),
\end{equation}
where, for each polarization \textit{p}, $A_{p}$ is the detector response (antenna pattern) and $h_{p}$ a sinusoidal waveform of frequency $\nu_{\rm gw}=2\nu$. The detector parameters are: $\lambda$, longitude; $\phi$, latitude; $\gamma$, angle of the detector \emph{x}--arm measured from East; and $\xi$, the angle between arms. Values for the LIGO Hanford Observatory (LHO), LIGO Livingston Observatory (LLO) and Virgo (VIR) detectors are presented in table \ref{tab:DetParam}. The source parameters are: $\psi$, the signal polarization angle; $\iota$, the inclination of the pulsar spin axis relative to the observer's line-of-sight; $h_{0}$, an overall amplitude factor; $\phi_{0}$, a phase offset; and $\nu$, the rotational frequency, with $\dot{\nu}$, $\ddot{\nu}$ its first and second derivatives. Also, $\alpha$ is the right ascension and $\delta$ the declination of the pulsar in celestial coordinates.
Note that the inclination angle $\iota$ is defined as is standard in astronomy, with $\iota=0$ and $\iota=\pi$ respectively meaning that the angular momentum vector of the source points towards and opposite to the observer. The signal polarization angle $\psi$ is related to the position angle of the source, which is in turn defined to be the East angle of the projection of the source's spin axis onto the plane of the sky.
Although there are hundreds of pulsars in the LIGO band, in the majority of cases we lack accurate measurements of their inclination and polarization angles. The few exceptions, presented in table \ref{tab:extrap}, were obtained through the study of the pulsar spin nebula \cite{Ng2008}. This process cannot determine the spin direction, only the orientation of the spin axis. Consequently, even for the best studied pulsars $\psi$ and $\iota$ are only known modulo a reflection: we are unable to distinguish between $\psi$ and $-\psi$ or between $\iota$ and $\pi-\iota$). As will be discussed in section \ref{sec:method}, our ignorance of $\psi$ and $\iota$ must be taken into account when searching for CGWs.
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\begin{table}[hb]
\caption{LIGO detectors \cite{Althouse2001}\cite{Allen1996}}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
& LHO & LLO & VIR \\
\cline{2-4}\\[-10pt]
Latitude ($\lambda$) & 46.45$ ^{\circ}$ N & 30.56$ ^{\circ}$ N & 43.63$ ^{\circ}$ N \\
Longitude ($\phi$) & $119.41 ^{\circ}$ W & $90.77 ^{\circ}$ W & $10.5 ^{\circ}$ E \\
Orientation ($\gamma$) & 125.99$ ^{\circ}$ & 198.0$ ^{\circ}$ & 71.5$ ^{\circ}$ \\
\end{tabular}%
\end{ruledtabular}
\label{tab:DetParam}%
\end{table}%
\begin{table}[hbtp]
\caption{Axis polarization ($\psi$) and inclination ($\iota$) angles for known pulsars \cite{Ng2008}.}
\hrule width \hsize \kern 0.6mm \hrule width \hsize
\begin{minipage} [b]{0.45\linewidth}\centering
\begin{tabular}{rrr}
& ${\bf \psi}$ {\scriptsize (deg)} & ${\bf \iota}$ {\scriptsize (deg)} \\
\cline{2-3}\\[-10pt]
Crab & 124.0 & 61.3\\
Vela & 130.6 & 63.6 \\
J1930$+$1852 & 91 & 147\\
J2229$+$6114 & 103 & 46\\
B1706$-$44 & 163.6 & 53.3\\
J2021$+$3651 & 45 & 79\\
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
~
\hfill
\begin{minipage} [b]{0.45\linewidth}\centering
\begin{tabular}{rrr}
& $\psi$ {\scriptsize (deg)} & $\iota$ {\scriptsize (deg)} \\
\cline{2-3}\\[-10pt]
J0205$+$6449 &90.3 & 91.6 \\
J0537$-$6910 & 131 &92.8 \\
B0540$-$69 & 144.1 & 92.9\\
J1124$-$5916 & 16 & 105\\
B1800$-$21 & 44 & 90 \\
J1833$-$1034 & 45 & 85.4\\
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}
\hrule width \hsize \kern 0.6mm \hrule width \hsize
\label{tab:extrap}
\end{table}%
\subsubsection{Frequency evolution}
In eq.~(\ref{eq:cgw}), $h_p(t)$ is a sinusoid carrying the frequency modulation of the signal:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:h(t)}
h_p(t)=a_p \cos\left(\phi(t) + \phi_p+ \phi_0^{\rm gw}\right)
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:phase}
\phi(t) = 4\pi \left(\nu t_{\rm b} + \frac{1}{2}\dot{\nu}t_{\rm b}^2+\frac{1}{6}\ddot{\nu}t_{\rm b}^3\right) +\phi_0^{\rm em},
\end{equation}
where $t_{\rm b}$ is the Solar System barycentric arrival time, which is the local arrival time $t$ modulated by the standard R{\o}mer $\Delta_{R}$, Einstein $\Delta_{E}$ and Shapiro $\Delta_{S}$ delays \cite{Edwards2006}:
\begin{equation}
t_{\rm b}=t+\Delta_{R}+\Delta_{E}+\Delta_{S}.
\end{equation}
The leading factor of four in the r.h.s.~of eq.~(\ref{eq:phase}) comes from the substitution $\nu_{\rm gw}=2\nu$. For known pulsars, $\phi_0^{\rm em}$ is the phase of the radio pulse, while $\phi_0^{\rm gw}$ is the phase difference between electromagnetic and gravitational waves. Both factors contribute to an overall phase offset of the signal ($\phi_0^{\rm em} + \phi_0^{\rm gw}$). This is of astrophysical significance since it may provide insights about the relation between EM \& GW radiation and provide information about the physical structure of the source.
The $a_p$ and $\phi_p$ coefficients in eq.~(\ref{eq:h(t)}) respectively encode the relative amplitude and phase of each polarization. These values are determined by the physical model. For instance, GR predicts:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:a+}
a_+ = h_0(1+\cos^2\iota)/2 ~,~\phi_+=0,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:ax}
a_\times= h_0 \cos \iota ~,~\phi_\times=-\pi/2,
\end{equation}
while $a_{\rm x}=a_{\rm y}=a_{\rm b}=0$. On the other hand, according to G4v \cite{Mead2015}:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:axz}
a_{\rm x} = h_0\sin \iota~,~\phi_{\rm x} = -\pi/2,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:ayz}
a_{\rm y}= h_0 \sin \iota \cos \iota~,~\phi_{\rm x} = 0.
\end{equation}
while $a_+=a_\times=a_{\rm b}=0$. In both cases, the overall amplitude $h_0$ can be characterized by \cite{Jones2002, Dupuis2005, Mead2015}:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:h0}
h_0 = \frac{4 \pi^2 G}{c^4} \frac{I_{zz} \nu^2}{r}\epsilon,
\end{equation}
where r is the distance to the source, $I_{zz}$ the pulsar's moment of inertia along the principal axis, $\epsilon= (I_{xx}-I_{yy})/I_{zz}$ its equatorial ellipticity and, as before, $\nu$ is the rotational frequency. Choosing some canonical values,
\begin{equation}
h_0\approx 4.2 \times 10^{-26} \frac{I_{zz}}{10^{28}\text{ kg m}^2}\left[\frac{\nu}{100\text{ Hz}}\right]^2 \frac{1\text{ kpc}}{r} \frac{\epsilon}{10^{-6}},
\end{equation}
it is easy to see that GWs from triaxial neutron stars are expected to be relatively weak \cite{LSC2010}. However, the sensitivity to these waves grows with the observation time because the signal can be integrated over long periods of time \cite{Dupuis2005}.
As indicated in the introduction to this section, we have assumed CGWs are caused by an asymmetry in the moment of inertia of the pulsar. Other mechanisms, such as precession of the spin axis, are expected to produce waves of different strengths and with dominant components at frequencies other than $2\nu$. Furthermore, these effects vary between theories: for instance, in G4v, if the asymmetry is not perpendicular to the rotation axis, there can be a significant $\nu$ component as well as the $2\nu$ component. In those cases, eqs.~(\ref{eq:h(t)}, \ref{eq:h0}) do not hold (e.g.,~see \cite{Jones2002} for precession models).
\subsubsection{Amplitude modulation}
At any given time, GW detectors are not equally sensitive to all polarizations. The response of a detector to a particular polarization $p$ is encoded in a function $A_p(t)$ depending on the relative locations and orientations of the source and detector. As seen from eq.~(\ref{eq:cgw}), these functions provide the amplitude modulation of the signal.
A GW is best described in an orthogonal coordinate frame defined by wave vectors $({\bf w}_x,~{\bf w}_y,~{\bf w}_z)$, with ${\bf w}_z = {\bf w}_x \times {\bf w}_y$ being the direction of propagation. Furthermore, the orientation of this wave--frame is fixed by requiring that the East angle between ${\bf w}_y$ and the celestial North be $\psi$. In this gauge, the different polarizations act through six orthogonal basis strain tensors \cite{Nishizawa2009, Blaut2012}:
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
e_{jk}^{+}=\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\end{split},
\begin{split}
e_{jk}^{\times}=\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 1 & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\end{split}, \tag{2,3}
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
e_{jk}^{\rm x}=\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & 1 \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\end{split} ,
\begin{split}
e_{jk}^{\rm y}=\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 \\
0 & 1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\end{split}, \tag{4,5}
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
e_{jk}^{\rm b}=\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\end{split},
\begin{split}
e_{jk}^{\rm l}=\sqrt{2} \begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}
\end{split}, \tag{6,7}
\addtocounter {equation} {6}
\end{align}
with $j, k$ indexing $x$, $y$ and $z$ components. These tensors can be written in an equivalent, frame--independent form
\begin{equation}
{\bf e}^{+}= {\bf w}_x \otimes {\bf w}_x - {\bf w}_y \otimes {\bf w}_y,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
{\bf e}^{\times}= {\bf w}_x \otimes {\bf w}_y + {\bf w}_y \otimes {\bf w}_x,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
{\bf e}^{\rm x}= {\bf w}_x \otimes {\bf w}_z + {\bf w}_z \otimes {\bf w}_x,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
{\bf e}^{\rm y}= {\bf w}_y \otimes {\bf w}_z + {\bf w}_z \otimes {\bf w}_y,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
{\bf e}^{\rm b}= {\bf w}_x \otimes {\bf w}_x + {\bf w}_y \otimes {\bf w}_y,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
{\bf e}^{\rm l}=\sqrt{2} \left( {\bf w}_z \otimes {\bf w}_z \right).
\end{equation}
If a detector is characterized by its unit arm--direction vectors (${\bf d}_x$ and ${\bf d}_y$, with ${\bf d}_z$ the detector zenith), its differential--arm response $A_p$ to a wave of polarization $p$ is:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:response}
A_{p} = \frac{1}{2} \left( {\bf d}_x \otimes {\bf d}_x - {\bf d}_y \otimes {\bf d}_y \right) : {\bf e}^{p},
\end{equation}
where the colon indicates double contraction. As a result, eqs.~(2-13) imply:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:A+}
A_{+}=\frac{1}{2}\left[({\bf w}_x \cdot {\bf d}_x)^2-({\bf w}_x \cdot {\bf d}_y)^2-({\bf w}_y \cdot {\bf d}_x)^2+({\bf w}_y \cdot {\bf d}_y)^2 \right],
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:AX}
A_{\times}=({\bf w}_x \cdot {\bf d}_x) ({\bf w}_y \cdot {\bf d}_x)-({\bf w}_x \cdot {\bf d}_y) ({\bf w}_y \cdot {\bf d}_y),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Ax}
A_{\rm x}= ({\bf w}_x \cdot {\bf d}_x) ({\bf w}_z \cdot {\bf d}_x)- ({\bf w}_x \cdot {\bf d}_y) ({\bf w}_z \cdot {\bf d}_y),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Ay}
A_{\rm y}= ({\bf w}_y \cdot {\bf d}_x) ({\bf w}_z \cdot {\bf d}_x)- ({\bf w}_y \cdot {\bf d}_y) ({\bf w}_z \cdot {\bf d}_y),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Ab}
A_{\rm b}= \frac{1}{2} \left[ ({\bf w}_x \cdot {\bf d}_x)^2-({\bf w}_x \cdot {\bf d}_y)^2+({\bf w}_y \cdot {\bf d}_x)^2-({\bf w}_y \cdot {\bf d}_y)^2\right],
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Al}
A_{\rm l}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[ ({\bf w}_z \cdot {\bf d}_x)^2- ({\bf w}_z \cdot {\bf d}_y)^2 \right].
\end{equation}
Accounting for the time dependence of the arm vectors due to the rotation of the Earth, eqs.~(\ref{eq:A+}-\ref{eq:Al}) can be used to compute $A_p(t)$ for any value of $t$. In fig.~\ref{fig:polarizations} we plot these responses for the LIGO Hanford Observatory (LHO) observing the Crab pulsar, over a sidereal day (the pattern repeats itself every day). Note that the b and l patterns are degenerate ($A_{\rm b} = -\sqrt{2} A_{\rm l}$), which means they are indistinguishable up to an overall constant.
Although the antenna patterns are $\psi$--dependent, a change in this angle amounts to a rotation of $A_+$ into $A_\times$ or of $A_x$ into $A_y$, and vice--versa. If the orientation of the source is changed such that the new polarization is $\psi' = \psi + \Delta\psi$, where $\psi$ is the original polarization angle and $\Delta\psi\in \left[0,2\pi\right]$, it is easy to check that the new antenna patterns can be written \cite{Blaut2012}:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:A+rot}
A'_+ = A_+ \cos{2\Delta\psi} + A_\times \sin{2\Delta\psi},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:AXrot}
A'_\times = A_\times \cos{2\Delta\psi} - A_+ \sin{2\Delta\psi},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Axrot}
A'_x = A_x \cos{\Delta\psi} + A_y \sin{\Delta\psi},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Ayrot}
A'_y = A_y \cos{\Delta\psi} - A_x \sin{\Delta\psi},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
A'_b = A_b,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Alrot}
A'_l = A_l,
\end{equation}
and the tensor, vector and scalar nature of each polarization becomes evident from the $\psi$ dependence.
\begin{figure*} [hbtp]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.33\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{pol_pl_H1_J0534+2200}
\caption{Plus (+)}
\label{fig:pl}
\end{subfigure}%
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.33\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{pol_xz_H1_J0534+2200}
\caption{Vector x (x)}
\label{fig:xz}
\end{subfigure}%
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.33\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{pol_br_H1_J0534+2200}
\caption{Breathing (b)}
\label{fig:br}
\end{subfigure}%
\\
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.33\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{pol_cr_H1_J0534+2200}
\caption{Cross ($\times$)}
\label{fig:cr}
\end{subfigure}%
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.33\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{pol_yz_H1_J0534+2200}
\caption{Vector y (y)}
\label{fig:yz}
\end{subfigure}%
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.329\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{pol_lo_H1_J0534+2200}
\caption{Longitudinal (l)}
\label{fig:lo}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{LHO response $A_p(t)$, eq.~(\ref{eq:response}), to different polarizations from the Crab (PSR J0534+2200), from 00:00 UTC to 24:00 UTC.}\label{fig:polarizations}
\end{figure*}
\section{Method} \label{sec:method}
\subsection{Data reduction}
\begin{figure*} [hbtp!]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{tem_GR_J0534+2200}
\end{subfigure}%
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{tem_G4v_J0534+2200}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Simulated GR (left) and G4v (right) heterodyned Crab signals as seen by LHO. The templates are generated from eq.~(\ref{eq:het-signal}) with the model parameters given in eqs.~(\ref{eq:a+}--\ref{eq:ayz}) and setting $h_0=1,~\phi_0=0$. The solid curves represent the real (blue) and imaginary (red) parts, while the dashed curve corresponds to the complex norm.}
\label{fig:signals}
\end{figure*}
For some set of interferometric data, we would like to detect CGW signals from a given source, regardless of their polarization, and to reliably distinguish between the different modes. Because detector response is the only factor distinguishing CGW polarizations, all the relevant information is encoded in the amplitude modulation of the signal. As a result, it suffices to consider a narrow frequency band around the GW frequency and the data can be considerably reduced following the complex heterodyne method developed in \cite{Niebauer1993} and \cite{Dupuis2005}.
A signal of the form of eq.~(\ref{eq:cgw}) can be re--written as
\begin{equation}
h(t) = \Lambda(t) e^{i\phi(t)} + \Lambda^*(t) e^{-i\phi(t)},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:het-signal}
\Lambda(t) = \frac{1}{2} \sum \limits_{p=1}^5 a_p e^{i\phi_p+i\phi_0}A_p(t) ,
\end{equation}
with $*$ indicating complex conjugation and $\phi(t)$ as given in eq.~(\ref{eq:phase}). Note that we have slightly simplified the notation in eq.~(\ref{eq:het-signal}) by renaming $\phi^{\rm gw}_0 \rightarrow \phi_0$. Also, the summation is over only five values of \textit{p} because the breathing and longitudinal polarizations are indistinguishable to the detectors.
The key of the heterodyne method is that, since we can assume the phase evolution is well--known from electromagnetic observations (ephemerides obtained through the pulsar timing package TEMPO2 \cite{Edwards2006}), we can multiply our data by $\exp{\left[-i\phi(t)\right]}$ (heterodyning) so that the signal therein becomes
\begin{equation} \label{eq:het-data}
h'(t)\equiv h(t) e^{-i\phi(t)} =\Lambda(t) + \Lambda^*(t) e^{-i2\phi(t)}
\end{equation}
and the frequency modulation of the first term is removed, while that of the second term is doubled. A series of low--pass filters can then be used to remove the quickly--varying term, which enables the down--sampling of the data by averaging over minute--long time bins. As a result, we are left with $\Lambda(t)$ only and eq.~(\ref{eq:het-signal}) becomes the template of our complex--valued signal. One period of such GR and G4v signals coming from the Crab are presented as seen by LHO in fig.~\ref{fig:signals}.
From eq.~(\ref{eq:het-data}) we see that, in the presence of a signal, the heterodyned and down-sampled noisy detector strain data $B_{k}$ for the $k^{th}$ minute-long time bin (which can be labeled by GPS time of arrival) are expected to be of the form:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:data}
B_{\rm expected}(t_{k})= \frac{1}{2} \sum\limits_{p=1}^{5} a_p(t_k) e^{i\phi_p+i\phi_0} A_p(t_k)+n(t_{k}),
\end{equation}
where $n(t_{k})$ is the heterodyned, averaged complex noise in bin \textit{k}, which carries no information about the GW signal. As an example, fig.~\ref{fig:finehetS5reH1} presents the real part of actual data heterodyned and filtered for the Crab pulsar. We can clearly see already that the data are non--stationary, an issue addressed in the section \ref{sec:search} and appendix \ref{sec:stats}.
\begin{figure*} [hbtp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{reFinehet_H1_S5_J0534+2200}
\caption{Real part of LIGO Science Run 5 Hanford 4km detector (H1) minute--sampled data prepared for the Crab spanning approximately two years. A signal in these data would be described by eq.~(\ref{eq:data}).}
\label{fig:finehetS5reH1}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Search} \label{sec:search}
Given data in this form, we analyze it to obtain the parameters of a signal that would best fit the data and then incorporate the results into the frequentist analysis described in section \ref{sec:analysis}. Regressions are performed by minimizing the $\chi^2$ of the system (same as a matched--filter). For certain template $T(t_k)$, this is:
\begin{equation}
\chi ^2=\displaystyle\sum\limits_{k=0}^{N}\ \left[T(t_k)-B(t_{k})\right]^2 /{\sigma_k ^2},
\label{eq:chi}
\end{equation}
where $\sigma_k$ is the estimate standard deviation of the noise in the data at time $t_k$. In the presence of Gaussian noise, the $\chi^2$ minimization is equivalent to a maximum likelihood analysis.
Any linear template $T$ can be written as a linear combination of certain basis functions $f_i$, so that $T(t) =\displaystyle\sum\limits_{i} \tilde{a}_i f_i(t)$ and each $\tilde{a}_i$ is found as a result of minimizing (\ref{eq:chi}). For instance, $T(t_k)$ could be constructed in the from of eq.~(\ref{eq:het-signal}). In such model--dependent searches, the antenna patterns are the basis set, i.e.~$\{f_i\}=\{A_p\}$, and the $\tilde{a}_i$ weights correspond to the $a_p \exp{\left(i\phi_p\right)}$ prefactors. (From here on, the tilde denotes the coefficient that is fitted for, rather than its predicted value.)
The regression returns a vector ${\bf \tilde{a} }$ containing the values of the $\tilde{a}_i$'s that minimize eq.~(\ref{eq:chi}). These quantities are complex--valued and encode the relative amplitude and phase of each contributing basis. From their magnitude, we define the overall \emph{recovered signal strength} to be:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:hrec}
h_{\rm rec} = | {\bf \tilde{a} }|.
\end{equation}
The significance of the fit is evaluated through the covariance matrix $C$. This can be computed by taking the inverse of $A^T A$, where $A$ is the design matrix of the system (built from the $f_i$ set). In particular, we define the \emph{significance} of the resulting fit (signal SNR) as
\begin{equation} \label{eq:sig}
s = \sqrt{ \mathbf{\tilde{a}}^{\dagger} C^{-1} \mathbf{\tilde{a}} },
\end{equation}
where $\dagger$ indicates Hermitian conjugation.
$\chi^2$--minimizations have optimal performances when the noise is Gaussian. However, although the central limit theorem implies that the averaged noise in (\ref{eq:data}) should be normally distributed, actual data is far from this ideal (see fig.~\ref{fig:finehetS5reH1}). In fact, the quality of the data changes over time, as it is contingent on various instrumental factors. The time series is plagued with gaps and is highly non--stationary. This makes estimating $\sigma_k$ non--trivial.
As done in regular CW searches \cite{LSC2010}, we address this problem by computing the standard deviation for the data corresponding to each sidereal day throughout the data run, rather than for the series as a whole. This method improves the analysis because the data remains relatively stable over the course of a single day, but not throughout longer periods of time (see appendix \ref{sec:stats}). Furthermore, noisier days have less impact on the fit, because $\sigma_k$ in eq.~(\ref{eq:chi}) will be larger. The evolution of the daily value of the standard deviation for H1 data heterodyned for the Crab pulsar is presented in fig.~\ref{fig:std}.
\begin{figure} [hbtp]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{std_H1_S5_J0534+2200}
\caption{Daily standard deviation of S5 H1 data heterodyned for the Crab pulsar (fig.~\ref{fig:finehetS5reH1}).}\label{fig:std}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Model--dependent}
In a model--dependent search, a particular physical model is assumed in order to create a template based on eq.~(\ref{eq:het-signal}). In the case of GR, if $\psi$ and $\iota$ are known, it is possible to construct a template with only one complex--valued free parameter $\tilde{h}_0$:
\begin{align} \label{eq:tempGRlocked}
T_{\rm GR}(t) = \tilde{h}_0 \frac{1}{2}&\left[\frac{1}{2}(1+\cos^2\iota) A_+(t; \psi) +\right. \nonumber \\
&+\left.\cos\iota A_\times (t; \psi) e^{-i \pi/2}\right],
\end{align}
where the factor of 2 comes from the heterodyne, cf.~eq.~(\ref{eq:het-signal}). Similarly for G4v:
\begin{align} \label{eq:tempG4vlocked}
T_{\rm G4v}(t) = \tilde{h}_0 \frac{1}{2}\left[\sin\iota~e^{-i \pi/2}A_{\rm x}(t; \psi) + \sin\iota\cos\iota A_{\rm y} (t; \psi) \right],
\end{align}
Analogous templates could be constructed for scalar–-tensor theories, or any other model. In the former case, there would be a second free parameter to represent the unknown scalar contribution.
However, as mentioned in section \ref{sec:background}, even in the case of the best studied pulsars we know $\iota$ only in absolute value. This ambiguity creates the need to use two model--dependent templates like eqs.~(\ref{eq:tempGRlocked}, \ref{eq:tempG4vlocked}): one corresponding to $\iota$ and one to $\pi-\iota$. Note that the indeterminacy of $\psi$ is absorbed by the overall phase of $\tilde{h}_0$, so it has no effect on the template. Thus, if the ambiguity in $\iota$ is accounted for, the overall signal strength $h_0$ and the angle $\phi_0$ can be inferred directly from the angle and phase of $h_{\rm rec} = \tilde{h}_0$.
In most cases, $\psi$ and $\iota$ are completely unknown. It is then convenient to regress to each antenna pattern independently, allowing for two free parameters. This can be done by computing the antenna patterns assuming any arbitrary value of the polarization angle, say $\psi=0$. Indeed, eqs.~(\ref{eq:A+rot}--\ref{eq:Alrot}) guarantee that the subspace of tensor, vector or scalar antenna patterns for \emph{all} $\psi$ is spanned by a pair of corresponding tensor, vector or scalar antenna patterns assuming any \emph{particular} $\psi$.
In the case of GR, this means we can use a template
\begin{equation} \label{eq:tempGR}
T_{\rm GR}(t)=\tilde{\alpha}_+A_+(t;\psi=0)/2 + \tilde{\alpha}_\times A_\times(t;\psi=0)/2
\end{equation}
with two complex weights $\tilde{\alpha}$'s to be determined by the minimization. In the presence of a signal and in the absence of noise, eqs.~(\ref{eq:A+rot}, \ref{eq:AXrot}) indicate that the values returned by the fit would be a function of the \emph{actual}, unknown $\psi$ and $\iota$:
\begin{equation}
\alpha_+ = a_+(\iota) e^{i\phi_0} \cos{2\psi} - a_\times(\iota) e^{i\phi_0-i\pi/2} \sin{2\psi},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\alpha_\times = a_\times(\iota) e^{i\phi_0-i\pi/2} \cos{2\psi} + a_+(\iota) e^{i\phi_0}\sin{2\psi},
\end{equation}
with the $\alpha(\iota)$'s as given in eqs.~(\ref{eq:a+}, \ref{eq:ax}).
Again, a (semi--) model--dependent template, like eq.~(\ref{eq:tempGR}), can be constructed for any given theory by selecting the corresponding antenna patterns to be used as basis for the regression. For G4v, this would be:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:tempG4v}
T_{\rm G4v}(t)=\tilde{\alpha}_xA_x(t;\psi=0)/2 + \tilde{\alpha}_y A_y(t;\psi=0)/2
\end{equation}
with two complex weights $\tilde{\alpha}$'s to be determined by the minimization. As before, in the presence of a signal and in the absence of noise, eqs.~(\ref{eq:Axrot}, \ref{eq:Ayrot}) indicate that the values returned by the fit would be a function of the \emph{actual}, unknown $\psi$ and $\iota$:
\begin{equation}
\alpha_x = a_x(\iota) e^{i\phi_0-i\pi/2} \cos{\psi} - a_y(\iota) e^{i\phi_0} \sin{\psi},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\alpha_y = a_y(\iota) e^{i\phi_0} \cos{\psi} + a_x(\iota) e^{i\phi_0-i\pi/2}\sin{\psi}.
\end{equation}
In this case, we cannot directly relate our recovered strength to $h_0$ and the framework does not allow to carry out parameter estimation. The proper way to do that is using Bayesian statistics, marginalizing over the orientation parameters. Since we are mostly interested in quantifying our ability to detect alternative signals rather than estimating source parameters, we do not cover such methods here. However, it would be straightforward to incorporate our generalized likelihoods (as given by our templates) into a full Bayesian analysis (cf.~\cite{Dupuis2005}).
\subsubsection{Model--independent}
In a model--independent search, the regression is performed using all five non--degenerate antenna patterns and the phases between the $A_p$'s are not constrained. Thus,
\begin{equation}
T_{\rm indep}(t) = \displaystyle\sum\limits_{p=1}^{5}\tilde{a}_{p}A_{p}(t).
\end{equation}
Because we do not consider any particular model, there is no information about the relative strength of each polarization; hence, the $\tilde{a}_p$'s are unconstrained. Again, eqs.~(\ref{eq:A+rot}--\ref{eq:Alrot}) enable us to compute the antenna patterns for any value of $\psi$.
By calculating the necessary inner products, it can be shown that a regression to the \emph{antenna pattern basis},
\begin{equation}
\left\{A_+, ~A_\times,~ A_{\rm x}, ~A_{\rm y}, ~A_{\rm b}\right\},
\end{equation}
is equivalent to a regression to the \emph{sidereal basis},
\begin{equation} \label{eq:sidbasis}
\left\{1,~\cos{\omega t},~\cos{2\omega t},~\sin{\omega t},~\sin{2\omega t} \right\},
\end{equation}
where $\omega = 2\pi / (86 164 ~{\rm s})$ is the sidereal rotational frequency of the Earth. This is an orthogonal basis which spans the space of the antenna patterns. In this basis,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:tempSid}
T_{\rm indep}(t) = \displaystyle\sum\limits_{i=1}^{5}\tilde{a}_{i}f_{i}(t).
\end{equation}
with $f_i$ representing the set in (\ref{eq:sidbasis}). This is the same basis set used in so--called \emph{5-vector searches} \cite{Astone2010}.
Because they span the same space, using either basis set yields the same results with the exact same significance, as defined in eq.~(\ref{eq:sig}). Furthermore, the weights obtained as results of the fit can be converted back and forth between the two bases by means of a time--independent coordinate transformation matrix.
A model--independent search is sensitive to all polarizations, but is prone to error due to noise when distinguishing between them. It also has more degrees of freedom (compared with a pure-GR template) that can respond to noise fluctuations, resulting in a search that is less sensitive to pure-GR signals. However, the analysis can be followed by model--dependent searches to clarify which theory fits with most significance.
\begin{figure*} [!hbtp]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.33\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{hs_H1S5_GR_J0534+2200GR}
\end{subfigure}%
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.33\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{hs_H1S5_GR_J0534+2200_unlockedGR}
\end{subfigure}%
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.33\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{hs_H1S5_GR_J0534+2200Indep}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Significance, eq.~(\ref{eq:sig}), vs.~recovered strength, eq.~(\ref{eq:hrec}), for searches over 5000 noise--only H1 S5 Crab instantiations using model--dependent eq.~(\ref{eq:tempGRlocked}) (left), semi--dependent eq.~(\ref{eq:tempGR}) (center), and independent eq.~(\ref{eq:tempSid}) (right) templates. The model--dependent case assumes \emph{fully} known $\iota$ and $\psi$. Note that the number of degrees of freedom in the regression is manifested in the spread, which is due to noise: templates with a single degree of freedom are less susceptible to noise and the spread is minimal. The two plots on the left were generated using a GR template, but similar results are obtained for G4v.}
\label{fig:hs}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure} [!hbtp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{pvalue_H1S5_GR_J0534+2200_s}
\caption{Example plot of $p=1-{\rm CDF}$ vs.~the recovery significance for a particular template. A loud injection in noise is manifested as an outlier (star) over the noise--only background (red). Note that the injection is plotted arbitrarily at $p=10^{-1}$.}
\label{fig:pSidH1S5}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{injsrch_H1S5_GR_J0534+2200_h_ex}
\end{subfigure}\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.487\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{injsrch_H1S5_GR_J0534+2200_s_ex}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Neyman plot of recovered signal strength $h_{\rm rec}$ (left) and significance $s$ (right) vs.~injected strength $h_{\rm inj}$. In this case, GR signals are recovered with GR templates, but results are qualitatively the same with G4v injections recovered with G4v templates, or either kind of injection recovered with model--independent templates. The collection of points at $h_{\rm inj}=0$ are noise--only and the detection threshold (horizontal line) is placed above $\alpha_{\rm n}=99.9\%$ of them. The shaded band includes $\alpha_{\rm b}=95\%$ of the data points above the threshold and it is centered on their best--fit line. The fit forced null \emph{y}--intersect.}
\label{fig:injsrch_ex}
\end{figure*}
\section{Analysis} \label{sec:analysis}
We wish to detect any CGW signal originating in a given pulsar, regardless of its polarization in a model--independent way. We can then determine whether the measured polarization content agrees with theoretical predictions. This information can be used to obtain frequentist confidence levels for a potential detection and to generate upper limits for the strength of signals of any polarization potentially buried in the data.
In order to test the statistical properties of the noisy data filtered through our templates, we produce numerous instantiations of detector noise by taking actual data processed as outlined in section \ref{sec:method} and re--heterodyning over a small band close to the frequency of the original heteredoyne. Any true signal in the data stream is scrambled in the process and what remains is a good estimate of the noise. This allows us to perform searches under realistic conditions with or without injections of simulated signals, while remaining blind to the presence of a true signal.
By heterodyning at different frequencies, we are able to generate a large number of instantiations of the data. Because our S5 datasets span roughly 1.9 years and are sampled once per minute, our bandwidth is $8.3 \times10^{-3}$ Hz with a lowest resolvable frequency of $1.7 \times 10^{-8}$ Hz. This means we could theoretically re--heterodyne our data at a maximum of $8.3\times10^{-3} / 1.7\times 10^{-8} \approx 4.9\times10^5$ independent frequencies. In our study, we picked $10^4$ frequencies in the $10^{-7}-10^{-3}$ Hz range, avoiding the expected signal frequency of $\sim 10^{-5}$ Hz (period of a sidereal day) and its multiples.
We quantify the results of a particular search by looking at the obtained recovered signal strength, eq.~(\ref{eq:hrec}), and significance, eq.~(\ref{eq:sig}). As expected, these two parameters are strongly correlated (fig.~\ref{fig:hs}). However, the significance is, in the presence of Gaussian noise, a direct indicator of goodness--of--fit and can be used to compare results from templates with different numbers of degrees of freedom.
By performing searches on multiple instantiations of noise--only data, we construct cumulative distribution function (CDF) probability plots showing the distribution of recovered signal strength, eq.~(\ref{eq:hrec}), and significance, eq.~(\ref{eq:sig}), corresponding to a given template. Such plots give the probability that the outcome of the regression is consistent with noise (i.e.~provide $p$--values). As shown in fig.~\ref{fig:pSidH1S5}, an instantiation that contains a loud injected signal becomes manifest in this plot as an outlier. This sort of plot can also be used when searching for an actual signal in the data---namely, when looking at the original, non--reheterodyned series. In that case, the $1-{\rm CDF}$ curve can be extrapolated or interpolated to find the $p$--value corresponding to the significance with which the injection was recovered.
After injecting and retrieving increasingly loud signals with a given polarization content in different background instantiations, we produce plots of recovered strength vs.~injected strength ($h_{\rm rec}$ vs.~$h_{\rm inj}$) and significance vs.~injected strength ($s$ vs.~$h_{\rm inj}$). Recall that injections are of the form of eqs.~(\ref{eq:tempGRlocked}, \ref{eq:tempG4vlocked}). Examples of such plots are presented in fig.~\ref{fig:injsrch_ex}. These plots, and corresponding fits, can be used to assess the sensitivity of a template to certain type of signal, define thresholds for detection and produce confidence bands for recovered parameters. (In the frequentist literature, these plots are sometimes referred to as \emph{Neyman constructions} \cite{Olive2012}.)
We define a horizontal \emph{detection threshold} line above an arbitrary fraction $\alpha_{\rm n}$ (e.g.,~$\alpha_{\rm n}= 99.9\%$) of noise--only points (i.e.~points with $h_{\rm inj}=0$, but $h_{\rm rec}\neq0$), so that data points above this line can be considered detected with a $p$--value of $p=1-\alpha_{\rm n}$ (e.g.,~$p=0.1\%$). For a particular template, this fractional threshold can be directly translated into a significance value $\sigdetthrsh{\alpha_{\rm n}}$ (e.g.,~$\sigdetthrsh{99.9\%}=2.5$). The sensitivity of the template is related to the number of injections recovered with a significance higher than $\sigdetthrsh{\alpha_{\rm n}}$. Therefore, for a given $\alpha_{\rm n}$, a lower $\sigdetthrsh{\alpha_{\rm n}}$ means higher sensitivity to true signals.
\newcommand{\alpha_{\rm up}}{\alpha_{\rm up}}
For the results of each template, the fractional threshold $\alpha_{\rm n}$ can also be associated to a strain value. We define this to be the loudness of the minimum injection detected above this threshold with some arbitrary \emph{upper--limit confidence} $\alpha_{\rm up}$. This value can be determined from the $s$ vs.~$h_{\rm inj}$ plot by placing a line parallel to the best fit but to the right of a fraction $\alpha_{\rm up}$ of all data points satisfying $0<h_{\rm inj}$. The intersection of this line with the $\alpha_{\rm n}$ line occurs at $h_{\rm inj}=h_{\rm min}^{\alpha_{\rm up}}$, which is the strain value above which we can have $\alpha_{\rm up}$ confidence that a signal will be detected (i.e.~recovered with significance $s>\sigdetthrsh{\alpha_{\rm n}}$).
We refer to $h_{\rm min}^{\alpha_{\rm up}}$ as the \emph{expected sensitivity} or \emph{strain detection threshold at $\alpha_{\rm n}$}. This value allows not only for the definition of upper limits for the presence of signals, but also the comparison of different model dependent and independent templates. See fig.~\ref{fig:crabS5gr_dep} for a juxtaposition of the results of matching and non--matching model--dependent templates for the case of the Crab pulsar.
The efficiency of a template is also quantified by the slope of the $h_{\rm rec}$ vs.~$h_{\rm inj}$ best--fit line, which should be close to 1 for a template that matches the signal. We perform this fit by taking into account only points above the $\alpha_{\rm n}$ line and forcing the \emph{y}--intersect to be null. The deviations from this fit are used to produce confidence intervals for the recovered strength. This is done by defining a band centered on the best--fit line and enclosing an arbitrary fraction $\alpha_{\rm b}$ (e.g.,~$\alpha_{\rm b}=95\%$) of the data points, corresponding to the confidence band placed around best--fit line. The intersection between this band and a horizontal line at some value of $h_{\rm rec}$ yields a confidence interval for the true strength with $\alpha_{\rm b}$ confidence. Note that deviations above and below the best--fit line are taken independently to obtain asymmetric confidence intervals. The same analysis can be done on the $s$ vs.~$h_{\rm inj}$ plots, taking into account proper scaling of the best--fit slope.
In general, when performing injections we pick parameters with a uniform distribution over the uncertainty ranges of location and orientation values obtained from the ATNF Pulsar Catalog \cite{ATNF}. When there is no orientation information, we must draw $\psi$ and $\iota$ from the ranges $\left[-\pi/2, \pi/2\right]$ and $\left[0,2\pi\right]$ respectively. Note that standard searches consider tensor signals ($2\psi$--dependent) only and therefore assume $\psi \in \left[-\pi/4, \pi/4\right]$; however, a bigger range must be used when taking into account vector signals ($\psi$--dependent). The reason these ranges need not cover the full $\left[0, \pi\right]$ range is that a change in $\psi$ of $\pi/2$ for tensor and $\pi$ for vector signals is equivalent to a change of signal sign. Therefore, this is taken care of by varying the overall phase $\phi_0 \in \left[0, \pi\right]$.
\begin{figure*} [!hbtp]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{injsrch_H1S5_GR_J0534+2200_s_sid}
\caption{GR injections recovered with GR template (green), eq.~(\ref{eq:tempGR}), and model independent (blue), eq.~(\ref{eq:tempSid}).}
\label{fig:crabS5gr_indep}
\end{subfigure}%
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{injsrch_H1S5_GR_J0534+2200_s_g4v}
\caption{GR injections recovered with GR template (green), eq.~(\ref{eq:tempGR}), and G4v template (red), eq.~(\ref{eq:tempG4v}).}
\label{fig:crabS5gr_dep}
\end{subfigure}
\\
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{injsrch_H1S5_G4v_J0534+2200_s_sid}
\caption{G4v injections recovered with G4v template (red),\\eq.~(\ref{eq:tempG4v}), and model independent (blue), eq.~(\ref{eq:tempSid}).}
\label{fig:crabS5g4v_indep}
\end{subfigure}%
\hfill%
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{injsrch_H1S5_G4v_J0534+2200_s_gr}
\caption{G4v injections recovered with G4v template (red), eq.~(\ref{eq:tempG4v}), and GR template (green), eq.~(\ref{eq:tempGR}).}
\label{fig:crabS5g4v_dep}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{GR (top) and G4v (bottom) injection results of search over LIGO S5 H1 data heterodyned for the Crab pulsar. Plots show significance, eq.~(\ref{eq:sig}), vs.~injected strength. Color corresponds to the template used for recovery: GR, green; G4v, red; model--independent, blue. This particular search was performed using $10^4$ instantiations, half of which contained injections using the values of $\iota$ and $\psi$ given in table \ref{tab:DetParam}. The model--dependent templates assumed the same same $\iota$ as the injections. Horizontal lines correspond to a detection threshold $\alpha_{\rm n}=99.9\%$.}
\label{fig:crabS5}
\end{figure*}
We tested the aforementioned methods on LIGO data taken by the Hanford and Livingston detectors over LIGO Science Run 5 (S5). During this run, which took place from November 2005 through September 2007 (GPS times 815155213 - 875232014), the three LIGO detectors operated in data--taking mode at design sensitivity, collecting a year of coincident detector data. The root--mean--square strain noise of the instrument reached values as low as $3\times10^{-22}$ for bands of 100 Hz over the most sensitive frequencies \cite{LSC2009}.
LIGO S5 data has been recently released to the public and is accessible online through the LIGO Open Science Center \cite{losc2014}.
In particular, we looked at data for 115 pulsars, obtained by reducing S5 H1, H2 and L1 strain data as outlined in section \ref{sec:search}. But for the inclusion of PSR J0024-72040 and the exclusion of PSR J2033+17 and Vela, these are the same heterodyned time series analyzed in reference \cite{LSC2010}. However, that study presented Bayesian upper limits to the presence of GR signals and did not consider alternative polarizations.
\begin{figure*}[!hbtp]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.33\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{mp_H1S5_GR_s_slope}
\caption{GR slope}
\label{fig:mpGRslope}
\end{subfigure}%
\hfill %
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.33\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{mp_H1S5_G4v_s_slope}
\caption{G4v slope}
\label{fig:mpG4vslope}
\end{subfigure}%
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.32\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{mp_H1S5_GR_s_noise}
\caption{Detection threshold}
\label{fig:mp_noise}
\end{subfigure}%
\caption{Slope of the $s$ vs.~$h_{\rm inj}$ best--fit--line (left and center) and significance detection threshold at $\alpha_{\rm n}=99.9\%$ (right) vs.~GW frequency and for GR and G4v injections on S5 H1 data for 115 pulsars. Color corresponds to search template: GR, green; G4v, red; and model--independent, blue. Note that for both kinds of injections, the model--independent points overlap the matching template.}
\label{fig:mp_slope_noise}
\end{figure*}
\section{Results} \label{sec:results}
Here we present the results of a study of the signal sensitivity of the analysis procedure described in section \ref{sec:analysis}, using the data described at the end of section \label{sec:analysis}. We perform a ``closed box'' analysis, using only re--heterodyned data, which are insensitive to the presence of actual signals, and simulated signal injections. A full ``open box'' analysis, using Bayesian methods to produce model--dependent and model--independent signal detection confidence bands or upper limits, is in preparation.
In particular, we produced $10^4$ re--heterodyned instantiations of data for each pulsar by picking linearly spaced frequencies in the $10^{-7}-10^{-3}$ Hz range (cf.~ sec.~\ref{sec:analysis}). Half of those were injected with simulated signals of increasing strength. The data were then analyzed with each template (GR, G4v and model--independent), producing plots like those in fig.~\ref{fig:injsrch_ex}. For the Crab pulsar, since the source orientation information is known, the full model--dependent templates, eqs.~(\ref{eq:tempGRlocked}, \ref{eq:tempG4vlocked}), were used; otherwise, the semi--model--dependent templates, eqs.~(\ref{eq:tempGR}, \ref{eq:tempG4v}), were used. The whole process was carried out for both GR and G4v injections. In all cases, we set $\alpha_{\rm n}=99.9\%$ and $\alpha_{\rm up}=95.0\%$.
\subsection{Crab pulsar}
Results for searches over H1 S5 data prepared for the Crab pulsar ($\nu=30.22$ Hz, $\nu_{\rm GW}=60.44$ Hz) are presented in fig.~\ref{fig:crabS5}. The results using templates matched to the injections are compared to those of the model--independent (left) and non--matching templates (right). The expected sensitivities, as defined in section \ref{sec:analysis}, for each injection template and search model are provided in table \ref{tab:crabresults}. Recall that the Crab is a special case, since its orientation in the sky is well--known, which enables us to use full model--dependent templates, eqs.~(\ref{eq:tempGRlocked}, \ref{eq:tempG4vlocked}). However, searches for actual signals would still have to make use to two templates for each theoretical model because of the ambiguity in $\iota$ described in section \ref{sec:signal}. In order to avoid doing this, a semi--model--dependent or model--independent search could be carried out instead.
A number of interesting observations can be drawn from fig.~\ref{fig:crabS5} and table \ref{tab:crabresults}. As inferred from the values of $h_{\rm min}$, the model--independent template is roughly 25\% less sensitive than the matching one, regardless of the theory assumed when making injections. This is understood by the presence of four extra degrees of freedom in the model--independent template, compared to the single tunable coefficient in the full model--dependent one. If instead the semi--model--dependent template with two degrees of freedom is used, the improvement with respect to the model--independent search goes down to 15\%. In any case, the accuracy of matching and model--independent searches, given by the width of the confidence bands an, are almost identical.
Model dependent templates are significantly less sensitive to non--matching signals. Table \ref{tab:crabresults} indicates that model--dependent templates are 120-170\% less sensitive to non--matching signals than their matching counterpart. A consequence of this is the existence of a range of signals which would be detected by templates of one theory, but not the other (see figs. \ref{fig:crabS5gr_dep} \& \ref{fig:crabS5g4v_dep}). This is particularly interesting, given that previous LIGO searches assume GR to be valid and use a template equivalent to eq.~(\ref{eq:tempGRlocked}). Therefore, our results suggest it is possible that those searches might have missed fully--non--GR signals buried in the data (see section \ref{sec:conclusions} for further discussion).
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Summary of expected sensitivity for the Crab pulsar S5 H1 searches ($\alpha_{\rm n}=99.9\%$, $\alpha_{\rm up}=95.0\%$). Rows correspond to injection type and columns to search template. The rotational frequency of the Crab is $\nu=30.22$ Hz and, therefore, $\nu_{\rm GW}=60.44$ Hz.}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
& GR & G4v & Independent \\
\cline{2-4}\\[-10pt]
GR & \num{3.41e-25} & \num{7.49e-25} & \num{4.20e-25} \\
G4v & \num{8.90e-25} & \num{3.30e-25} & \num{4.15e-25} \\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\label{tab:crabresults}%
\end{table}
\begin{figure*}[p]
\begin{subfigure}[b]{\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=.7\textwidth]{senscurve_H1S5_GR}
\caption{GR injections}
\label{fig:mpGR}
\end{subfigure}\\
\begin{subfigure}[b]{\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=.7\textwidth]{senscurve_H1S5_G4v}
\caption{G4v injections}
\label{fig:mpG4v}
\end{subfigure}%
\caption{S5 H1 expected sensitivity (strain detection threshold at $\alpha_{\rm n}=99.9\%$ with $\alpha_{\rm up}=95.0\%$ confidence) vs.~GW frequency for 115 pulsars. Color corresponds to search template: GR, green; G4v, red; and model--independent, blue. The gray line is the anticipated sensitivity of a standard Bayesian search, eq.~(\ref{eq:expsens}).}
\label{fig:mpH1}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[p]
\begin{subfigure}{\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.7\textwidth]{senscurve_L1S5_GR}
\caption{GR injections}
\label{fig:mpGR}
\end{subfigure}%
\\
\begin{subfigure}{\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=.7\textwidth]{senscurve_L1S5_G4v}
\caption{G4v injections}
\label{fig:mpG4v}
\end{subfigure}%
\caption{S5 L1 expected sensitivity (strain detection threshold at $\alpha_{\rm n}=99.9\%$ with $\alpha_{\rm up}=95.0\%$ confidence) vs.~GW frequency for 115 pulsars. Color corresponds to search template: GR, green; G4v, red; and model--independent, blue. The gray line is the anticipated sensitivity of a standard Bayesian search, eq.~(\ref{eq:expsens}).}
\label{fig:mpL1}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{All pulsars}
The Crab pulsar is only one of the 115 sources we analyzed. The results, presented in figs.~\ref{fig:mpGRslope} \& \ref{fig:mpG4vslope} generally confirm the observations anticipated from the Crab. While model--independent searches are of the same accuracy as matching semi--model--dependent ones, their strain detection threshold is louder due to the extra degrees of freedom (fig.~\ref{fig:mp_noise}). Consequently, model--independent templates demand a higher significance to be able to distinguish a signal from noise. The detection thresholds for GR and G4v templates are of the same magnitude, since both have the same number of degrees of freedom. Among all the 115 pulsars, the sources with best expected sensitivities to GR and G4v signals were PSR J1603-7202 and PSR J1748-2446A respectively (see table \ref{tab:bestresults}).
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Best expected sensitivities for S5 H1 searches ($\alpha_{\rm n}=99.9\%$, $\alpha_{\rm up}=95.0\%$). Rows correspond to injection type and columns to pulsar name (PSR), rotation frequency ($\nu$) and strain detection threshold for matching dependent ($h_{\rm dep}$) and independent ($h_{\rm indep}$) templates.}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
& PSR & $\nu$ (Hz) & $h_{\rm dep}$ & $h_{\rm indep}$ \\
\cline{2-5}\\[-10pt]
GR & J1603-7202 & \num{67.38} & \num{4.77e-26} & \num{5.53e-26} \\
G4v & J1748-2446A & \num{86.48} & \num{4.96e-26} & \num{5.81e-26} \\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\label{tab:bestresults}
\end{table}
The key results of our study are summarized in fig.~\ref{fig:mpH1} for H1 and fig.~\ref{fig:mpL1} for L1. These plots present the expected sensitivity (strain detection threshold at $\alpha_{\rm n}=99.9\%$ with $\alpha_{\rm up}=95.0\%$ confidence) vs.~GW frequency ($\nu_{\rm GW}=2\nu$). The outliers seen in figs.~\ref{fig:mp_slope_noise}-\ref{fig:mpL1} correspond to pulsars whose value of $\nu_{\rm GW}$ are very close to instrumental noise spectral lines associated with violin resonances of the detectors’ test mass pendulum suspensions.
For the matching or model--independent templates, the resulting data points trace the noise curve of the instrument; however, due to the long integration time, we are able to detect signals below LIGO's standard strain noise. The gray curve shown in figs.~\ref{fig:mpH1}, \ref{fig:mpL1} represents the expected sensitivity of a regular Bayesian GR search (e.g.,~\cite{LSC2010}). This is proportional to the amplitude spectral density of the detector and inversely proportional to the square--root of the observation time. The particular empirical relationship used to generate the curve in figs.~\ref{fig:mpH1} \& \ref{fig:mpL1} is:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:expsens}
\langle h_{\rm min} \rangle = 10.8 \sqrt{S_n(f)/T},
\end{equation}
with $S_n(f)$ the noise power spectral density and $T$ the total observation time (527 days for S5 H1 and 405 days for S5 L1) \cite{Dupuis2005}. This formula enables the comparison of the methods presented here with the expected performance of standard Bayesian searches.
By the same token, we can define a figure of merit $\rho$ for our searches by the ratio:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:rho}
\rho\left(\nu_{\rm GW}\right) = h_{\rm min} / \sqrt{S_n(\nu_{\rm GW})/T}.
\end{equation}
The average of this value over all pulsars, $\langle\rho\rangle$, can be semi--quantitatively compared to the 10.8 prefactor in eq.~(\ref{eq:expsens}). The equivalence is not direct because, besides the intrinsic differences between Bayesian and frequentist approaches, eq.~(\ref{eq:expsens}) was obtained by averaging the results of 4000 simulated searches \cite{Dupuis2005}, while we include just the 115 pulsars at hand. The values of $\langle\rho\rangle$ for our S5 H1 \& L1 analyses are presented in table \ref{tab:sensratios} and fig.~\ref{fig:mp_rho}. The specific values for the Crab pulsar are shown in table \ref{tab:crabsensratios}. A smaller $\rho$ indicates better performance.
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Average sensitivity ratios $\langle\rho\rangle$, eq.~(\ref{eq:rho}), for S5 H1 (first value) and S5 L1 (second value) searches. Rows correspond to injection type and columns to search template.}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
& GR & G4v & Independent \\
\cline{2-4}\\[-10pt]
GR & 16.11 ~~~ 14.65 & 58.53 ~~~ 51.89 & 18.83 ~~~ 17.15\\
G4v & 61.21 ~~~ 55.06 & 18.42 ~~~ 16.76 & 21.24 ~~~ 19.32 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\label{tab:sensratios}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[!hbtp]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{rho_H1S5_GR}
\caption{H1 GR}
\label{fig:mp_rho_H1GR}
\end{subfigure}%
\hfill %
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{rho_H1S5_G4v}
\caption{H1 G4v}
\label{fig:mp_rho_H1G4v}
\end{subfigure}%
\hfill %
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{rho_L1S5_GR}
\caption{L1 GR}
\label{fig:mp_rho_L1GR}
\end{subfigure}%
\hfill %
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{rho_L1S5_G4v}
\caption{L1 G4v}
\label{fig:mp_rho_L1G4v}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Histograms of the figure of merit $\rho$, eq.~(\ref{eq:rho}), for our searches over S5 H1 (top) and L1 (bottom) data sets with GR (left) and G4v (right) injections, corresponding to 115 pulsars. Color corresponds to search template: GR, green; G4v, red; and model--independent, blue.}
\label{fig:mp_rho}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{Crab sensitivity ratio $\rho$, eq.~(\ref{eq:rho}) evaluated at the Crab's GW frequency, for S5 H1 (first value) and S5 L1 (second value) searches. Rows correspond to injection type and columns to search template.}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
& GR & G4v & Independent \\
\cline{2-4}\\[-10pt]
GR & 20.75 ~~~ 10.40 & 45.52 ~~~ 27.15& 25.54 ~~~ 11.94 \\
G4v & 54.06 ~~~ 20.30 & 20.07 ~~~ 9.96 & 25.21 ~~~ 11.52\\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\label{tab:crabsensratios}
\end{table}
As mentioned above, the remarks made about the Crab pulsar hold for most other sources, except that detectability is slightly lower because orientation parameters are unknown. In all cases, the matching template is the best at recovering signals, followed closely by the model--independent one. Searches that assume the incorrect model are substantially less efficient and their $h_{\rm min}$ vs.~$\nu_{\rm GM}$ curves do not follow the instrumental noise line. This is reflected, for instance, by the figures of merit presented in table \ref{tab:sensratios}.
\section{Conclusions} \label{sec:conclusions}
We have developed novel model--independent methods to search for CGW signals coming from targeted sources in LIGO--like interferometric data. These searches are able to detect signals of \emph{any} polarization content with high significance.
In order to test our methods in the presence of realistic noise conditions, we implemented a procedure to produce thousands of noise--only instantiations from actual data. We then proceeded by injecting and retrieving increasingly loud signals of different polarization content.
We studied 115 pulsars using S5 data from the LIGO Hanford and Livingston detectors. Although the methods are general, we restricted our study to two theories that predict starkly different GW polarization contents (GR and G4v).
Our results indicate that assuming the wrong theoretical model greatly reduces the sensitivity of a search to signals buried in the data. Yet, our model--independent searches are almost as effective as the model--dependent templates that match the kind of signal injected (i.e.~when the models used for injection and search are the same). This means that our model--independent templates can be used to find signals of any polarizations without additional computational requirements.
We are able to reach sensitivities comparable to previous studies, although slightly worse than those presented in \cite{LSC2010}. This is probably due to our making use of a single detector and to differences between frequentist and Bayesian approaches.
We have shown that, for some combinations of detectors, sources, and signal strengths, G4v signals are invisible to GR templates and vice--versa. Therefore, it is possible that, if GWs are composed uniquely of vector modes, previous LIGO searches, which assume GR, may have missed their signals.
It is clear that the next step in this study consists of incorporating our model--independent templates into the Bayeasian machinery used in standard LIGO Scientific Collaboration searches. This will allow us to properly marginalize over all nuisance parameters and to produce multi–-detector model--dependent and model--independent signal detection confidence bands or upper limits. We will also employ methods to constrain other theories (e.g.,~scalar--tensor) in the event of a model-independent detection.
\begin{acknowledgments}
The authors would like to thank Holger Pletsch for helpful discussions. M.~Pitkin is funded by the STFC through grant number ST/L000946/1. LIGO was constructed by the California Institute of Technology and Massachusetts Institute of Technology with funding from the National Science Foundation and operates under cooperative agreement PHY-0757058. This paper carries LIGO Document Number LIGO-P1400169.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
Branes are non-perturbative objects in String theory and study on
them is helpful in
understanding the non-perturbative properties of String theory.
Various brane configurations are also useful in the applications of
gauge-string duality. Under the assumption of AdS/CFT, study on the
near horizon geometry of D3 brane, i.e. AdS$_5\times S^5$, reveals the
properties of corresponding strong coupling conformal field theory in
the large $N_c$ limit at the boundary of AdS$_5$, which can also be
extended to the asymptotically AdS$_5$ spaces. A typical example is
that the well-known Hawking-Page phase transition of the AdS black
hole corresponds to the confinement-deconfinement phase transition in
$SU(N_c)$ gauge theory at large $N_c$ \cite{Witten:1998zw}, which
aroused the recent interests on the black hole thermodynamics in the
asymptotically AdS space.
As the solutions of the supergravity, black branes, like black holes,
can have their own thermodynamics. Study on the thermodynamical phase
structure of the black branes is also valuable in understanding the
non-perturbative nature of String theory.
Since black branes are asymptotically flat,
they are unstable by themselves due to their negative specific heat capacity
and the Hawking radiation. To study their phase structures, one can put
them into a spherical cavity which is considered as a reservoir
to form a thermal equilibrium, following the approach of York in discussing the
thermodynamics of black
holes\cite{York:1986it,Whiting:1988qr,Braden:1990hw}. For different
boundary conditions at the boundary of the cavity, there can be
different ensembles
for charged black
branes. Along these lines, in \cite{lu:2011}, the phase structure of
black $p$-branes in the canonical ensemble was studied in
$D$-dimensional space-time, where the temperature, the volume of the
brane as well as the cavity, and the charges of the brane are fixed.
There can be van der Waals-like phase transition in this system for
$\tilde d>2$ ($p<5$) where $D=d+\tilde d+2$ and $ p=d-1$: a first order phase
transition between a large black brane and a small one can be found
for charge $q<q_c$, while for $q>q_c$ there is only one black
brane phase, with $q_c$ being the critical charge at which there is a
second order phase transition. This is similar to the van der Waals-like phase
transition found in charged AdS black holes
\cite{Chamblin:1999tk,Chamblin:1999hg}, asymptotically flat
black holes as well as dS black
holes \cite{Carlip:2003ne,Lundgren:2006kt}. In contrast, for $\tilde d \leq 2$
($p=5,6$),
there is no van der Waals-like phase transition. For uncharged black
branes, Hawking-Page like
transitions between black branes and the ``hot flat space'' can also
happen in the canonical ensemble similar to the uncharged black
hole case \cite{York:1986it,Whiting:1988qr}. The phase structure for
black branes in grand canonical ensemble is different from that in canonical ensemble for $\tilde d >2$, where the
potential is fixed while the charges are not. There is no van der
Waals-like
phase transition, but the Hawking-Page-like transitions between the
black branes and the ``hot flat space'' can happen. Bubble
solutions\cite{Witten:1981gj,Horowitz:2005vp} which can be obtained
from black branes by double wick rotations also play a role in the
phase structure of black branes, since they have the same boundary
condition as the black branes. In \cite{Lu:2011da} and
\cite{Wu:2011yu}, bubbles were found to be the phases of black branes in
canonical ensembles and grand canonical ensembles, and can have phase
transitions with black branes, and thus enriches the phase structure of
black branes. In all these discussions,
there are no van der Waals-like phase transitions in grand
canonical ensembles, whereas they do exist in canonical ensembles. The
absence of van der Waals-like phase transitions in grand canonical ensemble
is also true for charged black holes either in flat
space\cite{Braden:1990hw,Carlip:2003ne} or in AdS space
\cite{Chamblin:1999tk,Chamblin:1999hg}, but they may exist for
Gauss-Bonnet AdS black
holes\cite{Dey:2007vt,Anninos:2008sj,Zou:2014mha} for certain
Gauss-Bonnet coupling constants.
It is well-known that branes can be combined to form composite states
or intersecting branes. Among others, D$p$-D$(p+4)$ bound states as
solutions of supergravities can be constructed by smearing D$p$ branes
inside D$(p+4)$ branes. In extremal
cases\cite{Callan:1996dv,Behrndt:1996pm,Papadopoulos:1996ca} which
obey the harmonic function rules,
the solutions preserve $1/4$ of the supersymmetries. There can also be
more generic non-supersymmetric D$p$-D$(p+4)$ solutions in ten-dimensional
supergravities\cite{Costa:1996re,Peet:2000hn,Miao:2004bn}. These brane solutions are useful in
gravity-gauge duality
applications\cite{Liu:1999fc,Barbon:1999zp,Suzuki:2000sv,Wu:2013zxa,Cai:2014wia,Seki:2013nta} and in constructing lower
dimensional black holes\cite{Peet:2000hn}. The dynamical stability of D$p$-D$(p+4)$ was discussed
in\cite{Friess:2005tz}. We are interested in the thermodynamical phase
structure of these solutions in this paper. Since these solutions
involve two kinds of charges coupled with different RR potentials, the
phase structure is expected to be richer. One can form different
ensembles by fixing either the charge inside the cavity or the
potential at the boundary for D$p$ or/and D$(p+4)$ branes , and therefore
D$p$ and D$(p+4)$ can be in canonical ensemble or in grand canonical
ensemble independently. In \cite{lu:2012-2}, the phase structure of
the D1-D5 system in which both branes are in the canonical ensemble is
discussed. It has been shown that the smeared D1-brane alone shares the
same phase structure as the D5-brane for which the van der Waals-like phase
structure can not be found. However the D1-D5 combined system
displays a van der Waals-like phase structure for some region of the charge
combinations. And the phase structure is also symmetric under the exchange
of the D1 charges and D5 charges. One may also be curious about what
will happen when the two kinds of charges are in different ensembles.
In present paper we will study the phase structures of the other three
combinations of the ensembles: both D$p$ and D$(p+4)$ in grand canonical
ensemble, D$p$ in canonical and D$(p+4)$ in grand canonical
ensemble, and D$p$ in grand canonical
and D$(p+4)$ in canonical ensemble. We will find that the phase structures
are also symmetric when one swaps the boundary conditions imposed on D$p$- and
D$(p+4)$-branes. For mixed ensembles with one charge in canonical
ensemble and the other in grand canonical ensemble, one may expect in
some charge combinations there could be van der Waals-like phase
transitions like the canonical ensemble and in some other regions
there are no van der Waals-like phase transitions as in grand canonical
ensemble. This indeed happens in the D0-D4 system, which has the
richest phase structure. In D2-D6 and D1-D5 systems, unlike in the D1-D5
canonical ensemble, in the other three ensembles there are still no
van der Waals-like phase transitions. In our discussion, we only
consider the stability condition of the brane under a small change of
the horizon size, which is equivalent to the positive specific heat capacity
condition. Nonetheless, we will briefly comment on the effect of the more
generic stability conditions --- the electrical stability conditions for
both charges --- on the phase structure. In the meantime, the technical details
on this electrical stability conditions is arranged in another paper \cite{xiao:2015}.
The paper is organized as follows. In section \ref{sect:Branes}, we
review the D$p$-D$(p+4)$ solution and evaluate the classical Euclidean actions or
thermodynamic potentials for different ensembles. In section
\ref{sect:Ensembles}, we discuss the phase structures of the
D$p$-D$(p+4)$ system in different ensembles.
In section \ref{sect:General-stability}, we give a brief discussion on
more general thermodynamic stability conditions.
Section \ref{sect:Conclude} is the conclusion. We also gather some
detailed calculations in the Appendices.
\section{The D$p$-D$(p+4)$ brane system\label{sect:Branes}}
\subsection{The action}
We consider a gravitational system bounded by a big spherical reservoir
which can be regarded as a spherical boundary at the transverse radius
$\rho_b$. At the center of the system is a pile of parallel
D$p\,$-D$(p+4)$-branes. The
total Euclidean 10-dimensional supergravity action in Einstein frame can be expressed as a sum of several
contributions~\cite{lu:2011},
\begin{equation}
I = I_{\rm EH} + I_\phi + I_p + I_{p+4} + I_{\rm boundary}
\label{eq:total-action}
\end{equation}
where the first term is the usual Einstein-Hilbert action,
\begin{equation}
I_{\rm EH} = - \frac{1}{2\kappa^2} \int d^{10}x \sqrt{g} R ,
\label{eq:einstein-hilbert}
\end{equation}
the second term is the contribution from the dilaton field,
\begin{equation}
I_\phi = \frac{1}{4\kappa^2} \int d^{10}x \sqrt{g} \partial^\mu\phi \partial_\mu\phi ,
\label{eq:dilaton}
\end{equation}
the third and fourth terms come from the D$p\,$- and D$(p+4)$-brane form field action,
\begin{eqnarray}
I_p & = & \frac{1}{4\kappa^2} \int d^{10}x \sqrt{g} \,
\frac{e^{a_p\phi}}{(p+2)!} F_{[p+2]}^2 ,\nonumber\\
I_{p+4} & = & \frac{1}{4\kappa^2} \int d^{10}x \sqrt{g}
\frac{e^{a_{p+4}\phi}}{(p+6)!} F_{[p+6]}^2 ,
\label{eq:gauge-fields-action}
\end{eqnarray}
where $a_n=\frac{3-n}{2}$, and the last term $ I_{\rm boundary} $ could admit several boundary
integration terms, which depends on what ensemble we are interested in.
We will come back to this term soon. In the above formulae, the
constant coefficient $\kappa$ is defined as $\kappa=\sqrt{8\pi
G_{10}^2}$ in which $G_{10}$ is the 10-dimensional Newton's constant;
the vacuum expectation value of the dilaton field
$\phi(r\!\rightarrow\!\infty)$ has been shifted to zero. The integration
is performed within the boundary and outside the horizon if there exists
one.
Now we deal with the boundary term in equation (\ref{eq:total-action}).
There are three terms that may contribute to the boundary action $ I_{\rm boundary} $,
\begin{eqnarray}
I_{\rm GH} & = & \frac{1}{\kappa^2} \oint d^9x \sqrt{\gamma} \, (K-K_0) ,\nonumber\\
I_{b,p} & = & - \frac{1}{2\kappa^2} \oint d^9x \sqrt{\gamma} \,
\frac{e^{a_p\phi}}{(p+1)!} n_\mu F^{\mu\nu_1\cdots\nu_{p+1}}
A_{\nu_1\cdots\nu_{p+1}} ,\nonumber\\
I_{b,p+4} & = & - \frac{1}{2\kappa^2} \oint d^9x \sqrt{\gamma}
\frac{e^{a_{p+4}\phi}}{(p+5)!} n_\mu F^{\mu\nu_1\cdots\nu_{p+5}}
A_{\nu_1\cdots\nu_{p+5}} .
\label{eq:boundary-terms}
\end{eqnarray}
The first action above is the Gibbons-Hawking surface term~\cite{gibbons:1977},
in which $K$ is the trace of the extrinsic curvature $K_{\mu\nu}$ defined as
\begin{equation}
K_{\mu\nu} = -\frac{1}{2} ( \nabla_\mu n_\nu + \nabla_\nu n_\mu )
\end{equation}
where $n_\mu$ is the normalized space-like vector normal to the boundary.
$K_0$ in that term is defined in the same manner as $K$ but with the
metric replaced with flat metric. This subtraction term is included
to make $ I_{\rm GH} $ vanish for flat metric~\cite{gibbons:1977}. The second
and third actions in (\ref{eq:boundary-terms}) are boundary contributions
from the D$p\,$- and D$(p+4)$-branes respectively. $\gamma$ in these equations
is the determinant of the induced metric on the $(4-p)$-dimensional boundary,
and the $(p+1)$-form and $(p+5)$-form fields $A_{[p+1]}$ and $A_{[p+5]}$
are the Ramond-Ramond potentials of D$p\,$- and D$(p+4)$-branes respectively.
The Gibbons-Hawking term should always be included in $ I_{\rm boundary} $ regardless of
what ensemble we are talking about. However, $I_{b,p}$ and $I_{b,p+4}$
are supposed to cancel additional boundary terms when doing variations
with respect to the gauge field potentials.
If we fix the gauge field strength $F$ on the boundary and the potential $A$ are not fixed,
after partial integration the additional boundary terms would emerge,
thus we need to include $I_{b,p}$ or $I_{b,p+4}$ whose variations would cancel these terms.
On the other hand, if we fix the gauge potential $A$ on the boundary,
there will be no additional variation terms, therefore,
$I_{b,p}$ or $I_{b,p+4}$ will not be needed.
We summarize the above analyses in Table \ref{tb:bc-ba-relation}.
\begin{table}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c}
\hline
D$p\,$ & D$(p+4)$ & Boundary action $ I_{\rm boundary} $ \\
\hline
Fixing $A_{[p+1]}$ & Fixing $A_{[p+5]}$ & $ I_{\rm GH} $ \\
\hline
Fixing $F_{[p+2]}$ & Fixing $A_{[p+5]}$ & $ I_{\rm GH} +I_{b,p}$ \\
\hline
Fixing $A_{[p+1]}$ & Fixing $F_{[p+6]}$ & $ I_{\rm GH} +I_{b,p+4}$ \\
\hline
Fixing $F_{[p+2]}$ & Fixing $F_{[p+6]}$ & $ I_{\rm GH} +I_{b,p}+I_{b,p+4}$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The relationship between boundary conditions and the boundary action \label{tb:bc-ba-relation}}
\end{center}
\end{table}
The relation between boundary conditions and ensembles will be addressed in next subsection.
\subsection{Black brane solution}
The generic non-supersymmetric D$p$-D$(p+4)$ brane solution
\cite{Costa:1996re,Peet:2000hn,Miao:2004bn,Friess:2005tz} can be obtained by directly solving the
supergravity equations of motion or by a series of duality and boost
operations from D$(p+4)$-branes.
We use following coordinates
to describe the solution,
\begin{equation}
(t, x_1, \cdots, x_p, \cdots, x_{p+4}, \rho, \phi_1, \cdots, \phi_{4-p})
\label{eq:coordinates}
\end{equation}
where $\rho$ is the radius in the transverse directions perpendicular
to $x_m$, $m=1,\cdots,p+4$. In this coordinates the solution reads
\cite{lu:2012-2},
\begin{eqnarray}
ds^2 & = & \Delta_- ^{\frac{1-p}{4}} \Delta_* ^{\frac{p-7}{8}}
\left( \Delta_+ dt^2 + \Delta_- \sum^{p}_{i=1} dx_i^2
+ \Delta_* \sum^{p+4}_{j=p+1} dx_j^2 \right) \nonumber\\
& & + \Delta_- ^{\frac{p^2-1}{4(3-p)}} \Delta_* ^{\frac{p+1}{8}}
\left( \frac{d\rho^2}{ \Delta_+ \Delta_- } + \rho^2 d\Omega_{4-p}^2 \right) ,\nonumber\\
e^\phi &=& \Delta_- ^{\frac{p-1}{2}} \Delta_* ^{\frac{3-p}{4}} ,\nonumber\\
A_{[p+1]} &=& -i \frac{ \Delta_+ }{ \Delta_* } \left( \frac{ \Delta_* - \Delta_- }{ \Delta_* - \Delta_+ } \right)^{1/2}
dt \wedge dx_1 \wedge \cdots \wedge dx_p ,\nonumber\\
F_{[p+2]} &=& i \frac{3-p}{\rho} \frac{1}{ \Delta_* }
\left( 1- \frac{ \Delta_+ }{ \Delta_* } \right)^{1/2}
\left( 1- \frac{ \Delta_- }{ \Delta_* } \right)^{1/2}
dt \wedge d\rho \wedge dx_1 \wedge \cdots \wedge dx_p ,\nonumber\\
A_{[p+5]} &=& -i \Delta_+ \left( \frac{1- \Delta_- }{1- \Delta_+ } \right)^{1/2}
dt \wedge dx_1 \wedge \cdots \wedge dx_{p+4} ,\nonumber\\
F_{[p+6]} & = & i \frac{3-p}{\rho} (1- \Delta_+ )^{1/2} (1- \Delta_- )^{1/2}
\ dt \wedge d\rho \wedge dx_1 \wedge \cdots \wedge dx_{p+4} ,
\label{eq:solution}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta_\pm(\rho) &=& 1 - \frac{\rho_\pm^{3-p}}{\rho^{3-p}} ,
\qquad \rho_+ > \rho_- \geq 0 ,\nonumber\\
\Delta_* (\rho) &=& 1 - \frac{k}{\rho^{3-p}} ,
\qquad \rho_- ^{3-p} \geq k > -\infty .
\label{eq:deltas}
\end{eqnarray}
Here, $p$ can be $0,1,2$ for this
supergravity solution to describe the D$p$-D$(p+4)$ system. The constants $ \rho_+ $ and $ \rho_- $ are the coordinates for the outer event
horizon and an inner event horizon respectively, the latter being a
curvature singularity. Therefore, the requirement $ \rho_+ > \rho_- $ is to
avoid a naked curvature
singularity. The other constant $k$ can be either positive or negative, and
when it is positive, there is another inner event horizon at
$\rho=k^{1/(3-p)}$ which is a curvature singularity as well. When
$k= \rho_- ^{3-p}$, we have $ \Delta_* = \Delta_- $, and this corresponds to the brane
configuration where all D$p\,$-branes are removed from the system while
D$(p+4)$-branes are retained. Later we will see in (\ref{eq:charge-density})
that we require $ \rho_- ^{3-P}\ge k$ in order to make the Ramond-Ramond charge real.
The D$p\,$- and D$(p+4)$-brane charge densities can be obtained by integrating
the Hodge dual of their Ramond-Ramond field strengths,
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal Q} _p &=& \frac{-i}{\sqrt{2}\kappa} \int_{x_{p+1},\cdots,x_{p+4}} \oint_{S^{4-p}}
e^{a_p \bar{\phi} } *F_{[p+2]}(\rho_b) ,\nonumber\\
{\cal Q} _{p+4} &=& \frac{-i}{\sqrt{2}\kappa} \oint_{S^{4-p}}
e^{a_{p+4} \bar{\phi} } *F_{[p+6]}(\rho_b) ,
\label{eq:charge-formulae}
\end{eqnarray}
where $ \bar{\phi} \equiv\phi(\rho_b)$ and the $-i$ factors come from Euclideanization.
The charge densities can be explicitly expressed as follows,
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal Q} _p &=& \frac{(3-p)V_4\Omega_{4-p}}{\sqrt{2}\kappa} e^{a_p \bar{\phi} /2} \bar{\rho} _b^{3-p}
\left( 1- \frac{ \bar{\Delta}_+ }{ \bar{\Delta}_* } \right)^{1/2} \left( 1- \frac{ \bar{\Delta}_- }{ \bar{\Delta}_* } \right)^{1/2} ,\nonumber\\
{\cal Q} _{p+4} &=& \frac{(3-p)\Omega_{4-p}}{\sqrt{2}\kappa} e^{a_{p+4} \bar{\phi} /2} ( \bar{\rho}_+ \bar{\rho}_- )^{\frac{3-p}{2}} ,
\label{eq:charge-density}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{equation}
V_4 = \sqrt{g_{x_{p+1}x_{p+1}}(\rho_b) \cdots g_{x_{p+4}x_{p+4}}(\rho_b)}\ V_4^*
,\qquad V_4^* \equiv \int dx_{p+1} \cdots dx_{p+4} ,\nonumber\\
\end{equation}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{\Delta}_\pm &\equiv& \Delta_\pm(\rho_b) = 1 - \frac{ \bar{\rho} _\pm^{3-p}}{ \bar{\rho} _b^{3-p}} ,\nonumber\\
\bar{\Delta}_* &\equiv& \Delta_* (\rho_b) = 1 - \frac{\bar{k}}{ \bar{\rho} _b^{3-p}} ,
\label{eq:def-bar}
\end{eqnarray}
in which
\begin{equation}
\bar{\rho} _{+,-,b} \equiv \rho_{+,-,b} \, \bar{\Delta}_- ^{\frac{p^2-1}{8(3-p)}}
\bar{\Delta}_* ^{\frac{p+1}{16}} = \rho_{+,-,b} \, e^{\frac{p+1}{4(3-p)} \bar{\phi} }
\label{eq:def-bar-rho}
\end{equation}
are the physical radii of horizons and the boundary, and
$\bar{k} \equiv k\, e^{\frac{p+1}{4} \bar{\phi} }$.
To make these relations more concise, we define two reduced charge densities,
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{\cal Q} _p &=& \frac{\sqrt{2}\kappa {\cal Q} _p e^{-a_p \bar{\phi} /2}}{(3-p)
V_4 \Omega_{4-p} \bar{\rho} _b^{3-p}} \nonumber\\
&=& \left( 1- \frac{ \bar{\Delta}_+ }{ \bar{\Delta}_* } \right)^{1/2}
\left( 1- \frac{ \bar{\Delta}_- }{ \bar{\Delta}_* } \right)^{1/2} < 1 ,\nonumber\\
\tilde{\cal Q} _{p+4} &=& \left( \frac{\sqrt{2}\kappa {\cal Q} _{p+4}
e^{-a_{p+4} \bar{\phi} /2}}{(3-p)\Omega_{4-p}} \right)^{\frac{1}{3-p}}
= \sqrt{ \bar{\rho}_+ \bar{\rho}_- } .
\label{eq:reduced-charge-density}
\end{eqnarray}
With (\ref{eq:reduced-charge-density}) we can express $ \bar{\rho}_- $ and
$ \bar{\Delta}_* $ through $ \bar{\rho}_+ $ and these two reduced quantities,
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{\rho}_- &=& \frac{ \tilde{\cal Q} _{p+4}^2}{ \bar{\rho}_+ } ,\nonumber\\
\bar{\Delta}_* &=& \frac{ \bar{\Delta}_+ + \bar{\Delta}_- \pm \sqrt{( \bar{\Delta}_- - \bar{\Delta}_+ )^2 + 4 \tilde{\cal Q} _p^2 \bar{\Delta}_+ \bar{\Delta}_- }}{2(1- \tilde{\cal Q} _p^2)} .
\label{eq:brm-bds}
\end{eqnarray}
When $k= \rho_- ^{3-p}$, the D$p\,$-brane charge vanishes and $ \tilde{\cal Q} _p=0$, so
\[ \bar{\Delta}_* = \frac{ \bar{\Delta}_+ + \bar{\Delta}_- \pm ( \bar{\Delta}_- - \bar{\Delta}_+ )}{2} = \bar{\Delta}_- . \]
Therefore, we should choose in the above relation the ``+'' sign
only, i.e.,
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{\Delta}_* &=& \frac{ \bar{\Delta}_+ + \bar{\Delta}_- + \sqrt{( \bar{\Delta}_- - \bar{\Delta}_+ )^2 + 4 \tilde{\cal Q} _p^2 \bar{\Delta}_+ \bar{\Delta}_- }}{2(1- \tilde{\cal Q} _p^2)} .
\label{eq:delta-star}
\end{eqnarray}
From (\ref{eq:charge-density}), we can see that fixing $F$ at the boundary
is to fix the charge density $ {\cal Q} $ within the boundary. It is well-known
that fixing the charge of a system while allowing radiation means we are
considering the system in canonical ensemble. If we fix the gauge potential
$A$ instead, the field strength at the boundary will be changeable, and
we will be talking about grand canonical ensemble. Now that we have two kinds
of gauge potentials and field strengths, it is reasonable to assume there
are two kinds of ensembles for each field, and thus we have the following table
(Table \ref{tb:ens-ba-relation}).
\begin{table}[t]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c}
\hline
D$p\,$-brane & D$(p+4)$-brane & Boundary action $ I_{\rm boundary} $ \\
\hline
Canonical & Canonical & $ I_{\rm GH} +I_{b,p}+I_{b,p+4}$ \\
\hline
Grand Canonical & Canonical & $ I_{\rm GH} +I_{b,p+4}$ \\
\hline
Canonical & Grand Canonical & $ I_{\rm GH} +I_{b,p}$ \\
\hline
Grand Canonical & Grand Canonical & $ I_{\rm GH} $ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The relationship between ensembles and the boundary action \label{tb:ens-ba-relation}}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\subsection{Temperature and conjugate potentials}
Like black holes, due to Hawking radiation \cite{hawking:1975}, black brane
has a temperature, $T_H$, which can be easily calculated by the
requirement that the Euclideanized metric (\ref{eq:solution}) has no
conical singularity. Then the Euclideanized time $t$ is cyclic with a
particular period
\begin{equation}
\beta^* = \frac{4\pi \rho_b}{3-p} \frac{(1- \bar{\Delta}_+ )^{1/2}( \bar{\Delta}_* - \bar{\Delta}_+ )^{1/2}}{( \bar{\Delta}_- - \bar{\Delta}_+ )^{\frac{2-p}{3-p}}} .
\label{eq:time-period}
\end{equation}
This period
is just the inverse of the Hawking temperature observed by an observer at $\rho=\infty$,
\begin{equation}
T_H = 1 / \beta^* .
\label{eq:hawking-temperature}
\end{equation}
For a local
observer at $\rho=\rho_b$, the local temperature would be
\begin{equation}
\bar{\beta} = \beta^* \bar{\Delta}_+ ^{\frac{1}{2}} \bar{\Delta}_- ^{\frac{1-p}{8}} \bar{\Delta}_* ^{\frac{p-7}{16}} =
\frac{4\pi \bar{\rho} _b}{3-p} (1- \bar{\Delta}_+ )^{\frac{1}{2}} \left( \frac{ \bar{\Delta}_+ }{ \bar{\Delta}_- } \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}
\left( 1- \frac{ \bar{\Delta}_+ }{ \bar{\Delta}_- } \right)^{\frac{p-2}{3-p}} \left( 1- \frac{ \bar{\Delta}_+ }{ \bar{\Delta}_* } \right)^{\frac{1}{2}} .
\label{eq:local-temperature}
\end{equation}
In order to study the grand canonical ensembles, we need to define two
potentials which are conjugate to the brane charge densities. So we
define $\Phi_p$ to be the potential conjugate to the D$p$ charge
using
\begin{equation}
A_{[n+1]} = -i \sqrt{2} \kappa \,\Phi_n\, d\bar{t} \wedge d\bar{x}_1 \wedge \cdots \wedge d\bar{x}_n ,
\label{eq:conjugate-potential}
\end{equation}
where the barred coordinates are defined as follows,
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{t} &=& t \, \bar{\Delta}_+ ^{\frac{1}{2}} \bar{\Delta}_- ^{\frac{1-p}{8}} \bar{\Delta}_* ^{\frac{p-7}{16}} ,\nonumber\\
\bar{x}_i &=& x_i \, \bar{\Delta}_- ^{\frac{5-p}{8}} \bar{\Delta}_* ^{\frac{p-7}{16}} ,\qquad i=1,\cdots,p ,\nonumber\\
\bar{x}_j &=& x_j \, \bar{\Delta}_- ^{\frac{1-p}{8}} \bar{\Delta}_* ^{\frac{p+1}{16}} ,\qquad j=p+1,\cdots,p+4 .
\label{eq:barred-coordinates}
\end{eqnarray}
The reasonableness of the definition of the conjugate potentials will be
justified later. At the boundary, in the equilibrium state, $\Phi_p$
and $\Phi_{p+4}$ can be expressed using $\bar \Delta_{+,-,*}$
explicitly according to (\ref{eq:solution}),
\begin{eqnarray}
\Phi_p &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\kappa} e^{-a_p \bar{\phi} /2}
\left( \frac{ \bar{\Delta}_+ }{ \bar{\Delta}_- } \right)^{1/2} \left( \frac{ \bar{\Delta}_* - \bar{\Delta}_- }{ \bar{\Delta}_* - \bar{\Delta}_+ } \right)^{1/2} ,\nonumber\\
\Phi_{p+4} &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\kappa} e^{-a_{p+4} \bar{\phi} /2}
\left( \frac{ \bar{\Delta}_+ }{ \bar{\Delta}_- } \right)^{1/2} \left( \frac{1- \bar{\Delta}_- }{1- \bar{\Delta}_+ } \right)^{1/2} .
\label{eq:phi-explicit}
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{Evaluation of actions}
Since the bulk action terms and the Gibbons-Hawking term in the total
action (\ref{eq:total-action}) are the common parts that appear in
every ensemble, we define their sum as
\begin{equation}
I_c = I_{\rm EH} + I_\phi + I_p + I_{p+4} + I_{\rm GH}
\label{eq:common-action}
\end{equation}
for later convenience. Using the solution (\ref{eq:solution}) one can
evaluate the actions,
\begin{eqnarray}
I_c & = & - \frac{ \bar{\beta} V_{p+4} \Omega_{4-p}}{2\kappa^2} \bar{\rho} _b^{3-p}
\left[ (5-p) \left( \frac{ \bar{\Delta}_+ }{ \bar{\Delta}_- } \right)^{\frac{1}{2}} +
(3-p) \left( \frac{ \bar{\Delta}_- }{ \bar{\Delta}_+ } \right)^{\frac{1}{2}} - 2(4-p) \right] \nonumber\\
&=& - \frac{ \bar{\beta} V_{p+4} \Omega_{4-p}}{\kappa^2} \bar{\rho} _b^{3-p}
\left[ (4-p) \left( \frac{ \bar{\Delta}_+ }{ \bar{\Delta}_- } \right)^{\frac{1}{2}} - (4-p) \right] - S ,\nonumber\\
I_{b,p} & = & - \frac{ \bar{\beta} V_{p+4} \Omega_{4-p}}{2\kappa^2} \bar{\rho} _b^{3-p}
\left[ (3-p) \frac{( \bar{\Delta}_+ \bar{\Delta}_- )^{\frac{1}{2}}}{ \bar{\Delta}_* } - (3-p) \left( \frac{ \bar{\Delta}_+ }{ \bar{\Delta}_- } \right)^{\frac{1}{2}} \right]
= \bar{\beta} V_p {\cal Q} _p \Phi_p , \nonumber\\
I_{b,p+4} & = & - \frac{ \bar{\beta} V_{p+4} \Omega_{4-p}}{2\kappa^2} \bar{\rho} _b^{3-p}
\left[ (3-p) ( \bar{\Delta}_+ \bar{\Delta}_- )^{\frac{1}{2}} - (3-p) \left( \frac{ \bar{\Delta}_+ }{ \bar{\Delta}_- } \right)^{\frac{1}{2}} \right]
= \bar{\beta} V_{p+4} {\cal Q} _{p+4} \Phi_{p+4} ,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{equation}
S = \frac{2\pi V_{p+4} \Omega_{4-p}}{\kappa^2} \bar{\rho} _b^{4-p} (1- \bar{\Delta}_+ )^{\frac{1}{2}}
\left( 1- \frac{ \bar{\Delta}_+ }{ \bar{\Delta}_- } \right)^{\frac{1}{3-p}} \left( 1- \frac{ \bar{\Delta}_+ }{ \bar{\Delta}_* } \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}
\end{equation}
is the entropy of the brane system and
\begin{equation}
V_{p+4} = V_p V_4 ,\qquad V_p = \sqrt{g_{x_1x_1}(\rho_b) \cdots g_{x_px_p}(\rho_b)}\ V_p^* ,\qquad V_p^* = \int dx_1 \cdots dx_p .
\end{equation}
With the above results and Table~\ref{tb:ens-ba-relation}, we obtain the
classical actions for various ensembles:
\begin{itemize}
\item Both charges are in canonical ensembles (we will use CC ensemble to
denote this one)
\begin{eqnarray}
I_{\scriptscriptstyle CC} & = & I_c + I_{b,p} + I_{b,p+4} \nonumber\\
& = & - \frac{ \bar{\beta} V_{p+4} \Omega_{4-p}}{2\kappa^2} \bar{\rho} _b^{3-p}
\left[ 2\left( \frac{ \bar{\Delta}_+ }{ \bar{\Delta}_- } \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}
+ (3-p) ( \bar{\Delta}_+ \bar{\Delta}_- )^{\frac{1}{2}} \left( 1+ \frac{1}{ \bar{\Delta}_* } \right) +2p - 8 \right] -S \nonumber\\
&=& \bar{\beta} E - S ,
\label{eq:canon-canon}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{equation}
E = - \frac{V_{p+4} \Omega_{4-p}}{2\kappa^2} \bar{\rho} _b^{3-p} \left[ 2\left( \frac{ \bar{\Delta}_+ }{ \bar{\Delta}_- } \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}
+ (3-p) ( \bar{\Delta}_+ \bar{\Delta}_- )^{\frac{1}{2}} \left( 1+ \frac{1}{ \bar{\Delta}_* } \right) +2p - 8 \right]
\label{eq:internal-energy}
\end{equation}
is the internal energy of the brane system. This action has already been
obtained in \cite{lu:2012-2}, and we include it here for completeness.
\item D$p\,$\ in grand canonical ensemble \& D$(p+4)$\ in canonical ensemble
(denoted as GC ensemble )
\begin{equation}
I_{\scriptscriptstyle GC}
= \bar{\beta} E - S - \bar{\beta} V_p {\cal Q} _p \bar \Phi_p .
\label{eq:grand-canon}
\end{equation}
\item D$p\,$\ in canonical ensemble \& D$(p+4)$\ in
grand canonical ensemble (denoted as CG
ensemble)
\begin{equation}
\IC
= \bar{\beta} E - S - \bar{\beta} V_{p+4} {\cal Q} _{p+4} \bar\Phi_{p+4} .
\label{eq:canon-grand}
\end{equation}
\item Both charges are in grand canonical ensemble (denoted as GG
ensemble)
\begin{equation}
\IG
= \bar{\beta} E - S - \bar{\beta} V_p {\cal Q} _p \bar\Phi_p - \bar{\beta}
V_{p+4} {\cal Q} _{p+4} \bar\Phi_{p+4} .
\label{eq:grand-grand}
\end{equation}
\end{itemize}
Here, $\bar\Phi_p$ and $\bar\Phi_{p+4}$ are the potentials imposed on
the boundary and we stick to the convention that the barred quantities
are the ones on the boundary.
Only at equilibrium, $\bar\Phi_p=\Phi_p$ and
$\bar\Phi_{p+4}=\Phi_{p+4}$, and
\begin{eqnarray}
I_{\scriptscriptstyle GC} = I_c + I_{b,p+4} ,\quad I_{\scriptscriptstyle CG} = I_c + I_{b,p}\, ,\quad I_{\scriptscriptstyle GG} =
I_c.
\end{eqnarray}
It is easy to check that, for $\rho_b\rightarrow\infty$,
(\ref{eq:internal-energy}) reduces to
\begin{equation}\label{eq:adm-mass}
E \eval{\rho_b\rightarrow\infty} = \frac{V_p^* V_4^* \Omega_{4-p}}{2\kappa^2}
\Big[ (4-p) \rho_+ ^{3-p} + (2-p) \rho_- ^{3-p} - (3-p)k \Big]
\end{equation}
the right hand side of which is exactly the ADM mass of the branes.
We know that the free energy equals to
its internal energy minus the temperature times the
entropy, where the internal energy is the ADM mass for a gravitational
system according to Bardeen et. al. \cite{bardeen:1973}. So (\ref{eq:canon-canon}) and
(\ref{eq:adm-mass}) means
that we are indeed dealing with a system in canonical ensemble.
Now we justify that (\ref{eq:canon-canon}) (\ref{eq:grand-canon})
(\ref{eq:canon-grand}) and (\ref{eq:grand-grand}) are indeed the
correct forms of free energy or grand potential, and the conjugate
potentials defined in (\ref{eq:conjugate-potential}) and
(\ref{eq:phi-explicit}) are consistent. For this purpose, we will
check that the equilibrium corresponds to the stationary point in
various ensembles. First we take the
derivative of $ I_{\scriptscriptstyle CC} $ with respect to $ \bar{\rho}_+ $ and set it to zero,
\begin{equation}
\PP{ I_{\scriptscriptstyle CC} }{ \bar{\rho}_+ } = \frac{2\pi(3-p)V_{p+4}\Omega_{4-p} \bar{\rho}_+ ^{2-p} \bar{\rho} _b}{\kappa^2}
f\big( \bar{\rho}_+ , \tilde{\cal Q} _p, \tilde{\cal Q} _{p+4}\big) \Big[ \bar{b} - b\big( \bar{\rho}_+ , \tilde{\cal Q} _p, \tilde{\cal Q} _{p+4}\big) \Big] = 0 ,
\label{eq:dICC-dBRP}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{b} &=& \frac{ \bar{\beta} }{4\pi \bar{\rho} _b} ,\nonumber\\
b\big( \bar{\rho}_+ , \tilde{\cal Q} _p, \tilde{\cal Q} _{p+4}\big) &=& \frac{1}{3-p} (1- \bar{\Delta}_+ )^{\frac{1}{2}} \left( \frac{ \bar{\Delta}_+ }{ \bar{\Delta}_- } \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}
\left( 1- \frac{ \bar{\Delta}_+ }{ \bar{\Delta}_- } \right)^{\frac{p-2}{3-p}} \left( 1- \frac{ \bar{\Delta}_+ }{ \bar{\Delta}_* } \right)^{\frac{1}{2}} ,\nonumber\\
f\big( \bar{\rho}_+ , \tilde{\cal Q} _p, \tilde{\cal Q} _{p+4}\big) &=& \frac{1}{2 \bar{\Delta}_+ ^{1/2} \bar{\Delta}_- ^{3/2} (1- \bar{\Delta}_+ )}
\Big[ (3-p) \bar{\Delta}_- ( \bar{\Delta}_- - \bar{\Delta}_+ ) + 2( \bar{\Delta}_+ + \bar{\Delta}_- -2 \bar{\Delta}_+ \bar{\Delta}_- ) \nonumber\\
&& + (3-p) \frac{ \bar{\Delta}_- ( \bar{\Delta}_- - \bar{\Delta}_+ )( \bar{\Delta}_+ + \bar{\Delta}_- -2 \bar{\Delta}_+ \bar{\Delta}_- )}{ \bar{\Delta}_* \bar{\Delta}_+ + \bar{\Delta}_* \bar{\Delta}_- -2 \bar{\Delta}_+ \bar{\Delta}_- } \Big] .
\label{eq:def-b-f}
\end{eqnarray}
The solution to (\ref{eq:dICC-dBRP}) is the stationary point of the
action, which is supposed to correspond to the equilibrium
state, and is thus expected to give the equation of state
(\ref{eq:local-temperature}). Since $ \bar{\Delta}_+ < \bar{\Delta}_- \leq \bar{\Delta}_* \leq 1$, which can
be seen from (\ref{eq:deltas}), the function $f$ defined in the
last equation of (\ref{eq:def-b-f}) is positive definite. This
means the expression in the square brackets of (\ref{eq:dICC-dBRP})
must vanish, which recovers the equation of state
(\ref{eq:local-temperature}) exactly. This justifies our claim
that $ I_{\scriptscriptstyle CC} $ is the correct form of free energy.
Next we take the derivative of $ I_{\scriptscriptstyle GC} $ with respect to $ {\cal Q} _p$ and
again set it to zero,
\begin{eqnarray}
\PP{ I_{\scriptscriptstyle GC} }{ {\cal Q} _p} &=& - \frac{ \bar{\beta} V_p}{\sqrt{2}\kappa e^{a_p \bar{\phi} /2}}
\Bigg\{ \bar{\Phi} - \Phi\big( \bar{\rho}_+ , \tilde{\cal Q} _p, \tilde{\cal Q} _{p+4}\big)
\Bigg[ 1 + \nonumber\\
&& \Bigg( 1 - \frac{b\big( \bar{\rho}_+ , \tilde{\cal Q} _p, \tilde{\cal Q} _{p+4}\big)}{\bar{b}} \Bigg)
\frac{ \bar{\Delta}_* ( \bar{\Delta}_- - \bar{\Delta}_+ )}{ \bar{\Delta}_* \bar{\Delta}_+ + \bar{\Delta}_* \bar{\Delta}_- -2 \bar{\Delta}_+ \bar{\Delta}_- } \Bigg] \Bigg\} \nonumber\\
&=& - \frac{ \bar{\beta} V_p}{\sqrt{2}\kappa e^{a_p \bar{\phi} /2}}
\left[ \bar{\Phi} - \Phi\big( \bar{\rho}_+ , \tilde{\cal Q} _p, \tilde{\cal Q} _{p+4}\big) \right] \nonumber\\
&=& 0
\label{eq:dIGC-dQp}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{\Phi} &=& \sqrt{2} \kappa e^{a_p \bar{\phi} /2} \bar\Phi_p ,\nonumber\\
\Phi\big( \bar{\rho}_+ , \tilde{\cal Q} _p, \tilde{\cal Q} _{p+4}\big) &=& \left( \frac{ \bar{\Delta}_+ }{ \bar{\Delta}_- } \right)^{1/2} \left( \frac{ \bar{\Delta}_* - \bar{\Delta}_- }{ \bar{\Delta}_* - \bar{\Delta}_+ } \right)^{1/2} .
\label{eq:def-Phi}
\end{eqnarray}
In getting the first equality in (\ref{eq:dIGC-dQp}), we have used the expression for
$ \tilde{\cal Q} _p$ in (\ref{eq:reduced-charge-density}), and in the
second equality, we have used the fact that
$\bar{b}=b( \bar{\rho}_+ , \tilde{\cal Q} _p, \tilde{\cal Q} _{p+4})$ in equilibrium state. The last
equality in (\ref{eq:dIGC-dQp}) just recovers the first equation
in (\ref{eq:phi-explicit}) where it is merely a definition. This
proves the validity of that definition. Similarly, we
calculate the derivative of $ I_{\scriptscriptstyle CG} $ with respect to $ {\cal Q} _{p+4}$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\PP{ I_{\scriptscriptstyle CG} }{ {\cal Q} _{p+4}} &=& - \frac{ \bar{\beta} V_p}{\sqrt{2}\kappa e^{a_{p+4} \bar{\phi} /2}}
\Bigg\{ \bar{\varphi} - \varphi\big( \bar{\rho}_+ , \tilde{\cal Q} _{p+4}\big)
\Bigg[ 1 - \left( 1 - \frac{b\big( \bar{\rho}_+ , \tilde{\cal Q} _p, \tilde{\cal Q} _{p+4}\big)}{\bar{b}} \right) \times \nonumber\\
&& \left( \frac{2}{3-p}\frac{1}{ \bar{\Delta}_- } +
\frac{ \bar{\Delta}_- - \bar{\Delta}_+ }{ \bar{\Delta}_* \bar{\Delta}_+ + \bar{\Delta}_* \bar{\Delta}_- -2 \bar{\Delta}_+ \bar{\Delta}_- } \right) \Bigg] \Bigg\} \nonumber\\
&=& - \frac{ \bar{\beta} V_p}{\sqrt{2}\kappa e^{a_p \bar{\phi} /2}}
\left[ \bar{\varphi} - \varphi\big( \bar{\rho}_+ , \tilde{\cal Q} _{p+4}\big) \right] ,
\label{eq:dIGC-dQpf}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{\varphi} &=& \sqrt{2} \kappa e^{a_{p+4} \bar{\phi} /2} \bar\Phi_{p+4} ,\nonumber\\
\varphi\big( \bar{\rho}_+ , \tilde{\cal Q} _{p+4}\big) &=& \left( \frac{ \bar{\Delta}_+ }{ \bar{\Delta}_- } \right)^{1/2} \left( \frac{1- \bar{\Delta}_- }{1- \bar{\Delta}_+ } \right)^{1/2} .
\label{eq:def-varphi}
\end{eqnarray}
Again in getting this result we have used (\ref{eq:reduced-charge-density})
and the equation of state. Setting this derivative to zero would give
exactly the second expression in (\ref{eq:phi-explicit}). In the same
fashion, if we partially differentiate $ I_{\scriptscriptstyle GG} $ with respect to $ \bar{\rho}_+ $, $ {\cal Q} _p$
and $ {\cal Q} _{p+4}$, we would obtain all the three equations in
(\ref{eq:local-temperature}) and (\ref{eq:phi-explicit}).
For future simplifications in the computation, we define some reduced
quantities in the following.
The reduced action in the CC ensemble is defined as
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{I}_{\scriptscriptstyle CC} &\equiv& \frac{\kappa^2 I_{\scriptscriptstyle CC} }{2\pi \bar{\rho} _b^{4-p} V_{p+4} \Omega_{4-p}} \nonumber\\
&=& - \bar{b} \left[ 2 \left( \frac{ \bar{\Delta}_+ }{ \bar{\Delta}_- } \right)^{1/2}
+ (3-p) ( \bar{\Delta}_+ \bar{\Delta}_- )^{1/2} \left( 1+ \frac{1}{ \bar{\Delta}_* } \right) + 2p - 8 \right] \nonumber\\
&& - (1- \bar{\Delta}_+ )^{1/2} \left(1- \frac{ \bar{\Delta}_+ }{ \bar{\Delta}_- } \right)^{\frac{1}{3-p}}
\left( 1- \frac{ \bar{\Delta}_+ }{ \bar{\Delta}_* } \right)^{1/2} .
\label{eq:reduced-ICC}
\end{eqnarray}
Other reduced quantities can be defined as follows,
\begin{eqnarray}
x \equiv \left( \frac{ \bar{\rho} _+}{ \bar{\rho} _b} \right)^{3-p} < 1 , \qquad
Q \equiv \tilde{\cal Q} _p < 1 ,\qquad
q \equiv \left( \frac{ \tilde{\cal Q} _{p+4}}{ \bar{\rho} _b} \right)^{3-p} < x .
\end{eqnarray}
Accordingly, in the reduced variables, $\bar\Delta_{+,-,*}$ and the other
reduced actions can be expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{\Delta}_+ &=& 1 - x ,\nonumber\\
\bar{\Delta}_- &=& 1 - \frac{q^2}{x} ,\nonumber\\
\bar{\Delta}_* &=& \frac{ \bar{\Delta}_+ + \bar{\Delta}_- + \sqrt{\displaystyle ( \bar{\Delta}_- - \bar{\Delta}_+ )^2 + 4 Q^2 \bar{\Delta}_+ \bar{\Delta}_- }}{2(1-Q^2)} ,
\label{eq:reduced-delta}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{I}_{\scriptscriptstyle GC} &=& \tilde{I}_{\scriptscriptstyle CC} - (3-p) \bar{b} Q \bar{\Phi} ,\nonumber\\
\tilde{I}_{\scriptscriptstyle CG} &=& \tilde{I}_{\scriptscriptstyle CC} - (3-p) \bar{b} q \bar{\varphi} ,\nonumber\\
\tilde{I}_{\scriptscriptstyle GG} &=& \tilde{I}_{\scriptscriptstyle CC} - (3-p) \bar{b} Q \bar{\Phi} - (3-p) \bar{b} q \bar{\varphi} .
\label{eq:other-reduce-action}
\end{eqnarray}
Notice that $\bar \Delta_+$ only depends on $x$, and $\bar \Delta_-$
depends on both $q$ and $x$, while $\bar \Delta_*$ depends on all three
variables $x$, $q$ and $Q$.
With (\ref{eq:reduced-ICC}) and (\ref{eq:other-reduce-action}), we find again the equations of equilibrium state
corresponding to (\ref{eq:dICC-dBRP}), (\ref{eq:dIGC-dQp}) and
(\ref{eq:dIGC-dQpf}), in reduced quantities,
\begin{eqnarray}
\PP{ \tilde{I}_{\scriptscriptstyle GC} }{Q} &=& -(3-p) \bar{b} \left\{ \bar{\Phi} - \Phi(x,Q,q)
\left[ 1 + \left( 1 - \frac{b(x,Q,q)}{\bar{b}} \right)
\frac{ \bar{\Delta}_* ( \bar{\Delta}_- - \bar{\Delta}_+ )}{ \bar{\Delta}_* \bar{\Delta}_+ + \bar{\Delta}_* \bar{\Delta}_- -2 \bar{\Delta}_+ \bar{\Delta}_- } \right] \right\} ,\nonumber\\
\PP{ \tilde{I}_{\scriptscriptstyle CG} }{q} &=& -(3-p) \bar{b} \left\{ \bar{\varphi} - \varphi(x,q)
\left[ 1 - \left( 1 - \frac{b(x,Q,q)}{\bar{b}} \right) \left( \frac{2}{3-p}\frac{1}{ \bar{\Delta}_- }
+ \frac{ \bar{\Delta}_- - \bar{\Delta}_+ }{ \bar{\Delta}_* \bar{\Delta}_+ + \bar{\Delta}_* \bar{\Delta}_- -2 \bar{\Delta}_+ \bar{\Delta}_- } \right) \right] \right\} ,\nonumber\\
\PP{ \tilde{I}_{\scriptscriptstyle CC} }{x} &=& f(x,Q,q) \big[ \bar{b} - b(x,Q,q) \big] ,
\label{eq:stationary-point-equations}
\end{eqnarray}
where the functions $f$, $b$, $\Phi$ and $\varphi$ have been defined in (\ref{eq:def-b-f}),
(\ref{eq:def-Phi}) and (\ref{eq:def-varphi}). Notice that from
(\ref{eq:deltas}), we find $0<\Phi<1$ and $0<\varphi<1$ for nonzero
$p$- and $(p+4)$-brane charges when the horizon is not coincident with the
boundary.
\section{Thermodynamics in different ensembles\label{sect:Ensembles}}
Note that when $Q=0$, the whole system becomes a D$(p+4)$-brane system,
and
the various phase structures of this system have already been thoroughly
analyzed in \cite{lu:2011,lu:2011-2}. Thus, in the
following calculations, we will always assume that $Q>0$ ($ \bar{\Phi} >0$).
Nevertheless, we will still compare our results with the $Q=0$ case
for consistency check or revealing the different traits in the
presence of D$p\,$-branes.
\subsection{Overview of the behaviors of $b(x)$}
\label{sec:typical-curves}
Before performing concrete analyses in specific ensembles, we first
examine a few typical behaviors of the function $b(x,Q,q)$, which are
useful in our later exploration.
In the following discussions of the phase structures in these ensembles,
the key problems to be solved are finding
out the stationary points of thermodynamic potentials and which one is
stable. That is, we need to solve the following equations,
\begin{eqnarray}
b(x,Q,q) &=& \bar{b} ,\nonumber\\
\Phi(x,Q,q) &=& \bar{\Phi} ,\nonumber\\
\varphi(x,q) &=& \bar{\varphi} ,
\label{eq:stationary-equation}
\end{eqnarray}
and then determine whether the solution(s) to these equations is
the minimum point of those thermodynamic potentials. In CC ensemble,
we only need the first equation. In CG ensemble, we need the first and
the third ones and in GC ensemble, we need the first and the second ones.
In GG ensemble, we need all the three equations. For simplicity, in
this paper we constraint ourselves only to the stability of branes under
the change of the horizon size as in \cite{Chamblin:1999tk,lu:2011-2,Wu:2011yu}.
As will be shown later, this is equivalent to the thermal stability condition
that the specific heat capacity is positive for the equilibrium state.
We will also give a brief discussion in a later section on the other
electrical stability conditions like those used in \cite{Chamblin:1999hg}
and leave the details in a paper to appear \cite{xiao:2015}.
So here we will assume that the second and third equations in (\ref{eq:stationary-equation})
have already been satisfied\cite{lu:2011-2,Wu:2011yu}, and $Q$ and $q$
can be solved and be substituted in the first equation.
Thus, the only problem left is to solve the first equation where $b$
is a function of just one variable $x$, that is,
\begin{eqnarray}
b(x) \eval{\Phi= \bar{\Phi} \,\,\text{or/and}\,\, \varphi= \bar{\varphi} } = \bar{b},
\label{eq:simplified-stationary-equation}
\end{eqnarray}
for corresponding ensembles. In that case, the local minimum
condition of the thermodynamical potential would simply be
\begin{eqnarray}
\DD{^2I}{x^2} > 0 .
\label{eq:minimum-condition}
\end{eqnarray}
In equation (\ref{eq:simplified-stationary-equation}), $\bar{b}$ is
the inverse temperature on the boundary which is assumed to be a
constant input parameter. Hence finding out the solution is equivalent
to finding out the intersection points of curve $b=b(x)$ and the horizontal
line $b=\bar{b}$. On the other hand, we will demonstrate that
\begin{eqnarray}
\DD{^2I}{x^2} \sim - \DD{b}{x} ,
\label{eq:D2I-Dx2-Db-Dx}
\end{eqnarray}
which means the local minimum point is the intersection point where
$\DD{b}{x}$ (the slope) is negative.
We will see in the GG ensemble, that
there are only two kinds of curves for $b(x)$ which are listed in
Figure~\ref{fig:GG-typical}.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{GG_monotonic.eps} \quad
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{GG_arch.eps}
\caption{Typical behaviors of $b(x)$ in GG ensembles as well as in some cases in $GC$ and $CG$ ensemble.}
\label{fig:GG-typical}
\end{figure}
One can see that, in the first graph of Figure~\ref{fig:GG-typical},
although there is an intersection point of the two curves, it is not
a minimum of grand potential since the slope at that point is positive.
We therefore conclude that there is no stable black brane phase for
any $\bar{b}$ given that $b(x)$ increases monotonically. In this case,
since the hot flat space can have the same boundary condition with the
brane, the only stable phase should be the hot flat space. However, in
the second graph, for $\bar{b}$ within some range, there could be two
intersection points, where the slope is negative at the one with larger $x$. Thus we
conclude that there will be a locally stable black brane phase
for $\bar{b}$ within that range, i.e., the brane configuration with
larger horizon is locally stable. To find out whether it
is a globally stable phase, we have to compare
the grand potential at this point with the one for the hot flat space,
i.e. the one at $x=0$. If the grand potential at this point is a global minimum it would be the real
stable phase, otherwise it is merely a locally stable one. In this
section, we only concentrate on locally stable phases.
In the GC ensemble, there will be
much richer phase structures. For $p=2$ (D2-D6 system), the possible curves of $b(x)$
are the same as the ones for the GG ensemble, and therefore we do not need to
reanalyse them. For $p=1$ case (D1-D5 system), there will be one more possible
shape besides the two appearing in Figure~\ref{fig:GG-typical}. This
new curve monotonically decreases as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:GC-p-1}.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth]{GC_p_1.eps}
\caption{A typical curve in GC ensemble for $p=1$ besides those in
Figure~\ref{fig:GG-typical}.}
\label{fig:GC-p-1}
\end{figure}
Thus, if the constant $\bar{b}$ line intersects with $b(x)$ curve at some point,
this point must correspond to a globally stable black brane phase. If $p=0$
(D0-D4 system),
there are three cases as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:GC-p-0}. The
third one as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:GC-p-0}(c) is similar to Figure~\ref{fig:GC-p-1} with decreasing $b(x)$.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth]{bGC01.eps} \quad
\includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth]{bGC02.eps}
\includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth]{bGC03.eps}
\caption{Typical $b(x)$ behaviors in GC ensemble for $p=0$}
\label{fig:GC-p-0}
\end{figure}
In Figure~\ref{fig:GC-p-0}(a), if $\bar{b}=\bar{b}_1$ ($\bar b>b_{GC}(x_{max})$),
there is only one intersection point at which the state is stable,
whereas if $\bar{b}=\bar{b}_2$ ($\bar b<b_{GC}(x_{max})$), there will be two intersection points
and only the one with smaller $x$ is locally stable. For the second
graph,
there are more possibilities. We can see that if
$\bar{b}=\bar{b}_1>b_{max}$
or $\bar{b}=\bar{b}_3<b_{min}$, where $b_{min}$ and $b_{max}$ are the
local minimum and local maximum of $b(x)$ as shown in the graph, there is only one intersection point and it
is a stable black brane phase. Yet for $\bar{b}=\bar{b}_2$ with $b_{min}<\bar b_2 <b_{max}$, there can be three
intersection points. Denoting these three points as $x_1$, $x_2$
and $x_3$ with $x_1<x_2<x_3$, one can see that the point with $x=x_2$ is apparently
unstable for its positive
slope while the other two are both locally stable. As regards these two
locally stable phases, the one with higher free
energy will eventually transit to the other phase. It can be shown
that there exists some value of $\bar{b}$
between $b_{min}$ and $b_{max}$, at which the two
locally stable phases have equal thermodynamic potentials but
different entropies, which indicates a first order phase transition,
i.e. the van der Waals-like phase transition. The second graph in
Figure~\ref{fig:GC-p-0} is just a typical case of this kind which is
similar to the one-charge black brane. In two-charge case
$b(x_{max})$ does not reach zero, so there can be possibilities that
$b(x_{max})>b_{min}$. We will discuss this case in section
\ref{sec:GC-phase}.
In the CG ensemble, all three possible $b(x)$ curves in Figure \ref{fig:GC-p-0} also appear here. As argued in \cite{lu:2012-2}, in the CC
ensemble, the delocalized D$p\,$-branes and the D$(p+4)$-branes are
equipotent in the sense that exchanging the two kinds of brane
charges would yield similar phase structures. This reveals some
symmetry under exchange of the boundary conditions that we have imposed on these
two kinds of branes. The GC and CG ensemble are just related by an
exchange of the boundary conditions on these two kinds of branes and
we will see later that the phase structures of these two ensembles are
really related in this way.
Now having found all the patterns of the $b(x)$ curves and the
locally stable phase in each case qualitatively, we need to be specific in
each ensemble to find out in what ranges of the parameter $Q$ (or
$ \bar{\Phi} $) and $q$ (or $ \bar{\varphi} $) one can have a certain pattern of
$b(x)$. Then, we would know the possible state of the system given
any pair of $Q$ (or $ \bar{\Phi} $) and $q$ (or $ \bar{\varphi} $). The following
subsections are devoted to this problem.
The CC ensemble (especially when $p=1$) has already been explored
by Lu et al. in \cite{lu:2012-2}, and we have gathered some results in
Appendix~\ref{ap:CC} including some facts not given in
\cite{lu:2012-2}. Interested readers are refered to their paper
for more details. In the following subsections we
will focus on the other three kinds of ensembles.
\subsection{GG ensemble}
As stated in the previous section, we adopt the one variable analysis
as an embryo attempt to find out the thermodynamical structure.
We need to solve $Q$ and $q$ in terms of $x$ and the corresponding electric potentials
on the boundary ($\bar \Phi$ and $\bar \varphi$), from the
two electromagnetic equilibrium equations, i.e. the second and the
third equations in (\ref{eq:stationary-equation}), using (\ref{eq:def-Phi}) and
(\ref{eq:def-varphi}).
Since the $Q$ and $q$ dependence comes from $ \bar{\Delta}_- $ and $ \bar{\Delta}_* $, it is convenient to
first express
$ \bar{\Delta}_- $ and $ \bar{\Delta}_* $ in terms of $x$, $ \bar{\Phi} $ and $ \bar{\varphi} $,
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{\Delta}_- &=& \frac{ \bar{\Delta}_+ }{\xi} ,\qquad
\bar{\Delta}_* = \bar{\Delta}_+ \frac{1- \bar{\Phi} ^2}{\displaystyle \xi- \bar{\Phi} ^2} ,
\label{eq:GG-delta-x}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\xi=1-(1- \bar{\varphi} ^2)x<1$. Then the charges can easily be
obtained,
\begin{eqnarray}
q=\frac {x\bar\varphi}{\xi^{1/2}}\,,\qquad
Q=\frac{\bar\Phi(1-\xi)}{(1-\bar\Phi^2)\xi^{1/2}}\,.
\label{eq:q-Q}
\end{eqnarray}
The reduced action which is proportional to the grand potential can then be obtained in terms of $x$, $\bar\varphi$
and $\bar \Phi$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\RIG
= 2(4-p)(1-\sqrt\xi)[\bar b-b_0(x)]
\label{eq:IGG}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
b_0(x) \equiv \frac{1+\xi^{\frac12}}{2(4-p)}
\left( \frac x{1-\bar\Phi^2} \right)^{\frac12}
(1-\xi)^{\frac {1-p} {2(3-p)}} .
\label{eq:CG-b0-x}
\end{eqnarray}
We have mentioned in (\ref{eq:deltas}) that
$ \rho_+ ^{3-p} > \rho_- ^{3-p} > k$.
This
inequality can be rewritten in terms of $ \bar{\Delta}_+ $, $ \bar{\Delta}_- $ and $ \bar{\Delta}_* $,
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{\Delta}_+ < \bar{\Delta}_- \ , \quad \bar{\Delta}_- < \bar{\Delta}_* .
\label{eq:new-ordering}
\end{eqnarray}
The first relation in (\ref{eq:new-ordering}) is guaranteed by the first
equality of (\ref{eq:GG-delta-x}). The second relation holds only for
\begin{eqnarray}
x < \frac{1- \bar{\Phi} ^2}{1- \bar{\varphi} ^2} .
\label{eq:GG-x-upper-bound}
\end{eqnarray}
So, we have a restriction on $x$,
\begin{eqnarray}
0 < x < x_{max}
= \textrm{min}\left\{1,\frac{1- \bar{\Phi} ^2}{1- \bar{\varphi} ^2}\right\} .
\label{eq:GG-x-restriction}
\end{eqnarray}
For $\bar\Phi<\bar \varphi$, $x_{max}=1$ which means the horizon should
be inside the boundary. For $\bar\Phi>\bar \varphi$, the condition
is the requirement of $Q<1$. This limit should not be reached since
otherwise $\Delta_{*}$ would blow up and the size of the time
direction and some space dimensions
would shrink to zero. In fact, before it shrinks to string scale,
the quantum effects should be large, and the supergravity
approximation is invalid. Thus, if at $x_{max} $ the system has lower
grand potential than at the local minimum, we will regard the system
as unstable, since either the horizon tends to the boundary or the
supergravity approximation is not applicable. At $x=0$, the charges
tends to zero, the system reduce to the ``hot flat space''.
Next, we need to find out the stationary point by setting
\begin{eqnarray}
0 &=& \PP{ \tilde{I}_{\scriptscriptstyle GG} (x,\bar\Phi,\bar \varphi)}{x}\bigg|_{\bar\Phi,\bar\varphi}
= f_{GG}(x) \left[ \bar{b} - b_{GG}(x) \right] ,
\label{eq:GG-stationary-condition}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
b_{GG}(x) &=& \frac{1}{3-p} \left(\frac{x\xi}{1- \bar{\Phi} ^2}\right)^{1/2}
\Big(1-\xi\Big)^{-\frac{1-p}{2(3-p)}} ,\nonumber\\
f_{GG}(x) &=& (4-p) \frac{1-\xi}{x \xi^{1/2}} > 0 .
\label{eq:GG-func-b-f}
\end{eqnarray}
Equation (\ref{eq:GG-stationary-condition}) again reduces to the
familiar one,
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{b} = b_{GG}(x) .
\label{eq:GG-reduced-stationary-condition}
\end{eqnarray}
Notice that at $x=0$, $b_{GG}$ is always zero. So
$b_{GG}$ should be increasing
near $x=0$ due to the fact that $b_{GG}\geq 0$, i.e. $d
b_{GG}(x)/dx\ge0$ at $x=0$. Finally
the local stability condition is effectively
\begin{eqnarray}
\DD{^2 \tilde{I}_{\scriptscriptstyle GG} (\bar{x})}{x^2} \sim - \DD{b_{GG}(\bar{x})}{x} > 0 ,
\label{eq:GG-stability-condition}
\end{eqnarray}
where $ \bar{x} $ is the solution to equation
(\ref{eq:GG-reduced-stationary-condition}). The derivative of
$b_{GG}$ can be evaluated,
\begin{eqnarray}
\DD{b_{GG}}{x} = \frac{b_{GG}}{2(3-p)x\xi} \left[ 2- (5-p)(1- \bar{\varphi} ^2)x \right] .
\label{eq:GG-db-dx}
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, the condition (\ref{eq:GG-stability-condition}) is equivalent to
\begin{eqnarray}
2- (5-p)(1-\bar{\varphi}^2) \bar{x} < 0 ,
\label{eq:GG-simplified-condition}
\end{eqnarray}
which is exactly the same condition as for black $(p+4)$-brane without
$p$-brane charge, i.e. the (35) in \cite{lu:2011-2},
except that now the solution $ \bar{x} $ depends on a new parameter $\bar
\Phi$.
From (\ref{eq:GG-db-dx}), we see that there is a turning point
\[ x_0 = \frac{2}{5-p} \frac{1}{1- \bar{\varphi} ^2} \]
where $b_{GG}(x)$ increases for $x<x_0$ and decreases for $x>x_0$.
Therefore, if $x_{max}<x_0$, $b_{GG}(x)$ will be a monotonically
increasing function for $x\in(0,x_{max})$, otherwise it will have
a maximum at $x=x_0$. For the former case (referred to as \emph{case A}), the curve of $b_{GG}$
looks like the one in the first graph of Figure~\ref{fig:GG-typical},
while for the latter case (referred to as \emph{case B}) it looks like the curve in the second
graph, just as we stated in the previous section.
We then need to figure out the condition for $ \bar{\Phi} $ and $ \bar{\varphi} $ in
each case. We start by requiring $x_0>x_{max}$, i.e.,
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{2}{(5-p)(1- \bar{\varphi} ^2)} >
\textrm{min}\left\{1,\frac{1- \bar{\Phi} ^2}{1- \bar{\varphi} ^2}\right\} .
\label{eq:GG-x0-xmax}
\end{eqnarray}
which would give
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{\Phi} > \sqrt{\frac{3-p}{5-p}} \quad \textrm{or} \quad
\bar{\varphi} > \sqrt{\frac{3-p}{5-p}} .
\label{eq:GG-Phi-phi-mono}
\end{eqnarray}
That means that for $ \bar{\Phi} $ and $ \bar{\varphi} $ satisfying (\ref{eq:GG-Phi-phi-mono}),
case A is applied and the system cannot have a
stable black brane phase.
On the contrary, if
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{\Phi} < \sqrt{\frac{3-p}{5-p}} \quad \textrm{and} \quad
\bar{\varphi} < \sqrt{\frac{3-p}{5-p}} ,
\label{eq:GG-Phi-phi-n}
\end{eqnarray}
$b_{GG}(x)$ will look like the curve in Figure~\ref{fig:GG-shape-n}.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{GG_shape_n.eps}
\caption{$b_{GG}$ for $x_0<x_{max}$. For $\bar\Phi<\bar \phi$,
$x_{max}=1$, otherwise $x_{max}=\frac{1- \bar{\Phi} ^2}{1- \bar{\varphi} ^2}$.}
\label{fig:GG-shape-n}
\end{figure}
One can see that if $b_1>\bar{b}>b_2$, there can be a locally stable black brane phase and its
horizon radius is between $x_0$ and $x_{max}$, where $b_1$ and $b_2$
are defined by
\begin{eqnarray}
b_1 &=& b_{GG}(x_0) = \frac{ 2^{\frac 1{3-p}} (5-p)^{-\frac{5-p}{2(3-p)}} }
{ \sqrt{(3-p)(1-\bar\Phi^2)(1-\bar\varphi^2)}} ,\nonumber\\
b_2 &=& b_{GG}(x_{max}) = \left\{ \begin{matrix}
\frac{ \bar{\varphi} (1- \bar{\varphi} ^2)^{\frac{1-p}{2(3-p)}}}{(3-p)\sqrt{1- \bar{\Phi} ^2}}
\,, \text{ for } \bar{\Phi} < \bar{\varphi} ;\cr
\frac{ \bar{\Phi} (1- \bar{\Phi} ^2)^{\frac{1-p}{2(3-p)}}}{(3-p)\sqrt{1- \bar{\varphi} ^2}}
\,, \text{ for } \bar{\varphi} < \bar{\Phi} \,.
\end{matrix} \right.
\label{eq:b1-b2}
\end{eqnarray}
For $\bar{b}$ not in this range, there will be no stable black brane phase.
Combining the arguments above, we would have the diagram
shown in Figure~\ref{fig:GG-diagram} which gives a more explicit view
of the answer to the previous question.
In this figure, the two constants are
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{\Phi} _0 = \bar{\varphi} _0 = \sqrt{\frac{3-p}{5-p}} .
\label{eq:GG-phi-0}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.6\textwidth]{GG_diagram.eps}
\caption{Parameter plane in GG ensemble}
\label{fig:GG-diagram}
\end{figure}
Since the charges are not conserved in grand canonical ensemble, the
hot flat space can be a possible phase. In region A, at very low
temperatures
with $\bar b>b_2$ where $\partial I_{GG}/\partial{x}>0$,
the grand potential is a monotonically increasing function of
$x$ as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:IGG}(a) (we will use the subfigure
labels to denote different cases). Since the hot
flat space has $x=0$, the final stable phase should be the hot flat
space. If $\bar b<b_2$, there can be two cases which are
shown in (b) and (c) in Figure~\ref{fig:IGG}. In the first
case (b), which has lower temperature than (c),
the minimum of the action is still at $x=0$ which corresponds to the hot
flat space. For case (c) which has higher temperature, the global minimum of
the $I_{GG}$ is at the boundary $x_{max}$ which means that the hot flat space is
not a global minimum of the grand potential and hence is unstable, and the
horizon of the black brane tends to expand to the boundary. This means
that there is no stable phase in this region. We can find out the
condition for this case by solving the inequality $I_{GG}(x_{max})<0$ which gives
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar b<b_{\rm unstable}=
\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
\frac{(1- \bar{\Phi} ^2)^{\frac{1}{3-p}}}{2(4-p)} \sqrt{\frac{1+ \bar{\Phi} }{(1- \bar{\Phi} )(1-\bar\varphi^2)}}
\,,\text{ for } \bar\Phi>\bar\varphi \\
\frac{(1- \bar{\varphi} ^2)^{\frac{1}{3-p}}}{2(4-p)} \sqrt{\frac{1+ \bar{\varphi} }{(1- \bar{\varphi} )(1- \bar{\Phi} ^2)}}
\,,\text{ for } \bar\varphi>\bar\Phi
\end{array} \right.
\label{eq:b-unstable}
\end{eqnarray}
So for temperatures larger than $1/b_{\rm unstable}$ the system is unstable.
We do not know what really happens at this high temperature. Below
this temperature, only hot flat space is the stable phase. Region B,
where $\max(\bar\Phi,\bar\varphi)<\sqrt{\frac {3-p}{5-p}}$, has more
cases to be considered. First, for very low temperatures, similar to
case A, when there is no solution for
(\ref{eq:GG-stationary-condition}), $I_{GG}$ behaves as Figure~\ref{fig:IGG}(a)
and the stable phase is the hot flat space. For higher temperatures when
(\ref{eq:GG-stationary-condition}) has two solutions, i.e. $b_2<\bar
b<b_1$, $I_{GG}$ has two stationary points, one unstable and the other
locally stable. The possible behaviors of $I_{GG}$ are shown in (d) and (e) in
Figure~\ref{fig:IGG}. For case (d) which has lower temperature, the
hot flat space at $x=0$ has the lowest grand potential, and hence is
the stable phase. At higher temperatures such that the system
corresponds to graph (e), the grand potential at the locally stable
point is negative and becomes the global minimum. So in this case the
final stable phase is the black brane. For certain $\bar \Phi$ and
$\bar \varphi$, case (e) can not happen. We can
find out the condition for (e) to happen by looking at
$I_{GG}(\bar x)=0$. We put the detailed analysis in Appendix \ref{ap:GG} and
only state the results here. Firstly, when
\begin{eqnarray}
\max(\bar \Phi,\bar \varphi)>\frac{3-p}{5-p}\,,
\label{eq:GG-Phi-phi-1}
\end{eqnarray}
for $\bar b>b_2$, $I_{GG}(\bar x)$
is always positive which corresponds to graph (d). Under this
circumstance, the cases corresponding to graph (e) does not happen.
With such $\bar \Phi$ and $\bar \varphi$, when $\bar
b\in (b_{\rm unstable},b_2)$, there is only one solution to
(\ref{eq:GG-stationary-condition}), which
also corresponds to (b) in Figure~\ref{fig:IGG}. Hot flat space is
then
the global minimum as in case A. For higher temperatures such that
$\bar b<b_{\rm unstable}$, graph (c)
also appears and the system is unstable. Secondly, when
\begin{eqnarray}
\max(\bar \Phi,\bar \varphi)<\frac{3-p}{5-p}\,,
\label{eq:GG-Phi-phi-2}
\end{eqnarray}
there is a temperature $T_0\in(1/b_1,1/b_2)$ at which the locally stable
point is at $\bar x_0(\bar
\varphi)\equiv \frac {4(4-p)}{(5-p)^2(1-\bar\varphi^2)}$. If the
temperature is lower than $T_0$ such that at the locally stable point
$\bar x<\bar x_0(\bar \varphi)$, $I_{GG}$ is positive (case (d)) and
the hot flat space is the globally stable phase. Only for temperature
higher than $T_0$, when the locally stable point $\bar x > \bar
x_0(\bar\varphi)$, the black brane has a negative grand potential,
which corresponds to graph (e) in Figure~\ref{fig:IGG}, and black brane is the final globally stable phase. For much higher
temperature such that $\bar b < b_2$, the case
corresponding to graph (c) also happens, and the system is again unstable.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.4 \textwidth]{IGG0.eps}\quad
\includegraphics[width=0.4 \textwidth]{IGG1.eps}\quad
\includegraphics[width=0.4 \textwidth]{IGG2.eps} \\
\includegraphics[width=0.4 \textwidth]{IGG3.eps}\quad
\includegraphics[width=0.4 \textwidth]{IGG4.eps}\quad
\caption{Typical $I_{GG}(x)$ behaviors in region A and B. }
\label{fig:IGG}
\end{figure}
So combined with case A, for all
$\max(\bar\Phi,\bar\varphi)>\frac{3-p}{5-p}$, the black brane can not
be the final stable phase and for low temperatures the hot flat space
is the global minimum. Only when
$\max(\bar\Phi,\bar\varphi)<\frac{3-p}{5-p}$, the black brane can be
the final stable phase for certain temperature $T\in(T_0,1/b_2)$.
As we stated in the previous section, from the conditions
(\ref{eq:GG-Phi-phi-mono}, \ref{eq:GG-Phi-phi-n}, \ref{eq:b1-b2},
\ref{eq:GG-phi-0}), we see that the phase structure is symmetric under
the exchange of the boundary conditions imposed on the two kinds of
branes, i.e. exchanging $\bar \Phi$ and $\bar\varphi$. We will also
find similar results in GC and CG ensemble.
\subsection{GC ensemble}
\label{sec:GC-phase}
In this ensemble, the D$(p+4)$-brane charge $q$ is fixed, therefore we
only need to use the equation
\begin{eqnarray}
\Phi(x,Q) = \bar{\Phi}
\label{eq:GC-charge-equilibrium}
\end{eqnarray}
to get rid of the unfixed quantity $Q$. Since $ \bar{\Phi} $ is fixed at the
boundary, we can solve $\bar\Delta_*$ from this equation and then
$Q$ using (\ref{eq:delta-star}),
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{\Delta}_* &=& \frac{ \bar{\Delta}_+ \bar{\Delta}_- (1-\bar{\Phi}^2)}{\displaystyle \bar{\Delta}_+ - \bar{\Delta}_- \bar{\Phi}^2} ,
\label{eq:GC-delta-star-x}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{equation}
Q_{GC} = \frac{\bar{\Phi} ( \bar{\Delta}_- - \bar{\Delta}_+ )}{(1-\bar{\Phi}^2) ( \bar{\Delta}_+ \bar{\Delta}_- )^{1/2}} .
\label{eq:GC-Q-x}
\end{equation}
Using (\ref{eq:GC-delta-star-x}) and also requiring $ \bar{\Delta}_+ < \bar{\Delta}_- < \bar{\Delta}_* $, we
can find the domain of $x$,
\begin{eqnarray}
0 < q < x < x_{max} < 1 ,
\label{eq:GC-x-range}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
x_{max} = \frac{\displaystyle 1-\bar{\Phi}^2 +
\sqrt{(1-\bar{\Phi}^2)^2+4q^2\bar{\Phi}^2}}{2}\, .
\label{eq:GC-x-max}
\end{eqnarray}
As in GG ensemble, when $x\to x_{max}$, $\Delta_{*}$ tends to infinity and
could not be reached in supergravity approximation.
At $x=q$, at which $\Delta_+=\Delta_-=\Delta_*$ and $Q_{GC}=0$, the system reduces
to extremal $(p+4)$-brane. However, the horizon of the extremal brane
is singular and the quantum gravity effect must be non-negligible,
and hence the Euclidean action method is not
applicable. So if the global minimum of the reduced action is at the
boundary $x=q$ or $x_{max}$, we do not know what the final stable state
of the system is. So, we regard the system as unstable in our semi-classical
description when the thermodynamical
potential at $x=q$ or $ x=x_{max}$ is lower than the local minimum
value.
With relation (\ref{eq:GC-Q-x}), we can find the stationary point by
solving equation
\begin{eqnarray}
0 &=& \DD{ \tilde{I}_{\scriptscriptstyle GC} }{x} = f_{GC}(x) \left[ \bar{b} - b_{GC}(x) \right] ,
\label{eq:GC-first-condition}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
b_{GC}(x) &=& b(x,Q_{GC}(x,q,\bar\Phi),q)=\frac
1{3-p}\left(1-\frac{\Delta_+}{\Delta_-}\right)^{\frac{p-1}{2(3-p)}}\sqrt{\frac
{\Delta_+(1-\Delta_+)}{\Delta_-(1-\bar\Phi^2)}} ,\nonumber\\
f_{GC}(x) &=& \frac{(3-p) \bar{\Delta}_- ( \bar{\Delta}_- - \bar{\Delta}_+ ) + (5-p)
( \bar{\Delta}_+ + \bar{\Delta}_- -2 \bar{\Delta}_+ \bar{\Delta}_- )}{2 \bar{\Delta}_+ ^{1/2} \bar{\Delta}_- ^{3/2} (1- \bar{\Delta}_+ )} > 0\,,
\label{eq:GC-b-f}
\end{eqnarray}
which gives the equilibrium condition $\bar b=b_{GC}(x)$ as before.
Assuming that $x= \bar{x} $ solves (\ref{eq:GC-first-condition}),
the stability condition becomes
\begin{eqnarray}
\DD{b_{GC}( \bar{x} )}{x} < 0 .
\label{eq:GC-reduced-condition}
\end{eqnarray}
Now we compute the derivative of $b_{GC}$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\DD{b_{GC}}{x}\bigg|_{q,\bar\Phi} = \frac{b_{GC}}{2x} \left( 1 +
\frac{( \bar{\Delta}_+ + \bar{\Delta}_- -2 \bar{\Delta}_+ \bar{\Delta}_- )[2 \bar{\Delta}_+ -(3-p) \bar{\Delta}_- ]}{(3-p) \bar{\Delta}_+ \bar{\Delta}_- ( \bar{\Delta}_- - \bar{\Delta}_+ )}
\right) .
\label{eq:GC-db-dx}
\end{eqnarray}
We can see that in this expression, in the large parentheses, $ \bar{\Delta}_* $
completely disappears, which means the equation is independent of $ \bar{\Phi} $.
For $ \bar{\Phi} =0$, i.e. D$(p+4)$-brane without D$p$-brane charges, which is equivalent to setting $ \bar{\Delta}_* = \bar{\Delta}_- $ in
$b_{GC}(x)$, (\ref{eq:GC-db-dx}) would exactly recover the
same equation for D$(p+4)$-brane in canonical ensemble
((46) in \cite{lu:2011}). This is also true even for $\bar\Phi\neq0$
since it is independent of $\bar \Phi$,
that is, (\ref{eq:GC-db-dx}) still gives the same condition
to determine the signature of
$\displaystyle\frac{db_{CG}}{dx}$ for $\bar \Phi=0$, which was
already given as in (47) of \cite{lu:2011}. This means that the stationary
point for $b_{GC}(x)$ is independent of $\bar \Phi$ and only depends
on the charge $q$. To be specific, we
rewrite (\ref{eq:GC-db-dx}) in terms
of $x$ and $q$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\DD{b_{GC}}{x} &=& - g(x,q)
\frac{b_{GC}}{x^4(1-x) (1-\frac{q^2}{x}) (1-\frac{q^2}{x^2})} ,
\label{eq:GC-db-dx-x-q}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
g(x,q) &=& \frac{5-p}{2} x^4 - \left( 1+ \frac{7-p}{2}q^2 \right) x^3
- \frac{3-3p}{2} q^2 x^2 \nonumber\\
&& + q^2 \left( 2-p+ \frac{9-3p}{2}q^2 \right) x - (3-p)q^4 .
\label{eq:func-g}
\end{eqnarray}
Now (\ref{eq:func-g}) is exactly the function on
the left hand side of (47) in \cite{lu:2011} (there, a different
parameter, the ``co-dimension'' $\tilde{d}$ which is equal to $3-p$ in
our case, is used). Therefore, condition (\ref{eq:GC-reduced-condition})
becomes a simpler one,
\begin{eqnarray}
g(\bar{x},q) > 0 .
\label{eq:GC-simplified-condition}
\end{eqnarray}
With (\ref{eq:GC-first-condition}) and (\ref{eq:GC-simplified-condition})
we can proceed with the phase structure analysis for different $p$.
First for $p=2$ (D2-D6 system), notice that at $x=q$, $b_{GC}=0$ which is
the same as $b_{GG}$ in GG ensemble at $x=0$. As we have mentioned in
section~\ref{sec:typical-curves}, there are only two possible
shapes of $b_{GC}(x)$ which are similar to the cases in the GG ensemble
(see Figure~\ref{fig:GG-typical}) with the only difference that the
left end point of the $b_{GC}(x)$ is at $x=q$ here. Now we will find out
the conditions for these two cases. From Figure~\ref{fig:GG-typical} one
can see that the difference of the two patterns is the sign of the
slope of the curves at $x_{max}$. So one can conclude that there must
be a transition line on the $ \bar{\Phi} -q$ plane on which the $b_{GC}(x)$
curve has $db_{GC}(x)/dx =0 $ at $x_{max}$. Actually this is a universal
feature for all $p$, so instead of solving it here for only $p=2$ case
we have done it for all $p$ and put the tedious analytic computations
in Appendix \ref{ap:GC}. Here we just give the diagram in
Figure~\ref{fig:GC-diagram-p-2} for $p=2$, which has similar meaning
as Figure~\ref{fig:GG-diagram}.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.6\textwidth]{GC_q_phi_p2.eps}
\caption{$q-\bar \Phi$ parameter plane in D2-D6 GC ensemble. Region B includes
all the region on the left of the solid curve. }
\label{fig:GC-diagram-p-2}
\end{figure}
In region A, $b_{GC}$ is a monotonically increasing function and there
is no locally stable black brane phase. In region B, the $b_{GC}(x)$ curve is like
Figure~\ref{fig:GG-shape-n} and for $b_2<\bar{b}<b_1$, there are two
intersection points and the larger one is
a locally stable black brane phase. The boundary between A and B on $q-\bar \Phi$ plane has the following form,
\begin{eqnarray}
q = \frac{1- \bar{\Phi} ^2}{\displaystyle \bar{\Phi} (3-5 \bar{\Phi} ^2)}
\sqrt{2(1- \bar{\Phi} ^2)(3 \bar{\Phi} ^2-1)} ,
\quad \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} < \bar{\Phi} < \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} .
\label{eq:GC-boundary-p-2}
\end{eqnarray}
The locally stable state may not be a global minimum of the reduced
action because at the boundary $x=q$ the reduced action may
have smaller value. To find out the condition that the local minimum can not be
the global minimum for $b_2<\bar b<b_1$ one can look at the critical
case by requiring
that at $\bar b=b_{GC}(x_{max})$ the $I_{GC}(x_{max})=I_{GC}(x=q)$. This
equation can be solved analytically to give
\begin{eqnarray}
q=\frac {2(1-\bar\Phi)^2(3\bar\Phi-1)}{ \bar{\Phi} (3-5\bar\Phi)}\,,
\quad \frac{1}{3} < \bar{\Phi} < \frac{1}{2} .
\label{eq:q-Phi-p-2}
\end{eqnarray}
which is denoted as the dashed curve in Figure~\ref{fig:GC-diagram-p-2}.
On the right of this curve, when $b_2< \bar{b} <b_1$, we always have
$I_{GG}(x_{max})>I_{GG}( \bar{x} )>I_{GG}(q)$, hence the minimum of reduced action is at $x=q$.
When $ \bar{b} <b_2$ the global minimum is either at $x=q$ or
$x=x_{max}$. There is a critical temperature $T_0=1/b_0>1/b_2$ where the
reduced action at $x=q$ and $x=x_{max}$ are equal. Below this
temperature the global minimum is at $x=q$ while above it is at $x=x_{max}$.
In both cases, we regard the system as unstable. On the left of the dashed curve, whether the
locally stable state becomes the global minimum of the reduced action
depends on the temperature. There is a temperature denoted as
$T_{\rm unstable}\equiv1/b_{\rm unstable}$ with $b_2<b_{\rm unstable}<b_1$ such
that the reduced action at the locally stable point equals the one
at $x=q$, i.e. $I_{GC}(\bar x)=I_{GC}(q)$. Below this temperature,
i.e.
$\bar b>b_{\rm unstable}$, the global minimum is still at $x=q$. Only for
$b_2<\bar b<b_{\rm unstable}$, the local stability becomes a global
one. For higher temperatures with $\bar b < b_2$, the global
minimum of the reduced action is at $x=x_{max}$ and the system is
unstable again.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.4 \textwidth]{bGC1.eps}\qquad
\includegraphics[width=0.4 \textwidth]{bGC2.eps}\qquad
\includegraphics[width=0.4 \textwidth]{bGC3.eps}
\caption{Typical $b_{GC}(x)$ behaviors for D1-D5 system. (a)
$q<1/3$ and $x_{max}<x_+$, corresponds to region A; (b) $q<1/3$ and
$x_{max}>x_+$, corresponds to region B; (c)$q>1/3$, corresponds to
Region C.}
\label{fig:bGC-p-1}
\end{figure}
Next for $p=1$, at the left end $x=q$, $b_{GC}(x=q)$ has a non-vanishing
finite limit which is
different from GG ensemble and $p=2$ case. Now, $g(x,q)$ can be factorized as
\begin{eqnarray}
g(x,q) = (x+q)(x-q)(x-x_-)(x-x_+) ,
\label{eq:GC-g-x-p-1}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
x_\pm = \frac{1+3q^2 \pm \sqrt{(1-q^2)(1-9q^2)}}{4} .
\label{eq:GC-x-pm-p-1}
\end{eqnarray}
One can see that for $q>1/3$, which is region C in Figure~\ref{fig:GC-diagram-p-1}, $x_-$ and $x_+$ are complex conjugates
and $g(x,q)>0$, which means $b_{GC}$ decreases
monotonically for $x\in(q,x_{max})$ as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:bGC-p-1}(c). In this case, there is a globally stable black brane phase
for $b_2<\bar b<b_1$. For $q<1/3$, it is easy to verify
$x_-<q<x_+$, and therefore $g(x,q)$ is negative ($b_{GC}$ increases) for
$x\in(q,x_+)$ and is positive ($b_{GC}$ decreases) for $x>x_+$. This
indicates that if $x_+>x_{max}$, $b_{GC}$ is monotonically increasing
(Figure~\ref{fig:bGC-p-1}(a)) and there is no stable black brane
phase. This case is denoted as region A in Figure~\ref{fig:GC-diagram-p-1}. For
$x_+<x_{max}$, the behavior of $b_{GC}$ is shown in
\ref{fig:bGC-p-1}(b) and there exists a locally stable black brane phase for $b_2<\bar{b}<b_{max}$,
which is denoted as region B in Figure~\ref{fig:GC-diagram-p-1}.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.6\textwidth]{GC_q_phi_p1.eps}
\caption{Parameter plane in D1-D5 GC ensemble. Region B includes
all the region on the left of the solid line between A and B. The
$b_{GC}$ behaviors of A, B, C correspond to (a), (b), (c) in Figure
\ref{fig:bGC-p-1}\,.}
\label{fig:GC-diagram-p-1}
\end{figure}
On the boundary
between A and B, $q$ and $ \bar{\Phi} $ are related by
\begin{eqnarray}
q = \frac{\sqrt{\displaystyle (2- \bar{\Phi} ^2)(2 \bar{\Phi} ^2-1)}}{3 \bar{\Phi} } ,
\quad \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} < \bar{\Phi} < 1 .
\label{eq:GC-boundary-p-1}
\end{eqnarray}
In region B, like in $p=2$ case, the locally stable black brane state
may not be the global minimum and the $x=q$ point may have lower
reduced action. The condition that the system is just to have only
$x=q$ as the global minimum of the reduced action for all $\bar b >b_2$ is
\begin{eqnarray}
q=\frac 1 3(5-2\bar \Phi-\frac 2 {\bar\Phi}), \quad \frac 1
2<\bar\Phi<1\,,
\label{eq:q-Phi-p-1}
\end{eqnarray}
which is also denoted as the dashed curve in Figure~\ref{fig:GC-diagram-p-1}.
On the right of the curve, the global minimum is either at
$x=q$ for $\bar b >b_2$ or at $x=x_{max}$ for $\bar b <b_2$ and the
system is regarded as unstable.
On the left of the dashed curve, there is a possibility that at some
temperature $T_{\rm unstable}\equiv 1/b_{\rm unstable}$ the reduced action at $x=q$ equals the one at the
locally stable point (see Appendix \ref{ap:dashed-lines} for further details on how to
find this temperature). Below this temperature ($\bar b>b_{\rm unstable}$),
the reduced action at $x=q$ is the global minimum and the system tends
to $x=q$ similar to the cases in region C and the system is also
unstable. The locally stable one
becomes a globally stable one only when the temperature is above
$T_{\rm unstable}$, i.e. $b_2<\bar b <b_{\rm unstable}$. When the temperature
is higher than $1/b_2$, $x=x_{max}$ becomes the global minimum of the
reduced action, and so, the system becomes unstable again.
Finally, for the $p=0$ case, there are three kinds of $b_{GC}(x)$
behaviors which are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:GC-p-0}. Similar to the
one-charge black $(p+4)$-brane case \cite{lu:2011}, there exists a
critical charge $q_c$ beyond which $b_{GC}(x)$ is a monotonically
decreasing function for arbitrary $\bar\Phi$ as shown in Figure
\ref{fig:GC-p-0}(c). When $q=q_c$ and $0<\bar \Phi<\bar\Phi_{max}$,
where $\bar \Phi_{max}$ is obtained in Appendix \ref{ap:GC} to be $
\bar{\Phi} _{max} \cong 0.871417$, $b_{GC}$ has an inflection point at which
a second order phase transition occurs. At $\bar\Phi_{max}$, the
position of the
critical point $\bar x$ is equal to $x_{max}$. For $\bar \Phi>\bar
\Phi_{max}$ at $q=q_c$, the critical point position $\bar x$ is
larger than $ x_{max}$ and can not be
reached by the supergravity solution and hence $b_{GC}$ is also
a monotonically decreasing function. So, in $q-\Phi$ plane,
the region denoted as C in
Figure~\ref{fig:GC-diagram-p-0}, which contains only decreasing
$b_{GC}(x)$, includes the $q>q_c$ region as well as a small region
with $q<q_c$ where the solutions for $d
b_{GC}(x)/dx=0$ are larger than $x_{max}$.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.6\textwidth]{GC_diagram_p_0-1.eps}
\caption{Parameter plane in D0-D4 GC ensemble. Region B includes
all the region on the left of the solid line between A and B. The
$b_{GC}$ behaviors of A, B, C correspond to (a), (b), (c) in Figure
\ref{fig:GC-p-0}\,.}
\label{fig:GC-diagram-p-0}
\end{figure}
In this figure, $q_c\approx 0.141626$ is the same critical value as
the $\tilde{d}=3$ case in \cite{lu:2011} as expected. So, in region
C, there is always a stable black brane phase for $\bar b>
b_{GC}(x_{max})$. In region A and B, curves of $b_{GC}$ have the same
shape as in the other two diagrams (a) and (b) in
Figure~\ref{fig:GC-p-0}, respectively. On the boundary lines between A
and B and between A and C, $q$ and $ \bar{\Phi} $ has following relation,
\begin{eqnarray}
q = \frac{1- \bar{\Phi} ^2}{\displaystyle \bar{\Phi} (9-7 \bar{\Phi} ^2)}
\sqrt{2(3- \bar{\Phi} ^2)(5 \bar{\Phi} ^2-3)} ,
\quad \sqrt{\frac{3}{5}} < \bar{\Phi} < 1 .
\label{eq:GC-boundary-p-0}
\end{eqnarray}
In every region (A, B, C) there are chances for this system to have a
locally stable black brane phase. In all these three cases, as $x\to
q$, $db_{GC}/dx<0$ which means that the locally stable black brane
can exist for arbitrarily small temperatures. But the minimum of
$b_{GC}$ does not tend to zero which means that at high enough
temperature the locally stable black brane can not exist. In region C,
at temperatures higher than $1/b_{GC}(x_{max})$, the global minimum is
at $x_{max}$. In region A, there is a temperature $T_{\rm unstable}$ higher than
$1/b_{GC}(x_{max})$, at which the reduced action at $x_{max}$ is equal to
the one at the local minimum. When the temperature is
higher than $T_{\rm unstable}$ the global minimum is at $x_{max}$.
Under both
these two circumstances the system is unstable and we do not know
what the final state is. So, in region A and region C, at temperature
below $1/b_{GC}(x_{max})$ and $T_{\rm unstable}$, respectively, the black brane
is the globally stable phase. In region B which corresponds to Figure
\ref{fig:GC-p-0}(b), there can also be a first order phase transition
under some circumstances. As stated in section
\ref{sec:typical-curves}, we need to discuss two cases separately,
$b_{min}>b_{GC}(x_{max})$ and $b_{min}<b_{GC}(x_{max})$ which
correspond to the left and right regions of the dotted line in region
B, respectively. When
$b_{min}>b_{GC}(x_{max})$, the system has one locally stable black brane phase for
$b_{GC}(x_{max})<\bar b< b_{min}$ or $\bar b >b_{max}$, which is also
the global minimum. For $ b_{min}<\bar{b}< b_{max}$, there can be
two locally stable black brane phases and the final phase should be the one with lower
reduced action. There is a first-order phase transition temperature
$T_t=1/b_t$ at which the reduced actions of the two phases are equal.
Above (or below) this temperature the larger (or the smaller) one is
the global minimum. This is the same as the corresponding case in
canonical ensemble of one-charge black brane. When
$b_{min}<b_{GC}(x_{max})$, we still define a temperature $T_t\equiv 1/ b_t$, at which
the reduced action at the two local minima are equal even when one
minimum has $\bar x>x_{max}$ . In this case, we need to consider
two subcases. The first
one has $b_t>b_{GC}(x_{max})$. Then when $\bar b< b_{GC}(x_{max})$, i.e. the
temperature higher than $1/ b_{GC}(x_{max})$, the minimum of the
reduced action is at $x=x_{max}$ and the system is unstable. Below this temperature, the analysis is the
same as the above case and the system can have a first order transition at
$T_t$ between the two locally stable minima. The second subcase is
when $b_t< b_{GC}(x_{max})$. In this subcase, at $b_t$ the larger
solution for $b_t=b_{GC}(x)$ goes beyond $x_{max}$ and there is
another temperature $T_{\rm unstable}\equiv 1/b_{\rm unstable}(>T_t)$ at which $I_{GC}(x_{max})$ equals the one at the
local minimum with smaller $\bar x$. Then, condition for
$x_{max}$ to be the global minimum of the reduced action is $\bar
b<b_{\rm unstable}$. So
for temperature higher than $T_{\rm unstable}$ the system is unstable and we can not say much about the phase of
the system. For $b_{GC}(x_{max})>\bar b>b_{\rm unstable}$, the smaller locally
stable black brane has the lower reduced action than at $x=x_{max}$,
and hence is the global minimum. So for temperature lower than
$T_{\rm unstable}$, the smaller locally stable black brane is the global minimum.
The condition for $b_t=b_{GC}(x_{max})$ can only be solved numerically and
is denoted as the dashed line in Figure~\ref{fig:GC-diagram-p-0}.
On the dashed line, $b_{\rm unstable}$ coincides with $b_t$ and
$b_{GC}(x_{max})$.
The left region of the dashed line corresponds to the $b_t>
b_{GC}(x_{max})$ case which has the van der Waals-like phase structure
and the right of the line in B corresponds to the $b_t<
b_{GC}(x_{max})$ case.
\subsection{CG ensemble}
In this ensemble, we fix the D$p\,$-brane charge $Q$ and the potential $ \bar{\varphi} $
for D$(p+4)$ at the boundary. Using the
``electromagnetic'' equilibrium equation,
\begin{eqnarray}
\varphi(x,q) = \bar{\varphi} ,
\label{eq:CG-charge-equilibrium}
\end{eqnarray}
the reduced action of the system depends
on the only variable $x$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{I}_{\scriptscriptstyle CG} (x) = \tilde{I}_{\scriptscriptstyle CG} (x,Q={\rm const.\,},q= q_{\scriptscriptstyle CG} (x,\bar\varphi)) ,
\label{eq:CG-2-variable-x-q}
\end{eqnarray}
where $ q_{\scriptscriptstyle CG} $ is the solution to (\ref{eq:CG-charge-equilibrium}),
\begin{eqnarray}
q_{\scriptscriptstyle CG} (x,\bar\varphi) = \frac{x \bar{\varphi}}{\xi^{1/2}} .
\label{eq:func-q-x}
\end{eqnarray}
This relation also guarantees that $x> q_{\scriptscriptstyle CG} $ is satisfied as long as $ \bar{\varphi} <1$.
At $x\to 0$, $q_{CG}\to 0$ and $\xi\to 1$.
From (\ref{eq:GG-delta-x}), we can see that $\bar \Delta_- \to
\bar{\Delta}_+ $,
which means the curvature
singularity is coming closer to the horizon. Actually it can be shown that
the scalar curvature blows up at the horizon $x=0$ by explicit calculations.
The quantum effect near horizon, therefore, may be large such that the
semi-classical approach can not be applied. So, as in the GC ensemble, if at $x=0$ or
$x=1$, the system has lower reduced
action than the local minimum, we will consider it as unstable in the
semi-classical approach.
Now we can perform the one-variable analysis by requiring
\begin{eqnarray}
\DD{ \tilde{I}_{\scriptscriptstyle CG} (x)}{x} = f_{CG}(x) \left[ \bar{b} - b_{CG}(x) \right] = 0 ,
\label{eq:CG-first-condition}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
b_{CG}(x) &=& b(x,Q, q_{\scriptscriptstyle CG} ) ,\nonumber\\
f_{CG}(x) &=& \frac{ \bar{\Delta}_- - \bar{\Delta}_+ }{2 \bar{\Delta}_+ ^{1/2} \bar{\Delta}_- ^{1/2} (1- \bar{\Delta}_+ )}
\left[ 5-p + (3-p) \frac{ \bar{\Delta}_- ( \bar{\Delta}_- - \bar{\Delta}_+ )}{ \bar{\Delta}_* \bar{\Delta}_+ + \bar{\Delta}_* \bar{\Delta}_- - 2 \bar{\Delta}_+ \bar{\Delta}_- } \right] > 0 .\quad
\label{eq:CG-def-b-f}
\end{eqnarray}
Let us assume $ \bar{x} $ to be the solution of equation
(\ref{eq:CG-first-condition}), then the minimum condition of free energy
is again reduced to
\begin{eqnarray}
\DD{b_{CG}( \bar{x} )}{x} < 0 .
\label{eq:CG-reduced-condition}
\end{eqnarray}
The left hand side of the above inequality is
\begin{eqnarray}
\DD{b_{CG}(x)}{x} = \frac{b_{CG}}{2(3-p)x} \left[ 2- \frac{(3-p) \bar{\Delta}_- }{ \bar{\Delta}_+ }
+ \frac{(3-p) \bar{\Delta}_- ( \bar{\Delta}_- - \bar{\Delta}_+ )}{ \bar{\Delta}_* \bar{\Delta}_+ + \bar{\Delta}_* \bar{\Delta}_- -2 \bar{\Delta}_+ \bar{\Delta}_- } \right] .
\label{eq:CG-db-dx}
\end{eqnarray}
One can easily check that when $Q=0$, i.e. $ \bar{\Delta}_* = \bar{\Delta}_- $,
(\ref{eq:CG-db-dx}) automatically falls back to equation (34) in
\cite{lu:2011-2}. Now with (\ref{eq:CG-db-dx}) and the first equation
in (\ref{eq:CG-def-b-f}), we can redo all the analyses done in the
two previous subsections. However, since the computations are complicated
and tedious, we put the details into Appendix \ref{ap:CG}
for interested readers. Here we just list the final results.
For $p=2$ case, similar to Figure~\ref{fig:GC-diagram-p-2} in GC
ensemble, we have the following graph (Figure~\ref{fig:CG-diagram-p-2}).
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.6\textwidth]{CG_diagram_p_2.eps}
\caption{$Q-\bar\varphi$ parameter plane in D2-D6 CG ensemble}
\label{fig:CG-diagram-p-2}
\end{figure}
In area A, since $b_{CG}$ increases monotonically
as the left graph in Figure~\ref{fig:GG-typical}, there is no stable black brane phase,
while in area B, $b_{CG}$ behaves as in Figure
\ref{fig:GG-shape-n},
there exists a locally stable black brane state for $b_2<\bar b
<b_1$. The curve separating region A and B is described by
\begin{eqnarray}
Q=\frac{(-1+\bar\varphi^2)\sqrt{2(1-\bar\varphi^2)(3\bar\varphi^2-1)}}{\bar\varphi(5\bar\varphi^2-3)},
\quad \frac{1}{\sqrt 3}<\bar \varphi<\frac{1}{\sqrt 2}.
\label{eq:CG-boundary-p-2}
\end{eqnarray}
Again, the local minimum may or may not be the
global minimum. It should compete with the boundary point $x=0$ or
$x=1$. Similar to the discussion in GC ensemble, in
Figure~\ref{fig:CG-diagram-p-2}, on the right of the dashed line, the
local minimum can not be the global minimum of the system and on the
left, it can be the global minimum for certain temperature
$T\in (T_{\rm unstable},1/b_2)$, where $T_{\rm unstable}$ is the temperature at
which the reduced action at the local minimum equals the one at $x=0$.
All the discussions in the GC ensemble can be used here and we would
not repeat them. The dashed line is described by
\begin{eqnarray}
Q = \frac
{2(1-\bar\varphi^2)(3\bar\varphi^2-1)}{ \bar\varphi(3-5\bar\varphi^2)} ,
\quad \frac{1}{3} < \bar\varphi < \frac{1}{2} .
\label{eq:Q-phi-p-2}
\end{eqnarray}
Notice if one makes the exchanges $\bar \Phi\leftrightarrow \bar \varphi$ and
$q\leftrightarrow Q$, (\ref{eq:CG-boundary-p-2}) and
(\ref{eq:Q-phi-p-2}) exchange with
(\ref{eq:GC-boundary-p-2}) and (\ref{eq:q-Phi-p-2}).
So, Figure~\ref{fig:CG-diagram-p-2} is the same as
Figure~\ref{fig:GC-diagram-p-2} except the labels.
For $p=1$ case, the behaviors of $b_{CG}(x)$ are the same as the ones in
GC ensemble and Figure~\ref{fig:bGC-p-1} can also be used here with the
only difference that the domain is now $0<x<1$. In the $Q-\bar
\varphi$ plane, the three cases of (a), (b), (c) in Figure~\ref{fig:bGC-p-1}
correspond to region A, B, C in Figure~\ref{fig:CG-diagram-p-1}.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.6\textwidth]{CG_diagram_p_1.eps}
\caption{\sf Parameter plane in D1-D5 CG ensemble}
\label{fig:CG-diagram-p-1}
\end{figure}
In the lower right region A, $b_{CG}$ is monotonically increasing and
therefore there is no stable black brane phase. In the upper half
region C, since $b_{CG}(x)$ is always decreasing, there is always a
locally stable black brane state for
$b_{CG}(0)>\bar{b}>b_{CG}(1)$ when constant $\bar b$ has an
intersection point with $b_{CG}$ curve. In the lower left region B,
for $b_{CG}(1)<b<b_{max}$, where $b_{max}$ is the maximum of $b_{CG}$,
there will be a locally stable black brane
phase since the constant $\bar{b}$ line intersects with $b_{CG}$ at
some point where $db_{CG}/dx<0$. The curve separating region A and region B is solved in the
appendix to be
\begin{eqnarray}
Q = \frac{\sqrt{\displaystyle
(2-\bar\varphi^2)(2\bar\varphi^2-1)}}{3\bar\varphi} ,
\quad \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} < \bar\varphi < 1 .
\label{eq:CG-boundary-p-1}
\end{eqnarray}
For the local minimum in B to be a global minimum, the system should be in
the region on the left of the dashed line. On the right of the dashed
line, the global minimum is either at $x=0$ or at $x=1$ and hence the
system is unstable. On the left of the dashed
line, there is a $ b_{\rm unstable}$ between $b_{CG}(1)$ and the
maximum $b_{max}$ of
$b_{CG}$, where the local minimum of the reduced action equals the
reduced action at $x=0$. Only for temperatures such that $b_{CG}(1)<\bar b
< b_{\rm unstable}$, the local minimum becomes
the global minimum. The dashed line is described
by
\begin{eqnarray}
Q=\frac 1 3(5-2\bar \varphi-\frac 2 {\bar \varphi})\,,
\quad \frac 1
2<\bar\varphi<1\,,
\label{eq:Q-phi-p-1}
\end{eqnarray}
One may have already found that (\ref{eq:CG-boundary-p-1}) and
(\ref{eq:Q-phi-p-1}) are the same as (\ref{eq:GC-boundary-p-1}) and
(\ref{eq:q-Phi-p-1}) except the exchanges of $q\leftrightarrow Q$ and
$\bar \Phi\leftrightarrow \bar \varphi$.
All the discussions of different phases
are the same as the ones in GC ensemble for $p=1$ and we will not
repeat them here.
The $Q-\bar \varphi$ plane graph for $p=0$ case is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:CG-diagram-p-0}.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.6\textwidth]{CG_diagram_p_0-1.eps}
\caption{Parameter plane in D0-D4 CG ensemble}
\label{fig:CG-diagram-p-0}
\end{figure}
In all three regions, since as $x\to 0$, $b_{CG}$ tends to
positive infinity, there is always a stable black brane phase at
arbitrarily low temperature. As long as $\bar\varphi$ is not zero,
$b_{CG}$ has a finite minimum, which means for high enough
temperatures, the black brane can not exist. To be specific, in region
C which occupies almost all valid area of the parameter plane, the
behavior of $b_{CG}$ is decreasing similar to Figure
\ref{fig:GC-p-0}(c) with the domain of $x$ replaced by $0<x<1$. So
there is always a locally stable black brane phase for $\bar{b}>b_{CG}(1)$. In region
A, which takes only a very small portion of the plane, $b_{CG}$
behaves like Figure~\ref{fig:GC-p-0}(a) which decreases first and then
increases. Thus there could be a locally stable black brane phase if that solution $ \bar{x} $
is in the decreasing segment. In region B, the $b_{CG}$ curve looks
like Figure~\ref{fig:GC-p-0}(b), and as discussed in the GC ensemble,
there can be a van der Waals-like phase transition on the left of the
dashed line in Figure~\ref{fig:CG-diagram-p-0} when the phase
transition temperature $T_t=1/b_t$ is lower than $1/b_{CG}(1)$,
where $b_t$ can be obtained by requiring the reduced actions to be equal at
the two local minimum. On the right side of the dashed line, similar
to what we did in the GC ensemble, we define a temperature $T_{\rm unstable}(>T_t)$
at which the reduced action at the local minimum with smaller $\bar x$
equals the one at $x=1$. In this case, below the temperature
$T_{\rm unstable}$, the smaller black brane is the global minimum. For
temperature higher than $T_{\rm unstable}$ the global minimum tends to
$x=1$ which means the instability of the system and a failure of
our method. A second order phase transition can happen on the boundary
line between regions B and C, when $Q=Q_c\cong 0.141626$ and
$ \bar{\varphi} <0.871417$. On this line, $b_{CG}$ has an inflection point where a
second order phase transition occurs and the two phases
are indistinguishable. All the detailed discussions are
the same as the $p=0$ case in GC ensemble.
As we have mentioned before, the three diagrams in this subsection
are essentially the same as those in the previous subsection except
that we substitute $ \bar{\Phi} $ and $q$ for $ \bar{\varphi} $
and $Q$. Even the critical charges are precisely equal, $q_c=Q_c$.
This indeed supports the statement that the D$p\,$\ branes and the D$(p+4)$\
branes are equipotent as far as only the thermodynamics is concerned,
which has been pointed out in \cite{lu:2012-2}. One may think of it
as a symmetry,
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{\varphi} \leftrightarrow \bar{\Phi} ,\quad Q \leftrightarrow q.
\label{eq:symmetry}
\end{eqnarray}
\section{More general thermodynamic stability
conditions\label{sect:General-stability}}
The stability condition (\ref{eq:minimum-condition}) for the thermodynamic potential we used here
is the one with respect to the fluctuation of the horizon size. It can
be shown that this condition is the same as the positivity of the
specific heat capacity for each ensemble as follows:
According to the first thermodynamic law and our definitions of the
potentials, for equilibrium state
$dE=TdS+(3-p)\Phi dQ+(3-p)\varphi dq$ , one can find
$\left(\frac{\partial E}{\partial x}\right)_{Qq}
=T(x,Q,q)\left(\frac{\partial S}{\partial x}\right)_{Qq}$
with $T(x,Q,q)=1/b(x,Q,q)$, which can also be checked by explicit calculation.
For CC ensemble, from $\tilde I_{CC}=\bar{b}E(x,Q,q)-S(x,Q,q)$ and
by using the equilibrium condition
\begin{eqnarray}
0=\left(\frac{\partial I_{CC}}{\partial x}\right)_{Qq}=\bar{b}
\left( \frac{\partial E}{\partial x} \right)_{Qq}
- \left( \frac{\partial S}{\partial x} \right)_{Qq}
= (\bar{b}-b) \frac{1}{b} \left( \frac{\partial S}{\partial x} \right)_{Qq}
\end{eqnarray}
Comparing with (\ref{eq:stationary-point-equations}), one finds that
$\frac 1 b\left(\frac{\partial S}{\partial x}\right)_{Qq}
=\frac 1 b\left(\frac{\partial S}{\partial b}
\frac{\partial b}{\partial x}\right)_{Qq}\propto f(x,Q,q)>0$.
The specific heat for CC ensemble is defined as
$C_{Qq}=T\left(\frac{\partial S}{\partial T}\right)_{Qq}
=-b\left(\frac{\partial S}{\partial b}\right)_{Qq}$.
So for the specific capacity heat to be positive,
$\left(\frac{\partial b}{\partial x}\right)_{Qq}<0$ should be satisfied which
is the result of the stability condition. Similarly, for the other ensembles,
we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\left(\frac{\partial I_{GC}}{\partial x}\right)_{Q \bar{\varphi} }
= (\bar b-b)\frac 1 b\left(\frac{\partial S}{\partial x}\right)_{Q \bar{\varphi} }
= -(\bar b-b)C_{Q \bar{\varphi} }\left(\frac{\partial b}{\partial x}\right)_{Q \bar{\varphi} }
&=& 0 \qquad \textrm{(CG)} ;\nonumber\\
\left(\frac{\partial I_{CG}}{\partial x}\right)_{ \bar{\Phi} q}
= (\bar b-b)\frac 1 b\left(\frac{\partial S}{\partial x}\right)_{ \bar{\Phi} q}
= -(\bar b-b)C_{ \bar{\Phi} q}\left(\frac{\partial b}{\partial x}\right)_{ \bar{\Phi} q}
&=& 0 \qquad \textrm{(GC)} ;\nonumber\\
\left(\frac{\partial I_{GG}}{\partial x}\right)_{ \bar{\Phi} \bar{\varphi} }
= (\bar b-b)\frac 1 b\left(\frac{\partial S}{\partial x}\right)_{ \bar{\Phi} \bar{\varphi} }
=(\bar b-b)C_{ \bar{\Phi} \bar{\varphi} }\left(\frac{\partial b}{\partial x}\right)_{\Phi \bar{\varphi} }
&=& 0 \qquad \text{(GG)} ,
\end{eqnarray}
where the equilibrium conditions for $\varphi$ and $\Phi$ in
(\ref{eq:stationary-equation}) are used. Comparing with (\ref{eq:GC-first-condition}),
(\ref{eq:CG-first-condition}), (\ref{eq:GG-stationary-condition}),
and using (\ref{eq:CG-def-b-f}), (\ref{eq:GC-b-f}), and (\ref{eq:GG-func-b-f}), one
can find the equivalence of the positive specific heat capacity
conditions and our previous used conditions
(\ref{eq:GC-reduced-condition}), (\ref{eq:CG-reduced-condition}) and
(\ref{eq:GG-stability-condition}) for different ensembles,
respectively.
The positivity of the specific heat describes the stability of the system under the
fluctuations of horizon size or, equivalently, the temperature/entropy. In
\cite{Chamblin:1999hg,Braden:1990hw} the electric fluctuations are also considered
and the stability condition of one-charge black holes to these fluctuations depends
on the positivity of the electric permittivity. Similarly, here since the D$p$-D$(p+4)$
system has two kinds of charges, there can be two electrical stability conditions
for this system when these two kinds of electric fluctuations are considered.
According to the thermodynamics, the general stability conditions could be deduced
either from the maximal entropy or minimal energy criterion. As a result, one can
find out the requirements for different ``response functions'' suitable for the discussion
of stabilities in various ensembles,
\begin{eqnarray}
C_{Qq} \equiv \left( \frac{\partial S}{\partial T} \right)_{Qq} > 0 ,\quad
\epsilon_{TQ} = \left( \frac{\partial \varphi}{\partial q}\right)_{TQ} > 0 ,\quad
{\cal E}_{T\varphi} = \left( \frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial Q}\right)_{T\Phi} > 0
\qquad \text{(CC)} ;\nonumber\\
C_{\Phi q} \equiv \left( \frac{\partial S}{\partial T} \right)_{\Phi q} > 0 ,\quad
\epsilon_{T\Phi} = \left( \frac{\partial\varphi}{\partial q} \right)_{T\Phi} > 0 ,\quad
{\cal E}_{Sq} = \left( \frac{\partial\Phi}{\partial Q}\right)_{Sq} > 0
\qquad \text{(GC)} ;\nonumber\\
C_{Q\varphi} \equiv \left( \frac{\partial S}{\partial T} \right)_{Q\varphi} > 0 ,\quad
\epsilon_{SQ} = \left( \frac{\partial\varphi}{\partial q} \right)_{SQ} > 0 ,\quad
{\cal E}_{T\varphi} = \left( \frac{\partial\Phi}{\partial Q} \right)_{T\varphi} > 0
\qquad \text{(CG)} ;\nonumber\\
C_{\Phi\varphi} \equiv \left( \frac{\partial S}{\partial T} \right)_{ \bar{\Phi} \varphi} > 0 ,\quad
\epsilon_{S\Phi} = \left( \frac{\partial\varphi}{\partial q} \right)_{S\Phi} > 0 ,\quad
{\cal E}_{Sq} =\left( \frac{\partial\Phi}{\partial Q} \right)_{Sq} > 0
\qquad \text{(GG)} .
\end{eqnarray}
If there is only D$p$ brane charge, the positivity of $\cal E$ is not
needed. In \cite{lu:2011-2}, in the grand canonical ensemble for
one-charge black brane, the electric stability condition is consistent with the
thermal stability condition of positive specific heat. However, this
is no longer
true in our case if one of the D$p\,$- or D$(p+4)$-branes (or both of them) is in
canonical ensemble. The electrical stability analysis will reshape the
phase structures in GC/CG/CC ensembles and the branch of
the smaller black brane will be unstable in all possible cases when the van der Waals-like phase
transition is supposed to happen. This is similar to the result in
\cite{Chamblin:1999hg}, where part of the smaller AdS black hole branch including the
van der Waals phase transition point is unstable when electrical
stability condition is considered. After all, the brane system
is not so simple as the liquid-gas system because carrying charges is the nature
of branes and thus the electrical stability is almost inevitably as important
as its thermal stability. The complete analysis on the electric stability
of this system is a little complicated and we shall defer the details to a companion
paper \cite{xiao:2015}.
\section{Conclusions and outlook\label{sect:Conclude}}
In this paper, we have discussed different thermodynamical ensembles
of D$p$-D$(p+4)$ system, where $p=0,1,2$. The two kinds of charges can
be in either canonical or grand canonical ensemble separately, so there can
be CC, GG, GC, CG ensembles. CC ensemble has already been discussed in
\cite{lu:2012-2} and we focus on the other three ensembles in this
paper. In the following we summarize the results obtained in this
paper.
For GG ensemble, the potentials for D$p$ and D$(p+4)$ are fixed. At
very low temperatures, the hot flat space is the stable phase. Depending on
the values of $\bar \Phi$ and $\bar \varphi$, at higher temperatures
black brane phase may or may not be a globally stable phase. For
larger $\bar \Phi$ or $\bar \varphi$ which satisfies
(\ref{eq:GG-Phi-phi-1}), black brane can not be a globally stable phase.
In this case, below $T_{\rm unstable}$ the globally stable phase is the hot flat space and
above it the horizon of the system approaches the boundary and the
quantum effect will be important, therefore we do not know what
happens in this system under these circumstances. In this case, the system
is regarded as unstable in our semi-classical approach.
Only for small
$\bar \Phi$ and $\bar \varphi$ satisfying (\ref{eq:GG-Phi-phi-2}), the
black brane can be a globally stable phase at temperature $T\in (T_{0},1/b(x_{max}))$.
At much higher temperatures, like in case A, the horizon of the
system also tends to the boundary and the black brane is unstable. As in most
grand canonical systems, there is no van der Waals-like phase transition.
For GC ensemble, in which the D$(p+4)$ charge $q$ and D$p$ potential
$\bar \Phi$ are fixed, the D2-D6, D1-D5 and D0-D4 behave differently.
In D2-D6 system, on the right side of the dashed line
in Figure~\ref{fig:GC-diagram-p-2}, the global minimum of
the reduced action is either at $x=q$ or at $x=x_{max}$, and the
black brane can not be a stable phase.
On the left of the dashed line, in a comparably
small region of $\bar \Phi$, the black brane phase can be the final
stable phase only when the temperature is in range $(T_{\rm unstable},1/b_{GC}(x_{max}))$.
Below or above this range, the global minimum is at $x=q$ or $x=x_{max}$,
respectively, and the system is thus unstable.
For D1-D5 system, in the region below $q_c=1/3$ in Figure~\ref{fig:GC-diagram-p-2},
the discussion is similar to the D2-D6 system. For the region above $q_c$,
the black brane is always the final stable phase for temperature lower
than $1/b_{{GC}}(x_{max})$ and higher than $1/b_{{GC}}(q)$. For higher or lower
temperatures, the global minimum for the reduced action is at $x=x_{max}$
or $x=q$ which means the instability of the system. For D0-D4 system,
there can be a van der Waals-like first order phase transition between a
small black brane and a larger one in the region on the left of the dashed line in
region B in Figure~\ref{fig:GC-diagram-p-0}, which is below the
critical charge $q_c$ at which a second order phase transition
happens. The critical charge is independent of $\bar
\Phi$ and is the same as the one for the black D4-brane in the canonical
ensemble.
Below the first order phase transition temperature $T_t$ (or above $T_t$ and
below $1/b(x_{max})$), the final system is in a small black brane
phase (or a large one). For higher temperatures, the global minimum
is at $x=x_{max}$ again, which means that the system is unstable
and is beyond our approach to handle. In the region on the right of
the dashed line in B, or in region A, for temperatures below $T_{\rm unstable}$ or $1/b(x_{max})$,
respectively, the black brane is always the final stable phase, though there
may be a larger metastable one in the corresponding part in region B
for some temperature $T\in (1/b_{max},1/b(x_{max}))$. In region C, for
temperatures lower than $1/b(x_{max})$, the final stable phase is
always the black brane.
The fact that the critical charge $q_c$ in D0-D4 GC ensemble is independent
of $\bar \Phi$ is an unexpected result. Notice that according to
(\ref{eq:GC-Q-x}), $Q_{GC}$ still depends on $\bar \Phi$
non-trivially. Recall that for extremal D$p$-D$(p+4)$ branes
satisfying the Harmonic function rules and preserving 1/4
supersymmetries, there is no binding energy\cite{Tseytlin:1996hi},
which means that the two kinds of charges do not affect each other.
However, we are considering non-extremal cases here, and the two kinds
of charges must be correlated, which is already demonstrated in the CC
ensemble where the critial line correlates both charges as in
Figure~\ref{fig:CC-critical-p01}. Whether this independence of $\bar
\Phi$ of the critical charge in GC ensemble means that something
special happens in such a critial condition is an interesting problem
for future work.
From above discussion, we can see that D2-D6 GC ensemble behaves more
like GG ensemble. The $b_{GC}$ and $b_{GG}$ have the same behavior as
described by Figure~\ref{fig:GG-typical} and changes similarly as we
tune the $\bar \Phi$ in both GC ensemble and GG ensemble at small
$\bar \varphi$. The difference is that at $x=0$ in grand canonical
ensemble there is the hot flat space but at $x=q$ in GC ensemble the
extremal black brane has naked singularity and our method fails. There
could be new phases emerging around $x=q$ in GC ensemble like hot flat
space in GG ensemble due to quantum effects. D0-D4 GC ensemble is more
like the canonical ensemble. There can be a van der Waals-like phase
transition and there is a critical charge. Tuning $q$ is similar to
that in the one-charge black brane canonical ensemble for small $\bar
\Phi$. But for large $\bar \Phi$ the van der Waals-like phase
transition may disappear.
In this paper, we only consider the thermal stability condition, i.e.
the positivity of the specific heat. The phase structure for CG ensemble
is almost the same as the one for GC ensemble except for the interchange in
$q\leftrightarrow Q$ and $ \bar{\Phi} \leftrightarrow \bar{\varphi} $. Similar to CC
ensemble \cite{lu:2012-2}, the phase structure of GG ensemble is already
symmetric itself under this interchange. So the smeared D$p$ charges and
the D$(p+4)$ charges in the D$p$-D$(p+4)$ system are equipotent at least
so far as only the thermal stability is concerned. We will show explicitly
in another paper \cite{xiao:2015} that the electrical stability condition
will still preserve this symmetry, though more constraints shall be imposed.
However, we will show there that the phase structure will also be
modified just like the situation which has been handled in \cite{Chamblin:1999hg}
for charged AdS black holes.
|
\section{Introduction}
We def\/ine an abstract {\it nondegenerate (quantum) quadratic algebra} as a~noncommutative associative algebra generated
by linearly independent operators~$H$, $L_1$, $L_2$ such that~$H$ is in the center, $R=[L_1,L_2]\ne 0$ and the following
relations hold:
\begin{gather*
[L_j,R]=\sum\limits_{0\leq e_1+e_2+e_3\leq 2} M^{(j)}_{e_1,e_2,e_3} \big\{L_1^{e_1}, L_2^{e_2}\big\} H^{e_3},
\qquad
e_k\geq 0,
\qquad
L_k^0=I,
\end{gather*}
for some $M^{(j)}_{e_1, e_2, e_3}\in \mathbb{C}$, and where $[A,B]=AB-BA$ is the commutator and
$\{L_1,L_2\}=L_1L_2+L_2L_1$ is the symmetrizer.
Also the operator $R^2$ is contained in the algebra of symmetrized products:
\begin{gather*
R^2 -F\equiv R^2-\sum\limits_{0\leq e_1+e_2+e_3\leq 3} N_{e_1,e_2,e_3} \big\{L_1^{e_1}, L_2^{e_2}\big\} H^{e_3} = 0
\end{gather*}
for some $N_{e_1, e_2, e_3}\in \mathbb{C}$.
An abstract {\it degenerate $($quantum$)$ quadratic algebra} is a~noncommutative associative algebra generated by linearly
independent operators $X$, $H$, $L_1$, $L_2$ such that~$H$ is in the center and the following relations hold:
\begin{gather*
[X,L_j]=\sum\limits_{0\leq e_1+e_2+e_3+e_4\leq 1} P^{(j)}_{e_1,e_2,e_3, e_4} L_1^{e_1}L_2^{e_2}H^{e_3}X^{e_4},
\qquad
j=1,2,
\end{gather*}
for some $P^{(j)}_{e_1,e_2,e_3, e_4} \in \mathbb{C}$.
The commutator $[L_1,L_2]$ is expressed as
\begin{gather*
[L_1,L_2]=\sum\limits_{0\leq e_1+e_2+e_3+e_4\leq 1} Q_{e_1,e_2, e_3, e_4}\big\{L_1^{e_1}L_2^{e_2},X\big\}H^{e_3}X^{2e_4}
\end{gather*}
for some $Q_{e_1,e_2, e_3, e_4} \in \mathbb{C}$.
Finally, there is the relation:
\begin{gather*
G\equiv\sum\limits_{0\leq e_1+e_2+e_3+e_4\leq 2} S_{e_1, e_2, e_3, e_4}\big\{L_1^{e_1},L_2^{e_2}, X^{2e_4}\big\}H^{e_3}=0, \qquad X^0=H^0=I,
\end{gather*}
for some $S_{e_1,e_2, e_3, e_4} \in \mathbb{C}$ and where $\{L_1^{e_1},L_2^{e_2}, X^{2e_4}\}$ is the 6-term symmetrizer
of three operators.
For both quantum quadratic algebras there is a~natural grading such that the opera\-tors~$H$,~$L_j$ are 2nd order,~$X$ is 1st
order and
\begin{gather}
\label{orderrelations}
\ord([A,B])\le \ord(A)+\ord(B)-1,
\qquad
\ord(AB)=\ord(A)+\ord(B),
\\
\nonumber
\ord(I)=0,
\qquad
\ord(A+B)=\max\{\ord(A), \ord(B)\},
\qquad
\ord(cA)=\ord(A),
\end{gather}
for operators $A$, $B$, identity operator~$I$ and scalar~$c$, with $A\ne -B$, $A, B \ne 0$, and $c\ne 0$.
Thus~$R$ is usually 3rd order, expression~$G$ is 4th order and~$F$ is 6th order.
The f\/ield of scalars can be either ${\mathbb R}$ or ${\mathbb C}$.
There is an analogous quadratic algebra structure for Poisson algebras.
An abstract {\it non\-de\-ge\-nerate $($classical$)$ quadratic algebra} is a~Poisson algebra with functionally independent
genera\-tors~${\cal H}$, ${\cal L}_1$, ${\cal L}_2$ such that all generators are in involution with ${\cal H}$ and the following
relations hold:
\begin{gather*
\{{\cal L}_j,{\cal R}\}=\sum\limits_{0\leq e_1+e_2+e_3\leq 2} M^{(j)}_{e_1,e_2,e_3} {\cal L}_1^{e_1}{\cal
L}_2^{e_2}{\cal H}^{e_3},
\qquad
e_k\geq 0,
\qquad
{\cal L}_k^0=1,
\\
{\cal R}^2-{\cal F}\equiv {\cal R}^2 -\sum\limits_{0\leq e_1+e_2+e_3\leq 3} N_{e_1,e_2,e_3} {\cal L}_1^{e_1}{\cal
L}_2^{e_2}{\cal H}^{e_3} = 0
\end{gather*}
for some $M^{(j)}_{e_1, e_2, e_3}, N_{e_1, e_2, e_3}\in \mathbb{C}$.
An abstract {\it degenerate $($classical$)$ quadratic algebra} is a~Poisson algebra with linearly independent generators
${\cal X}$, ${\cal H}$, ${\cal L}_1$, ${\cal L}_2$ such that all generators are in involution with {\cal H} and obey structure
equations
\begin{gather}
\{{\cal X},{\cal L}_j\}=\sum\limits_{0\leq e_1+e_2+e_3+e_4\leq 1} P^{(j)}_{e_1,e_2,e_3, e_4} {\cal L}_1^{e_1}{\cal
L}_2^{e_2}{\cal H}^{e_3}{\cal X}^{e_4},
\qquad
j=1,2,
\nonumber
\\
\{{\cal L}_1,{\cal L}_2\}=\sum\limits_{0\leq e_1+e_2+e_3+e_4\leq 1} Q_{e_1,e_2, e_3, e_4} {\cal L}_1^{e_1}{\cal
L}_2^{e_2}{\cal X}{\cal H}^{e_3}{\cal X}^{2e_4},
\nonumber
\\
\label{Bracket2p}
{\cal G}\equiv\sum\limits_{0\leq e_1+e_2+e_3+e_4\leq 2} S_{e_1, e_2, e_3, e_4}{\cal L}_1^{e_1}{\cal L}_2^{e_2}{\cal X}^{2e_4}{\cal H}^{e_3}=0,
\qquad
{\cal X}^0={\cal H}^0=1
\end{gather}
for some $P^{(j)}_{e_1, e_2, e_3, e_4}$, $Q_{e_1, e_2, e_3, e_4}$, $S_{e_1, e_2, e_3, e_4}\in \mathbb{C}$.
There is a~grading for these quadratic algebras with properties analogous to~\eqref{orderrelations}, but with the
Poisson bracket instead of the commutator.
These quadratic algebra structures arise naturally in the study of classical and quantum superintegrable systems in two
dimensions and are key to the exact solvability of these systems,
e.g.,~\cite{BDK,DASK2007,EVAN,FORDY,Zhedanov1992a,Zhedanov1992b,VILE,MPW2013,TTW2001,SCQS}.
A~quantum 2D superintegrable system is an integrable Hamiltonian system on an $2$-dimensional
Riemannian/pseudo-Riemannian manifold with potential that admits $3$ algebraically independent partial dif\/ferential
operators commuting with~$H$, the maximum possible.
\begin{gather*}
H=\Delta+V,
\qquad
[H,L_j]=0,
\qquad
L_{3}=H, \qquad j=1,2,3.
\end{gather*}
(In 2 dimensions we can always f\/ind Cartesian-like coordinates $x_1$, $x_2$ such that
\[
H=\frac{1}{\lambda(x_1,x_2)}\big(\partial_{x_1}^2+\partial_{x_2}^2\big)+V(x_1,x_2)
\] and we adopt these coordinates in the
following.) A~system is of order~$k$ if the maximum order of the symmetry operators $L_j$ (other than~$H$) is~$k$; all
such systems are known for $k=1,2$~\cite{KKM20041,KKM20041+1,KKM20041+2,KKM20041+3, Koenigs}.
Superintegrability captures the properties of quantum Hamiltonian systems that allow the Schr\"odinger eigenvalue
problem $H\Psi=E\Psi$ to be solved exactly, analytically and algebraically.
A~classical 2D superintegrable system is an integrable Hamiltonian system on an $2$-dimensional
Riemannian/pseudo-Riemannian manifold with potential that admit 3 functionally independent
phase space functions ${\cal H}$, ${\cal L}_1$, ${\cal L}_2$ in involution with~${\cal H}$, the maximum possible:
\begin{gather*}
{\cal H}=\frac{p_1^2+p_2^2}{\lambda({\bf x})}+V({\bf x}),
\qquad
\{{\cal H},{\cal L}_j\}=0,
\qquad
{\cal L}_{3}={\cal H}, \qquad j=1,2,3,
\end{gather*}
expressed in local Cartesian-like coordinates $x_1$, $x_2$, $p_1$, $p_2$.
A~system is of order~$k$ if the maximum order of the constants of the motion $L_j$, $j\ne 3$, as polynomials in
$p_1$, $p_2$ is~$k$.
Again all such systems are known for $k=1,2$, and there is a~1-1 relationship
between classical and quantum 2nd order 2D
superintegrable systems~\cite{KKM20041,KKM20041+1,KKM20041+2,KKM20041+3}.
The possible superintegrable systems divide into four classes:
\begin{enumerate}\itemsep=0pt
\item \emph{First order systems}.
These are the (zero-potential) Laplace--Beltrami eigenvalue equations on constant curvature spaces.
The symmetry algebras close under commutation to form the Lie algebras $e(2,{\mathbb R})$, $e(1,1)$, $o(3,{\mathbb R})$
or $o(2,1)$.
Such systems have been studied in detail, using group theory methods, e.g.,~\cite{Miller, Talman}.
\item \emph{Free triplets}.
These are superintegrable systems with zero potential and all generators of 2nd order.
The possible spaces for which these systems can occur were classif\/ied by Koenigs~\cite{Koenigs}.They are: constant
curvature spaces (6 linearly independent 2nd order symmetries, 3 1st order), the four Darboux spaces (4 linearly
independent 2nd order symmetries, 1 1st order), and eleven 4-parameter Koenigs spaces (3 linearly independent 2nd order
symmetries, 0 1st order).
In most cases the symmetry operators will not generate a~quadratic algebra, i.e., the algebra will not close.
If the system generates a~nondegenerate quadratic algebra we call it a~{\it free quadratic triplet}.
\item \emph{Nondegenerate systems}~\cite{KKM20041,KKM20041+1,KKM20041+2,KKM20041+3}.
Here all symmetries are of 2nd order and the space of potentials is 4-dimensional:
\begin{gather*}
V({\bf x})= a_1V_{(1)}({\bf x})+a_2V_{(2)}({\bf x})+a_3V_{(3)}({\bf x})+a_4.
\end{gather*}
The symmetry operators generate a~nondegenerate
quadratic algebra with parameters $a_j$.
\item \emph{Degenerate systems}~\cite{KKMP2009}. There are 4 generators: one 1st order~$X$ and 3 second order $H$, $L_1$, $L_2$.
Here, $X^2$ is not contained in the span of $H$, $L_1$, $L_2$.
The space of potentials is 2-dimensional: $V({\bf x})= a_1V_{(1)}({\bf x})+a_2$.
The symmetry operators generate a~degenerate quadratic algebra with parameters $a_j$.
Relation~\eqref{Bracket2p} is an expression of the fact that 4 symmetry operators cannot be algebraically independent.
\end{enumerate}
Every degenerate superintegrable system occurs as a~restriction of the 3-parameter potentials (i.e., 4-dimensional
potential space) to 1-parameter ones, such that one of the symmetries becomes a~perfect square: $L=X^2$.
Here~$X$ is a~f\/irst order symmetry and a~new 2nd order symmetry appears so that this restriction admits more symmetries
than the original system.
Strictly speaking, a~nondegenerate 2D superintegrable system, both classical and quantum, is not a~single system but in
fact a~family of superintegrable systems parameterized by three parameters, $a_1$, $a_2$, $a_3$.
Similarly a~degenerate 2D superintegrable system, both classical and quantum, is a~family of superintegrable systems
parameterized by one parameter, $a_1$.
For a~quadratic algebra that comes from a~nondegenerate 2D superintegrable system (classical and quantum) the constants
$M^{(j)}_{e_1, e_2, e_3}$ and $N_{e_1, e_2, e_3}$ are polynomials in the parame\-ters~$a_1$,~$a_2$,~$a_3$ of degree
$2-e_1-e_2-e_3$ and $3-e_1-e_2-e_3$, respectively.
If all parameters $a_j=0$ the algebra is {\it free}.
For a~quadratic algebra that comes from a~degenerate 2D superintegrable system (classical and quantum) the constants
$P^{(j)}_{e_1, e_2, e_3, e_4}$, $Q_{e_1, e_2, e_3, e_4}$ and $S_{e_1, e_2, e_3, e_4}$ are polynomials in~$a_1$ of
degrees $1-e_1-e_2-e_3-e_4$, $1-e_1-e_2-e_3-e_4$ and $2-e_1-e_2-e_3-e_4$, respectively.
If all parameters $a_j=0$ these algebras are {\it free}.
Basic results that relate these superintegrable systems are the closure theorems:
\begin{theorem}
\label{theorem2}
A~free triplet, classical or quantum, extends to a~superintegrable system with potential if and only if it generates
a~free quadratic algebra $\tilde Q$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}
\label{theorem3}
A~superintegrable system, degenerate or nondegenerate, classical or quantum, with quadratic algebra~$Q$, is uniquely
determined by its free quadratic algebra $\tilde Q$.
\end{theorem}
These theorems were proved in~\cite{KM2014}, except for systems on the Darboux spaces which will be proved in this
paper.
The proofs are constructive: Given a~free quadratic algebra $\tilde Q$ one can compute the potential~$V$ and the
symmetries of the quadratic algebra~$Q$.
Thus as far as superintegrable systems on specif\/ic spaces are concerned, all information about the systems is contained
in the free quadratic algebras.
We will refer to quadratic algebras associated with superintegrable systems as {\it geometric}, a~subset of {\it
abstract} quadratic algebras.
For quadratic algebras associated with quantum superintegrable systems the order of~$A$ is its order as a~partial
dif\/ferential operator.
For quadratic algebras associated with classical superintegrable systems the order of $\cal A$ is its order as
a~polynomial in the momenta.
Although there is a~1-1 relationship between classical and quantum geometric systems the corresponding classical and
quantum geometric quadratic algebras are not the same; only the highest order terms in the structure equations agree.
\section{Contractions}
The notion of contractions for quadratic algebras is based on that for Lie algebras, e.g.,~\cite{Wigner, NP, WW}:
\begin{definition}
Let $\mathfrak{g}$ be a~complex Lie algebra with an underlying vector space~$V$ and Lie brackets $ [\;,\;]$.
In the following we simply write it as $\mathfrak{g}=(V,[\;,\;])$.
Suppose that for any $\epsilon\in (0, 1]$, $t_{\epsilon}\colon V\to V$ is a~a linear invertible operator and that
$\lim\limits_{\epsilon\to 0^+}t_\epsilon^{-1}[t_\epsilon X,t_\epsilon Y]$ converges for any $X,Y\in V$.
We use the notation
\begin{gather*}
\lim_{\epsilon\to 0^+}t_\epsilon^{-1}[t_\epsilon X,t_\epsilon Y]=[X,Y]_0.
\end{gather*}
Then $[\;,\;]_0$ are in fact Lie brackets on~$V$ and we denote this Lie algebra by $\mathfrak{g}_0=(V,[\;,\;]_0)$.
We say that $\mathfrak{g}_0$ \textit{is a~contraction of $\mathfrak{g}$} (that is realized by the family of linear maps
$\{t_\epsilon\}_{\epsilon \in (0,1]}$) and we denote it by $\mathfrak{g}\to \mathfrak{g}_0$.
\end{definition}
Thus, as $\epsilon\to 0$ the 1-parameter family of basis transformations can become singular but the structure constants
go to a~f\/inite limit.
\medskip
\noindent
{\bf Note.} In this paper all of the Lie algebra contractions needed are of standard In\"on\"u--Wigner
type~\cite{NP}, but for our theory on contractions of quadratic algebras and second order superintegrable systems on
constant curvature spaces~\cite{KM2014} IW-contractions are not enough.
In most cases we employ a~generalized In\"on\"u--Wigner contraction (Doebner--Melsheimer type)~\cite{Doebner, NP},
but in some specif\/ic cases we are forced to use a~general contraction of Lie algebras in the sense of Saletan~\cite{Saletan}.
In a~paper under preparation we shall demonstrate that all of these generalizations of In\"on\"u--Wigner contractions
are induced by a~well def\/ined family of contractions of the conformal Lie algebra $so(4,{\mathbb C})$ to itself that
follow from limiting processes for $R$-separable coordinate systems for wave equations, introduced by B\^ocher in his
famous 1894 thesis~\cite{Bocher}.
We call these B\^ocher contractions.
Of particular interest to us are contractions that are induced by~$\epsilon$-dependent local analytic coordinate
transformations $x_j(\epsilon, x'_1,\dots,x'_n)$, $j=1,\dots,n$ on a~manifold $\cal M$ such that the Jacobian $\det
(\frac{\partial {\bf x}}{\partial{\bf x'}})\ne 0$ for $\epsilon\in (0,1]$, but the Jacobian is undef\/ined or nonsingular
in the limit as $\epsilon\to 0$.
\begin{definition}
Suppose that $\mathfrak{g}=(V,[\;,\;]_0)$ is a~contraction of $\mathfrak{g}=(V,[\;,\;])$ that is realized by the family
of linear maps $\{t_\epsilon\}_{\epsilon \in (0,1]}$.
Let $\mathcal{M}$ be a~smooth manifold with a~local coordinate system $(x_1,x_2,\dots,x_n)$ and let
$\psi\colon \mathfrak{g}\to C^{\infty}(\mathcal{TM})$ be an embedding of Lie algebras, where
$C^{\infty}(\mathcal{TM})$ is the space of smooth functions on the cotangent bundle (the phase space) of $\mathcal{M}$
which is equipped with its canonical Poisson brackets as Lie brackets.
Suppose that $x_j(\epsilon, x'_1,\dots,x'_n)$, $j=1,\dots,n$ are~$\epsilon$-dependent local analytic coordinate
transformations such that the Jacobian $\det (\frac{\partial {\bf x}}{\partial{\bf x'}})\ne 0$ for $\epsilon\in (0,1]$.
If the limit
\begin{gather*}
\lim_{\epsilon \to 0^+}\psi(t_{\epsilon}(v))(x_1(\epsilon, x'_1,\dots,x'_n),\dots,x_n(\epsilon, x'_1,\dots,x'_n))
\end{gather*}
converges for any $v\in V$ and def\/ines a~Lie algebra homomorphism from $\mathfrak{g}_0$ into a~local expression of
a~certain space of $C^{\infty}(\mathcal{TM}')$ for some smooth manifold $\mathcal{M}'$.
Then we say that the contraction $\mathfrak{g}\to \mathfrak{g}_0$ is implemented by $x_j(\epsilon,
x'_1,\dots,x'_n)$, $j=1,\dots,n$ and call this procedure a~{\it geometric Lie algebra contraction}.
This distinction between abstract contractions of Lie algebras and geometric contractions has been recognized from the
earliest days of the theory, e.g.,~\cite{Wigner}.
\end{definition}
We give some pertinent examples.
\begin{example}
Consider the complex three dimensional Lie algebra ${\cal G}$\textbf{3} def\/ined by basis elements $\{{\cal P}_1,{\cal
P}_2,{\cal D}\}$ that satisfy $[{\cal P}_1,{\cal P}_{2}]=0$, $[{\cal P}_{1},{\cal D}]={\cal P}_{1}$, $[{\cal P}_{2},{\cal
D}]={\cal P}_{2}$.
This algebra admits an abstract In\"on\"u--Wigner contraction
def\/ined by $t_{\epsilon}({\cal P}_{1})=\epsilon {\cal P}_{1}$,
$t_{\epsilon}({\cal P}_{2})=\epsilon {\cal P}_{2}$,
$t_{\epsilon}({\cal D})={\cal D}$.
In this case the contracted Lie algebra, ${\cal G}$\textbf{3}$_0$, coincides with ${\cal G}$\textbf{3}
and $[{\cal P}_1,{\cal P}_{2}]_0=0$, $[{\cal P}_{1},{\cal D}]_0={\cal P}_{1}$, $[{\cal P}_{2},{\cal D}]_0={\cal P}_{2}$.
Now considering the complex analytic manifold $\mathbb{C}^2$ with coordinates $(x_1,x_2)$ we can reali\-ze~${\cal
G}$\textbf{3}~by
\begin{gather*}
\psi({\cal P}_{1})(x_1,x_2,p_{x_1},p_{x_2})= p_{x_1},
\qquad
\psi({\cal P}_2)(x_1,x_2,p_{x_1},p_{x_2})= p_{x_2},
\\
\psi({\cal D})(x_1,x_2,p_{x_1},p_{x_2})= x_1p_{x_1}+x_2p_{x_2}.
\end{gather*}
A~geometric implementation of the contraction is obtained by the substitution $x_1=\epsilon x'_1$, $x_2=\epsilon x'_2$.
Then, taking the limit, we f\/ind
\begin{gather*}
\lim_{\epsilon \to 0^+} \psi(t_{\epsilon}({\cal P}_{1}))(\epsilon x'_1,\epsilon x'_2,p_{\epsilon
x'_1},p_{\epsilon x'_2})=\lim_{\epsilon \to 0^+} \epsilon p_{\epsilon x'_1}=\lim_{\epsilon \to
0^+} \epsilon \frac{1}{\epsilon}p_{x'_1} =p_{x'_1},
\\
\lim_{\epsilon \to 0^+} \psi(t_{\epsilon}({\cal P}_{2}))(\epsilon x'_1,\epsilon x'_2,p_{\epsilon
x'_1},p_{\epsilon x'_2})=\lim_{\epsilon \to 0^+} \epsilon p_{\epsilon x'_2}=\lim_{\epsilon \to
0^+} \epsilon \frac{1}{\epsilon}p_{x'_2} =p_{x'_2},
\\
\lim_{\epsilon \to 0^+} \psi(t_{\epsilon}({\cal D}))(\epsilon x'_1,\epsilon x'_2,p_{\epsilon
x'_1},p_{\epsilon x'_2})=\lim_{\epsilon \to 0^+} \epsilon x'_1 \frac{1}{\epsilon}p_{x'_1}+\epsilon x'_2
\frac{1}{\epsilon}p_{x'_2}=x'_1p_{x'_1}+x'_2p_{x'_2}.
\end{gather*}
Though this Lie algebra contraction acts like the identity map here, we shall see that its action on Darboux quadratic
algebras is nontrivial.
\end{example}
\begin{example}\sloppy
We again consider the Lie algebra ${\cal G}$\textbf{3} with the same geometric identif\/ication.
This algebra admits another abstract In\"on\"u--Wigner contraction
def\/ined by $t_{\epsilon}({\cal P}_{1})={\cal P}_{1}$,
$t_{\epsilon}({\cal P}_{2})={\cal P}_{2}$,
$t_{\epsilon}({\cal D})=\epsilon {\cal D}$.
The contracted Lie algebra, ${\cal G}$\textbf{3}$_0$, is given by $[{\cal P}_1,{\cal P}_{2}]_0=0$, $[{\cal P}_{1},{\cal
D}]_0=0$, $[{\cal P}_{2},{\cal D}]_0=0$.
A~geometric implementation of the contraction is obtained by the substitution $x_1=x'_1+\frac{1}{\epsilon}$, $x_2=x'_2$.
Then, taking the limit, we f\/ind
\begin{gather*}
\lim_{\epsilon \to 0^+} \psi(t_{\epsilon}({\cal P}_{1}))(x'_1+\frac{1}{\epsilon},
x'_2,p_{x'_1+\frac{1}{\epsilon}},p_{x'_2})=\lim_{\epsilon \to 0^+}
p_{x'_1+\frac{1}{\epsilon}}=\lim_{\epsilon \to 0^+} p_{x'_1} =p_{x'_1},
\\
\lim_{\epsilon \to 0^+} \psi(t_{\epsilon}({\cal P}_{2}))(x'_1+\frac{1}{\epsilon},
x'_2,p_{x'_1+\frac{1}{\epsilon}},p_{x'_2})=\lim_{\epsilon \to 0^+} p_{x'_2} =p_{x'_2},
\\
\lim_{\epsilon \to 0^+} \psi(t_{\epsilon}({\cal D}))({\cal P}_{2})
\left(x'_1+\frac{1}{\epsilon}, x'_2,p_{x'_1+\frac{1}{\epsilon}},p_{x'_2}\right)
=\lim_{\epsilon \to 0^+}\epsilon \left(\left(x'_1+\frac{1}{\epsilon}\right)p_{x'_1+\frac{1}{\epsilon}}+ x'_2 p_{x'_2}\right)
=p_{x'_1}.
\end{gather*}
Hence the resulting map from ${\cal G}$\textbf{3}$_0$ that is given by ${\cal P}_{1}\mapsto p_{x'_1}$, ${\cal
P}_{2}\mapsto p_{x'_2}$, ${\cal D}_{1}\mapsto p_{x'_1}$ is a~Lie algebra homomorphism with kernel spanned~by
${\cal P}_{1}-{\cal D}$.
Though this geometric implementation is not an isomorphism of the contracted Lie algebra we shall see that its action on
Darboux quadratic algebras is isomorphic.
\end{example}
There are exactly analogous implementations of geometric contractions in the quantum case.
\begin{definition}[algebraic contraction of quadratic algebras] Let $\mathcal{A}$ be a~classical nondegenerate quadratic algebra
with a~generating set which consist of a~Hamiltonian, $\mathcal{H}$ (second order element which lies in the center of
$\mathcal{A}$) and two second order constants of motion $\mathcal{L}_1$, $\mathcal{L}_2$.
Let $\{\mathcal{L}_1,\mathcal{L}_2\}^2=\mathcal{R}^2=\mathcal{F}(\mathcal{H},\mathcal{L}_1,\mathcal{L}_2)$ be the
Casimir of $\mathcal{A}$.
For any $\epsilon\in (0,1]$ consider a~matrix $A_{\epsilon}\in {\rm GL}(3,{\mathbb C})$ of the form
\begin{gather*}
A_{\epsilon}=\left(
\begin{matrix} A_{1,1}(\epsilon) & A_{1,2}(\epsilon)&A_{1,3}(\epsilon)
\\
A_{2,1}(\epsilon)&A_{2,2}(\epsilon) &A_{2,3}(\epsilon)
\\
0 &0 &A_{3,3}(\epsilon)
\end{matrix}
\right)\in {\rm GL}(3).
\end{gather*}
Assume that the map from $(0,1]$ to ${\rm GL}(3,{\mathbb C})$ that is given by $\epsilon \mapsto A_{\epsilon}$ is
continuous.
For any $\epsilon\in (0,1]$
we have another set of generators, $\{\mathcal{L}_1^{\epsilon}, \mathcal{L}_2^{\epsilon}, \mathcal{H}^{\epsilon}\}$,
for $\mathcal{A}$ that is def\/ined~by
\begin{gather*}
\left(
\begin{matrix} \mathcal{L}_1
\\
\mathcal{L}_2
\\
\mathcal{H}
\end{matrix}
\right) =A_{\epsilon}\left(
\begin{matrix} \mathcal{L}_1^{\epsilon}
\\
\mathcal{L}_2^{\epsilon}
\\
\mathcal{H}^{\epsilon}
\end{matrix}
\right)
\end{gather*}
and satisf\/ies the Casimir relation
\begin{gather*}
\{\mathcal{L}^{\epsilon}_1,\mathcal{L}^{\epsilon}_2\}^2=(\mathcal{R}^{\epsilon})^2=\mathcal{R}^2(A_{11}(\epsilon)A_{22}(\epsilon)
-A_{12}(\epsilon)A_{21}(\epsilon))^{-2}
\\
\hphantom{\{\mathcal{L}^{\epsilon}_1,\mathcal{L}^{\epsilon}_2\}^2}{}
=(A_{11}(\epsilon)A_{22}(\epsilon) -A_{12}(\epsilon)A_{21}(\epsilon))^{-2}\mathcal{F}\left(A_{\epsilon}\left(
\begin{matrix}
\mathcal{L}_1^{\epsilon}
\\
\mathcal{L}_2^{\epsilon}
\\
\mathcal{H}^{\epsilon}
\end{matrix}
\right)\right)
\\
\hphantom{\{\mathcal{L}^{\epsilon}_1,\mathcal{L}^{\epsilon}_2\}^2}{}
=\sum\limits_{i+j+k=3,\,0\leq i,j,k}\alpha_{ijk}(\epsilon)(\mathcal{L}_1^{\epsilon})^i(\mathcal{L}_2^{\epsilon})^j
(\mathcal{H}^{\epsilon})^k.
\end{gather*}
If $\lim\limits_{\epsilon \to 0^+}\alpha_{ijk}(\epsilon)$ exists for any $i$, $j$, $k$ we denote it by $\alpha_{ijk}(0)$.
Then there exists a~quadratic algebra, $\mathcal{A}_0$ with a~set of generators $\{\mathcal{L}_1^{0}, \mathcal{L}_2^{0}, \mathcal{H}^{0}\}$
that satisfy
\begin{gather*}
\big\{\mathcal{L}^{0}_1,\mathcal{L}^{0}_2\big\}^2=\big(\mathcal{R}^0\big)^2=\sum\limits_{i+j+k=3,\,0\leq
i,j,k}\alpha_{ijk}(0)\big(\mathcal{L}_1^{0}\big)^i\big(\mathcal{L}_2^{0}\big)^j \big(\mathcal{H}^{0}\big)^k
\end{gather*}
we call $\mathcal{A}_0$ the contraction of $\mathcal{A}$ with respect to $\{A_{\epsilon}\}_{\epsilon \in (0,1]}$.
\end{definition}
Note that we can expand $\{{\mathcal R}^\epsilon,{\mathcal L}_1^\epsilon\}$, $\{{\mathcal R}^\epsilon,{\mathcal
L}_2^\epsilon\}$ as quadratic expressions in ${\mathcal L}_1^\epsilon$, ${\mathcal L}_2^\epsilon$, $\mathcal{H}^{\epsilon}$.
For a~contraction it might seem that we must also require these expansion coef\/f\/icients to have f\/inite limits as
$\epsilon\to 0$.
However from the results of Section~\ref{structure} the convergence of these other structure equations follows from the
convergence of the Casimir.
There is a~completely analogous def\/inition of contraction for quantum quadratic algebras.
Just as for abstract classical and quantum Lie algebra contractions there are abstract classical and quantum quadratic
algebra contractions that are induced by~$\epsilon$-dependent local analytic coordinate transformations $x_j(\epsilon,
x'_1,\dots,x'_n)$, $j=1,\dots,n$ on a~manifold $\cal M$ such that the Jacobian $\det (\frac{\partial {\bf
x}}{\partial{\bf x'}})\ne 0$ for $\epsilon\in (0,1]$, but the Jacobian is undef\/ined or nonsingular in the limit as
$\epsilon\to 0$.
If an algebraic contraction $A\to B$ can be implemented by some coordinate transformation, we say that it is
a~{\it geometric quadratic algebra contraction}.
In fact, all of the quadratic algebra contractions for Darboux systems discussed in this paper are geometric
implementations.
We will give many examples in the following sections.
The notion of contraction applied to structures other than Lie algebras is not new, see for example~\cite{Gromov} (and
references there-in) and~\cite{Mad}.
In~\cite{KM2014} Lie algebra and quadratic algebra contractions for superintegrable systems on constant curvature spaces
were related:
\begin{theorem}\label{theorem 4}
Every Lie algebra contraction of ${\cal G}=e(2,{\mathbb C})$ or ${\cal G}=o(3,{\mathbb C})$ induces a~geometric
contraction of a~free geometric quadratic algebra $\tilde Q$ based on $\cal G$, which in turn induces uniquely
a~contraction of the quadratic algebra~$Q$ with potential.
This is true for both classical and quantum algebras.
\end{theorem}
Here we will demonstrate the analogous result for Darboux spaces, using the conformal symmetry algebra ${\cal
G}3$ with basis $\{\partial_x,\partial_y, x\partial_x+y\partial_y\}$.
\section{Structure relations}
Although the full sets of classical structure equations can be rather complicated, the func\-tion~$\cal F$ contains all of
the structure information for nondegenerate systems and $\cal G$ (only unique up to a~nonzero scalar multiple) most of
the information for degenerate systems.
In particular, it is easy to show that~\cite{Perelomov, KM2014},
$\{{\cal L}_1,{\cal R}\}=\frac12\frac{\partial F}{\partial {\cal L}_2}$,
$\{{\cal L}_2,{\cal R}\}=-\frac12\frac{\partial F}{\partial {\cal L}_1}$,
so the Casimir contains within itself all of the structure equations.
For degenerate systems we have~\cite{KM2014}
\begin{gather*
\{{\cal X},{\cal L}_1\}=K\frac{\partial {\cal G}}{\partial {\cal L}_2},
\qquad
\{{\cal X},{\cal L}_2\}=-K\frac{\partial{\cal G}} {\partial {\cal L}_1},
\qquad
\{{\cal L}_1,{\cal L}_2\}=K\frac{\partial{\cal G}}{\partial {\cal X}},
\end{gather*}
where $\{{\cal H},K\}=0$.
Here,~$K$ is a~scalar, unless $\{{\cal X},{\cal L}_1\}$ and $\{{\cal X},{\cal L}_2\}$ are linearly dependent.
In the latter case there would exist 3 algebraically independent elements of the algebra in involution, including the
Hamiltonian.
This is impossible for a~Hamiltonian system.
Thus, except for some abstract quadratic algebras unrelated to geometric superintegrable systems,~$K$ will always be
a~scalar that can be normalized to~1.
\subsection[The quantum operators $F$ and $G$]{The quantum operators $\boldsymbol{F}$ and $\boldsymbol{G}$}
\label{structure}
The quantum case is similar to the classical case, but more complicated.
From the Casimir relation
\begin{gather*
R^2-F\equiv R^2 - \big(b_1 L_1^3 + b_2 L_2^3 + b_3 H^3 + b_4 \big\{L_1^2,L_2\big\} + b_5 \big\{L_1,L_2^2\big\} + b_6 L_1 L_2 L_1 + b_7 L_2 L_1 L_2
\\
\hphantom{R^2-F\equiv}{}
{}+ b_8 H\{L_1,L_2\} +b_9 H L_1^2 + b_{10} H L_2^2 + b_{11} H^2 L_1 + b_{12} H^2 L_2 + b_{13} L_1^2 + b_{14} L_2^2
\\
\hphantom{R^2-F\equiv}{}
{}+ b_{15} \{L_1,L_2\}
+ b_{16} H L_1 + b_{17} H L_2 + b_{18} H^2 + b_{19} L_1 + b_{20} L_2 + b_{21} H + b_{22}\big) = 0,
\end{gather*}
we want to determine the structure relations.
Noting that $R=[L_1,L_2]$ and using operator identities
\begin{gather}
L_2RL_2 = \tfrac12[[L_2,R],L_2]+\tfrac12\big\{R,L_2^2\big\},
\qquad
L_1RL_1=\tfrac12[[L_1,R],L_1]+\tfrac12\big\{R,L_1^2\big\},
\nonumber
\\
L_1RL_2+L_2RL_1 = -\tfrac12[L_2,[L_1,R]]-\tfrac12[L_1,[L_2,R]]+\tfrac12\{R,\{L_1,L_2\}\},
\label{opident}
\\
{}\big[L_1,R^2\big] = \{R,[L_1,R]\},
\qquad
\big[L_2,R^2\big]=\{R,[L_2,R]\},
\nonumber
\\
{}[L_1,L_2L_1L_2] = \big\{[L_1,L_2],\tfrac12\{L_1,L_2\}\big\},
\nonumber
\\
XL_1L_2+L_2L_1X=\tfrac12\{X,\{L_1,L_2\}\}+\tfrac12[X,[L_1,L_2]],
\nonumber
\end{gather}
(true formally for all operators $L_1$, $L_2$, $R$, not just for~$R$ the commutator), and setting
\begin{gather*}
[L_1,R]=A_1L_1^2+A_2L_2^2+A_3H^2+A_4\{L_1,L_2\}
\\
\phantom{[L_1,R]=}{}
+A_5HL_1+A_6HL_2+A_7L_1+A_8L_2+A_9H+A_{10},
\\
[L_2,R]=B_1L_1^2+B_2L_2^2+B_3H^2+B_4\{L_1,L_2\}
\\
\phantom{[L_1,R]=}{}
+B_5HL_1+B_6HL_2+B_7L_1+B_8L_2+B_9H+B_{10},
\end{gather*}
we can write $[L_j,R^2-F]=0 $ in the form $\{R,Q_j\}=0$ for some explicit dif\/ferential opera\-tor~$Q_j$.
This can only hold if $Q_j=0$.
As a~result we f\/ind:
\begin{gather*}
A_1 = b_4 + \tfrac12 b_6,
\qquad
A_2 = \tfrac32 b_2,
\qquad
A_3 = \tfrac12 b_{12},
\qquad
A_4 = b_5 + \tfrac12 b_7,
\\
A_5 = b_8,\qquad A_6 = b_{10}, \qquad
A_7 = b_{15} - \tfrac34 b_1 b_2 + b_4 b_5 -\tfrac14 b_6 b_7,
\\
A_8 = b_{14} -\tfrac12 b_2 b_4 + b_5^2 - b_2 b_6 + \tfrac12 b_5 b_7, \qquad A_9 = \tfrac12 b_{17} - \tfrac14 b_2 b_9 + \tfrac12 b_5 b_8 -\tfrac14 b_6 b_{10},
\\
A_{10} = \tfrac12 b_{20} - \tfrac14 b_2b_{13} -\tfrac14 b_1 b_2 b_5
\\
\phantom{A_{10}=}{}
-\tfrac14 b_2 b_4^2 +\tfrac12 b_5 b_{15} +\tfrac12 b_4 b_5^2 +\tfrac14 b_1 b_2 b_7 + \tfrac14 b_2 b_6^2 -\tfrac14 b_5^2 b_6 -
\tfrac14 b_5 b_6 b_7 -\tfrac14 b_6 b_{14},
\\
B_1 = -\tfrac32 b_1,
\qquad
B_2 = -b_5 -\tfrac12 b_7,
\qquad
B_3 = -\tfrac12 b_{11},
\qquad
B_4 = -b_4 - \tfrac12 b_6,
\\
B_5 = -b_9,
\qquad
B_6 = -b_8,
\qquad
B_7 = -b_{13} +\tfrac12 b_1 b_5 - b_4^2 + b_1 b_7 - \tfrac12 b_4 b_6,
\\
B_8 = -b_{15} + \tfrac34 b_1 b_2 - b_4 b_5 + \tfrac14 b_6 b_7,
\qquad
B_9 = -\tfrac12 b_{16} + \tfrac14 b_1 b_{10} - \tfrac12 b_4 b_8 + \tfrac14 b_7 b_9,
\\
B_{10}= -\tfrac12 b_{19} + \tfrac14 b_1b_{14} +\tfrac14 b_1 b_2 b_4 + \tfrac14 b_1 b_5^2 - \tfrac12 b_4 b_{15}
\\
\phantom{B_{10}=}{}
- \tfrac12 b_4^2 b_5 - \tfrac14 b_1 b_2 b_6 -\tfrac14 b_1 b_7^2 +\tfrac14 b_4^2 b_7 + \tfrac14 b_4 b_6 b_7 + \tfrac14 b_7 b_{13}.
\end{gather*}
For quantum degenerate systems, in the Casimir relation
\begin{gather*
G(L_1,L_2,H,X, \alpha)=0
\end{gather*}
for 2nd order superintegrable systems with degenerate potentials we assume that~$G$ is given, up to a~multiplicative
factor, and set
\begin{gather*}
G=c_1 L_1^2+c_2L_2^2+c_3H^2+c_4\{L_1,L_2\}+c_5HL_1+c_6HL_2+c_7X^4+c_8\big\{X^2,L_1\big\}
\\
\phantom{G=}{}+c_9\big\{X^2,L_2\big\}
+c_{10}HX^2+c_{11}XL_1X+c_{12}XL_2X+c_{13}L_1+c_{14}L_2\\
\phantom{G=}{}
+c_{15}H+c_{16}X^2+c_{17},
\\
[X,L_1]=C_1L_1+C_2L_2+C_3H+C_4X^2+C_5,
\\
[X,L_2]=D_1L_1+D_2L_2+D_3H+D_4X^2+D_5,
\\
[L_1,L_2]=E_1\{L_1,X\} +E_2\{L_2,X\} +E_3HX+E_4X^3+E_5X.
\end{gather*}
Using identities~\eqref{opident} we f\/ind
\begin{gather}
[X,G]= \Big\{[X,L_1],A_1-\frac{c_{11}}{4}\big(C_{1}^2 + C_2 D_1\big) -\frac{c_{12}}{4}(C_1 D_1 + D_1 D_2) + \frac{c_{13}}{2}\Big\}
\nonumber
\\
\label{GX}
\phantom{[X,G]=}{}
+ \Big\{[X,L_2],A_2+\frac{c_{11}}{4}(C_1 C_2 + C_2 D_2) - \frac{c_{12}}{4}(C_2 D_1 + D_2^2) + \frac{c_{14}}{2}\Big\}=0,
\\
[L_1,G] = \Big\{[L_1,L_2],A_2+\frac{c_8}{4}(C_1 C_2 + C_2 D_2) - \frac{c_9}{4}\big(C_1^2 + C_1 D_2\big) + \frac{c_{12}}{4}
(C_1 D_2 - C_2 D_1)
\nonumber
\\
\label{GS1}
\phantom{[L_1,G]=}{}
+ \frac{c_{14}}{2} \Big\}
+ \{[L_1,X],A_3 +k_1 X \} + \{[L_2,X], k_2 X\}=0,
\\
[L_2,G] = \Big\{[L_1,L_2],-A_1+\frac{c_8}{4}\big(C_1 D_2 + D_2^2\big) -\frac{c_9}{4}(C_1 D_1 + D_1 D_2) + \frac{c_{11}}{4} (C_2
D_1 - C_1 D_2)
\nonumber
\\
\label{GS2}
\phantom{[L_2,G]=}{}
-\frac{c_{13}}{2}\Big\}
+ \{[L_1,X],k_3 X\} + \{[L_2,X], A_3 +k_4 X\}=0,
\end{gather}
where
\begin{gather*}
A_1=c_1L_1+c_4L_2+\frac{c_5}{2}H+\left(c_8+\frac{c_{11}}{2}\right)X^2,
\\
A_2=c_2L_2+c_4L_1+\frac{c_6}{2}H+\left(c_9+\frac{c_{12}}{2}\right)X^2,
\\
A_3=2c_7X^3+\left(c_8+\frac{c_{11}}{2}\right)\{L_1,X\}+\left(c_9+\frac{c_{12}}{2}\right)\{L_2,X\}+c_{10}HX,
\\
k_1= -c_7 (C_1^2 + C_2 D_1) + \frac{c_8}{2}(2 C_1 C_4 + C_2 D_4 - C_2 E_1) + \frac{c_9}{2} (2 C_4 D_1 + C_1 E_1 - C_1 D_4)
\\
\phantom{k_1=}{}
+ \frac{c_{12}}{2} (C_1 E_1 + C_1 D_4 + D_1 E_2 - C_4 D_1)+c_{16},
\\
k_2 = -c_7(C_1 C_2 + C_2 D_2) + \frac{c_8}{2}(C_2 C_4 - C_2 E_2) + \frac{c_9}{2} (2 C_4 D_2 +C_1 C_4 + C_1 E_2)
\\
\phantom{k_2=}{}
+ \frac{c_{12}}{2} (C_2 D_4 + C_2 E_1 + D_2 E_2 - C_4 D_2),
\\
k_3 = -c_7(C_1 D_1 +D_1 D_2) + \frac{c_8}{2}(2 C_1 D_4 + D_2 D_4 - D_1 E_1) + \frac{c_9}{2}(D_1 E_1 + D_1 D_4)
\\
\phantom{k_3=}{}
+ \frac{c_{11}}{2} (C_4 D_1 - C_1 D_4 -C_1 E_1 -D_1 E_2),
\\
k_4 = -c_7 (C_2 D_1 + D_2^2) + \frac{c_8}{2}(2 C_2 D_4 - C_4 D_2 - D_2 E_2) +\frac{c_9}{2} (2 D_2 D_4 + C_4 D_1 + D_1 E_2)
\\
\phantom{k_4=}{}
+ \frac{c_{11}}{2} (C_4 D_2 - C_2 D_4 - C_2 E_1 - D_2 E_2) + c_{16}.
\end{gather*}
Equating the coef\/f\/icients of the 4th order terms in~\eqref{GX} and the coef\/f\/icients of the 5th order terms
in~\eqref{GS1} and~\eqref{GS2} we f\/ind
\begin{gather*
[X,L_1]=KA_2+C_5,
\qquad
[X,L_2]=-KA_1+D_5,
\qquad
[L_1,L_2]=KA_3+E_5X,
\\
C_1 = Kc_4,
\qquad
C_2=Kc_2,
\qquad
C_3=K\frac{c_6}{2},
\qquad
C_4=K\left(c_9+\frac{c_{12}}{2}\right),
\\
D_1 = -Kc_1,
\qquad
D_2=-Kc_4,
\qquad
D_3=-K\frac{c_5}{2},
\qquad
D_4=-K\left(c_8+\frac{c_{11}}{2}\right),
\\
E_1 = K\left(c_8+\frac{c_{11}}{2}\right),
\qquad
E_2=K\left(c_9+\frac{c_{12}}{2}\right),
\qquad
E_3=Kc_{10},
\qquad
E_4=2Kc_7,
\end{gather*}
for some constant~$K$.
Now we substitute these values back into~\eqref{GX},~\eqref{GS1}, and~\eqref{GS2}.
We immediately see that $k_2=k_3=0$ and
\begin{gather*}
k_1= k_4=c_{16} -K^2 c_7 \big(c_4^2 -c_1 c_2\big) +K^2 (c_4 c_9 - c_2 c_8)\left(c_8 + \frac{c_{11}}{2}\right)\\
\hphantom{k_1= k_4=}{} + K^2 (c_4 c_8 - c_1 c_9)
\left(c_9 + \frac{c_{12}}{2}\right)
\end{gather*}
and we obtain
\begin{gather}
C_5A_1+D_5A_2+\left(\frac{c_{13}}{2}-K^2 \frac{c_{11}}{4}\big(c_4^2-c_1 c_2\big)\right) (K A_2 + C_5)
\nonumber
\\
\qquad
{}+\left(\frac{c_{14}}{2}-K^2 \frac{c_{12}}{4}\big(c_4^2-c_1 c_2\big)\right)(-KA_1+D_5) = 0,
\label{GXa}
\\
2 \left(\frac{c_{14}}{2}-K^2 \frac{c_{12}}{4}\big(c_4^2-c_1 c_2\big)\right) (K A_3 + E_5 X) - 2 C_5 (A_3 + k_1 X)
\nonumber
\\
\qquad
{}+(E_5 - Kk_1) \{X,A_2\} = 0,
\label{GS1a}
\\
-2\left(\frac{c_{13}}{2}-K^2 \frac{c_{11}}{4}\big(c_4^2-c_1 c_2\big)\right) (KA_3 + E_5 X) - 2 D_5 (A_3 + k_1 X)
\nonumber
\\
\qquad
{}-(E_5-K k_1) \{X,A_1\} = 0.
\label{GS2a}
\end{gather}
These equations split into terms of order 3,2,1 and 0.
From equation~\eqref{GXa} we f\/ind
\begin{gather}
\label{C5D5}
C_5=\frac{c_{14}}{2}K-\frac{c_{12}}{4}K^3\big(c_4^2-c_1c_2\big),
\qquad
D_5=-\frac{c_{13}}{2}K+\frac{c_{11}}{4}K^3\big(c_4^2-c_1c_2\big)
\end{gather}
except, possibly, for some degenerate cases.
The condition that~\eqref{C5D5} is the unique solution of~\eqref{GXa} is exactly that the set $([X,S_1], [X,S_2])$ is
linearly independent.
Otherwise the solution, though it always exists, is not unique.
Substituting~\eqref{C5D5} into~\eqref{GS1a} and~\eqref{GS2a}, we have
\begin{gather*}
\frac{2 C_5 (E_5-K k_1)}{K} X + (E_5 - K k_1) \{X, A_2\} = 0,
\\
\frac{2 D_5 (E_5 - K k_1)}{K} X - (E_5 - K k_1) \{X, A_1\} =0,
\end{gather*}
whence we f\/ind
\begin{gather*
E_5 =K c_{16} -K^3 c_7 \big(c_4^2 -c_1 c_2\big) +K^3 (c_4 c_9 - c_2 c_8)\left(c_8 + \frac{c_{11}}{2}\right)\\
\hphantom{E_5 =}{} + K^3 (c_4 c_8 - c_1 c_9)
\left(c_9+\frac{c_{12}}{2}\right).
\end{gather*}
We conclude in both the classical and quantum cases that the Casimirs of superintegrable systems determine the structure
equations.
\section{Free 2D 2nd order superintegrable systems}
As was shown in~\cite{KKM20041,KKM20041+1,KKM20041+2,KKM20041+3} the ``free'' 2nd order superintegrable system obtained
by setting all the parameters in a~nondegenerate potential equal to zero retains all of the information needed to
reconstruct the potential.
Thus we can, in principle, restrict our attention to free systems.
First we review from~\cite{KKM20041,KKM20041+1,KKM20041+2,KKM20041+3,KM2014} how the structure equations for 2D 2nd
order nondegenerate classical superintegrable systems are determined.
Such a~system admits a~symmetry ${\cal L} =\sum a^{ij}p_ip_j+W$ if and only if $\{{\cal H},{\cal L}\}=0$, i.e., the
Killing equations are satisf\/ied and $W_i=\lambda\sum\limits_{j=1}^2 a^{ij}V_j$.
Here $W_i=\partial_{x_1}W$ with a~similar convention for subscripts on~$V$.
The equations for~$W$ can be solved provided the Bertrand--Darboux equation $\partial_{x_1}W_{2}=\partial_{x_2}W_1$
holds.
For a~superintegrable system with independent symmetries ${\cal L}_1 =\sum a^{ij}p_ip_j+W^{(1)}$, ${\cal L}_2 =\sum
b^{ij}p_ip_j+W^{(2)}$, we can solve the two independent Bertrand--Darboux equations for the potential to obtain the
canonical system
\begin{gather}
\label{canonicalequations}
V_{22}-V_{11}=A^{22}V_1+B^{22}V_2,
\qquad
V_{12}=A^{12}V_1+B^{12}V_2.
\end{gather}
Here,
\begin{gather*
A^{12}=-G_2+\frac{D_{(2)}}{D},
\qquad
A^{22}=2G_1+\frac{D_{(3)}}{D},
\\
B^{12}=-G_1-\frac{D_{(0)}}{D},
\qquad
B^{22}=-2G_2-\frac{D_{(1)}}{D},
\\
D=\det \left(
\begin{matrix} a^{11}-a^{22}& a^{12}
\\
b^{11}-b^{22}& b^{12}
\end{matrix}
\right),
\qquad
D_{(0)}=\det \left(
\begin{matrix} 3a^{12}_2& -a^{12}
\\
3b^{12}_2& -b^{12}
\end{matrix}
\right),
\\
D_{(1)}=\det \left(
\begin{matrix} 3a^{12}_2& a^{11}-a^{22}
\\
3b^{12}_2& b^{11}-b^{22}
\end{matrix}
\right),
\qquad
D_{(2)}=\det \left(
\begin{matrix} 3a^{12}_1& a^{12}
\\
3b^{12}_1& b^{12}
\end{matrix}
\right),
\\
D_{(3)}=\det \left(
\begin{matrix} 3a^{12}_1& a^{11}-a^{22}
\\
3b^{12}_1& b^{11}-b^{22}
\end{matrix}
\right),
\end{gather*}
where $\lambda=\exp G$.
If the integrability equations for~\eqref{canonicalequations} are satisf\/ied identically then the solution space is
4-dimensional and we can always express the solution in the form $V({\bf x})= \sum\limits_{j=1}^3a_jV_{(j)}({\bf x})+a_4$,
where $a_4$ is a~trivial additive constant.
In this case the potential is {\it nondegenerate} and 3-parameter.
Another possibility is that the solution space is 2-dimensional with general solution $V({\bf x})= a_1V_{(1)}({\bf x})+a_2$.
For nondegenerate superintegrability, the integrability conditions for the canonical equations must be satisf\/ied
identically, so that $V$, $V_1$, $V_2$, $V_{11}$ can be prescribed arbitrarily at a~f\/ixed regular point.
To obtain the integrability conditions for equations~\eqref{canonicalequations} we introduce the dependent variables
$W^{(1)}=V_1$, $W^{(2)}=V_2$, $W^{(3)}=V_{11}$, and matrices
\begin{gather*
{\bf w}=\left(
\begin{matrix} W^{(1)}
\\
W^{(2)}
\\
W^{(3)}
\end{matrix}
\right),
\qquad
{\bf A}^{(1)}=\left(
\begin{matrix} 0&0&1
\\
A^{12}&B^{12}&0
\\
A^{13}&B^{13}&B^{12}-A^{22}
\end{matrix}
\right),
\qquad
{\bf A}^{(2)}=\left(
\begin{matrix} A^{12}&B^{12}&0
\\
A^{22}&B^{22}&1
\\
A^{23}&B^{23}&A^{12}
\end{matrix}
\right),
\\
A^{13} = A^{12}_2-A^{22}_1+B^{12}A^{22}+A^{12}A^{12}-B^{22}A^{12},
\\
B^{13} = B^{12}_2-B^{22}_1+A^{12}B^{12},
\qquad
A^{23}= A^{12}_1+B^{12}A^{12},
\qquad
B^{23}=B^{12}_1+B^{12}B^{12}.
\end{gather*}
Then the integrability conditions for system $\partial_{x_j}{\bf w}={\bf A}^{(j)}{\bf w}$, $j=1,2$, must hold:
\begin{gather}
\label{2int3}
A^{(2)}_1-A^{(1)}_2=A^{(1)}A^{(2)}-A^{(2)}A^{(1)}\equiv \big[A^{(1)},A^{(2)}\big].
\end{gather}
If and only if~\eqref{2int3} holds, the system has a~4D vector space of solutions~$V$.
There is a~similar analysis for a~``free'' 2nd order superintegrable system obtained by setting the parameter in a~{\it
degenerate} potential equal to zero,~\cite{KKMP2009}: The free system retains all of the information needed to
reconstruct the potential.
All such degenerate superintegrable systems with potential are restrictions of nondegenerate systems obtained~by
restricting the parameters so that one 2nd order symmetry becomes a~perfect square, e.g.,~${\cal L}_1={\cal X}^2$.
Then ${\cal X}$ is a~1st order constant, necessarily of the form ${\cal X}=\xi_1p_1+\xi_2 p_2$, without a~function term.
Since the degenerate systems are obtained by restriction, the potential function must satisfy the
equations~\eqref{canonicalequations} inherited from the nondegenerate system, with the same functions $A^{ij}$, $B^{ij}$.
In addition the relation $\{{\cal X},{\cal H}\}=0$ imposes the condition $\xi_1V_1+\xi_2V_2=0$.
By relabeling the coordinates, we can always assume $\xi_2\ne 0$ and write the system of equations for the potential in
the form $V_2 = C^2V_1$, $V_{22}=V_{11} + C^{22}V_1$, $V_{12} = C^{12}V_1$, where
\begin{gather*}
C^2(x_1,x_2)=-\frac{\xi_1}{\xi_2},
\qquad
C^{22}(x_1,x_2)=A^{22} -\frac{\xi_1}{\xi_2}B^{22},
\qquad
C^{12}(x_1,x_2)=
A^{12}-\frac{\xi_1}{\xi_2}B^{12}.
\end{gather*}
To f\/ind integrability conditions for these equations we introduce matrices
\begin{gather*
{\bf v}=\left(
\begin{matrix}
V
\\
V_1
\end{matrix}
\right),
\qquad
{\bf B}^{(1)}=\left(
\begin{matrix}
0&1
\\
0&\partial_2 C^2+C^2C^{12}-C^{22}
\end{matrix}
\right),
\qquad
{\bf B}^{(2)}=\left(
\begin{matrix}
0&C^2
\\
0&C^{12}
\end{matrix}
\right).
\end{gather*}
Then integrability conditions for system $\partial_{x_j}{\bf v}={\bf B}^{(j)}{\bf v}$, $j=1,2$, must hold:
\begin{gather}
\label{2int9}
B^{(2)}_1-B^{(1)}_2=B^{(1)}B^{(2)}-B^{(2)}B^{(1)}\equiv \big[B^{(1)},B^{(2)}\big].
\end{gather}
If and only if~\eqref{2int9} holds, the system has a~2D space of solutions~$V$.
Since $V=\ {\rm constant}$ is always a~solution,
\eqref{2int9} is necessary and suf\/f\/icient for the existence of
a~nonzero 1-parameter potential system.
In this case we can prescribe the values~$V$, $V_2$ at any regular point ${\bf x}_0$; there will exist a~unique $V({\bf x})$ taking these values.
\subsection{Free triplets}
Here we review information about free triplets that was presented and proved in~\cite{KM2014}.
A~{\it $2$nd order classical free triplet} is a~2D system without potential, ${\cal H}_0=\frac{p_1^2+p_2^2}{\lambda(x,y)}$
and with a~basis of~3 functionally independent second-order constants of the motion ${\cal
L}_{(s)}=\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^2a^{ij}_{(s)} p_ip_j$, $a^{ij}_{(s)}=a^{ji}_{(s)}$, $s=1,2,3$, ${\cal L}_{(3)}={\cal H}_0$.
Since the duals of these constants of the motion are 2nd order Killing tensors, the spaces associated with free triplets
can be characterized as 2D manifolds that admit 3 functionally independent 2nd order Killing tensors.
As mentioned above, they have been classif\/ied in~\cite{Koenigs}.
Since the vectors $\{{\bf h_{(s)}}\}$, ${\bf h_{(s)}}^{\rm tr}(x,y,z)=(a^{11}_{(s)}, a^{12}_{(s)},
a^{22}_{(s)})$ form a~linearly independent set, there exist unique $3\times 3$ matrices ${\cal C}^{(j)}$ such that
$ \partial_{x_j}{\bf h}_{(s)}={\cal C}^{(j)}{\bf h}_{(s)}$, $j,s=1,2$.
By linearity, any element ${\cal L}=\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^2a^{ij} p_ip_j$ of the space of 2nd order symmetries spanned~by
the basis triplet is characterized by matrix equations
\begin{gather}
\label{2int6}
\partial_{x_j}{\bf h}={\cal C}^{(j)}{\bf h},
\qquad
j=1,2,
\qquad
{\bf h}^{\rm tr}(x,y,z)=\left(a^{11},a^{12},a^{22}\right).
\end{gather}
In particular, at any regular point ${\bf x}_0$ we can arbitrarily choose the value of the 3-vector ${\bf h}_0$ and
solve~\eqref{2int6} to f\/ind the unique symmetry $\cal L$ of ${\cal H}_0$ such that ${\bf h}({\bf x}_0)={\bf h}_0$.
A~normalization condition for the ${\cal C}^{(j)}$:~\eqref{2int6} is valid for $a^{11}=a^{22}={1}/{\lambda}$, $a^{12}=0$,
i.e., for ${\cal H}_0$.
From this and the requirement that the $\cal L$ are free constants of the motion we f\/ind
\begin{gather*}
{\cal C}^{(1)}=\left(
\begin{matrix}
-G_1&-G_2&0
\vspace{1mm}\\
-\frac12{\cal C}^{(2)}_{11}&-\frac12G_1-\frac12{\cal C}^{(2)}_{12}&\frac12{\cal C}^{(2)}_{11}
\vspace{1mm} \\
-G_1-2{\cal C}^{(2)}_{21}& -G_2-2{\cal C}^{(2)}_{22}&2{\cal C}^{(2)}_{21}
\end{matrix}
\right),
\qquad
{\cal C}^{(2)}=\left(
\begin{matrix}
{\cal C}^{(2)}_{11}&{\cal C}^{(2)}_{12}&-G_2-{\cal C}^{(2)}_{11}
\vspace{1mm}\\
{\cal C}^{(2)}_{21}&{\cal C}^{(2)}_{22}&-{\cal C}^{(2)}_{21}
\vspace{1mm}\\
0 & -G_1 &-G_2
\end{matrix}
\right),
\end{gather*}
with the 4 functions ${\cal C}^{(2)}_{11}$, ${\cal C}^{(2)}_{12}$, ${\cal C}^{(2)}_{21}$, ${\cal C}^{(2)}_{22}$ free.
If we def\/ine the functions $A^{12}$, $B^{12}$, $A^{22}$, $B^{22}$ by the requirement
\begin{gather*}
{\cal C}^{(2)}_{11}=-\frac23 G_2-\frac23 A^{12},
\qquad
{\cal C}^{(2)}_{12}=\frac13 G_1-\frac23 A^{22},
\\
{\cal C}^{(2)}_{21}=-\frac13 G_1-\frac13B^{12},
\qquad
{\cal C}^{(2)}_{22}=-\frac23G_2-\frac13 B^{22},
\end{gather*}
then equations~\eqref{2int6} agree with the equations that are obtained from a~superintegrable system with nondegenerate
potential satisfying~\eqref{canonicalequations}.
Thus, for a~free system there always exist unique functions $A^{ij}$, $B^{ij}$.
Then necessary and suf\/f\/icient conditions for extension to a~system with nondegenerate potential~$V$ satisfying
equations~\eqref{canonicalequations} are that conditions~\eqref{2int3} hold identically.
This analysis also extends, via restriction, to superintegrable systems with degenerate potential.
A~free triplet that corresponds to a~degenerate superintegrable system is one that corresponds to a~nondegenerate system
but such that one of the free generators can be chosen as a~perfect square.
For these systems conditions~\eqref{2int9} for the potential are satisf\/ied identically.
Similarly, we def\/ine a~{\it $2$nd order quantum free triplet} as a~2D quantum system without potential,
$H_0=\frac{1}{\lambda({\bf x})}(\partial_{11}+\partial_{22})$, and with a~basis of 3 algebraically independent
second-order symmetry operators
\begin{gather*}
L_k=\frac{1}{\lambda}\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^2\partial_{i}(\lambda a^{ij}_{(k)}\partial_j) ({\bf x}),
\qquad
k=1,2,3,
\qquad
a^{ij}_{(k)}=a^{ji}_{(k)},
\qquad
L_3=H_0.
\end{gather*}
There is a~1-1 relationship between classical and quantum free triplets.
\section{Free Darboux systems}
The Darboux spaces admit a~1-dimensional space of Killing vectors and a~4-dimensional space of 2nd order Killing tensors.
Thus each space can admit at most one superintegrable system with degenerate potential, and each space does so.
We merely need to check that equations~\eqref{2int3} are satisf\/ied.
Then we can compute the degenerate potential.
Turning of\/f the 1-parameter potential produces a~single free degenerate quadratic algebra which we list below.
There are no more possibilities.
There are a~number of possibilities for free triplets to def\/ine a~nondegenerate quadratic algebra for a~Darboux space,
however.
We classify the possibilities up to conjugacy under the action of the 1-parameter symmetry group of the manifold.
Note that the 4-dimensional space of free constants of the motion is not obtained from the enveloping algebra of an
underlying symmetry group.
We shall see that there is a~1-1 relationship between free quadratic algebras and restrictions of quadratic algebras of
nondegenerate superintegrable systems.
We adopt the labeling of superintegrable systems and constants of the motion on Darboux spaces introduced
in~\cite{KKMW}, using a~tilde to dif\/ferentiate between a~free triplet and its associated superintegrable system.
In the following sections, with the aid of MAPLE, we classify all possible free quadratic algebras generated by the 2nd
order Killing tensors, up to conjugacy.
Then, using MAPLE again, we verify for each quadratic algebra that the integrability conditions~\eqref{2int9} are
satisf\/ied and we compute the nondegenerate potentials.
Most of the results are presented in lists but in Section~\ref{example1}
we give more details on the construction of the
superintegrable system with potential in one case.
Each of the Darboux spaces can be embedded as a~surface in 3 dimensions if we regard the ignorable variable as an angle,
i.e.,~$X=f(x)\cos(y)$, $Y=f(x)\sin(y)$, $Z=h(x)$, and this is not unique~\cite{Eisenhart66}.
We give an illustrative example for each case.
\subsubsection{Free Darboux 1 systems}
The space Darboux 1 ($D_1$) has free degenerate Hamiltonian
\begin{gather*
{\bf \tilde D1D}\colon \quad
{\cal H}=\frac{1}{4x}\big(p_x^2+p_y^2\big)
\end{gather*}
with a~single Killing vector ${\cal K}=p_y$ and a~basis, $\{{\cal H}, {\cal K}^2, {\cal X}_1, {\cal X}_2\}$ for the
4-dimensional space of 2nd order Killing tensors.
Here,
\begin{gather*}
{\cal X}_1=p_xp_y-\frac{y}{2x}\big(p_x^2+p_y^2\big),
\qquad
{\cal X}_2=p_y(yp_x-xp_y)-\frac{y^2}{4x}\big(p_x^2+p_y^2\big).
\end{gather*}
The commutation relations are
\begin{gather*}
\{{\cal K},{\cal X}_1\}=-2{\cal H},
\qquad
\{{\cal K},{\cal X}_2\}={\cal X}_1,
\qquad
\{{\cal X}_1,{\cal X}_2\}=-2{\cal K}^3,
\end{gather*}
and there is the functional relation $ 4{\cal H}{\cal X}_2+{\cal X}_1^2+{\cal K}^4=0$.
The degenerate potential is $V(x,y)=\frac{b_1}{x}+b_2$.
As shown in~\cite{KKW2002}, a~possible embedding of this system in 3-dimensional Euclidean space with Cartesian
coordinates $X$, $Y$, $Z$ is
\begin{gather*}
X=2\sqrt{x}\cos y,
\qquad
Y= 2\sqrt{x}\sin y,
\qquad
Z=\frac23\left(F\left(\phi,\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\right)+\sqrt{4x^3-x}\right),
\end{gather*}
where $x\ge\frac12$,~$y$ is $2\pi$-periodic and $\sin\phi=\sqrt{2x+1}$.
Here $F(\phi,k)$ is an incomplete elliptic integral of the 1st kind.
Then $ds^2=4x(dx^2+dy^2)=dX^2+dY^2+dZ^2$.
A general 2nd order symmetry, mod $\cal H$, can be written as ${\cal L}_1=a_1{\cal X}_2+a_2{\cal X}_1+a_3{\cal K}^2$,
and the translation group generated by $\cal K$: $x\to x$, $y\to y+\alpha$, leaves ${\cal K}^2$ and $\cal H$ invariant,
but ${\cal X}_1\to {\cal X}_1 -2\alpha {\cal H}$, ${\cal X}_2\to {\cal X}_2+\alpha {\cal X}_1-\alpha^2{\cal H}$.
We classify the distinct free nondegenerate systems under this conjugacy action.
We choose one generator ${\cal L}_1$ and determine the possibilities for ${\cal L}_2$ such that ${\cal L}_1$, ${\cal L}_2$, ${\cal H}$
form a~quadratic algebra.
Then we eliminate redundancies.
Under conjugacy we can assume that ${\cal L}_1$ takes one of the 3 forms ${\cal X}_1+a{\cal K}^2$, ${\cal X}_2+a{\cal
K}^2$, ${\cal K}^2$.
{\bf 1st case.} We choose ${\cal L}_1={\cal X}_2+a{\cal K}^2$ and try to determine the possibilities for
${\cal L}_2$, up to conjugacy under $e^{\alpha {\cal K}}$, such that ${\cal L}_1$, ${\cal L}_2$, ${\cal H}$ form a~quadratic
algebra.
(As we go through the cases step by step, we ignore systems that have already been exhibited in earlier steps.) In
general ${\cal L}_2=c_1{\cal X}_1+c_3{\cal K}^2$ and $c_1$, $c_3$ are to be determined.
We must require that
\begin{gather*
{\cal R}^2 = b_1{\cal L}_1^3+b_2{\cal L}_2^3+b_3{\cal H}^3+b_4{\cal L}_1^2{\cal L}_2+b_5{\cal L}_1{\cal L}_2^2+b_6{\cal
L}_1{\cal L}_2{\cal H}
\\
\phantom{{\cal R}^2 =}{}
+ b_7{\cal L}_1^2{\cal H}+b_8{\cal L}_2^2{\cal H}+b_9{\cal H}^2{\cal L}_1+b_{10}{\cal H}^2{\cal L}_2,
\end{gather*}
for some constants $b_1,\dots, b_{10}$.
There are 2 possible classes:
\begin{enumerate}\itemsep=0pt
\item ${\bf \tilde D1A}$:\ ${\cal L}_1={\cal X}_2+b{\cal K}^2$, ${\cal L}_2={\cal X}_1+i{\cal K}^2$, ${\cal R}^2=2i{\cal
L}_2^3+8i{\cal L}_1{\cal L}_2{\cal H}+4b{\cal L}_2^2{\cal H}+16b{\cal H}^2{\cal L}_1$.
This class is superintegrable with
\begin{gather*}
A^{12}=0,
\qquad
A^{22}=\frac{2}{x},
\qquad
B^{12}=-\frac12\frac{5x-2b+2iy}{x(x-b+iy)},
\qquad
B^{22}=\frac{-3i}{x-b+iy},
\\
G(x,y)=\ln (4x),
\qquad
D=-\frac12(x-b+iy).
\end{gather*}
The potential of the superintegrable system is
\begin{gather*}
V(x,y)=\frac{b_1(2x-2b+iy)}{x\sqrt{x-b+iy}}+\frac{b_2}{x\sqrt{x-b+iy}}+\frac{b_3}{x}+b_4.
\end{gather*}
(This is missing in the tabulation in~\cite{KKW2002}, but pointed out in~\cite{KKMW} and~\cite{Kress2007}.)
\item ${\bf \tilde D1B}$: ${\cal L}_1={\cal X}_2$, ${\cal L}_2={\cal K}^2$, ${\cal R}^2=-4{\cal L}_2^3-16{\cal
L}_1{\cal L}_2{\cal H}$,
\begin{gather*}
A^{12}=0,
\qquad
A^{22}=\frac{2}{x},
\qquad
B^{12}=-\frac{1}{x},
\qquad
B^{22}=-\frac{3}{y},
\\
G(x,y)=\ln(4x),
\qquad
D=-\frac{y}{2}.
\end{gather*}
(Listed as a~superintegrable system in the tabulation in~\cite{KKW2002}.) The potential of the superintegrable system is
\begin{gather*}
V(x,y)=\frac{b_1\big(4x^2+y^2\big)}{x}+\frac{b_2}{x}+\frac{b_3}{xy^2}+b_4.
\end{gather*}
{\bf 2nd case.} We choose ${\cal L}_1={\cal X}_1$.
Then the only possibility is
\item ${\bf \tilde D1C}$: ${\cal L}_1={\cal X}_1$, ${\cal L}_2={\cal K}^2$, ${\cal R}^2=16{\cal L}_2{\cal H}^2$,
\begin{gather*}
A^{12}=0,
\qquad
A^{22}=\frac{2}{x},
\qquad
B^{12}=-\frac{1}{x},
\qquad
B^{22}=0,
\\
G(x,y)=\ln(4x),
\qquad
D=-\frac{1}{2}.
\end{gather*}
(Listed in the tabulation in~\cite{KKW2002}.) The potential of the superintegrable system is
\begin{gather*}
V(x,y)=\frac{b_1\big(x^2+y^2\big)}{x}+\frac{b_2}{x}+\frac{b_3y}{x}+b_4.
\end{gather*}
\end{enumerate}
\subsubsection{Free Darboux 2 systems}
\label{Darboux2a}
The space Darboux 2 ($D_2$) has free degenerate Hamiltonian
\begin{gather*
{\bf \tilde D2D}\colon \quad {\cal H}=\frac{x^2}{x^2+1}\big(p_x^2+p_y^2\big)
\end{gather*}
with a~single Killing vector ${\cal K}=p_y$ and a~basis, $\{{\cal H}, {\cal K}^2, {\cal X}_1, {\cal X}_2\}$ for the
4-dimensional space of 2nd order Killing tensors.
Here,
\begin{gather*}
{\cal X}_1=2xp_xp_y+\frac{2y}{x^2+1}\big(p_y^2-x^2p_x^2\big),
\qquad
{\cal X}_2=2xyp_xp_y+\frac{\big(y^2-x^4\big)p_y^2+x^2\big(1-y^2\big)p_x^2}{x^2+1}.
\end{gather*}
The commutation relations are
\begin{gather*}
\{{\cal K},{\cal X}_1\}=2\big({\cal K}^2-{\cal H}\big),
\qquad
\{{\cal K},{\cal X}_2\}={\cal X}_1,
\qquad
\{{\cal X}_1,{\cal X}_2\}=4{\cal K}{\cal X}_2,
\end{gather*}
and there is the functional relation $ 4{\cal H}{\cal X}_2+{\cal X}_1^2-4{\cal K}^2{\cal X}_2-4{\cal H}^2=0$.
The degenerate potential is
\begin{gather*}
V(x,y)=\frac{b_1}{x^2+1}+b_2.
\end{gather*}
As shown in~\cite{KKMW} The line element $ds^2$ can be realized as a~two-dimensional surface embedded in three
dimensions~by
\begin{gather*}
X = \frac{y\sqrt{x^2+1}}x,
\qquad
Y-Z = \frac{\sqrt{x^2+1}}x,
\\
Y+Z = -\frac{\big(2x^4+5x^2+8y^2\big)\sqrt{x^2+1}}{8x} - \frac38\operatorname{arcsinh} x,
\end{gather*}
in which case,
\begin{gather*}
ds^2 = dX^2+dY^2-dZ^2 = \frac{x^2+1}{x^2}\big(dx^2+dy^2\big).
\end{gather*}
A general 2nd order symmetry, mod $\cal H$, can be written as ${\cal L}_1=a_1{\cal X}_2+a_2{\cal X}_1+a_3{\cal K}^2$ and
the translation group generated by $\cal K$: $x\to x$, $y\to y+\alpha$, leaves ${\cal K}^2$ and $\cal H$ invariant, but
\begin{gather*}
{\cal X}_1\to {\cal X}_1 -2\alpha {\cal H}+2\alpha {\cal K}^2,
\qquad
{\cal X}_2\to {\cal X}_2+\alpha {\cal X}_1+\alpha^2\big({\cal K}^2-{\cal H}\big).
\end{gather*}
We classify the distinct free nondegenerate superintegrable systems under this conjugacy action.
We choose one generator ${\cal L}_1$ and determine the possibilities for ${\cal L}_2$ such that ${\cal L}_1$, ${\cal L}_2$, ${\cal H}$
form a~quadratic algebra.
Under conjugacy there are 3 possible choices: ${\cal L}_1={\cal X}_2+a{\cal K}^2$, ${\cal X}_1$, ${\cal K}^2$.
{\bf 1st case.} We choose ${\cal L}_1={\cal X}_2+a{\cal K}^2$ and try to determine the possibilities for
${\cal L}_2$, up to conjugacy under $e^{\alpha{\cal K}}$ such that ${\cal L}_1$, ${\cal L}_2$, ${\cal H}$ form a~quadratic
algebra.
(As we go through the cases step by step, we ignore systems that have already been exhibited in earlier steps.) In
general ${\cal L}_2=c_1{\cal X}_1+c_3{\cal K}^2$ and $c_1$, $c_3$ are to be determined.
We must require that
\begin{gather*
{\cal R}^2 = b_1{\cal L}_1^3+b_2{\cal L}_2^3+b_3{\cal H}^3+b_4{\cal L}_1^2{\cal L}_2+b_5{\cal L}_1{\cal L}_2^2+b_6{\cal L}_1{\cal L}_2{\cal H}
\\
\phantom{{\cal R}^2 =}{}
+ b_7{\cal L}_1^2{\cal H}+b_8{\cal L}_2^2{\cal H}+b_9{\cal H}^2{\cal L}_1+b_{10}{\cal H}^2{\cal L}_2,
\end{gather*}
for some constants $b_1,\dots, b_{10}$.
There are 2 possible classes:
\begin{enumerate}\itemsep=0pt
\item ${\bf \tilde D2C}$:
${\cal L}_1={\cal X}_2$, ${\cal L}_2={\cal X}_1$, ${\cal R}^2=4{\cal L}_1{\cal
L}_2^2+16{\cal L}_1^2{\cal H}-16{\cal L}_1{\cal H}^2$,
\begin{gather*}
A^{12}=0,
\qquad
A^{22}=\frac{3x^2-1}{x\big(x^2+1\big)},
\qquad
B^{12}=-\frac{\big(3x^4+x^2-2y^2\big)}{x\big(x^2+1\big)\big(x^2+y^2\big)},
\\
B^{22}=-\frac{6y}{x^2+y^2}, \qquad G(x,y)=\ln\left(\frac{x^2+1}{x^2}\right),
\qquad
D=-x\big(x^2+y^2\big).
\end{gather*}
The potential of the superintegrable system is
\begin{gather*}
V(x,y)=\frac{x^2}{\sqrt{x^2+y^2}(x^2+1)}\left(b_1+\frac{b_2}{y+\sqrt{x^2+y^2}}+\frac{b_3}{y-\sqrt{x^2+y^2}}\right)+b_4.
\end{gather*}
(Listed as a~superintegrable system in~\cite{KKMW}.)
\item ${\bf \tilde D2B}$: ${\cal L}_1={\cal X}_2$, ${\cal L}_2={\cal K}^2$, ${\cal R}^2=16{\cal L}_1{\cal
L}_2^2-16{\cal L}_1{\cal L}_2{\cal H}+16{\cal L}_2{\cal H}^2$,
\begin{gather*}
A^{12}=0,
\qquad
A^{22}=\frac{3x^2-1}{x\big(x^2+1\big)},
\qquad
B^{12}=-\frac{2}{x\big(x^2+1\big)},
\qquad
B^{22}=-\frac{3}{y},
\\
G(x,y)=\ln\left(\frac{x^2+1}{x^2}\right),
\qquad
D=-xy.
\end{gather*}
The potential of the superintegrable system is
\begin{gather*}
V(x,y)=\frac{x^2}{x^2+1}\left(b_1\big(x^2+y^2\big)+\frac{b_2}{x^2}+\frac{b_3}{y^2}\right)+b_4.
\end{gather*}
(Listed as a~superintegrable system in~\cite{KKMW}.)
{\bf 2nd case.} We choose ${\cal L}_1={\cal X}_1$.
Then the only possibility is
\item ${\bf \tilde D2A}$:\ ${\cal L}_1={\cal X}_1$, ${\cal L}_2={\cal K}^2$, ${\cal R}^2=16{\cal L}_2^3-32{\cal
L}_2^2{\cal H}+16{\cal L}_2{\cal H}^2$,
\begin{gather*}
A^{12}=0,
\qquad
A^{22}=\frac{3x^2-1}{x\big(x^2+1\big)},
\qquad
B^{12}=\frac{2}{x\big(x^2+1\big)},
\qquad
B^{22}=0,
\\
G(x,y)=\ln\left(\frac{x^2+1}{x^2}\right),
\qquad
D=-x.
\end{gather*}
The potential of the superintegrable system is
\begin{gather*}
V(x,y)=\frac{x^2}{x^2+1}\left(b_1(x^2+4y^2)+\frac{b_2}{x^2}+b_3y\right)+b_4.
\end{gather*}
(Listed as a~superintegrable system in~\cite{KKMW}.)
\end{enumerate}
\subsubsection{Free Darboux 3 systems}
The space Darboux 3 ($D_3$) has free degenerate Hamiltonian
\begin{gather*
{\bf \tilde D3E}\colon \quad {\cal H}=\frac12\frac{e^{2x}}{e^x+1}\big(p_x^2+p_y^2\big)
\end{gather*}
with a~single Killing vector ${\cal K}=p_y$ and a~basis, $\{{\cal H}, {\cal K}^2, {\cal X}_1, {\cal X}_2\}$ for the
4-dimensional space of 2nd order Killing tensors.
Here,
\begin{gather*}
{\cal X}_1=\frac12 e^x\sin y\ p_xp_y+\frac14\frac{e^{2x}}{e^x+1}\cos y\ p_x^2-\frac14 \frac{e^x(e^x+2)}{e^x+1}\cos y\
p_y^2,
\\
{\cal X}_2=-\frac12 e^x\cos y\ p_xp_y+\frac14\frac{e^{2x}}{e^x+1}\sin y\ p_x^2-\frac14 \frac{e^x(e^x+2)}{e^x+1}\sin y\
p_y^2.
\end{gather*}
The commutation relations are
\begin{gather*}
\{{\cal K},{\cal X}_1\}=-{\cal X}_2,
\qquad
\{{\cal K},{\cal X}_2\}={\cal X}_1,
\qquad
\{{\cal X}_1,{\cal X}_2\}=\frac12{\cal
K}{\cal H},
\end{gather*}
and there is the functional relation ${\cal X}_1^2+{\cal X}_2^2-\frac14{\cal H}^2-\frac12 {\cal K}^2{\cal H}=0$.
The degenerate potential is
\begin{gather*}
V(x,y)=\frac{b_1}{e^x+1}+b_2.
\end{gather*}
As shown in~\cite{KKMW}, we can embed $D3$ as a~surface in 3D Minkowski space with coordinates $X$, $Y$, $Z$ in such a~way as
to preserve rotational symmetry.
Let
\begin{gather*}
X=2\sqrt{2}e^{-\frac{x}{2}}\sqrt{1+e^{-x}}\cos \frac{y}{2},
\qquad
Y=2\sqrt{2}e^{-\frac{x}{2}}\sqrt{1+e^{-x}}\sin \frac{y}{2},
\\
Z=\frac{\sqrt{6}}{12}\ln\left(\frac{\frac{\sqrt{3}}{6}(6+5e^x){\sqrt{3+2e^{2x}+5e^x}+1}}{\frac{\sqrt{3}}{6}(6+5e^x)\sqrt{3+2e^{2x}+5e^x}-1}
\right)-e^{-x}\sqrt{2}\sqrt{3+2e^{2x}+5e^x}.
\end{gather*}
Then
\begin{gather*}
dX^2+dY^2-dZ^2=\frac{2(e^x+1)}{e^{2x}}\big(dx^2+dy^2\big).
\end{gather*}
An alternate basis is $\{{\cal H}, {\cal K}^2, {\cal Y}_1, {\cal Y}_2\}$, where
\begin{gather*}
{\cal Y}_1=\left(e^xp_xp_y+\frac{i}{2}\frac{e^{2x}}{e^x+1}p_x^2-\frac{i}{2}\frac{e^x(e^x+2)}{e^x+1}p_y^2\right)e^{iy},
\\
{\cal Y}_2=\left(e^xp_xp_y-\frac{i}{2}\frac{e^{2x}}{e^x+1}p_x^2+\frac{i}{2}\frac{e^x(e^x+2)}{e^x+1}p_y^2\right)e^{-iy},
\end{gather*}
and ${\cal X}_1=-\frac{i}{4}({\cal Y}_1-{\cal Y}_2)$, ${\cal X}_2=-\frac14({\cal Y}_1+{\cal Y}_2)$.
The new commutation relations are
\begin{gather*}
\{{\cal K},{\cal Y}_1\}=i{\cal Y}_1,
\qquad
\{{\cal K},{\cal Y}_2\}=-i{\cal Y}_2,
\qquad
\{{\cal Y}_1,{\cal Y}_2\}=-4i {\cal K{}\cal
H},
\end{gather*}
and the functional relation is ${\cal Y}_1{\cal Y}_2-{\cal H}^2-2 {\cal K}^2{\cal H}=0$.
Returning to the f\/irst basis, we note that a~general 2nd order symmetry, mod $\cal H$, can be written as ${\cal
L}_1=a_1{\cal X}_2+a_2{\cal X}_1+a_3{\cal K}^2$.
and the translation group generated by $\cal K$: $x\to x$, $y\to y+\alpha$, leaves ${\cal K}^2$ and $\cal H$ invariant,
but ${\cal X}_1\to \cos \alpha {\cal X}_1 -\sin\alpha {\cal X}_2$, ${\cal X}_2\to \sin\alpha {\cal X}_1+\cos \alpha
{\cal X}_2$.
We classify the distinct free superintegrable systems under this conjugacy action.
We choose one generator ${\cal L}_1$ and determine the possibilities for ${\cal L}_2$ such that ${\cal L}_1$, ${\cal L}_2$, ${\cal H}$
form a~quadratic algebra.
Under conjugacy the choices are ${\cal L}_1={\cal X}_1+a{\cal K}^2$, ${\cal X}_1+i {\cal X}_2$, ${\cal X}_1+i{\cal
X}_2-{\cal K}^2$, ${\cal X}_1$, ${\cal K}^2$.
{\bf 1st case.} We choose ${\cal L}_1={\cal X}_1+a{\cal K}^2$ and try to determine the possibilities for
$a$, ${\cal L}_2$, up to conjugacy under $e^{\alpha {\cal K}}$ such that ${\cal L}_1$, ${\cal L}_2$, ${\cal H}$ form a~quadratic
algebra.
(As we go through the cases step by step, we ignore systems that have already been exhibited in earlier steps.)
There are 3 possible classes:
{\bf 1st class.}
\begin{enumerate}\itemsep=0pt
\item ${\bf \tilde D3A}$:\ ${\cal L}_1={\cal X}_1-\frac12 {\cal K}^2$, ${\cal L}_2={\cal X}_2+\frac{i}{2}{\cal K}^2$.
${\cal R}^2=-{\cal L}_1^3+i{\cal L}_2^3-\frac18{\cal H}^3+i{\cal L}_1^2{\cal L}_2-{\cal L}_1{\cal L}_2^2+\frac12 ({\cal
L}_1^2+{\cal L}_2^2){\cal H} +\frac{1}{2}{\cal L}_1{\cal H}^2-\frac{i}{4}{\cal L}_2{\cal H}^2$.
Here,
\begin{gather*}
A^{12}=0,
\qquad
A^{22}=-\frac{e^x(-e^x+e^{-2x-iy}-e^{-iy}+e^{-x})}{(1+e^{-x})(e^x+1)(e^x+e^{-iy})},
\qquad
B^{22}=\frac{3ie^{-iy}}{e^x+e^{-iy}},
\\
B^{12}=\frac12\frac{e^x(-1+2e^{-x-iy}+e^{-x}+4e^{-2x-iy})} {(1+e^{-x})(e^x+e^{-iy})},
\\
G(x,y)=\ln\big(2\big(e^{-x}+e^{-2x}\big)\big),
\qquad
D=\frac{e^x}{8}\big(e^x-2e^{iy}\big).
\end{gather*}
The potential of the superintegrable system is
\begin{gather*}
V(x,y)=\frac{b_1}{1+e^x}+\frac{b_2e^x}{\sqrt{1+2e^{x+iy}}(1+e^x)}+\frac{b_3e^{x+iy}}{\sqrt{1+2e^{x+iy}}(1+e^x)}+b_4.
\end{gather*}
(This is a~superintegrable system listed in~\cite{KKMW}.)
\item ${\bf \tilde D3B}$: ${\cal L}_1={\cal X}_1$, ${\cal L}_2={\cal X}_2$, ${\cal R}^2=-\frac18 {\cal
H}^3+\frac12({\cal L}_1^2+{\cal L}_2^2){\cal H}$,
\begin{gather*}
A^{12}=0,
\qquad
A^{22}=\frac{1-e^{-x}}{1+e^{-x}},
\qquad
B^{22}=0,
\qquad
B^{12}=-\frac12\frac{(1-e^{-x})} {(1+e^{-x})},
\\
G(x,y)=\ln\big(2\big(e^{-x}+e^{-2x}\big)\big),
\qquad
D=\frac{e^{2x}}{8}.
\end{gather*}
The potential of the superintegrable system is
\begin{gather*}
V(x,y)=\frac{e^x}{e^x+1}\left(b_1+e^{-\frac{x}{2}}\left(b_2\cos\frac{y}{2}+b_3\sin\frac{y}{2}\right)\right)+b_4.
\end{gather*}
(Listed as a~superintegrable system in~\cite{KKMW}.)
\item ${\bf \tilde D3C}$:\ ${\cal L}_1={\cal X}_1$, ${\cal L}_2={\cal K}^2$, ${\cal R}^2=-4{\cal L}_1^2{\cal L}_2+2{\cal
L}_2^2{\cal H}+{\cal L}_2{\cal H}^2$,
\begin{gather*}
A^{12}=0,
\qquad
A^{22}=\frac{1-e^{-x}}{1+e^{-x}},
\qquad
B^{12}=\frac{1+2e^{-x}}{1+e^{-x}},
\qquad
B^{22}=-3\cot y,
\\
G(x,y)=\ln(2(e^{-x}+e^{-2x})),
\qquad
D=-\frac{e^{x}}{4}\sin y.
\end{gather*}
The potential of the superintegrable system is
\begin{gather*}
V(x,y)= \frac{e^x}{e^x+1}\left(b_1+e^x\left(\frac{b_2}{\cos^2\frac{y}{2}}+\frac{b_3}{\sin^2\frac{y}{2}}\right)\right)+b_4.
\end{gather*}
(Listed as a~superintegrable system in~\cite{KKMW}.)
\end{enumerate}
{\bf 2nd class.} We choose ${\cal L}_1={\cal X}_1+i{\cal X}_2$.
Then the only new possibility is
\begin{enumerate}\itemsep=0pt
\setcounter{enumi}{3}
\item ${\bf \tilde D3D}$:\ ${\cal L}_1={\cal X}_1+i{\cal X}_2$, ${\cal L}_2={\cal K}^2$, ${\cal R}^2=-4{\cal L}_1^2{\cal
L}_2$,
\begin{gather*}
A^{12}=0,
\qquad
A^{22}=\frac{1-e^{-x}}{1+e^x},
\qquad
B^{12}=\frac{1+2e^{-x}}{1+e^{-x}},
\qquad
B^{22}=-3i,
\\
G(x,y)=\ln(2\big(e^{-x}+e^{-2x}\big)),
\qquad
D=\frac{i}{4}e^{x+iy}.
\end{gather*}
The potential of the superintegrable system is
\begin{gather*}
V(x,y)=\frac{e^{2x}}{1+e^x}\big(b_1 e^{-iy}+b_2 e^{-2iy}\big)+\frac{b_3}{1+e^x}+b_4.
\end{gather*}
(Listed as a~superintegrable system in~\cite{KKMW}.)
\end{enumerate}
{\bf 3rd class.} We choose ${\cal L}_1={\cal X}_1+i{\cal X}_2-{\cal K}^2$.
There are no new possibilities.
\subsubsection{Free Darboux 4 systems}
The spaces Darboux 4 ($D_4(b)$) have free degenerate Hamiltonian
\begin{gather}
\label{Darboux4}
{\bf \tilde D4(b)D}\colon \quad {\cal H}=-\frac{\sin^2 2x}{2\cos 2x+b}\big(p_x^2+p_y^2\big),
\end{gather}
$b\ne\pm 2$, with a~single Killing vector ${\cal K}=p_y$ and a~basis, $\{{\cal H},{\cal K}^2,{\cal X}_1,{\cal X}_2\}$
for the 4-dimensional space of 2nd order Killing tensors.
Here,
\begin{gather*}
{\cal X}_1= e^{2y}\big({-}{\cal H}+\cos 2x p_y^2+\sin 2x p_xp_y\big),
\qquad
{\cal X}_2= e^{-2y}\big({-}{\cal H}+\cos 2x p_y^2-\sin 2x p_xp_y\big).
\end{gather*}
The commutation relations are
\begin{gather*}
\{{\cal K},{\cal X}_1\}=2{\cal X}_1,
\qquad
\{{\cal K},{\cal X}_2\}=-2{\cal X}_2,
\qquad
\{{\cal X}_1,{\cal X}_2\}=-8{\cal
K}^3-4b{\cal K}{\cal H},
\end{gather*}
and there is the functional relation ${\cal X}_1{\cal X}_2-{\cal K}^4-b{\cal K}^2{\cal H}-{\cal H}^2=0$.
The degenerate potential is
\begin{gather*}
V(x,y)=\frac{b_1}{2\cos 2x+b}+b_2.
\end{gather*}
A general 2nd order symmetry, mod $\cal H$, can be written as ${\cal L}_1=a_1{\cal X}_2+a_2{\cal X}_1+a_3{\cal K}^2$,
and the translation group generated by $\cal K$: $x\to x$, $y\to y+\alpha$, leaves ${\cal K}^2$ and $\cal H$ invariant,
but ${\cal X}_1\to e^{-2\alpha} {\cal X}_1$, ${\cal X}_2\to e^{2\alpha} {\cal X}_2$.
Also the ref\/lection $y\to -y$, $x\to x$ leaves $\cal H$ and ${\cal K}^2$ f\/ixed but ${\cal X}_1\leftrightarrow {\cal
X}_2$.
We classify the distinct free superintegrable systems under this conjugacy action.
We choose one generator ${\cal L}_1$ and determine the possibilities for ${\cal L}_2$ such that ${\cal L}_1$, ${\cal L}_2$, ${\cal H}$
form a~quadratic algebra.
Under conjugacy the choices are ${\cal L}_1={\cal K}^2+a{\cal X}_2$, ${\cal X}_1+{\cal X}_2+a{\cal K}^2$ ($a=0,2$,
or $a\ne 0,2$), ${\cal X}_2$, ${\cal K}^2$.
{\bf 1st case.} We choose ${\cal L}_1={\cal K}^2+a{\cal X}_2$ and try to determine the possibilities for
${\cal L}_2$, up to conjugacy under $e^{\alpha{\cal K}}$ such that ${\cal L}_1$, ${\cal L}_2$, ${\cal H}$ form a~quadratic
algebra.
(As we go through the cases step by step, we ignore systems that have already been exhibited in earlier steps.) We f\/irst
try ${\cal L}_2={\cal X}_2+c{\cal X}_1$.
The class $ac\ne 0$ doesn't yield a~quadratic algebra.
There are 3 other possible classes:
\begin{enumerate}\itemsep=0pt
\item ${\bf \tilde D4(b)A}$: ${\cal L}_1={\cal K}^2$, ${\cal L}_2={\cal X}_2+{\cal X}_1$, ${\cal R}^2=-64{\cal
L}_1^3+16{\cal L}_1{\cal L}_2^2-64b{\cal L}_1^2{\cal H}-64{\cal L}_1{\cal H}^2$,
\begin{gather*}
A^{12}=0,
\qquad
A^{22}=\frac{2(-2\sin^2 2x-b\cos 2x-2)}{\sin 2x(2\cos 2x+b)},
\\
B^{12}=\frac{4(-\sin^2 2x+b\cos 2x+2)}{\sin 2x (2\cos 2x+b)},
\qquad
B^{22}=6\left(\frac{1+e^{4y}}{1-e^{4y}}\right),
\\
G(x,y)=\ln\left(\frac{-b-2\cos 2x}{\sin^2 2x}\right),
\qquad
D=\frac{\sin 2x}{2}\big(e^{2y}+e^{-2y}\big).
\end{gather*}
The potential of the superintegrable system is
\begin{gather*}
V(x,y)=\frac{\sin^2 2 x}{2 \cos 2 x+b}\left(\frac{b_1}{\sinh^2 y}+\frac{b_2}{\sinh^2 2 y}\right)+\frac{b_3}{2 \cos 2
x+b}+b_4.
\end{gather*}
(Listed as a~superintegrable system in~\cite{KKMW}.)
\item ${\bf \tilde D4(b)B}$:\ ${\cal L}_1={\cal K}^2$, ${\cal L}_2={\cal X}_2$, ${\cal R}^2=16{\cal L}_1{\cal L}_2^2$,
\begin{gather*}
A^{12}=0,
\qquad
A^{22}=\frac{2(-2\sin^2 2x-b\cos 2x-2)}{\sin 2x(2\cos 2x+b)},
\\
B^{12}=\frac{4(-\sin^2 2x+b\cos 2x+2)}{\sin
2x (2\cos 2x+b)},
\qquad
B^{22}=6,
\\
G(x,y)=\ln\left(\frac{-b-2\cos 2x}{\sin^2 2x}\right),
\qquad
D=-\frac{\sin 2x}{2}e^{-2y}.
\end{gather*}
The potential of the superintegrable system is
\begin{gather*}
V(x,y)=\frac{\sin^2 2x}{2 \cos 2x +b}\left(\frac{b_1}{\sin^2 2x}+b_2e^{4y}+b_3e^{2y}\right)+b_4.
\end{gather*}
(Listed as a~superintegrable system in~\cite{KKMW}.)
\end{enumerate}
{\bf 2nd case.} We choose ${\cal L}_1={\cal K}^2+a{\cal X}_2$, ${\cal L}_2={\cal X}_1$.
Then the only possibility is $a=0$, which is redundant.
{\bf 3rd case.} We choose ${\cal L}_1={\cal X}_1+{\cal X}_2+a{\cal K}^2$, ${\cal L}_2={\cal X}_2+c{\cal K}^2$.
We generate a~quadratic algebra for the system
\begin{enumerate}\itemsep=0pt
\setcounter{enumi}{2}
\item ${\bf \tilde D4(b)C}$:\ ${\cal L}_1={\cal X}_1+{\cal X}_2+2{\cal K}^2$, ${\cal L}_2={\cal X}_2+{\cal K}^2$.
${\cal R}^2= -16b{\cal H}^3+16{\cal L}_1^2{\cal L}_2-16{\cal L}_1{\cal L}_2^2+16b{\cal L}_1{\cal L}_2{\cal H}-16b{\cal
L}_2^2{\cal H}-16{\cal L}_1{\cal H}^2$,
\begin{gather*}
A^{12}=0,
\qquad
A^{22}=-\frac{4\sin^2 2x +2b\cos 2x+4}{\sin 2x(2\cos 2x +b)},
\qquad
B^{22}=-\frac{6(e^{4y}-1)}{2e^{2y}\cos
2x+e^{4y}+1},
\\
B^{12}=\frac{2be^{2y}\cos^2 2x +6b e^{2y}+4b\cos 2x +4be^{4y}\cos 2x -8\cos 2x +16\cos^4 x} {\sin 2x (e^{4y}+2e^{2y}\cos 2x+1)(2\cos 2x +b)},
\\
\phantom{B^{12}=}{}
+\frac{-8e^{4y}\cos 2x+16e^{4y}\cos^4 x-4e^{2y}\cos^3 2x+16 e^{2y}\cos 2x}{\sin 2x (e^{4y}+2e^{2y}\cos 2x+1)(2\cos 2x +b)},
\\
G(x,y)=\ln\left(\frac{-b-2\cos 2x}{\sin^2 2x}\right),
\qquad
D=-\frac{\sin 2x}{2}\big(2\cos 2x+e^{-2y}+e^{2y}\big).
\end{gather*}
The potential of the superintegrable system is
\begin{gather*}
V(x,y)=\frac{e^{2y}}{\frac{b+2}{\sin^2 x}+\frac{b-2}{\cos^2
x}}\left(\frac{b_1}{Z+(1-e^{2y})\sqrt{Z}}+\frac{b_2}{Z+(1+e^{2y})\sqrt{Z}} +\frac{b_3\ e^{-2y}}{\cos^2 x}\right) +b_4,
\end{gather*}
where $Z=(1-e^{2y})^2+4e^{2y}\cos^2 x$.
(Listed as a~superintegrable system in~\cite{KKMW}.)
\end{enumerate}
{\bf 4th case.} We choose ${\cal L}_1={\cal X}_1$, ${\cal L}_2={\cal X}_2$.
We do not generate a~quadratic algebra.
\subsection{Alternate free Darboux 4 systems}
There is an alternate form of $\tilde D4(b)$ that we shall employ.
Set
\begin{gather*}
x=iX,
\qquad
y=iY,
\qquad
{\cal J}=i{\cal K}=p_Y,
\qquad
{\cal Y}_1=\frac{{\cal X}_1+{\cal X}_2}{2},
\qquad
{\cal Y}_2=\frac{{\cal X}_1-{\cal X}_2}{2i}.
\end{gather*}
Then for $b\ne\pm 2$ we have
\begin{gather}
{\cal H}=\frac{\sinh^2 2X}{2\cosh 2X+b}\big(p_X^2+p_Y^2\big),
\nonumber
\\
{\cal Y}_1=-\cos(2Y)\big({\cal H}-\cosh 2X \, p_Y^2\big)-\sin (2Y)\sinh 2X\, p_Xp_Y,
\nonumber
\\
{\cal Y}_2=-\sin(2Y)\big({\cal H}-\cosh 2X \, p_Y^2\big)+\cos (2Y)\sinh 2X\, p_Xp_Y.
\label{Darboux4b}
\end{gather}
The structure equations are
\begin{gather*}
\{{\cal J},{\cal Y}_1\}=-2{\cal Y}_2,
\qquad
\{{\cal J},{\cal Y}_2\}=2{\cal Y}_1,
\qquad
\{{\cal Y}_1,{\cal Y}_2\}=4{\cal J}^3+2b{\cal J}{\cal H},
\\
{\cal Y}_1^2+{\cal Y}_2^2-{\cal J}^4-b{\cal J}^2{\cal H}-{\cal H}^2=0.
\end{gather*}
We can embed $D4(b)$ as a~surface in 3D Minkowski space with Cartesian coordinates~$X$,~$Y$,~$Z$.
Let
\begin{gather*}
X=y\sqrt{b+2\cosh 2x},
\qquad
Y-Z=\sqrt{b+2\cosh 2x},
\\
Y+Z=\frac{y^2\sqrt{b+2\cosh 2x}}{\sinh 2x}+\int\frac{2\cosh 4x+2+4b\cosh 2x +b^2}{\sqrt{b+2\cosh 2x}(\cosh
4x+3+2b\cosh 2x)} dx.
\end{gather*}
Then
\begin{gather*}
ds^2=\frac{2\cosh 2x+b}{\sinh^2 2x}\big(dx^2+dy^2\big)=-dX^2+dY^2-dZ^2.
\end{gather*}
The change of variable $u=e^x$ converts the integral into an elliptic integral in~$u$ that can be evaluated as a~rather
complicated sum of elementary functions and the elliptic integrals of types one, two and three.
In terms of this alternate form the superintegrable systems can be expressed as:
\begin{enumerate}\itemsep=0pt
\item ${\bf \tilde D4(b)A'}$: ${\cal L}_1={\cal J}^2$, ${\cal L}_2={\cal Y}_1$, ${\cal R}^2=16{\cal L}_1^3-16{\cal
L}_1{\cal L}_2^2+16b{\cal L}_1^2{\cal H}+16{\cal L}_1{\cal H}^2$,
\begin{gather*}
A^{12}=0,
\qquad
A^{22}=-\frac{2(-2\sinh^2 2X+b\cosh 2X+2)}{\sinh 2X(2\cosh 2X+b)},
\qquad
B^{22}=-6\left(\frac{\cos 2Y}{\sin 2Y}\right),
\\
B^{12}=\frac{4(\sinh^2 2X+b\cosh 2X+2)}{\sinh 2X (2\cosh 2X+b)}, \qquad G(x,y)=\ln\left(\frac{b+2\cosh 2X}{\sinh^2 2X}\right).
\end{gather*}
\item ${\bf \tilde D4(b)B'}$: ${\cal L}_1={\cal J}^2$, ${\cal L}_2={\cal Y}_1-i{\cal Y}_2$, ${\cal R}^2=-16{\cal
L}_1{\cal L}_2^2$,
\begin{gather*}
A^{12}=0,
\qquad
A^{22}=\frac{2(-2\sinh^2 2X+b\cosh 2X+2)}{\sinh 2X(2\cosh 2X+b)}, \qquad B^{22}=6i,
\\
B^{12}=\frac{4(+\sinh^2 2X+b\cosh 2X+2)}{\sinh 2X (2\cosh 2X+b)}, \qquad G(x,y)=\ln\left(\frac{b+2\cosh 2X}{\sinh^2 2X}\right).
\end{gather*}
\item ${\bf \tilde D4(b)C'}$: ${\cal L}_1={\cal Y}_1-{\cal J}^2$, ${\cal L}_2={\cal Y}_2$.
${\cal R}^2= -4b{\cal H}^3-8{\cal L}_1^3-8{\cal L}_1{\cal L}_2^2+4b({\cal L}_1^2+{\cal L}_2^2){\cal H}+8{\cal L}_1{\cal
H}^2$.
\begin{gather*}
A^{12}=0,
\qquad
A^{22}=-\frac{-4\sinh^2 2X +2b\cosh 2X+4}{\sinh 2X(2\cosh 2X +b)},
\qquad
B^{22}=\frac{6\sin 2Y}{-\cosh 2X+\cos 2Y},
\\
B^{12} = -\frac{-2b\cosh^2 2X -6b +(8b+16)\cosh 2X\cos 2Y} {\sinh 2X (2\cos 2Y -2\cosh 2X)(2\cosh 2X +b)}
\\
\phantom{B^{12} =}{}
- \frac{32\cosh^4 2X\cos 2Y+4\cosh^3 2X-16\cosh 2X} {\sinh 2X (2\cos 2Y -2\cosh 2X)(2\cosh 2X +b)},
\\
G(x,y)=\ln\left(\frac{b+2\cosh 2X}{\sinh^2 2X}\right).
\end{gather*}
\item ${\bf \tilde D4(b)D'}$
(free degenerate): ${\cal J}$, ${\cal L}_1={\cal Y}_1$, ${\cal L}_2={\cal Y}_2$, ${\cal
Y}_1^2+{\cal Y}_2^2-{\cal J}^4-b{\cal J}^2{\cal H}-{\cal H}^2=0$.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Summary and an example}
\label{example1}
From the results of~\cite{KM2014} and the calculations of the preceding sections we see that Theorems~\ref{theorem2}
and~\ref{theorem3} are valid for Darboux spaces.
We use $\bf D2C$ as an example to give more details about how a~nondegenerate superintegrable system with potential is
induced from a~free system: From Section~\ref{Darboux2a} we have the free Darboux 2 system
\begin{gather*}
{\cal L}_1={\cal X}_2,
\qquad
{\cal L}_2={\cal X}_1,
\qquad
{\cal R}^2=4{\cal L}_1{\cal L}_2^2+16{\cal L}_1^2{\cal H}-16{\cal L}_1{\cal H}^2.
\end{gather*}
The potential equations are determined~by
\begin{gather}
A^{12}=0,
\qquad
A^{22}=\frac{3x^2-1}{x(x^2+1)},
\nonumber
\\
B^{12}=-\frac{\big(3x^4+x^2-2y^2\big)}{x\big(x^2+1\big)\big(x^2+y^2\big)},
\qquad
B^{22}=-\frac{6y}{x^2+y^2},
\label{D3Ccan}
\end{gather}
and the general solution is
\begin{gather}
\label{D3Cpot}
V(x,y)=\frac{x^2}{2\sqrt{x^2+y^2}\big(x^2+1\big)}\left(b_1+\frac{b_2}{y+\sqrt{x^2+y^2}}+\frac{b_3}{-y+\sqrt{x^2+y^2}}\right)+b_4.
\end{gather}
The induced classical system has a~basis of symmetries
\begin{gather}
{\cal H}=\frac{x^2}{x^2+1}\big(p_x^2+p_y^2\big)+V(x,y),
\qquad
{\cal L}_1=2xyp_yp_x+\frac{\big(y^2-x^4\big)p_y^2+x^2\big(1-y^2\big)p_x^2}{x^2+1}+W^{(1)},
\nonumber
\\
\label{D3Csym}
{\cal L}_2=2xp_xp_y+\frac{2y\big(p_y^2-x^2p_x^2\big)}{x^2+1}+W^{(2)},
\end{gather}
where
\begin{gather*}
W^{(1)}=\frac12\frac{b_1y\big(1-x^2\big)+b_2\big(\big({-}y+\sqrt{x^2+y^2}\big)^2+1\big)-b_3\big(\big(y+\sqrt{x^2+y^2}\big)^2+1\big)}{\big(x^2+1\big)\sqrt{x^2+y^2}},
\\
W^{(2)}=\frac{2b_1\sqrt{x^2+y^2}-b_2\big(\big({-}y+\sqrt{x^2+y^2}\big)^2-1\big)-b_3\big(\big(y+\sqrt{x^2+y^2}\big)^2-1\big)}{4x^2+4}.
\end{gather*}
The Casimir is
\begin{gather}
{\cal R}^2 - 4{\cal L}_1{\cal L}_2^2-16{\cal L}_1^2{\cal H}+16{\cal L}_1{\cal H}^2-4(b_2+b_3)H^2+16b_4{\cal
L}_1^2+(b_2+b_3){\cal L}_2^2 -32b_4{\cal H}{\cal L}_1
\nonumber
\\
\qquad{}
+ \big(8b_2b_4-cb_1^2+4cb_2b_3+8b_3b_4\big){\cal H}+\big(16b_4^2+b_1^2\big){\cal L}_1+b_1(-b_3+b_2){\cal L}_2
\nonumber
\\
\qquad{}
+ \left(\frac14 b_1^2b_2+\frac14 b_1^2b_3+b_1^2b_4-4b_3b_4^2-4b_2b_3b_4-4b_2b_4^2\right).
\label{D3Ccas}
\end{gather}
We will not work out the details of the quantum case but merely note that the potential terms of the symmetries remain
unchanged as do the 2nd order kinetic energy terms, but there are now 1st order terms: the Hamiltonian kinetic energy is
replaced by the Laplace--Beltrami operator on D2 and the other generating symmetry operators are formally self-adjoint
with respect to the D2 volume measure $x^2\ dx \ dy /(x^2+1)$.
\section{Contractions of Darboux systems}
Recall that the scalar curvature of a~space with metric $ds^2=e^{G(x,y)}(dx^2+dy^2)$, where $\lambda(x,y)=e^{G(x,y)}$ is
$C=-e^{-G}(\partial_{xx}G+\partial_{yy}G)$.
Constant curvature spaces are just those for which~$C$ is constant; f\/lat spaces are those for which $C=0$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{Ricci1}
A~Darboux or Koenigs superintegrable system cannot be obtained as a~geometric contraction of a~nonzero constant
curvature or flat space superintegrable system.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} Suppose we have a~contraction of a~nonzero constant curvature system with Hamiltonian ${\cal
H}=\frac{p_x^2+p_y^2}{e^G}$.
Then there is a~1-parameter family of Hamiltonians ${\cal H}' = \frac{p_{x'}^2+p_{y'}^2}{e^{G'(\epsilon)}}$, where
\mbox{$G'(1)=G$}, $G'$ depends smoothly on~$\epsilon$ in the interval $0\le \epsilon\le 1$, and $G'(0)$ def\/ines the metric of
the target manifold for the contraction.
Further, for $\epsilon\ne 0$ the metric def\/ined by $G'$ will be a~scalar multiple of a~metric on the original constant
curvature system.
Thus we have $ C(\epsilon)=-e^{-G'}(\partial_{x'x'}G'+\partial_{y'y'}G')$ for $\epsilon\ne 0$, where $C(\epsilon)$ is
nonzero and independent of $x'$, $y'$.
In the limit we obtain the constant $C(0)$, so the target manifold must be f\/lat or of nonzero constant curvature, hence
not a~Darboux or Koenigs manifold.
Similarly, if the original manifold is f\/lat the target manifold must also be f\/lat.
\end{proof}
Now we investigate contractions involving Darboux superintegrable systems.
From Theorem~\ref{Ricci1} such systems cannot be obtained as contractions of constant curvature systems.
(However, they are all St\"ackel equivalent to constant curvature space systems.) Thus we limit ourselves to the search
for contractions such that the originating manifold is a~Darboux space.
In distinction to the case of constant curvature spaces as originating manifolds (where all quadratic algebra
contractions were induced by Lie algebra contractions of $e(2,{\mathbb C})$ and $o(3,{\mathbb C})$) here the Darboux
spaces have only a~one-dimensional Lie symmetry algebra, so we have to search for new contraction mechanisms.
However, we can restrict our search to free systems and then induce the superintegrable system contractions
automatically.
To induce the contractions through Lie algebra methods we will employ the conformal symmetry algebra for each free
Darboux system generated by functions ${\cal Q}(x,y,p_x,p_y)=A(x,y)p_x+B(x,y)p_y$ that satisfy the relations
\begin{gather*}
\{{\cal H},
{\cal Q}\}=R_Q(x,y){\cal H},
\qquad
\{{\cal K},
{\cal Q}\}=K_Q(x,y){\cal K},
\qquad
{\cal K}=p_y.
\end{gather*}
A~straightforward calculation gives the same algebra in each case:
\begin{gather*
{\bf{\cal G}3}\colon \ {\cal P}_x=p_x,
\qquad
{\cal P}_y=p_y,
\qquad
{\cal M}=x p_x+y p_y,
\\
\{{\cal P}_x,{\cal P}_y\}=0,
\qquad
\{{\cal P}_x,{\cal M}\}={\cal P}_x,
\qquad
\{{\cal P}_y,{\cal M}\}={\cal P}_y.
\end{gather*}
The In\"on\"u--Wigner contractions and their geometric implementations are:
\begin{enumerate}\itemsep=0pt
\item[1)] ${\cal P}_x$, ${\cal P}_y$, $\epsilon{\cal M}$;\qquad
$x=x'+\frac{1}{\epsilon}$, $y=y'$, or $x=x'$, $y=y'+\frac{1}{\epsilon}$,
\item[2)] $\epsilon {\cal P}_x$, $\epsilon{\cal P}_y$, ${\cal M}$;
\qquad
$x=\epsilon x'$, $y=\epsilon y'$.
\end{enumerate}
Up to an isomorphism of the Lie algebra that is obtained by contraction of {\cal G}3 there are no continuous one
parametric contractions besides these two,~\cite{NP}.
Each of these contractions does induce a~corresponding contraction of each free Darboux system and we have found no
contractions of Darboux systems other than these.
This approach is compatible with the use of generalizations of In\"on\"u--Wigner contractions for the symmetry algebras
$o(3,{\mathbb C})$ and $e(2,{\mathbb C})$ of constant curvature spaces.
Indeed if we compute the conformal symmetry algebra for each free constant curvature system generated by functions
${\cal Q}(x,y,p_x,p_y)=A(x,y)p_x+B(x,y)p_y$ that satisfy the relations
\begin{gather*}
\{{\cal H}, {\cal Q}\}=R_Q(x,y){\cal H},
\qquad
\{{\cal L}_j, {\cal Q}\}=\sum\limits_{\ell=1}^3K_{Q,j}^{(\ell)}(x,y){\cal L}_\ell,
\end{gather*}
where the ${\cal L}_j$ form a~basis for either $o(3,{\mathbb C})$ or $e(2,{\mathbb C})$ we f\/ind $o(3,{\mathbb C})$ in
the case of the sphere and the af\/f\/ine algebra, the semidirect product of $e(2,{\mathbb C})$ and the dilation ${\cal M}$,
for f\/lat space.
One can show that the geometrical implementations of generalized In\"on\"u--Wigner contractions of the af\/f\/ine algebra
either agree with those of $e(2,{\mathbb C})$ or the contractions cannot be implemented geometrically.
See for example~\cite[Table~XXIX]{PH} for the ordinary In\"on\"u--Wigner contractions of the af\/f\/ine algebra.
\subsection{D1 contractions}
We list approaches to f\/inding the contractions (not the contractions themselves).
\begin{enumerate}\itemsep=0pt
\item Let $x=x'+\frac{1}{\epsilon}$, $y=y'$, ${\cal H}'=\frac{4}{\epsilon} {\cal H}$.
Then as $\epsilon \to 0$ we have
\begin{gather*}
{\cal H}'=p_{x'}^2+p_{y'}^2,
\qquad
{\cal X}_1\to p_{x'}p_{y'},
\qquad
{\cal X}_2\approx p_{y'}(y'p_{x'}-x'p_{y'})-\frac{p_{y'}^2}{\epsilon}.
\end{gather*}
Contractions constructed from such limits would have f\/lat space as the target manifold.
\item Let $x=x'$, $y=y'+\frac{1}{\epsilon}$, ${\cal H}'= {\cal H}$.
Then as $\epsilon \to 0$ we have
\begin{gather*}
{\cal H}'=\frac{p_{x'}^2+p_{y'}^2}{4x'},
\qquad
{\cal X}_1\approx p_{x'}p_{y'}-\frac{y'}{2x'}\big(p_{x'}^2+p_{y'}^2\big)-\frac{2}{\epsilon}{\cal H}',
\\
{\cal X}_2\approx p_{y'}(y'p_{x'}-x'p_{y'})+\frac{p_{x'}p_{y'}}{\epsilon}-\frac{{y'}^2}{4x'}\big(p_{x'}^2+p_{y'}^2\big)-\left(\frac{y'}{2\epsilon
x'}+\frac{1}{4\epsilon^2 x'}\right) \big(p_{x'}^2+p_{y'}^2\big).
\end{gather*}
Contractions constructed from such limits would have D1 itself as the target manifold.
\item Let $x=\epsilon x'$, $y=\epsilon y'$, ${\cal H}'=4\epsilon {\cal H}$.
Then as $\epsilon \to 0$ we have ${\cal H}'= \frac{p_{x'}^2+p_{y'}^2}{x'}$ and
\begin{gather*}
\epsilon^2 {\cal X}_1= p_{x'}p_{y'}-\frac{y'}{2x'}\big(p_{x'}^2+p_{y'}^2\big),
\\
\epsilon {\cal X}_2=p_{y'}(y'p_{x'}-x'p_{y'})-\frac{{y'}^2}{4x'}\big(p_{x'}^2+p_{y'}^2\big),
\qquad
\epsilon {\cal K}=p_{y'}.
\end{gather*}
Contractions constructed from such limits would have D1 again as the target manifold.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{D2 contractions}
We list approaches to f\/inding the contractions (not the contractions themselves).
\begin{enumerate}\itemsep=0pt
\item Let $x=x'+\frac{1}{\epsilon}$, $y=y'$, ${\cal H}'= {\cal H}$.
Then as $\epsilon \to 0$ we have
\begin{gather*}
{\cal H}'=p_{x'}^2+p_{y'}^2,
\qquad
\epsilon {\cal X}_1\approx2 p_{x'}p_{y'},
\qquad
\epsilon^2 {\cal X}_2\approx -p_{y'}^2.
\end{gather*}
Contractions constructed from such limits would have f\/lat space as the target manifold.
\item Let $x=\epsilon x'$, $y=\epsilon y'$, ${\cal H}'={\cal H}$.
Then as $\epsilon \to 0$ we have ${\cal H}'= {x'}^2(p_{x'}^2+p_{y'}^2)$ and
\begin{gather*}
\epsilon {\cal X}_1\approx 2x'p_{x'}p_{y'}+2y'p_{y'}^2,
\qquad
\epsilon {\cal X}_2=2x'y'p_{x'}p_{y'}+{y'}^2p_{y'}^2+{x'}^2p_{x'}^2,
\qquad
\epsilon {\cal K}=p_{y'}.
\end{gather*}
Contractions constructed from such limits would have the complex 2-sphere as the target manifold.
\item Let $x= x'$, $y= y'+\frac{1}{\epsilon}$, ${\cal H}'={\cal H}$.
Then as $\epsilon \to 0$ we have ${\cal H}'= \frac{{x'}^2}{{x'}^2+1}(p_{x'}^2+p_{y'}^2)$, ${\cal K}'={\cal K}$,
\begin{gather*}
{\cal X}_1'(x',y',p_{x'},p_{y'})={\cal X}_1+\frac{2}{\epsilon}\big({\cal K}^2-{\cal H}\big),
\\
{\cal X}_2'(x',y',p_{x'},p_{y'})={\cal X}_2 +\frac{1}{\epsilon^2}\big({\cal K}^2-{\cal H}\big)+\frac{1}{\epsilon}{\cal X}_1.
\end{gather*}
Contractions constructed from such limits would have $D2$ as the target manifold.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{D3 contractions}
We list approaches to f\/inding the contractions (not the contractions themselves).
\begin{enumerate}\itemsep=0pt
\item Let $x=x'+\ln(\frac{1}{\epsilon})$, $y=y'$, ${\cal H}'= 2\epsilon{\cal H}$.
Then as $\epsilon \to 0$ we have ${\cal K}=p_{y'}$
\begin{gather*}
{\cal H}'=e^{x'}\big(p_{x'}^2+p_{y'}^2\big),
\qquad
\epsilon {\cal X}_1\approx \frac{e^{x'}}{2}\left(\sin y'\ p_{x'}p_{y'}+\frac12\cos
y'\big(p_{x'}^2-p_{y'}^2\big)\right),
\\
\epsilon {\cal X}_2\approx \frac{e^{x'}}{2}\left(-\cos y'\ p_{x'}p_{y'}+\frac12\sin y'\big(p_{x'}^2-p_{y'}^2\big)\right).
\end{gather*}
Contractions constructed from such limits would have f\/lat space as the target manifold.
In terms of f\/lat space Cartesian coordinates $X=r\cos\theta$, $Y=r\sin\theta$ we have
\begin{gather*}
e^{x'}=\frac{4}{r^2},
\qquad
y'=2\theta,
\qquad
{\cal H}'=p_X^2+p_Y^2,
\qquad
\epsilon {\cal X}_1\approx \frac14\big(p_X^2-p_Y^2\big),
\\
\epsilon {\cal X}_2\approx \frac12p_Xp_Y,
\qquad
{\cal K}'=\frac12(Xp_Y-Yp_X)=\frac12{\cal J}.
\end{gather*}
\item Let $x=\epsilon x'$, $y=\epsilon y'$, ${\cal H}'=4\epsilon^2{\cal H}$.
Then as $\epsilon \to 0$ we have ${\cal H}'=p_{x'}^2+p_{y'}^2$ and
\begin{gather*}
\epsilon^2 {\cal X}_1\approx \frac{1}{8}\big(p_{x'}^2-3p_{y'}^2\big),
\qquad
\epsilon^2 {\cal X}_2\approx -\frac{1}{2}p_{x'}p_{y'},
\qquad
\epsilon {\cal K}=p_{y'}.
\end{gather*}
Contractions constructed from such limits would have f\/lat space as the target manifold.
\item Let $x=x'$, $y=y'+i\ln\epsilon$, ${\cal H}'={\cal H}'$.
Then as $\epsilon \to 0$ we have
\begin{gather*}
{\cal Y}_1'(x',y',p_{x'},p_{y'}) \approx \epsilon {\cal Y}_1,
\qquad
{\cal Y}_2'(x',y',p_{x'},p_{y'}) \approx \frac{1}{\epsilon} {\cal Y}_2,
\qquad
{\cal K}=p_{y'}.
\end{gather*}
Contractions constructed from such limits would have $D3$ as the target manifold.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{D4 contractions}
We list approaches to f\/inding the contractions (not the contractions themselves).
\begin{enumerate}\itemsep=0pt
\item Let $X=X'+\ln\epsilon$, $Y=Y'$, ${\cal H}'= 4\epsilon^2{\cal H}$, with~$b$ f\/ixed.
Then as $\epsilon \to 0$ we have ${\cal J}=p_{Y'}$ and
\begin{gather*}
{\cal H}'=e^{-2X'}\big(p_{X'}^2+p_{Y'}^2\big),
\qquad
{\cal J}'=p_{Y'},
\\
4\epsilon^2 {\cal Y}_1\approx -\cos (2Y')\big({\cal H}'-2e^{-2X'}p_{Y'}^2\big)+2\sin (2Y') e^{-2X'}p_{X'}p_{Y'}\approx
p_y^2-p_x^2,
\\
4\epsilon^2 {\cal Y}_2\approx -\sin(2Y')\big({\cal H}'-2e^{-2X'}p_{Y'}^2\big)-2\cos(2Y')e^{-2X'}p_{X'}p_{Y'}\approx -2p_xp_y,
\end{gather*}
where $x$, $y$ are standard Cartesian coordinates.
Contractions constructed from such limits would have f\/lat space as the target manifold.
\item Let $X=\epsilon X'$, $Y=\epsilon Y'$, ${\cal H}'={\cal H}$, with~$b$ f\/ixed.
Then as $\epsilon \to 0$ we have ${\cal H}'= \frac{4{X'}^2}{2+b}(p_{X'}^2+p_{Y'}^2)$ and
\begin{gather*}
{\cal Y}_1-p_Y^2+{\cal H}\approx 2\big({X'}^2-{Y'}^2\big)p_{Y'}^2-4X'Y'p_{X'}p_{Y'},
\\
\epsilon {\cal Y}_2\approx 2Y'p_{Y'}^2+2X'p_{X'}p_{Y'},
\qquad
\epsilon {\cal J}=p_{Y'}.
\end{gather*}
Contractions constructed from such limits would have the complex 2-sphere as the target manifold.
\item For this case it is most convenient to take the Hamiltonian in the form~\eqref{Darboux4}.
Let $x=x'$, $y=y'+\frac12\ln\epsilon$, ${\cal H}'= {\cal H}$, with~$b$ f\/ixed.
Then we have
\begin{gather*}
X_1'(x',y',p_{x'},p_{y'})=\frac{1}{\epsilon}X_1',
\qquad
X_2'(x',y',p_{x'},p_{y'})=\epsilon X_2'.
\end{gather*}
Contractions constructed from such limits would have $D4(b)$ as the target manifold.
\end{enumerate}
The manifold $D4(b)$ depends on a~parameter, so we can extend the contractions that we consider by allowing the
parameter to vary.
We f\/ind the following new contractions:
\begin{enumerate}\itemsep=0pt
\addtocounter{enumi}{3}
\item Let $X=\frac{X'}{2}-\frac12\ln(\epsilon)$, $Y=\frac{Y'}{2}$, $b=\frac{1}{\epsilon}$, ${\cal H}'=\frac{\epsilon}{2}
{\cal H}$.
Then as $\epsilon \to 0$ we have ${\cal H}'=\frac12 \frac{e^{2X'}}{e^{X'}+1}(p_{X'}^2+p_{Y'}^2)$, ${\cal
J}'=\frac{1}{2}{\cal J}=p_{Y'}$, and
\begin{gather*}
\frac{\epsilon}{2} {\cal Y}_1\approx -\cos(Y')\big({\cal H}'-e^{X'}p_{Y'}^2\big)-\sin(Y') e^{X'}p_{X'}^2 p_{Y'}^2,
\\
\frac{\epsilon}{2} {\cal Y}_2\approx -\sin(Y')\big({\cal H}'-e^{X'}p_{Y'}^2\big)+\cos(Y') e^{X'}p_{X'}^2 p_{Y'}^2.
\end{gather*}
Contractions constructed from such limits would have D3 as the target manifold.
\item Let $X=\frac{\epsilon X'}{2}$, $Y=\frac{\epsilon Y'}{2}$, $b=-2+\epsilon^2$, ${\cal H}'=\frac{\epsilon^2}{4} {\cal
H}$.
Then as $\epsilon \to 0$ we have ${\cal H}'\to \frac{{X'}^2}{{X'}^2+1}(p_{X'}^2+p_{Y'}^2)$, ${\cal
J}'=\frac{\epsilon}{2}{\cal J}=p_{Y'}$, and
\begin{gather*}
{\cal Y}_1 + {\cal H} - {\cal J}^2 - \frac{\epsilon^2}{2} {\cal H} \approx - 2 \left(2 X' Y' p_{X'} p_{Y'} +
\frac{\big({Y'}^2-{X'}^4\big)p_{Y'}^2 +{X'}^2 \big(1-{Y'}^2\big) p_{X'}^2}{{X'}^2+1} \right),
\\
{\cal Y}_2 \approx \frac{2}{\epsilon} \left(2X' p_{X'} p_{Y'} + \frac{2Y'}{{X'}^2+1}\big(p_{Y'}^2-{X'}^2 p_{X'}^2\big) \right).
\end{gather*}
Contractions constructed from such limits would have D2 as the target manifold.
\item Let $X=\epsilon X' +\frac{\ln(\epsilon)}{2}$, $Y=\epsilon Y'$, $b=-\frac{1}{\epsilon}$, ${\cal H}'=-2\epsilon^4{\cal H}$.
Then as $\epsilon \to 0$ we have ${\cal H}'\to \frac{1}{4X'}(p_{X'}^2+p_{Y'}^2)$, ${\cal J}'=\epsilon {\cal J}=p_{Y'}$, and
\begin{gather*}
{\cal Y}_1 + {\cal H} - \frac{1}{2\epsilon} {\cal J}^2 \approx \frac{1}{\epsilon^2} \left(p_{Y'}(Y'p_{X'} - X'p_{Y'}) -
\frac{{Y'}^2}{4X'}\big(p_{X'}^2+p_{Y'}^2\big) \right),
\\
{\cal Y}_2 \approx -\frac{1}{2\epsilon^3} \left(p_{X'} p_{Y'} - \frac{Y'}{2X'}\big(p_{X'}^2+p_{Y'}^2\big)\right).
\end{gather*}
Contractions constructed from such limits would have D1 as the target manifold.
\item Using Hamiltonian~\eqref{Darboux4b} we let $b=-2+\epsilon^2$, $X=X'$, $Y=Y'$, ${\cal H}\to {\cal H}'$.
Then
\begin{gather*}
{\cal H'}=\cosh^2 X'\big(p_{X'}^2+p_{Y'}^2\big),
\qquad
{\cal J}'={\cal J}=p_{Y'},
\\
{\cal Y}'_1=-\cos(2Y')\big({\cal H}'-\cosh 2X'p_{Y'}^2\big)-\sin (2Y')\sinh 2X'\, p_{X'}p_{Y'},
\\
{\cal Y}'_2=-\sin(2Y')\big({\cal H}'-\cosh 2X'p_{Y'}^2\big)+\cos (2Y')\sinh 2X'\, p_{X'}p_{Y'}.
\end{gather*}
Contractions constructed from such limits would have the complex 2-sphere as the target manifold.
Expressed in terms of the symmetries of the 2-sphere we have
\begin{gather*}
{\cal Y}'_1={\cal J}_1^2-{\cal J}_2^2,
\qquad
{\cal Y}'_2=2{\cal J}_1{\cal J}_2,
\qquad
{\cal J}'={\cal J}_3
\end{gather*}
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Summary and examples of Darboux contractions}
From the results of~\cite{KM2014} and the preceding sections we have an analog of Theorem~\ref{theorem 4} for Darboux spaces:
\begin{theorem
Every Lie algebra contraction of ${\cal G}3$ induces a~contraction of a~free geometric quadratic algebra $\tilde Q$ on
a~Darboux space, which in turn induces a~contraction of the quadratic algebra~$Q$ with potential.
This is true for both classical and quantum Darboux algebras.
\end{theorem}
Some examples follow.
\begin{enumerate}\itemsep=0pt
\item We describe how a~Lie algebra contraction induces the contraction of $D2C$ to $S4$, inclu\-ding the potential terms.
Recall for $D2C$ we have the symmetries~\eqref{D3Csym}, poten\-tial~\eqref{D3Cpot}, canonical equations~\eqref{D3Ccan} and
Casimir~\eqref{D3Ccas}.
The coordinate implementation is def\/ined by $x=\epsilon y'$, $y=\epsilon x'$.
In terms of the coordinates $x'$, $y'$ the canonical equations become
\begin{gather*}
{A'}^{12}=0,
\qquad
{A'}^{22}=-\frac{1}{y'},
\qquad
{B'}^{12}=\frac{2{x'}^2-{y'}^2}{y'\big({x'}^2+{y'}^2\big)},
\qquad
{b'}^{22}=-\frac{6x'}{\big({x'}^2+{y'}^2\big)}.
\end{gather*}
The contraction is def\/ined~by
\begin{gather*}
{\cal L'}_1={\cal L}_1,
\qquad
{\cal L'}_2=\frac{\epsilon}{2}{\cal L}_1,
\qquad
{\cal H}={\cal H}',
\qquad
{\cal R}'=\frac{\epsilon}{2}{\cal R}.
\end{gather*}
In the limit we f\/ind
\begin{gather*}
{\cal H}'={y'}^2\big(p_{x'}^2+p_{y'}^2\big)+V' ={\cal S}_2^2-2{\cal S}_1{\cal S}_3+V',
\\
{\cal L}'_1={\cal S}_2^2+W'_1,
\qquad
{\cal L}'_2={\cal S}_1{\cal S}_2+W'_2,
\end{gather*}
where
\begin{gather*}
V'=
\frac{{y'}^2}{2\sqrt{{x'}^2+{y'}^2}}\left(c_1+\frac{c_2}{\sqrt{{x'}^2+{y'}^2}+x'}+\frac{c_3}{\sqrt{{x'}^2+{y'}^2}-x'}\right)+c_4
\end{gather*}
and $b_1=\frac{c_1}{\epsilon}$, $b_2=c_2$, $b_3=c_3$, $b_4=c_4$.
Here
\begin{gather*}
{\cal S}_1=p_{x'},
\qquad
{\cal S}_2=x'p_{x'}+y'p_{y'},
\qquad
{\cal S}_3=\frac12\big({x'}^2-{y'}^2\big)p_{x'}^2+x'y'p_{y'},
\end{gather*}
are the 1st order generators of the symmetry algebra for the free Hamiltonian ${\cal H}'_0 ={y'}^2(p_{x'}^2+p_{y'}^2)$
on the Poincar\'e upper half plane: $x$ real, $y>0$.
The Casimir becomes in the limit:
\begin{gather*}
{{\cal R}'}^2-4{\cal L}_1{'{\cal L}'_2}^2+(c_2+c_3){\cal L}'_2-\frac{c_1^2}{4}{\cal H}' +\frac{c_1^2}{4}{\cal
L}'_1\\
\qquad{} +\frac{c_1}{2}(c_2-c_3){\cal L}'_2+\frac{{c'_1}^2}{16}(c_2+c_3+4c_4)=0.
\end{gather*}
\item${D4(b)A'\to D3E}$: We again give more details in our 2nd example, which involves changing the parameter~$b$.
For the degenerate system
\begin{gather*
{\cal H} =\frac{\sinh^2(2x)}{2\cosh(2x)+b}\big(p_x^2+p_y^2\big)+\frac{\alpha}{2\cosh(2x)+b},
\end{gather*}
we can get
\begin{gather*
{\cal H'}=\frac12\frac{e^{2x'}}{e^{x'}+1}\big(p_{x'}^2+p_{y'}^2\big)+\frac{\beta}{e^{x'}+1}
\end{gather*}
as a~contraction case by taking
\begin{gather*
x=\frac{x'}{2}-\frac12\ln(\epsilon),
\qquad
y=\frac{y'}{2},
\qquad
b=\frac{1}{\epsilon},
\qquad
{\cal H}'=8\epsilon{\cal H},
\qquad
\alpha=\frac{\beta}{8\epsilon^2}.
\end{gather*}
Then we have ${\cal J}'=2{\cal J}=p_{y'}$, and ${\cal Y}'_1\approx -4\epsilon {\cal Y}_1$, ${\cal Y}'_2\approx
-4\epsilon {\cal Y}_2$.
\item ${\tilde D1A \to \tilde E9(a=-1)}$: For system ${\tilde D1A}$ we have
\begin{gather*}
{\cal L}_1={\cal X}_2+b{\cal K}^2,
\qquad
{\cal L}_2={\cal X}_1+b{\cal K}^2,
\\
{\cal R}^2=2i{\cal L}_2^3+8i{\cal L}_1{\cal L}_2{\cal H}+4b{\cal L}_2^2{\cal H}+16b{\cal H}^2{\cal L}_1.
\end{gather*}
We choose contraction 1) for $\tilde D1A$: $x=x'+\frac{1}{\epsilon}$, $y=y'$, ${\cal H}=\frac{\epsilon}{4}{\cal H}'$ and
let $b=\frac{1}{\epsilon}$.
Then as $\epsilon\to 0$ we f\/ind
\begin{gather*}
{\cal L}_1\to {\cal L}_1'=-p_{y'}(y'p_{x'}-x'p_{y'}),
\qquad
{\cal L}_2\to {\cal L}_2'=p_{y'}(p_{x'}+ip_{y'}),
\qquad
{\cal H}'= p_{x'}^2+p_{y'}^2,
\end{gather*}
and with ${\cal R}'=\{{\cal L}_1',{\cal L}_2'\}$ the Casimir becomes ${{\cal R}'}^2=2i{{\cal L}'_2}^3+{{\cal
L}_2'}^2{\cal H}'$.
\item ${\tilde D1B \to \tilde E2}$: For system ${\tilde D1B}$ we have
\begin{gather*}
{\cal L}_1={\cal X}_2,
\qquad
{\cal L}_2={\cal K}^2,
\qquad
{\cal R}^2=-4{\cal L}_2^3-16{\cal L}_1{\cal L}_2{\cal H}.
\end{gather*}
We choose contraction 1) for ${\tilde D1B}$: $x=x'+\frac{1}{\epsilon}$, $y=y'$, ${\cal H}=\frac{\epsilon}{4}{\cal H}'$.
Then as $\epsilon\to 0$ we f\/ind
\begin{gather*}
{\cal L}_1\approx {\cal L}_1'-\frac{1}{\epsilon}{\cal L}'_2,
\qquad\!
{\cal L}'_1=-p_{y'}(x'p_{y'}-y'p_{x'}),
\qquad\!
{\cal L}_2= {\cal L}_2'=p_{y'}^2,
\qquad\!
{\cal H}'= p_{x'}^2+p_{y'}^2,
\end{gather*}
and with ${\cal R}'=\{{\cal L}_1',{\cal L}_2'\}$ the Casimir becomes ${{\cal R}'}^2=-4{{\cal L}'_2}^3+4{{\cal
L}_2'}^2{\cal H}'$.
\item ${\tilde D1C \to \tilde E3'}$: For system ${\tilde D1C}$ we have ${\cal L}_1={\cal X}_1$, ${\cal L}_2={\cal K}^2$,
$ {\cal R}^2=16{\cal L}_2{\cal H}^2$.
We choose contraction 1) for $\tilde D1C$: $x=x'+\frac{1}{\epsilon}$, $y=y'$, ${\cal H}=\frac{\epsilon}{4}{\cal H}'$.
Then as $\epsilon\to 0$ we f\/ind
\begin{gather*}
{\cal L}_1\to {\cal L}_1'=p_{x'}'p_{y'},
\qquad
{\cal L}_2= {\cal L}_2'=p_{y'}^2,
\qquad
{\cal H}'= p_{x'}^2+p_{y'}^2,
\end{gather*}
and with ${\cal R}'=\{{\cal L}_1',{\cal L}_2'\}$ the Casimir becomes ${{\cal R}'}^2=0$.
\item $\tilde D4(b)C'\to \tilde S7$ as $b\to -2$: For system $\tilde D4(b)C'$ we have
\begin{gather*}
{\cal L}1={\cal Y}_1-{\cal J}^2,
\qquad
{\cal L}_1={\cal Y}_2,
\\
{\cal R}^2=4b{\cal H}^3-8{\cal L}_13-8{\cal L}_1{\cal L}_2^2+4b\big({\cal L}_1^2+{\cal L}_2^2\big){\cal H}+8{\cal L}_1{\cal H}^2.
\end{gather*}
In the limit as $b\to -2$ we have
\begin{gather*}
{\cal L}_1'=2{\cal J}_1^2-{\cal H}',
\qquad
{\cal L}_2'=2{\cal J}_1{\cal J}_2,
\end{gather*}
where ${\cal J}_1$, ${\cal J}_2$, ${\cal J}_3$ are the symmetries of the sphere and ${\cal H}'={\cal J}_1^2+{\cal J}_2^2+{\cal J}_3^2$.
The limit system is $\tilde S7$.
\end{enumerate}
\section{Tables/f\/igures describing the contractions\\ of the nondegenerate and degenerate Darboux systems}
We now tabulate the contractions of Darboux systems.
The system on the left is the starting system, and an asterisk indicates that a~system is degenerate
\subsection{D1 contraction table}
{\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}
{c | c c c} & 1: $D1$ to f\/lat space & 2: $D1$ to $D1$ & 3: $D1$ to $D1$
\\
\hline
$\tilde D1A$ & $\tilde E3'$, $\tilde E9$ & $\tilde D1C$, $\tilde D1A$ & $\tilde D1C$, $\tilde D1A$
\\
$\tilde D1B$ & $\tilde E2$ & $\tilde D1C$ & $\tilde D1B$
\\
$\tilde D1C$ & $\tilde E3'$ & $\tilde D1C$ & $\tilde D1C$
\\
$\tilde D1D^*$ & $\tilde E5^*$ & $\tilde D1D^*$ & $\tilde D1D^*$
\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
}
\subsection{D2 contraction table}
{\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c | c c c} & 1: $D2$ to f\/lat space & 2: $D2$ to 2-sphere & 3: $D2$ to $D2$
\\
\hline
$\tilde D2A$ & $\tilde E3'$ & $\tilde S1$ & $\tilde D2A$
\\
$\tilde D2B$ & $\tilde E2$ & $\tilde S2$ & $\tilde D2A$
\\
$\tilde D2C$ & $\tilde E3'$ & $\tilde S4$ & $\tilde D2A$
\\
$\tilde D2D^*$ & $\tilde E5^*$ & $\tilde S5^*$ & $\tilde D2D^*$
\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}}
\subsection{D3 contraction table}
{\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}
{c | c c c} & 1: $D3$ to f\/lat space & 2: $D3$ to f\/lat space & 3: $D3$ to $D3$
\\
\hline
$\tilde D3A$ & $\tilde E3'$ & $\tilde E3'$ & $\tilde D3D$
\\
$\tilde D3B$ & $\tilde E3'$ & $\tilde E3'$ & $\tilde D3B$
\\
$\tilde D3C$ & $\tilde E1$ & $\tilde E2$ & $\tilde D3D$
\\
$\tilde D3D$ & $\tilde E8$ & $\tilde E3'$ & $\tilde D3D$
\\
$\tilde D3E^*$ & $\tilde E3^*$ & $\tilde E5^*$ & $\tilde D3E^*$
\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}}
\subsection{D4 contraction table}
{\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}
{c | c c c} & 1: $D4$ to f\/lat space & 2: $D4$ to 2-sphere & 3: $D4$ to $D4$
\\
\hline
$\tilde D4(b)A$ & $\tilde E1$ & $\tilde S2$ & $D4(b)B$
\\
$\tilde D4(b)B$ & $\tilde E8$ & $\tilde S1$ & $D4(b)B$
\\
$\tilde D4(b)C$ & $\tilde E3'$ & $\tilde S4$ & $D4(b)B$
\\
$\tilde D4(b)D^*$ & $\tilde E3^*$ & $\tilde S5^*$ & $D4(b)D^*$
\\
\end{tabular}
\vspace{3mm}
\begin{tabular}
{c | c c c c} & 4: $D4$ to $D3$ & 5: $D4$ to $D2$ & 6: $D4$ to $D1$ & 7: $D4$ to 2-sphere
\\
\hline
$\tilde D4(b)A$ & $\tilde D3C$ & $\tilde D2B$ & $\tilde D1B$ &$\tilde S9$
\\
$\tilde D4(b)B$ & $\tilde D3D$ & $\tilde D2A$ & $\tilde D1C$ &$\tilde S2$
\\
$\tilde D4(b)C$ & $\tilde D3B$ & $\tilde D2C$ & $\tilde D1C$ & $\tilde S7$
\\
$\tilde D4(b)D^*$ & $\tilde D3E^*$ & $\tilde D2D^*$ & $\tilde D1D^*$ & $\tilde S3^*$
\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
}
\subsection{Free nondegenerate Darboux systems to degenerate systems}
The following are not contractions in the usual sense, but we show which nondegenerate systems restrict to degenerate ones.
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}
{c | c} nondegenerate &$\to$ degenerate
\\
\hline
${\tilde D}1B $& ${\tilde D}1D^*$
\\
${\tilde D}1C $& ${\tilde D}1D^*$
\\
${\tilde D}2A $& ${\tilde D}2D^*$
\\
${\tilde D}2B$ &${\tilde D}2D^*$
\\
${\tilde D}3C$ & ${\tilde D}3E^*$
\\
${\tilde D}3D$ & ${\tilde D}3E^*$
\\
${\tilde D}4(b)A$ & ${\tilde D}4(b)D^*$
\\
${\tilde D}4(b)B$ & ${\tilde D}4(b)D^*$
\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\subsection{Figures}
What follows are diagrams illustrating the contractions of Darboux systems.
Boxes represent systems (blue boxes being nondegenerate and red boxes being degenerate), and arrows represent
contractions.
In these diagrams, certain contractions that do not af\/fect the overall hierarchy have been omitted for aesthetic
reasons, and a~dotted arrow indicates that the limiting process inducing the contraction changes the free Hamiltonian.
A~diagram illustrating the nondegenerate Darboux systems which restrict to degenerate ones is also presented.
\begin{figure}
[t] \centering \includegraphics[scale=0.51]{nondegeneratedarboux} \caption{Diagram indicating the contractions of
nondegenerate Darboux systems.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
[t] \centering \includegraphics[scale=0.51]{degeneratedarboux} \caption{Diagram indicating the contractions of
degenerate Darboux systems.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
[t] \centering \includegraphics[scale=0.51]{restrictions} \caption{Diagram indicating restrictions of nondegenerate
Darboux systems to degenerate ones.}
\end{figure}
For completeness we give the def\/initions of the constant curvature superintegrable systems that are targets of Darboux
contractions.
The following lists contain the def\/ining relations for the free systems and the potentials of the superintegrable
systems.
{\bf Degenerate Euclidean targets}: Here the coordinates are $x$, $y$ and $p_1=p_x$, $p_2=p_y$, and ${\cal
J}=xp_2-yp_1$.
\begin{enumerate}\itemsep=0pt
\item $\tilde E3$: ${\cal H}=p_1^2+p_2^2$, ${\cal X}= {\cal J}$, ${\cal L}_1=p_1^2$, ${\cal L}_2=p_1p_2$, \\
Casimir: $-{\cal L}_2^2-{\cal L}_1({\cal L}_1-{\cal H})=0$, potential: $V=\alpha(x^2+y^2)$.
\item $\tilde E5$:\ ${\cal H}=p_1^2+p_2^2$, ${\cal X}= p_1$, ${\cal L}_1={\cal J}{p_1}$, ${\cal
L}_2=p_2{p_1}$,\\ Casimir: $\frac12({\cal L}_2^2+{\cal X}^4-{\cal H}{\cal X}^2)=0$, potential: $
V=\alpha x$.
\end{enumerate}
{\bf Nondegenerate Euclidean targets}:
\begin{enumerate}\itemsep=0pt
\item $\tilde E1$:
\qquad
${\cal L}_1={\cal J}^2$, ${\cal L}_2=p_1^2$, ${\cal R}^2=16{\cal L}_1{\cal L}_2({\cal H}-{\cal L}_2)$,
$V=\alpha(x^2+y^2)+\frac{\beta}{x^2}+\frac{\gamma}{y^2}$,
\item $\tilde E2$:
\qquad
${\cal L}_1=p_2^2$, ${\cal L}_2=p_2{\cal J}$, ${\cal R}^2=4{\cal L}_1^2({\cal H}-{\cal L}_1)$, $V=\alpha(4x^2+y^2)+\beta
x+\frac{\gamma}{y^2}$,
\item $\tilde E3'$:
\qquad
${\cal L}_1=p_1^2$, ${\cal L}_2=p_1p_2$, ${\cal R}^2=0$, $V=\alpha(x^2+y^2)+\beta x+\gamma y$,
\item $\tilde E8$:
\qquad
${\cal L}_1={\cal J}^2$, ${\cal L}_2=(p_1+ip_2)^2$, ${\cal R}^2=-16{\cal L}_1{\cal L}_2^2$, $V=\frac{\alpha
(x-iy)}{(x+iy)^3}+\frac{\beta}{(x+iy)^2}+\gamma(x^2+y^2)$,
\item $\tilde E9$:
\qquad
${\cal L}_1=(p_1+ip_2)^2$, ${\cal L}_2=p_1{\cal J}$, ${\cal R}^2=-2{\cal L}_1({2\cal L}_1+{\cal H})^2$,
$V=\frac{\alpha}{\sqrt{x+iy}}+\beta y+\frac{\gamma (x+2iy)}{\sqrt{x+iy}}$,
\end{enumerate}
{\bf Degenerate targets on the 2-sphere}: Here ${\cal J}_1=yp_3-zp_2$, ${\cal J}_2=zp_1-xp_3$, ${\cal
J}_3=xp_2-yp_1$.
\begin{enumerate}\itemsep=0pt
\item $\tilde S3$:
${\cal H}={\cal J}_1^2+{\cal J}_2^2+{\cal J}_3^2$, ${\cal X}= {\cal J}_3$, ${\cal L}_1=({\cal
J}_1+i{\cal J}_2)^2$, ${\cal L}_2=({\cal J}_1-i{\cal J}_2)^2$,\\ Casimir: $-2i(({\cal H}-{\cal
X}^2)^2-{\cal L}_1{\cal L}_2)=0$, potential: $V=\frac{\alpha}{z^2}$,
\item $\tilde S5$:
${\cal H}={\cal J}_1^2+{\cal J}_2^2+{\cal J}_3^2$, ${\cal X}= {\cal J}_1+i{\cal J}_2$, ${\cal
L}_1={\cal J}_3^2$, ${\cal L}_2=({\cal J}_1+i{\cal J}_2){\cal J}_3$,\\ Casimir: $-i({\cal L}_2^2-{\cal
X}^2{\cal L}_1)=0$, potential: $V=\frac{\alpha}{(x+iy)^2}$.
\item $\tilde S6$:
${\cal H}={\cal J}_1^2+{\cal J}_2^2+{\cal J}_3^2$, ${\cal X}= {\cal J}_3$, ${\cal L}_1={\cal
J}_3{\cal J}_1$, ${\cal L}_2={\cal J}_3{\cal J}_2$,\\ Casimir: $-\frac12({\cal L}_1^2+{\cal
L}_2^2+{\cal X}^2({\cal X}^2-{\cal H}))=0$, potential: $V=\frac{\alpha z}{\sqrt{x^2+y^2}}$,
\end{enumerate}
{\bf Nondegenerate targets on the 2-sphere}:
\begin{enumerate}\itemsep=0pt
\item $\tilde S1$:\quad
${\cal L}_1= ({\cal J}_1+i{\cal J}_2){\cal J}_3$, ${\cal L}_2=({\cal J}_1+i{\cal J}_2)^2$, ${\cal
R}^2=-4{\cal L}_2^3$, $V=\frac{\alpha}{(x+iy)^2}+\frac{\beta z}{(x+iy)^2}+\frac{\gamma(1-4z^2)}{(x+iy)^4}$,
\item $\tilde S2$:\quad
${\cal L}_1= ({\cal J}_1+i{\cal J}_2)^2$, ${\cal L}_2={\cal J}_3^2$, ${\cal R}^2=-16{\cal L}_1^2{\cal L}_2$,
$V=\frac{\alpha}{z^2}+\frac{\beta}{(x+iy)^2}+\frac{\gamma(x-iy)}{(x+iy)^3}$,
\item $\tilde S4$:\quad
${\cal L}_1={\cal J}_3^2$, ${\cal L}_2=({\cal J}_1+i{\cal J}_2){\cal J}_3$, ${\cal R}^2=-4{\cal L}_1{\cal L}_2^2$,
$V=\frac{\alpha}{(x+iy)^2}+\frac{\beta z}{\sqrt{x^2+y^2}}+\frac{\gamma}{(x+iy)\sqrt{x^2+y^2}}$,
\item $\tilde S7$:\quad
${\cal L}_1={\cal J}_3^2$, ${\cal L}_2={\cal J}_1{\cal J}_3$, ${\cal R}^2=-4{\cal L}_1^3-4{\cal
L}_2^2{\cal L}_1+4{\cal L}_1^2{\cal H}$, $V=\frac{\alpha z}{\sqrt{x^2+y^2}}+\frac{\beta
x}{y^2\sqrt{x^2+y^2}}+\frac{\gamma}{y^2}$,
\item $\tilde S9$:\quad
${\cal L}_1={\cal J}_3^2$, ${\cal L}_2={\cal J}_1^2$, ${\cal R}^2=-16{\cal L}_1^2{\cal L}_2-16{\cal L}_1{\cal
L}_2^2+16{\cal L}_1{\cal L}_2{\cal H}$, $V=\frac{\alpha}{x^2}+\frac{\beta}{y^2}+\frac{\gamma}{z^2}$,
\end{enumerate}
\section{Conclusions and discussion}
This paper is part of a~series on 2D quadratic algebras, their classif\/ication, structure, representations, and
especially, contractions as they relate to 2nd order 2D superintegrable systems.
Of special interest are contractions that correspond to geometrical pointwise limiting processes in the physical
superintegrable systems.
As shown in~\cite{KMP2014}, one of the consequences of contrac\-ting between superintegrable systems is a~series of
limiting relations between special functions associated with the superintegrable systems, a~special case of which is the
Askey scheme for hypergeometric orthogonal polynomials.
In~\cite{KM2014} we studied quadratic algebras related to 2nd order superintegrable systems on constant curvature spaces
and showed that there is a~one-to-one correspondence between conjugacy classes of quadratic algebras in the enveloping
algebras of $e(2,{\mathbb C})$ and $o(3,{\mathbb C})$, and isomorphism classes of superintegrable systems with
potential.
Further, we showed for constant curvature spaces that generalizations of In\"on\"u--Wigner Lie algebra contractions of
$e(2,{\mathbb C})$ and $o(3,{\mathbb C})$, induce quadratic algebra contractions that correspond to geometrical
pointwise limiting processes in the physical systems.
The procedure is rigid and deterministic.
The present paper extends these results and shows that Darboux superintegrable systems are also characterized by free
quadratic algebras contained in the symmetry algebras of these spaces and that their contractions are also induced~by
In\"on\"u--Wigner contractions.
Thus our basic results hold for all 2nd order 2D superintegrable systems.
In follow-up papers, in preparation, we will classify abstract quadratic algebras and their contractions, including
those not induced from Lie algebras, and study which of these relate to superintegrable systems.
We intend to conclude this series by relating contractions of 2nd order superintegrable systems to limiting processes
for $R$-separable coordinate systems for wave equations, introduced by B\^ocher in his famous 1894 thesis~\cite{Bocher}.
We will show that in 2D, B\^ocher's limiting processes for cyclides and ellipses induce generalizations of
In\"on\"u--Wigner contractions of the $so(4,{\mathbb C})$ conformal symmetry algebra of the 2D wave equation with
potential and that these contractions explain the full contraction pattern for 2nd order superintegrable systems.
B\^ocher's limits, which we term B\^ocher contractions, apply to all dimensions $n\ge 2$, so this should provide
a~useful guide to the analysis of 2nd order superintegrable systems in higher dimensions.
\subsection*{Acknowledgment}
This work was partially supported by a~grant from the Simons Foundation (\# 208754 to Willard Miller, Jr.).
\pdfbookmark[1]{References}{ref}
|
\section{Introduction}
The purpose of this paper is to give a gluing construction and examples
of Calabi-Yau fourfolds.
In our previous paper \cite{DY14}, we gave a construction of Calabi-Yau \emph{three}folds from two admissible pairs
$(\overline{X}_1,D_1)$ and $(\overline{X}_2,D_2)$ with $\dim_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}} \overline{X}_i=3$, so that
an admissible pair $(\overline{X},D)$ consists of a compact K\"{a}hler threefold $\overline{X}$
and an anticanonical $K3$ divisor $D$ on $\overline{X}$ (see Definition $\ref{def:admissible}$).
Also, we gave the `doubling' construction as follows:
If two admissible pairs
$(\overline{X}_1,D_1)$ and $(\overline{X}_2,D_2)$ with $\dim_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}} \overline{X}_i=3$
are identical to an admissible pair $(\overline{X},D)$,
then we can always construct a Calabi-Yau threefold by gluing together the two copies of $\overline{X}\setminus D$.
In this paper we shall apply this construction in complex dimension \emph{four},
so that we shall consider admissible pairs $(\overline{X},D)$ with $\dim_\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}\overline{X}=4$
and $D$ an smooth anticanonical divisor on $\overline{X}$.
As in \cite{DY14}, we use Kovalev's gluing technique in \cite{K03},
which was used to construct compact $G_2$-manifolds. Also, we use Joyce's analysis
on $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Spin(7)}}$-structures \cite{J00}, while we used in \cite{DY14} his analysis on $G_2$-structures.
In our construction, we begin with two admissible pairs $(\overline{X}_1,D_1)$
and $(\overline{X}_2,D_2)$ with $\dim_\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}\overline{X}_i=4$ as above.
Then by the existence result of
an asymptotically cylindrical Ricci-flat K\"{a}hler form on $\overline{X}_i\setminus D_i$,
each $\overline{X}_i\setminus D_i$ has a natural asymptotically cylindrical
torsion-free $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Spin(7)}}$-structure $\Phi_i$.
Now suppose the \emph{asymptotic models} $(D_i\times S^1\times\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}_+,\Phi_{i,\rm{cyl}})$
of $(\overline{X}_i\setminus D_i,\Phi_i)$ are isomorphic in a suitable sense,
which is ensured by the {\it gluing condition} defined later (see Section $\ref{sec:gluing_cond}$).
Then as in Kovalev's construction in \cite{K03}, we can glue together
$\overline{X}_1\setminus D_1$ and $\overline{X}_2\setminus D_2$
along their cylindrical ends $D_1\times S^1\times (T-1,T+1)$ and
$D_2\times S^1\times (T-1,T+1)$, to obtain a compact $8$-manifold $M_T$.
Moreover, we can glue together the torsion-free $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Spin(7)}}$-structures
$\Phi_i$ on $\overline{X}_i\setminus D_i$
to construct a $\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}$-closed $4$-form $\widetilde{\Phi}_T$ on $M_T$, which is projected to a
$\ensuremath{\mathrm{Spin(7)}}$-structure $\Phi_T =\Theta (\widetilde{\Phi}_T)$
{\it with small torsion} for sufficiently large $T$.
Using the analysis on
$\ensuremath{\mathrm{Spin(7)}}$-structures by Joyce \cite{J00},
we shall prove that $\Phi_T$ can be deformed into a torsion-free $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Spin(7)}}$-structure
for sufficiently large $T$, so that
the resulting compact manifold $M_T$ admits a Riemannian metric with holonomy contained in $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Spin(7)}}$.
Since $M=M_T$ is simply-connected, the $\widehat{A}$-genus $\widehat{A}(M)$ of $M$ is $1,2,3$ or $4$,
and the holonomy group is determined as $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Spin(7)}} , \ensuremath{\mathrm{SU}}(4), \ensuremath{\mathrm{Sp}} (2), \ensuremath{\mathrm{Sp}}(1)\times \ensuremath{\mathrm{Sp}}(1)$
respectively (see Theorem $\ref{thm:A-hat}$).
Hence if $\widehat{A}(M)=2$, then $M$ is a Calabi-Yau fourfold.
For a given admissible pair $(\overline{X}_1, D_1)$, it is difficult to find a suitable
admissible pair $(\overline{X}_2, D_2)$ with $D_2$ isomorphic to $D_1$.
In the three-dimensional case, if $(\overline{X},D)$ is an admissible pair,
then $D$ is a $K3$ surface. Thus $D_1$ and $D_2$ are at least diffeomorphic
and so are the cylindrical ends of $\overline{X}_1\setminus D_1$ and $\overline{X}_2\setminus D_2$
which we glue together.
Meanwhile in the four-dimensional case,
the topological type of the Calabi-Yau divisor $D$
for an admissible pair $(\overline{X},D)$ varies with $\overline{X}$.
However, if $(\overline{X}_1, D_1)$ and $(\overline{X}_2, D_2)$ are identical to an
admissible pair $(\overline{X}, D)$, then the gluing condition holds automatically.
Therefore we can always
construct a compact simply-connected Riemannian
$8$-manifold $(M,g)$ with $\Hol(g)\subseteq \mathrm{Spin}(7)$
by doubling an
admissible pair $(\overline{X},D)$
with $\dim_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}\overline{X}=4$.
Beginning with a Fano $n$-fold $V$,
Kovalev obtained an admissible pair $(\overline{X},D)$ as follows.
It is known that there exists a smooth anticanonical divisor $D$ on $V$,
which is a $K3$ surface when $n=3$ and Calabi-Yau $(n-1)$-fold when $n\geqslant 4$.
Let $S$ be a complex $(n-2)$-dimensional submanifold of $D$ such that $S$ represents
the self-intersection class $D\cdot D$ in $V$.
Then he showed that if $\overline{X}$ is the blow-up of $V$ along $S$,
the proper transform of $D$ in $\overline{X}$ (which is isomorphic to $D$ and denoted by $D$ again)
is an anticanonical divisor on $\overline{X}$ with the holomorphic normal bundle $N_{D/\overline{X}}$ trivial,
so that $(\overline{X},D)$ is the desired admissible pair.
In \cite{DY14}, we used Fano threefolds $V$ in order to obtain admissible pairs $(\overline{X},D)$
with $\dim_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}\overline{X}=3$ in our doubling construction of Calabi-Yau threefolds.
According to Mori-Mukai's classification of Fano threefolds, we gave $59$ topologically distinct
Calabi-Yau threefolds.
In the four-dimensional case, two problems arise in constructing
Calabi-Yau manifolds by the doubling.
The first is that we have no complete classification of Fano fourfolds.
The second is that it is not easy to compute the $\widehat{A}$-genus $\widehat{A}(M)$ of the `doubled'
manifold $M$ if we use an arbitrary Fano fourfold.
Instead of considering all Fano fourfolds, we focus on the \emph{toric} Fano fourfolds which
are completely classified by Batyrev \cite{Bat98} and Sato \cite{Sato02}.
Also, toric geometry enables us to compute $\widehat{A} (M)$ systematically.
In fact, using the admissible pair obtained from \emph{any} of the toric Fano fourfolds ($124$ types),
we show that the doubled manifold $M$ has $\widehat{A} (M)=2$, and hence $M$ is a Calabi-Yau fourfold.
With this construction, we shall give $69$ topologically distinct
Calabi-Yau fourfolds,
whose Euler characteristics $\chi (M)$ range between $936$ and $2688$.
This paper is organized as follows.
Section $2$ is a brief review of $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Spin(7)}}$-structures.
In Section $3$ we establish our
gluing construction of Calabi-Yau fourfolds from admissible pairs.
The rest of the paper is devoted to constructing examples
from toric Fano fourfolds.
The reader who is not familiar with analysis can
check Definition $\ref{def:admissible}$ of admissible pairs, go to Section $3.4$ where
the gluing theorems are stated, and then proceed to Section $4$,
skipping Section $2$ and the rest of Section $3$.
In Section $\ref{sec:ToricGeom}$ we outline the quotient construction of toric varieties in
`Geometric Invariant Theory'. We also give a recipe for computing $\widehat{A}(M)$
in the proof of Proposition $\ref{prop:CY4}$. Section $\ref{sec:Ex}$ illustrates concrete examples
of our doubling construction of Calabi-Yau fourfolds. Then the last section lists all data
of the resulting Calabi-Yau fourfolds from toric Fano fourfolds.\\
\noindent {\bfseries Acknowledgements.} The second author would like to thank Dr. Craig van Coevering and Dr.
Jinxing Xu for their valuable comments when he was in University of Science and Technology of China.
\section{Geometry of $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Spin(7)}}$-structures}
Here we shall recall some basic facts about $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Spin(7)}}$-structures on oriented $8$-manifolds.
For more details, see \cite{J00}, Chapter $10$.
We begin with the definition of $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Spin(7)}}$-structures on oriented vector spaces of dimension $8$.
\begin{definition}\rm
Let $V$ be an oriented real vector space of dimension $8$.
Let $\{\bm{\theta}^1,\dots ,\bm{\theta}^8\}$ be an oriented basis of $V$.
Set
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\bm{\Phi}_0=&\bm{\theta}^{1234}+\bm{\theta}^{1256}+\bm{\theta}^{1278}+\bm{\theta}^{1357}
-\bm{\theta}^{1368}-\bm{\theta}^{1458}-\bm{\theta}^{1467}\\
&-\bm{\theta}^{2358}-\bm{\theta}^{2367}-\bm{\theta}^{2457}+\bm{\theta}^{2468}
+\bm{\theta}^{3456}+\bm{\theta}^{3478}+\bm{\theta}^{5678},\\
\mathbf{g}_0=&\sum_{i=1}^8\bm{\theta}^i\otimes\bm{\theta}^i,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
where $\bm{\theta}^{ij\dots k}=\bm{\theta}^i\wedge\bm{\theta}^j\wedge\dots\wedge\bm{\theta}^k$.
Define the $\ensuremath{\mathrm{GL}}_+(V)$-orbit spaces
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{A}(V)&=\Set{a^*\bm{\Phi}_0|a\in\ensuremath{\mathrm{GL}}_+(V)},\\
\mathcal{M}et(V)&=\Set{a^*\mathbf{g}_0|a\in\ensuremath{\mathrm{GL}}_+(V)}.
\end{align*}
\end{definition}
We call $\mathcal{A}(V)$ the set of {\it Cayley $4$-forms}
(or the set of {\it $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Spin(7)}}$-structures}) on $V$.
On the other hand, $\mathcal{M}et(V)$ is the set of positive-definite inner products on $V$,
which is also a homogeneous space isomorphic to $\ensuremath{\mathrm{GL}}_+(V)/\ensuremath{\mathrm{SO}}(V)$, where $\ensuremath{\mathrm{SO}}(V)$ is defined by
\begin{equation*}
\ensuremath{\mathrm{SO}}(V)=\Set{a\in\ensuremath{\mathrm{GL}}_+(V)|a^*\mathbf{g}_0=\mathbf{g}_0}.
\end{equation*}
Now the group $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Spin(7)}}$ is defined as the isotropy of the action of $\ensuremath{\mathrm{GL}}(V)$ (in place of $\ensuremath{\mathrm{GL}}_+(V)$)
on $\mathcal{A}(V)$ at $\bm{\Phi}_0$:
\begin{equation*}
\ensuremath{\mathrm{Spin(7)}} =\Set{a\in\ensuremath{\mathrm{GL}}(V)|a^*\bm{\Phi}_0=\bm{\Phi}_0}.
\end{equation*}
Then one can show that $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Spin(7)}}$ is a compact Lie group of dimension $27$ which is a
Lie subgroup of $\ensuremath{\mathrm{SO}}(V)$ \cite{Hy90}.
Thus we have a natural projection
\begin{equation*}
\xymatrix{\mathcal{A}(V)\cong\ensuremath{\mathrm{GL}}_+(V)/\ensuremath{\mathrm{Spin(7)}}\ar@{>>}[r]&\ensuremath{\mathrm{GL}}_+(V)/\ensuremath{\mathrm{SO}}(V)\cong\mathcal{M}et(V)},
\end{equation*}
so that each Cayley $4$-form (or $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Spin(7)}}$-structure) $\bm{\Phi}\in\mathcal{A}(V)$
defines a positive-definite inner product $\mathbf{g}_{\bm{\Phi}}\in\mathcal{M}et(V)$ on $V$.
\begin{definition}\label{def:T(V)}\rm
Let $V$ be an oriented vector space of dimension $8$.
If $\bm{\Phi}\in\mathcal{A}(V)$, then we have the orthogonal decomposition
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ortho_decomp}
\wedge^4 V^*=T_{\bm{\Phi}}\mathcal{A}(V)\oplus T_{\bm{\Phi}}^\perp\mathcal{A}(V)
\end{equation}
with respect to the induced inner product $\mathbf{g}_{\bm{\Phi}}$.
We define a neighborhood
$\mathcal{T}(V)$ of $\mathcal{A}(V)$ in $\wedge^4 V^*$ by
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{T}(V)=\Set{
\bm{\Phi}+\bm{\alpha}|
\bm{\Phi}\in\mathcal{A}(V)\text{ and }
\bm{\alpha}\in T_{\bm{\Phi}}^\perp\mathcal{A}(V)
\text{ with }\norm{\bm{\alpha}}_{{\mathbf{g}}_{\bm{\Phi}}}<\rho}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
We choose and fix a small constant $\rho$ so that
any $\bm{\chi}\in\mathcal{T}(V)$ is uniquely written
as $\bm{\chi}=\bm{\Phi}+\bm{\alpha}$ with $\bm{\alpha}\in T_{\bm{\Phi}}^\perp\mathcal{A}(V)$.
Thus we can define the projection
\begin{equation*}
\Theta :\mathcal{T}(V)\longrightarrow\mathcal{A}(V),\qquad \bm{\chi}\longmapsto\bm{\Phi}.
\end{equation*}
\end{definition}
\begin{lemma}[Joyce \cite{J00}, Proposition $10.5.4$]\label{lem:ASD-subspace}
Let $\bm{\Phi}\in\mathcal{A}(V)$ and
$\wedge^4 V^*=\wedge^4_+ V^*\oplus \wedge^4_- V^*$ be the orthogonal decomposition with
respect to $\mathbf{g}_{\bm{\Phi}}$, where $\wedge^4_+ V^*$ (resp. $\wedge^4_- V^*$)
is the set of self-dual (resp. anti-self-dual) $4$-forms on $V$.
Then we have the following inclusion:
\begin{equation*}
\wedge^4_- V^*\subset T_{\bm{\Phi}}\mathcal{A}(V).
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
Now we define $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Spin(7)}}$-structures on oriented $8$-manifolds.
\begin{definition}\rm
Let $M$ be an oriented $8$-manifold.
We define $\mathcal{A}(M)\longrightarrow M$ to be the fiber bundle whose fiber over $x$ is
$\mathcal{A}(T^*_x M)\subset\wedge^4 T^*_x M$. Then
$\Phi\in C^\infty (\wedge^4 T^* M)$ is a {\it Cayley $4$-form}
or a {\it $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Spin(7)}}$-structure} on $M$ if
$\Phi\in C^\infty (\mathcal{A}(M))$, i.e.,
$\Phi$ is a smooth section of $\mathcal{A}(M)$.
If $\Phi$ is a $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Spin(7)}}$-structure on $M$, then $\Phi$ induces a Riemannian metric $g_\Phi$
since $\restrict{\Phi}{x}$ for each $x\in M$ induces a positive-definite inner product
$g_{\restrict{\Phi}{x}}$ on $T_x M$. A $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Spin(7)}}$-structure $\Phi$ on $M$ is said to be
{\it torsion-free} if it is parallel with respect to the induced Riemannian metric $g_\Phi$,
i.e., $\nabla_{g_\Phi}\Phi =0$,
where $\nabla_{g_\Phi}$ is the Levi-Civita connection of $g_\Phi$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}\rm
Let $\Phi$ be a $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Spin(7)}}$-structure on an oriented $8$-manifold $M$. We define $\mathcal{T}(M)$
be the the fiber bundle whose fiber over $x$ is $\mathcal{T}(T^*_x M)\subset\wedge^4 T^*_x M$.
Then for the constant $\rho$ given in Definition $\ref{def:T(V)}$,
we have the well-defined projection $\Theta :\mathcal{A}(M)\longrightarrow\mathcal{T}(M)$.
Also, we see from Lemma $\ref{lem:ASD-subspace}$ that $\wedge^4_- T^*M\subset T_\Phi\mathcal{A}(M)$
as subbundles of $\wedge^4 T^*M$.
\end{definition}
\begin{lemma}[Joyce \cite{J00}, Proposition $10.5.9$]\label{lem:epsilons}
Let $\Phi$ be a $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Spin(7)}}$-structure on $M$.
There exist such that $\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2,\epsilon_3$ independent of $M$ and $\Phi$,
such that the following is true.
If $\eta\in C^\infty (\wedge^4T^* M)$ satisfies $\Norm{\eta}_{C^0}\leqslant\epsilon_1$, then $\Phi +\eta\in \mathcal{T}(M)$.
For this $\eta$, $\Theta (\Phi +\eta )$ is well-defined and expanded as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:expansion}
\Theta (\Phi +\eta )=\Phi +p(\eta )-F(\eta ),
\end{equation}
where $p(\eta )$ is the linear term and $F(\eta )$ is the higher order term in $\eta$,
and for each $x\in M$, $\restrict{p(\eta )}{x}$ is the $T_\Phi\mathcal{A}(V)$-component of $\restrict{\eta}{x}$
in the orthogonal decomposition \eqref{eq:ortho_decomp} for $V=T^*_x M$.
Also, we have the following pointwise estimates for any $\eta, \eta'\in C^\infty (\wedge^4 T^* M)$
with $\norm{\eta},\norm{\eta'}\leqslant\epsilon_1$:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\norm{F(\eta )-F(\eta')}\leqslant& \epsilon_2\norm{\eta -\eta'}(\norm{\eta}+\norm{\eta'}),\\
\norm{\nabla (F(\eta )-F(\eta'))}\leqslant &\epsilon_3 \{
\norm{\eta -\eta'}(\norm{\eta}+\norm{\eta'})\norm{\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\Phi}+\norm{\nabla (\eta -\eta')}(\norm{\eta}+\norm{\eta'})\\
&\phantom{\epsilon_3\{ }+\norm{\eta -\eta'}(\norm{\nabla\eta}+\norm{\nabla\eta'})\} .
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
Here all norms are measured by $g_\Phi$.
\end{lemma}
The following result is important in that it relates the holonomy contained in $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Spin(7)}}$
with the $\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}$-closedness of the $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Spin(7)}}$-structure.
\begin{theorem}[Salamon \cite{S89}, Lemma $12.4$]\label{thm:d-closed_Spin}
Let $M$ be an oriented $8$-manifold. Let $\Phi$ be a $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Spin(7)}}$-structure on $M$ and $g_\Phi$
the induced Riemannian metric on $M$.
Then the following conditions are equivalent.
\renewcommand{\labelenumi}{\theenumi}
\renewcommand{\theenumi}{(\arabic{enumi})}
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\Phi$ is a torsion-free $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Spin(7)}}$-structure, i.e., $\nabla_{g_\Phi}\Phi =0$.
\item $\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\Phi =0$.
\item The holonomy group $\Hol (g_\Phi )$ of $g_\Phi$ is contained in $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Spin(7)}}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
Now suppose $\widetilde{\Phi}\in C^\infty(\mathcal{T}(M))$ with $\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\widetilde{\Phi}=0$.
We shall construct such a form $\widetilde{\Phi}$ in Section $\ref{section:T-approx}$.
Then $\Phi =\Theta (\widetilde{\Phi})$ is a $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Spin(7)}}$-structure on $M$.
If $\eta\in C^\infty(\wedge^4 T^*M)$ with $\Norm{\eta}_{C^0}\leqslant\epsilon_1$,
then $\Theta (\Phi +\eta )$ is expanded as in \eqref{eq:expansion}.
Setting $\phi =\widetilde{\Phi}-\Phi$ and using $\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\widetilde{\Phi}=0$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\Theta (\Phi +\eta )=-\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\phi +\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}} p(\eta )-\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}} F(\eta ).
\end{equation*}
Thus the equation $\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\Theta (\Phi +\eta )=0$ for $\Theta (\Phi +\eta )$ to be a torsion-free
$\ensuremath{\mathrm{Spin(7)}}$-structure is equivalent to
\begin{equation}\label{eq:torsion-free_1}
\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}} p (\eta )=\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\phi +\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}} F(\eta ).
\end{equation}
In particular, we see from Lemma $\ref{lem:ASD-subspace}$ that
if $\eta\in C^\infty (\wedge^4_-T^*M)$ then $p(\eta )=\eta$,
so that equation \eqref{eq:torsion-free_1} becomes
\begin{equation}\label{eq:torsion-free_2}
\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}} \eta=\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\phi +\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}} F(\eta ).
\end{equation}
Joyce proved by using the iteration method and
$\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}} C^\infty (\wedge^4_- T^*M)=\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}} C^\infty (\wedge^4 T^*M)$
that equation \eqref{eq:torsion-free_2} has a solution $\eta\in C^\infty (\wedge^4_-T^*M)$
if $\phi$ is sufficiently small with respect to certain norms (see Theorem $\ref{thm:Spin_existence}$).
\begin{theorem}[Joyce \cite{J00}, Theorem $10.6.1$]\label{thm:A-hat}
Let $(M,g)$ be a compact Riemannian $8$-manifold such that its holonomy group $\Hol(g)$ is contained in $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Spin(7)}}$.
Then the $\widehat{A}$-genus $\widehat{A} (M)$ of $M$ satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{eq:A-hat}
48\widehat{A} (M)=3\tau (M)-\chi (M),
\end{equation}
where $\tau (M)$ and $\chi(M)$ is the signature and the Euler characteristic of $M$ respectively.
Moreover, if $M$ is simply-connected, then $\widehat{A} (M)$ is $1,2,3$ or $4$, and the holonomy group of $(M,g)$ is determined as
\begin{equation*}
\Hol (g)=\begin{cases}
\ensuremath{\mathrm{Spin(7)}}&\text{if }\widehat{A} (M)=1,\\
\ensuremath{\mathrm{SU}} (4)&\text{if }\widehat{A} (M)=2,\\
\ensuremath{\mathrm{Sp}} (2)&\text{if }\widehat{A} (M)=3,\\
\ensuremath{\mathrm{Sp}} (1)\times\ensuremath{\mathrm{Sp}} (1)&\text{if }\widehat{A} (M)=4.
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
\section{The gluing procedure}
\subsection{Compact complex manifolds with an anticanonical divisor}\label{section:CMWAD}
We suppose that $\overline{X}$ is a compact complex manifold of dimension $n$,
and $D$ is a smooth irreducible anticanonical divisor on $\overline{X}$.
We recall some results in \cite{D09}, Sections $3.1$--$3.2$, and \cite{DY14}, Sections $3.1$--$3.2$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:coords_on_X}
Let $\overline{X}$ and $D$ be as above.
Then there exists a local coordinate system
$\{ U_\alpha ,(z_\alpha^1,\dots ,z_\alpha^{n-1},w_\alpha)\}$ on $\overline{X}$
such that
\renewcommand{\labelenumi}{\theenumi}
\renewcommand{\theenumi}{(\roman{enumi})}
\begin{enumerate}
\item $w_\alpha$ is a local defining function of $D$ on $U_\alpha$,
i.e., $D\cap U_\alpha =\{w_\alpha =0\}$, and
\item the $n$-forms $\displaystyle\Omega_\alpha =
\frac{\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}} w_\alpha}{w_\alpha}\wedge\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}} z_\alpha^1\wedge\dots\wedge\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}} z_\alpha^{n-1}$
on $U_\alpha \setminus D$ together yield a holomorphic volume form $\Omega$ on $X=\overline{X}\setminus D$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
Next we shall see that $X=\overline{X}\setminus D$ is a cylindrical manifold whose structure is
induced from the holomorphic normal bundle $N=N_{D/\overline{X}}$ to $D$ in $\overline{X}$,
where the definition of cylindrical manifolds is given as follows.
\begin{definition}\label{def:cyl.mfd}\rm
Let $X$ be a noncompact differentiable manifold of real dimension $r$.
Then $X$ is called a {\it cylindrical manifold} or a {\it manifold
with a cylindrical end} if there exists a diffeomorphism $\pi
:X\setminus X_0\longrightarrow\Sigma\times\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}_+=\Set{(p,t)|p\in\Sigma
,0<t<\infty}$ for some compact submanifold $X_0$ of dimension $r$
with boundary $\Sigma=\ensuremath{\mathrm{\partial}} X_0$. Also, extending $t$ smoothly to $X$ so that
$t\leqslant 0$ on $X\setminus X_0$, we call $t$ a {\it cylindrical
parameter} on $X$.
\end{definition}
Let $(x_\alpha ,y_\alpha)$ be local coordinates on $V_\alpha =U_\alpha\cap D$,
such that $x_\alpha$ is the restriction of $z_\alpha$ to $V_\alpha$ and
$y_\alpha$ is a coordinate in the fiber direction.
Then one can see easily that $\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}} x_\alpha^1\wedge\dots\wedge\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}} x_\alpha^{n-1}$ on
$V_\alpha$ together yield a holomorphic volume form $\Omega_D$, which is also called the
{\it Poincar\'{e} residue} of $\Omega$ along $D$.
Let $\Norm{\cdot}$ be the norm of a Hermitian bundle metric on $N$.
We can define a cylindrical parameter $t$ on $N$
by $t=-\frac{1}{2}\log\Norm{s}^2$ for $s\in N\setminus D$.
Then the local coordinates $(z_\alpha ,w_\alpha )$ on $X$ are asymptotic to
the local coordinates $(x_\alpha ,y_\alpha )$ on $N\setminus D$ in the following sense.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:tub.nbd.thm}
There exists a diffeomorphism $\varphi$ from a neighborhood $V$ of the
zero section of $N$ containing $t^{-1}(\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}_+ )$ to a tubular neighborhood $U$ of $D$
in $X$ such that $\varphi$ can be locally written as
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
z_\alpha &=x_\alpha + O(\norm{y_\alpha}^2)=x_\alpha +O(e^{-t}),\\
w_\alpha &=y_\alpha + O(\norm{y_\alpha}^2)=y_\alpha +O(e^{-t}),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
where we multiply all $z_\alpha$ and $w_\alpha$ by a single constant
to ensure $t^{-1}(\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}_+ )\subset V$ if necessary.
\end{lemma}
Hence $X$ is a cylindrical manifold with the cylindrical parameter $t$
via the diffeomorphism $\varphi$ given in the above lemma.
In particular, when $H^0(\overline{X},\mathcal{O}_{\overline{X}})=0$ and
$N_{D/\overline{X}}$ is trivial, we have a useful coordinate system near $D$.
\begin{lemma}[\cite{DY14}, Lemma $3.4$]\label{lem:existence_w}
Let $(\overline{X},D)$ be as in Lemma $\ref{lem:coords_on_X}$. If
$H^1(\overline{X},\mathcal{O}_{\overline{X}})=0$ and the normal
bundle $N_{D/\overline{X}}$ is holomorphically trivial, then there
exist an open neighborhood $U_D$ of $D$ and a holomorphic function
$w$ on $U_D$ such that $w$ is a local defining function of $D$ on
$U_D$. Also, we may define the cylindrical parameter $t$ with
$t^{-1}(\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}_+)\subset U_D$ by writing the fiber coordinate $y$ of
$N_{D/\overline{X}}$ as $y=\exp (-t-\ensuremath{\sqrt{-1}}\theta )$.
\end{lemma}
\subsection{Admissible pairs and asymptotically cylindrical Ricci-flat K\"{a}hler manifolds}
\begin{definition}\rm
Let $X$ be a cylindrical manifold such that
$\pi :X\setminus X_0\longrightarrow\Sigma\times\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}_+=\{(p,t)\}$
is a corresponding diffeomorphism.
If $g_\Sigma$ is a Riemannian metric on $\Sigma$, then it defines a cylindrical metric
$g_{\rm cyl}=g_\Sigma +\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}} t^2$ on $\Sigma\times\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}_+$.
Then a complete Riemannian metric $g$ on $X$ is said to be {\it asymptotically cylindrical}
({\it to }$(\Sigma\times\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}_+,g_{\rm cyl})$) if $g$ satisfies
for some cylindrical metric $g_{\rm cyl}=g_\Sigma +\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}} t^2$
\begin{equation*}
\norm{\nabla_{g_{\rm cyl}}^j(g-g_{\rm cyl})}_{g_{\rm cyl}}\longrightarrow 0
\qquad\text{as }t\longrightarrow\infty\qquad\text{for all }j\geqslant 0,
\end{equation*}
where we regarded $g_{\rm cyl}$ as a Riemannian metric on $X\setminus X_0$
via the diffeomorphism $\pi$.
Also, we call $(X,g)$ an {\it asymptotically cylindrical manifold} and
$(\Sigma\times\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}_+,g_{\rm cyl})$ the {\it asymptotic model} of $(X,g)$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}\label{def:admissible}\rm
Let $\overline{X}$ be a complex manifold and $D$ a divisor on $\overline{X}$.
Then $(\overline{X},D)$ is said to be an {\it admissible pair} if the following conditions hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(a)] $\overline{X}$ is a compact K\"ahler manifold.
\item[(b)] $D$ is a smooth anticanonical divisor on $\overline{X}$.
\item[(c)] the normal bundle $N_{D / \overline{X}}$ is trivial.
\item[(d)] $\overline{X}$ and $\overline{X}\setminus D$ are simply-connected.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
From the above conditions, we see that Lemmas $\ref{lem:coords_on_X}$ and
$\ref{lem:existence_w}$ apply to admissible pairs.
Also, from conditions (a) and (b), we see that $D$ is a compact K\"{a}hler manifold
with trivial canonical bundle. Thus $D$ admits a Ricci-flat K\"{a}hler metric.
\begin{theorem}[Tian-Yau \cite{TY90}, Kovalev \cite{K03}, Hein \cite{Hn10}]\label{thm:TYKH}
Let $(\overline{X},\omega' )$ be a compact K\"{a}hler manifold
and $n=\dim_\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}\overline{X}$.
If $(\overline{X},D)$ is an admissible pair, then the following is true.
It follows from Lemmas $\ref{lem:coords_on_X}$ and
$\ref{lem:existence_w}$, there exist a local coordinate system
$(U_{D,\alpha} ,(z_\alpha^1,\dots ,z_\alpha^{n-1},w))$ on a
neighborhood $U_D=\cup_\alpha U_{D,\alpha}$ of $D$ and a holomorphic
volume form $\Omega$ on $\overline{X} \setminus D$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:TYKH_Omega}
\Omega =\frac{\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}} w}{w}\wedge\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}} z_\alpha^1\wedge\dots\wedge
\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}} z_\alpha^{n-1}\qquad\text{on }U_{D,\alpha}\setminus D.
\end{equation}
Let $\kappa_D$ be the unique Ricci-flat K\"{a}hler form on $D$ in the K\"{a}hler class
$[\restrict{\omega'}{D}]$.
Also let $(x_\alpha ,y)$ be local coordinates of $N_{D/\overline{X}}\setminus D$
as in Section $\ref{section:CMWAD}$ and write $y$ as $y=\exp (-t-\ensuremath{\sqrt{-1}}\theta )$.
Now define a holomorphic volume form $\Omega_{\rm cyl}$
and a cylindrical Ricci-flat K\"{a}hler form $\omega_{\rm cyl}$ on $N_{D/\overline{X}}\setminus D$ by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:TYKH_CYcyl}
\begin{aligned}
\Omega_{\rm cyl}&=\frac{\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}} y}{y}\wedge\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}} x_\alpha^1\wedge\dots\wedge\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}} x_\alpha^{n-1}
=(\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}} t +\ensuremath{\sqrt{-1}}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta)\wedge\Omega_D,\\
\omega_{\rm cyl}&=\kappa_D+\frac{\ensuremath{\sqrt{-1}}}{2}\frac{\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}} y\wedge\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\overline{y}}{\norm{y}^2}
=\kappa_D+\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}} t\wedge\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta .
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Then there exist a holomorphic volume form $\Omega$ and an asymptotically cylindrical Ricci-flat K\"{a}hler form $\omega$ on
$X=\overline{X}\setminus D$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\Omega -\Omega_{\rm cyl}=\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\zeta,\qquad\omega -\omega_{\rm cyl}=\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\xi
\end{equation*}
for some $\zeta$ and $\xi$ with
\begin{equation*}
\norm{\nabla_{g_{\rm cyl}}^j\zeta}_{g_{\rm cyl}}=O(e^{-\beta t}),\qquad
\norm{\nabla_{g_{\rm cyl}}^j\xi}_{g_{\rm cyl}}=O(e^{-\beta t})
\qquad\text{for all }j\geqslant 0\text{ and }\beta\in (0,\min\set{1/2,\sqrt{\lambda_1}}),
\end{equation*}
where $\lambda_1$ is the first eigenvalue of the Laplacian $\Delta_{g_D+\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta^2}$
acting on $D\times S^1$ with $g_D$ the metric associated with $\kappa_D$.
\end{theorem}
A pair $(\Omega ,\omega )$ consisting of a holomorphic volume form $\Omega$ and a Ricci-flat K\"{a}hler form $\omega$
on an $n$-dimensional K\"{a}hler manifold
normalized so that
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\omega^n}{n!}=\frac{(\ensuremath{\sqrt{-1}})^{n^2}}{2^n}\Omega\wedge\overline{\Omega}\;(=\text{the volume form})
\end{equation*}
is called a {\it Calabi-Yau structure}.
The above theorem states that there exists a Calabi-Yau structure $(\Omega ,\omega)$
on $X$ asymptotic to a cylindrical Calabi-Yau structure
$(\Omega_{\rm cyl},\omega_{\rm cyl})$ on $N_{D/\overline{X}}\setminus D$
if we multiply $\Omega$ by some constant.
\subsection{Gluing admissible pairs}
In this subsection we will only consider admissible pairs $(\overline{X},D)$ with
$\dim_\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}\overline{X}=4$. Also, we will denote $N=N_{D/\overline{X}}$ and $X=\overline{X}\setminus D$.
\subsubsection{The gluing condition}\label{sec:gluing_cond}
Let $(\overline{X},\omega')$ be a four-dimensional compact K\"{a}hler manifold
and $(\overline{X},D)$ be an admissible pair.
We first define a natural torsion-free $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Spin(7)}}$-structure on $X$.
It follows from Theorem $\ref{thm:TYKH}$ that there exists a
Calabi-Yau structure $(\Omega ,\omega)$ on $X$ asymptotic to a cylindrical
Calabi-Yau structure $(\Omega_{\rm cyl},\omega_{\rm cyl})$
on $N\setminus D$, which are written as in \eqref{eq:TYKH_Omega}
and \eqref{eq:TYKH_CYcyl}.
We define a $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Spin(7)}}$-structure $\Phi$ on $X$ by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Phi}
\Phi =\frac{1}{2}\omega\wedge\omega +\Real\Omega .
\end{equation}
Similarly, we define a $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Spin(7)}}$-structure $\Phi_{\rm cyl}$
on $N\setminus D$ by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Phi_cyl}
\Phi_{\rm cyl} =\frac{1}{2}\omega_{\rm cyl}\wedge\omega_{\rm cyl} +\Real\Omega_{\rm cyl}.
\end{equation}
Then we see easily from Theorem $\ref{thm:TYKH}$ and
equations \eqref{eq:Phi} and \eqref{eq:Phi_cyl} that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:difference}
\begin{aligned}
\Phi -\Phi_{\rm cyl}&=\frac{1}{2}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\xi\wedge (\Omega +\Omega_{\rm cyl}) +\Real\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\zeta
=\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\eta ,\\
\text{where}\quad\eta &=\frac{1}{2}\xi\wedge (\Omega +\Omega_{\rm cyl}) +\Real\zeta .
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Thus $\Phi$ and $\Phi_{\rm cyl}$ are both torsion-free $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Spin(7)}}$-structures,
and $(X, \Phi )$ is asymptotic to
$(N\setminus D,\Phi_{\rm cyl})$.
Note that the cylindrical end of $X$ is diffeomorphic to
$N\setminus D\simeq D\times S^1\times\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}_+
=\{(x_\alpha ,\theta ,t)\}$.
Next we consider the condition under which we can glue together
$X_1$ and $X_2$ obtained from admissible pairs
$(\overline{X}_1,D_1)$ and $(\overline{X}_2,D_2)$. For gluing $X_1$
and $X_2$ to obtain a manifold with a $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Spin(7)}}$-structure with small torsion,
we would like $(X_1,\Phi_1 )$ and $(X_2,\Phi_2)$ to have the same asymptotic model.
Thus we put the following
\begin{description}
\item[\it Gluing condition] There exists a diffeomorphism
$F: D_1\times S^1\longrightarrow D_2\times S^1$
between the cross-sections of the cylindrical ends such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:gluing_condition}
F_T^*\Phi_{2,\rm cyl} =\Phi_{1,\rm cyl}\qquad\text{for all }T>0,
\end{equation}
where $F_T:D_1\times S^1\times (0,2T)\longrightarrow D_2\times S^1\times (0,2T)$
is defined by
\begin{equation*}
F_T(x_1,\theta_1, t)=(F( x_1,\theta_1),2T-t)\qquad\text{for }
(x_1,\theta_1, t)\in D_1\times S^1\times (0,2T) .
\end{equation*}
\end{description}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:gluing_condition}
Suppose that
there exists an isomorphism $f:D_1\longrightarrow D_2$ such that $f^*\kappa_{D_2}=\kappa_{D_1}$.
If we define a diffeomorphism $F$ between the cross-sections of the cylindrical ends by
\begin{equation*}
F:D_1\times S^1\longrightarrow D_2\times S^1,\qquad
(x_1,\theta_1 )\longmapsto (x_2,\theta_2 )=(f(x_1),-\theta_1)
\end{equation*}
Then the gluing condition \eqref{eq:gluing_condition} holds,
where we change the sign of $\Omega_{2,\rm cyl}$
(and also the sign of $\Omega_2$ correspondingly).
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
It follows by a straightforward calculation
using \eqref{eq:TYKH_CYcyl} and \eqref{eq:Phi_cyl}.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{$\ensuremath{\mathrm{Spin(7)}}$-structures with small torsion}\label{section:T-approx}
Now we shall glue $X_1$ and $X_2$ under the gluing condition \eqref{eq:gluing_condition}.
Let $\rho :\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}\longrightarrow [0,1]$ denote a cut-off function
\begin{equation*}
\rho (x)=
\begin{cases}
1&\text{if }x\leqslant 0,\\
0&\text{if }x\geqslant 1,
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
and define $\rho_T :\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}\longrightarrow [0,1]$ by
\begin{equation*}
\rho_T (x)=\rho (x-T+1)=
\begin{cases}
1&\text{if }x\leqslant T-1,\\
0&\text{if }x\geqslant T.
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
Setting an approximating Calabi-Yau structure $(\Omega_{i,T}, \omega_{i,T})$ by
\begin{equation*}
\Omega_{i,T}=
\begin{cases}
\Omega_i -\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}} (1-\rho_{T-1})\zeta_i &\text{on }\{ t_i\leqslant T-1\} ,\\
\Omega_{i,\rm cyl}+\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\rho_{T-1}\zeta_i &\text{on }\{ t_i\geqslant T-2\}
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
and similarly
\begin{equation*}
\omega_{i,T}=
\begin{cases}
\omega_i -\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}} (1-\rho_{T-1})\xi_i &\text{on }\{ t_i\leqslant T-1\} ,\\
\omega_{i,\rm cyl}+\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\rho_{T-1}\xi_i &\text{on }\{ t_i\geqslant T-2\},
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
we can define a $\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}$-closed $4$-form
$\widetilde{\Phi}_{i,T}$ on each $X_i$ by
\begin{equation*}
\widetilde{\Phi}_{i,T}=\frac{1}{2}\omega_{i,T}\wedge\omega_{i,T} +\Real\Omega_T .
\end{equation*}
Note that $\widetilde{\Phi}_{i,T}$ satisfies
\begin{equation*}
\widetilde{\Phi}_{i,T}=
\begin{cases}
\Phi_i&\text{on }\{ t_i<T-2\} ,\\
\Phi_{i,\rm cyl}&\text{on }\{ t_i>T-1\}
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
and that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Phi_T-Phi_cyl}
\norm{\widetilde{\Phi}_{i,T} -\Phi_{i,\rm cyl}}_{g_{\Phi_{i,\rm cyl}}}=O(e^{-\beta T})
\qquad\text{for all }\beta\in (0,\min\set{1/2,\sqrt{\lambda_1}}).
\end{equation}
Let $X_{1,T}=\{ t_1<T+1\}\subset X_1$ and $X_{2,T}=\{ t_2<T+1\}\subset X_2$.
We glue $X_{1,T}$ and $X_{2,T}$
along $D_1\times\{ T-1<t_1<T+1\}\subset X_{1,T}$
and $D_2\times\{ T-1<t_2<T+1\}\subset X_{2,T}$
to construct a compact $8$-manifold $M_T$ using the gluing map $F_T$
(more precisely, $\widetilde{F}_T=\varphi_2\circ F_T\circ\varphi_1^{-1}$,
where $\varphi_1$ and $\varphi_2$
are the diffeomorphisms given in Lemma $\ref{lem:tub.nbd.thm}$).
Also, we can glue together $\widetilde{\Phi}_{1,T}$ and $\widetilde{\Phi}_{2,T}$ to obtain a
$\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}$-closed $4$-form $\widetilde{\Phi}_T$ on $M_T$ by Lemma $\ref{lem:gluing_condition}$.
There exists a positive constant $T_*$ such that $\widetilde{\Phi}_T\in C^\infty (\mathcal{T}(M_T))$
for any $T$ with $T>T_*$.
This $\widetilde{\Phi}_T$ is what was discussed right after Theorem $\ref{thm:d-closed_Spin}$, from which
we can define a $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Spin(7)}}$-structure $\Phi_T$ {\it with small torsion} by
\begin{equation*}
\Phi_T =\Theta (\widetilde{\Phi}_T).
\end{equation*}
Now let
\begin{equation}\label{eq:phi_T}
\phi_T = \widetilde{\Phi}_T -\Phi_T.
\end{equation}
Then $\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\phi_T +\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\Phi_T=0$.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:estimates}
Let $T>T_*$.
Then there exist constants $A_{p,k,\beta}$
independent of $T$ such that for $\beta\in (0,\min\set{1/2,\sqrt{\lambda_1}})$ we have
\begin{equation*}
\Norm{\phi_T}_{L^p_k}\leqslant A_{p,k,\beta}\, e^{-\beta T},
\end{equation*}
where all norms are measured using $g_{\Phi_T}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
These estimates follow in a straightforward way from Theorem $\ref{thm:TYKH}$
and equation \eqref{eq:difference}
by arguments similar to those in \cite{D09}, Section 3.5.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Gluing theorems}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:main}
Let $(\overline{X}_1,\omega'_1)$ and $(\overline{X}_2,\omega'_2)$ be
compact K\"{a}hler manifolds with $\dim_\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}\overline{X}_i=4$
such that $(\overline{X}_1,D_1)$ and $(\overline{X}_2,D_2)$ are admissible pairs.
Suppose there exists an isomorphism $f: D_1\longrightarrow D_2$ such that
$f^*\kappa_2=\kappa_1$,
where $\kappa_i$ is the unique Ricci-flat K\"{a}hler form on $D_i$ in the K\"{a}hler class
$[\restrict{\omega'_i}{D_i}]$.
Then we can glue toghether $X_1$ and $X_2$ along their cylindrical ends to obtain
a compact simply-connected $8$-manifold $M$. The manifold $M$ admits a Riemannian metric with holonomy
contained in $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Spin(7)}}$. Moreover, if $\widehat{A} (M)=2$, then $M$ is a Calabi-Yau fourfold, i.e.,
$M$ admits a Ricci-flat K\"{a}hler metric with holonomy $\ensuremath{\mathrm{SU}} (4)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:doubling}
Let $(\overline{X},D)$ be an admissible pair with $\dim_\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}\overline{X}=4$.
Then we can glue two copies of $X$ along their cylindrical ends to obtain a compact simply-connected
$8$-manifold $M$. Then $M$ admits a Riemannian metric with holonomy contained in $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Spin(7)}}$.
If $\widehat{A} (M)=2$, then the manifold $M$ is a Calabi-Yau fourfold.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem $\ref{thm:main}$]
The assertion for $\widehat{A}(M)=2$ in Theorem $\ref{thm:main}$ follows directly from Theorem $\ref{thm:A-hat}$.
Thus it remains to prove the existence of a torsion-free $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Spin(7)}}$-structure on $M_T$
for sufficiently large $T$.
This is a consequence of the following
\begin{theorem}[Joyce \cite{J00}, Theorem $13.6.1$]\label{thm:Spin_existence}
Let $\lambda ,\mu ,\nu$ be positive constants. Then there exists a positive constant
$\epsilon_*$ such that whenever $0<\epsilon<\epsilon_*$, the following is true.\\
Let $M$ be a compact $8$-manifold and $\Phi$ a $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Spin(7)}}$-structure on $M$.
Suppose $\phi$ is a smooth $4$-form on $M$ with $\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\Phi +\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\phi=0$,
and
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\Norm{\phi}_{L^2}\leqslant\lambda\epsilon^{13/3}$
and $\Norm{\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\phi}_{L^{10}}\leqslant\lambda\epsilon^{7/5}$,
\item the injectivity radius $\delta (g)$ satisfies $\delta (g)\geqslant\mu\epsilon$, and
\item the Riemann curvature $R(g)$ satisfies $\Norm{R(g)}_{C^0}\leqslant\nu\epsilon^{-2}$.
\end{enumerate}
Let $\epsilon_1$ be as in Lemma $\ref{lem:epsilons}$.
Then there exists $\eta\in C^\infty (\wedge^4T^*_-M)$ with $\Norm{\eta}_{C^0}<\epsilon_1$
such that $\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\Theta (\Phi +\eta )=0$. Hence the manifold $M$ admits a torsion-free
$\ensuremath{\mathrm{Spin(7)}}$-structure $\Theta (\Phi +\eta)$.
\end{theorem}
Since $X_1$ and $X_2$ are cylindrical, the injectivity radius and Riemann curvature of
$M_T$ are uniformly bounded from below and above respectively,
conditions (2) and (3) hold for sufficiently large $T$.
For condition (1), we set $\phi =\phi_T$ by equation \eqref{eq:phi_T} for $T>T_*$.
Choosing $\gamma$ so that $0<\gamma <\frac{3}{13}\min\set{1/2,\sqrt{\lambda_1}}$
and letting $\epsilon =e^{-\gamma T}$,
we see from Proposition $\ref{prop:estimates}$ that condition (1) holds for some $\lambda$.
Thus we can apply Theorem $\ref{thm:Spin_existence}$ to prove that $\Phi_T$
can be deformed into a torsion-free $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Spin(7)}}$-structure for sufficiently large $T$.
This completes the proof of Theorem $\ref{thm:main}$.
\end{proof}
\section{Some results from toric geometry}\label{sec:ToricGeom}
In this section we give a quick review of some related results from toric geometry.
A good reference for the contents of this section is \cite{CLS}.
\subsection{GIT construction of toric varieties}\label{subsec:GIT}
Let $\mathbf{M}$ be a lattice of rank $n$, $\mathbf{N}=\Hom (\mathbf{M},\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}})$ the $\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}$-dual of $\mathbf{M}$.
Let $\mathbf{M}_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ (resp. $\mathbf{N}_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$) denote the $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}$-vector space $\mathbf{M}\otimes_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}$ (resp. $\mathbf{N}\otimes_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}$).
Let $\Delta$ be a fan in $\mathbf{N}_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$, and $\mathbb{P}_{\Delta}$ the associated toric variety. Let $\Delta(1)$ denote the set of
the $1$-dimensional cones of $\Delta$. To begin with, we shall construct $\mathbb{P}_{\Delta}$ as a GIT quotient
\[
\mathbb{P}_{\Delta}\cong (\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}^r\setminus Z(\Delta))\:\:{/\hspace{-0.3cm}/}\:\: G
\]
for an appropriate reductive group $G$, an affine space $\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}^r$ and an exceptional set $Z(\Delta)\subseteq \ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}^r$ with
$r=\norm{\Delta(1)}$. Throughout this section, we only consider $n$-dimensional complete
toric varieties with no torus factors.
For more details, see \cite{Cox95}, \cite{CLS}, Chapter $5$, and \cite{Dolga02}, Chapter $12$.
Let $\mathbb{T}_{\mathbf{N}}=\mathbf{N}\otimes_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}^*$ be the algebraic torus acting on $\mathbb{P}_{\Delta}$. The \emph{Orbit-Cone Correspondence} gives
a bijective correspondence between each $\rho \in \Delta(1)$ and an irreducible $\mathbb{T}_{\mathbf{N}}$-invariant Weil divisor $D_{\rho}$
on $\mathbb{P}_{\Delta}$. It is well-known that the $\mathbb{T}_{\mathbf{N}}$-invariant Weil divisors on $\mathbb{P}_{\Delta}$ form a free abelian group, which is
denoted by $\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}^{\Delta(1)}$. Let $\Div_\mathbb{T} (\mathbb{P}_{\Delta})$ denote the set of all $\mathbb{T}_{\mathbf{N}}$-invariant Cartier divisors on
$\mathbb{P}_{\Delta}$. Then $\Div_\mathbb{T} (\mathbb{P}_{\Delta})$ is a subgroup of $\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}^{\Delta(1)}$. Each $\rho\in \Delta(1)$ is given by the minimal generator
$u_{\rho}\in \rho\cap \mathbf{N}$. Recall that $m\in \mathbf{M}$ gives a character $\chi^m: \mathbb{T}_{\mathbf{N}}\longrightarrow \ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}^*$ which is a rational function on
$\mathbb{P}_{\Delta}$, and its divisor is given by $\divisor(\chi^m)=\sum_{\rho}\braket{m,u_{\rho}} D_{\rho}$. In particular, any
divisor $D\in \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}^{\Delta(1)}$ has the form $D=\sum_{\rho}a_{\rho}D_{\rho}$. Let $\left[\sum_{\rho}a_{\rho}D_{\rho}\right]$ denote its divisor
class in the Chow group $A_{n-1}(\mathbb{P}_{\Delta})$. Then we have a commutative diagram
\begin{equation}\label{diagram:Ful}
\begin{split}
\xymatrix{
0\hspace{0.3cm} \ar@{>}[r] &\hspace{0.3cm} \mathbf{M} \ar@{=}[d] \hspace{0.3cm} \ar@{>}[r] & \hspace{0.3cm} \Div_\mathbb{T} (\mathbb{P}_{\Delta}) \ar@{>}[d] \hspace{0.3cm} \ar@{>}[r]
& \hspace{0.3cm} \Pic(\mathbb{P}_{\Delta}) \ar@{>}[d] \hspace{0.3cm} \ar@{>}[r] &\hspace{0.3cm} 0\\
0\hspace{0.3cm} \ar@{>}[r] &\hspace{0.3cm} \mathbf{M} \hspace{0.3cm} \ar@{>}[r]^-{ f} &\hspace{0.3cm}\sp \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}^{\Delta(1)} \hspace{0.3cm}\sp \ar@{>}[r]^-{g} &\hspace{0.3cm} A_{n-1}(\mathbb{P}_{\Delta})\hspace{0.3cm} \ar@{>}[r] &\hspace{0.3cm} 0
}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
by \cite{Ful93}, p. $63$, where maps $f$ and $g$ are defined by
\[
f: \mathbf{M} \longrightarrow \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}^{\Delta(1)}, \qquad m\longmapsto D_m=\sum_{\rho\in \Delta(1)}\braket{m, u_{\rho}} D_{\rho}
\]
and
\[
g: \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}^{\Delta(1)} \longrightarrow A_{n-1}(\mathbb{P}_{\Delta}), \qquad a=(a_{\rho})\longmapsto \left[\sum_{\rho}a_{\rho}D_{\rho}\right]
\]
respectively. Note that the rows are exact and the vertical arrows are inclusion maps in \eqref{diagram:Ful}.
Since $\Hom_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}(\;\cdot\; ,\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}^*)$ is left-exact and $\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}^*$ is divisible, the bottom row in \eqref{diagram:Ful} induces an exact
sequence of affine algebraic groups
\begin{equation}\label{seq:alg-gr}
0 \longrightarrow G \longrightarrow (\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}^*)^{\Delta(1)} \longrightarrow \mathbb{T}_{\mathbf{N}} \longrightarrow 1,
\end{equation}
where $G=\Hom_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}(A_{n-1}(\mathbb{P}_{\Delta}),\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}^*)$ and $(\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}^*)^{\Delta(1)}=\Hom_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}(\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}^{\Delta(1)},\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}^*)$.
We note that $A_{n-1}(\mathbb{P}_{\Delta})$ is the character group of $G$ (see \cite{CLS}, p. $206$).
Introducing a variable $x_{\rho}$ for each $\rho \in \Delta(1)$, we define the total coordinate ring $S(\Delta)$ of $\mathbb{P}_{\Delta}$ by
\[
S(\Delta)=\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}[x_{\rho}\mid \rho \in \Delta(1)].
\]
Then $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Spec}}(S(\Delta))$ is an affine space $\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}^{\Delta(1)}$.
A subset $C\subseteq \Delta(1)$ is said to be a \emph{primitive collection} if the following conditions hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $C\nsubseteq \sigma(1)$ for all $\sigma\in \Delta$.
\item For every proper subset $C'\subsetneq C$, there is $\sigma \in \Delta$ such that $C'\subseteq \sigma(1)$.
\end{enumerate}
Let $\mathrm{PC}(\Delta)$ denote the set of all primitive collections of $\Delta$. For a given primitive collection
$C\in \mathrm{PC}(\Delta)$, we consider the subspace of $\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}^{\Delta(1)}$
\[
\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}^{\Delta(1)}\supseteq {\mathbf V}(x_{\rho} \mid \rho\in C) = \Set{ (x_{\rho})\in \ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}^{\Delta(1)} | x_{\rho}=0
\text{\;\;if\;\;} \rho\in C }.
\]
Then the union of ${\mathbf V}(x_{\rho} \mid \rho \in C)$ over all primitive collections gives the variety
\[
Z(\Delta)=\bigcup_{C \in \mathrm{PC}(\Delta)}{\mathbf V}(x_{\rho} \mid \rho \in C)
\]
in $\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}^{\Delta(1)}$.
Observe that $(\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}^*)^{\Delta(1)}$ acts diagonally on $\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}^{\Delta(1)}$. This induces an action on $\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}^{\Delta(1)}\setminus Z(\Delta)$ and
hence $G\subseteq (\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}^*)^{\Delta(1)}$ acts on $\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}^{\Delta(1)}\setminus Z(\Delta)$. In \cite{Cox95}, Cox gave the quotient construction
of toric varieties, i.e., $\mathbb{P}_{\Delta}$ is an (almost) geometric quotient for the action of $G$ on $\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}^{\Delta(1)}\setminus Z(\Delta)$.
Thus we have
\begin{equation}\label{iso:quot}
\mathbb{P}_{\Delta}\cong (\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}^{\Delta(1)}\setminus Z(\Delta))\:\:{/\hspace{-0.3cm}/}\:\: G.
\end{equation}
Then \eqref{seq:alg-gr} and \eqref{iso:quot} induce a commutative diagram
\begin{equation}\label{diagram:toric}
\begin{split}
\xymatrix{
\mathbb{T}_{\mathbf{N}}\ar[d]\ar[r]^-\cong & (\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}^*)^{\Delta(1)}/G\ar[d]\\
\mathbb{P}_{\Delta}\ar[r]^-\cong & (\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}^{\Delta(1)}\setminus Z(\Delta))\:\:{/\hspace{-0.3cm}/}\:\: G
}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where the vertical arrows are inclusion maps. Diagram \eqref{diagram:toric} is consistent with the usual definition of toric varieties:
a toric variety $X$ is a normal irreducible algebraic variety containing a torus
$\mathbb{T}_{\mathbf{N}}$ as a Zariski open subset such that the action
of $\mathbb{T}_{\mathbf{N}}\cong (\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}^*)^n$ on itself extends to an algebraic action of $\mathbb{T}_{\mathbf{N}}$ on $X$.
\subsection{The grading of $S(\Delta)$}\label{subsec:grading}
The homogeneous coordinate ring $S(\Delta)$ of an $n$-dimensional toric variety $\mathbb{P}_{\Delta}$ has a natural grading by the Chow group
$A_{n-1}(\mathbb{P}_{\Delta})$. In the bottom exact sequence of \eqref{diagram:Ful}, $a=(a_{\rho})\in \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}^{\Delta(1)}$ maps to the divisor class
$\left[\sum_{\rho}a_{\rho}D_{\rho}\right]\in A_{n-1}(\mathbb{P}_{\Delta})$. For a given monomial $x^a=\prod_{\rho}x_{\rho}^{a_{\rho}}\in S(\Delta)$, the degree of $x^a$ is
\[
\deg (x^a)=\left[\sum_{\rho}a_{\rho}D_{\rho}\right]\in A_{n-1}(\mathbb{P}_{\Delta}).
\]
We denote $S(\Delta)_{\alpha}$ the corresponding graded piece of $S(\Delta)$ for $\alpha \in A_{n-1}(\mathbb{P}_{\Delta})$. Since $A_{n-1}(\mathbb{P}_{\Delta})$
is the character group of $G=\Hom_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}(A_{n-1}(\mathbb{P}_{\Delta}),\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}^*)$, $\alpha \in A_{n-1}(\mathbb{P}_{\Delta})$ gives the character
$\chi^{\alpha}:G\longrightarrow \ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}^*$. Then the action of $G$ on $\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}^{\Delta(1)}$ induces an action of $G$ on $S(\Delta)$ through the
character $\chi^{\alpha}$. A polynomial $f\in S(\Delta)_{\alpha}$ is said to be \emph{$G$-homogeneous} of degree $\alpha$.
\subsection{Cohomology of toric complete intersections}
Hereafter we assume $\mathbb{P}_{\Delta}$ is a \emph{smooth} complete toric variety. Then it is easy to compute the cohomology
ring of $\mathbb{P}_{\Delta}$ as follows.
Let us fix an order of the rays $\rho_1,\dots,\rho_r$ in $\Delta(1)$. As in Section $\ref{subsec:GIT}$, for a given ray $\rho_i\in \Delta(1)$,
let $u_i$ denote the minimal generator of $\rho_i$ and $x_i$ the corresponding variable. The \emph{Stanley-Reisner ideal}
of $\Delta$ is the squarefree monomial ideal
\[
\mathscr{I}_{\Delta}=\braket{x_{i_1}\cdots x_{i_{\ell}}\mid i_j \text{ are distinct and } \mathrm{Cone}(u_{i_1},\dots, u_{i_{\ell}}) \notin \Delta}
\]
in the ring $\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}[x_1,\dots,x_r]$. Note that $\mathrm{PC}(\Delta)$ generates $\mathscr{I}_{\Delta}$.
On the other hand, we consider the ideal $\mathcal{J}_{\Delta}$ generated by linear combinations
\[
\sum_{i=1}^r \braket{m, u_i}x_i,
\]
where $m$ runs over some basis of $\mathbf{M}$. Since the ideal $\mathscr{I}_{\Delta}+\mathcal{J}_{\Delta}$ is homogeneous in
$\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}[x_1,\dots,x_r]$
with respect to the grading defined in Section $\ref{subsec:grading}$, the quotient
$R_{\Delta}=\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}[x_1,\dots,x_r]/(\mathscr{I}_{\Delta}+\mathcal{J}_{\Delta})$
is a graded ring. If we coonsider the ring structure determined by the cup product on
\begin{equation*}
H^{\bullet}(\mathbb{P}_{\Delta},\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}})=\bigoplus_{k=0}^{2n}H^k(\mathbb{P}_{\Delta},\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}), \qquad n=\dim_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}\mathbb{P}_{\Delta},
\end{equation*}
then we can show that $H^{\bullet}(\mathbb{P}_{\Delta},\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}})$ is isomorphic to $R_{\Delta}$.
\begin{proposition}[Jurkiewicz-Danilov]\label{prop:cohomology}
Let $\mathbb{P}_{\Delta}$ be a smooth complete toric variety. Then the map
\[
R_{\Delta} \longrightarrow H^{\bullet}(\mathbb{P}_{\Delta},\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}), \qquad x_i \longmapsto [D_{\rho_i}]
\]
induces a ring isomorphism $R_{\Delta}\cong H^{\bullet}(\mathbb{P}_{\Delta},\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}})$.
\end{proposition}
Now we can compute the Chern classes of smooth complete toric varieties using the following results.
\begin{proposition}[\cite{CLS}, Proposition $13.1.2$]\label{prop:chern}
Let $\mathbb{P}_{\Delta}$ be a smooth complete toric variety. Then we have
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $c(\mathbb{P}_{\Delta})=\prod_{\rho \in \Delta(1)}\left(1+[D_{\rho}]\right)$.
\item[(ii)] $c_1(\mathbb{P}_{\Delta})=\left[\sum_{\rho\in \Delta(1)}D_{\rho}\right]=[-K_{\mathbb{P}_{\Delta}}]$,
\end{itemize}
where $-K_{\mathbb{P}_{\Delta}}=\sum_{\rho\in \Delta(1)}D_{\rho}$ is a torus-invariant anticanonical divisor on $\mathbb{P}_{\Delta}$.
\end{proposition}
We use the following {\it Noether's formula} in order to compute the cohomology of complete intersections in $\mathbb{P}_{\Delta}$
at a later stage in our argument (Section $\ref{sec:Ex}$).
\begin{theorem}[Noether's formula]\label{th:Noether}
Let $S$ be a complex $2$-dimensional compact manifold and $h^{p,q}$ with $p,q\in\set{0,1,2}$ be the
Hodge numbers of $S$. Then we have
\begin{align}\label{eq:Noether}
\begin{split}
h^{0,0}-h^{0,1}+h^{0,2}&=\frac{1}{12}\int_S c_1(S)^2+c_2(S), \\
h^{1,0}-h^{1,1}+h^{1,2}&=\frac{1}{6}\int_S c_1(S)^2-5c_2(S), \\
h^{2,0}-h^{2,1}+h^{2,2}&=\frac{1}{12}\int_S c_1(S)^2+c_2(S).
\end{split}
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
\subsection{How to find $\widehat{A}(M)$}
According to the classification results of toric Fano fourfolds \cite{Bat98}, \cite{Sato02}, we can construct
a Calabi-Yau fourfold by the doubling construction from any of the $124$ types of toric Fano fourfolds.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:CY4}
Let $\mathbb{P}_{\Delta}$ be a toric Fano fourfold and let $(\overline{X},D)$ be the corresponding admissible pair
of Fano type given in \cite{DY14}, Theorem $5.1$.
Then the simply-connected compact $8$-manifold $M$
obtained from two copies of $(\overline{X},D)$ by Corollary $\ref{cor:doubling}$
satisfies $\widehat{A}(M)=2$. In particular, $M$ admits a Ricci-flat K\"ahler metric with holonomy group
$\mathrm{SU}(4)$.
\end{proposition}
The proof of Proposition $\ref{prop:CY4}$ is based on the computation of $\widehat{A}(M)$ one by one.
Here is a procedure for calculating $\widehat{A}(M)$ by toric geometrical technique which we have already
explained above.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(a)] According to the classification result of toric Fano fourfolds due to Batyrev \cite{Bat98} and Sato
\cite{Sato02}, there are $124$ types of toric Fano fourfolds. A database of classifications of
smooth toric Fano varieties is available at \cite{graded_ring}. For a fixed $4$-dimensional complete fan $\Delta$
(which is also called a \emph{Fano polytope}), find the primitive collection $\mathrm{PC} (\Delta)$ from the lists
in \cite{Bat98}, \cite{Sato02}. Then Proposition $\ref{prop:cohomology}$ implies that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cohomology}
H^{\bullet}(\mathbb{P}_{\Delta},\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}})=\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}[x_1,\dots,x_r]/(\mathscr{I}_{\Delta}+\mathcal{J}_{\Delta}).
\end{equation}
It is easy to compute the right hand side of \eqref{eq:cohomology} by $\mathrm{PC}(\Delta)$ and $\Delta(1)$.
\item[(b)] Suppose that the total coordinate ring $S(\Delta)$ of $\mathbb{P}_{\Delta}$ is given by
\[
S(\Delta)=\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}[x_{\rho}\mid\rho \in \Delta(1)]
\]
with $\deg(x_{\rho})=a_{\rho}$.
Recall that the anticanonical divisor $-K_{\mathbb{P}_{\Delta}}$ on $\mathbb{P}_{\Delta}$ is given by
$-K_{\mathbb{P}_{\Delta}}=\sum_{\rho \in \Delta(1)}D_{\rho}$.
Hence we consider a divisor $D\in \norm{-K_{\mathbb{P}_{\Delta}}}$ which is
given by $D=\mathbf{V}(f)$ for a \emph{generic} $G$-homogeneous polynomial $f$ of $S(\Delta )$
with degree $\alpha=\sum_{\rho \in \Delta(1)}a_{\rho}$.
\item[(c)] Let $S$ be a generic hypersurface of degree $\alpha$ in $D$ representing the
self-intersection class of $D\cdot D$. Compute the Chern class $c(S)$ (resp. $c(D)$) by Proposition
$\ref{prop:chern}$ and the adjunction formula. Then the Euler characteristic $\chi(S)$ (resp. $\chi(D)$)
is determined by the
Chern-Gauss-Bonnet formula
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Euler2}
\int_X c_n(X)=\chi(X), \qquad n=\dim_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}X.
\end{equation}
\item[(d)] Since $D\in\norm{-K_{\mathbb{P}_{\Delta}}}$ is a Calabi-Yau threefold, we know that $h^{0,0}(D)=h^{3,0}(D)=1$
and $h^{1,0}(D)=h^{2,0}(D)=0$ by \cite{J00}, Proposition $6.2.6$. Find all the Hodge numbers $h^{p,q}(D)$
using the Lefschetz hyperplane theorem and $\chi(D)=\sum_{p,q}(-1)^{p+q}h^{p,q}(D)$.
\item[(e)] Using the Lefschetz hyperplane theorem and Poincar\'e duality, we can calculate $H^i(S)$ for $i\neq 2$.
In order to find $h^{0,2}(S)$ and $h^{1,1}(S)$, we use Nother's formula \eqref{eq:Noether}. Since the Euler
characteristic is also given by $\chi(S)=\sum_{p,q}(-1)^{p+q}h^{p,q}(S)$, we can check the consistency
of the values of $h^{p,q}(S)$.
\item[(f)] Calculate $\tau(S)$ by the Hodge index theorem
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Hodge_index}
\tau(S)=\sum_{p,q=0}^2 (-1)^q h^{p,q}(S)=2-h^{1,1}(S)+2 h^{0,2}(S).
\end{equation}
\item[(g)] Let $\varpi : \overline{X}\dasharrow \mathbb{P}_{\Delta}$ be the blow-up of $\mathbb{P}_{\Delta}$ along the complex
surface $S$. Taking the proper transform of $D$ under the blow-up $\varpi$, we still denote it by $D$.
Then $\chi(\overline{X})$ is given by the formula
\[
\chi(\overline{X})=\chi(\mathbb{P}_{\Delta})-\chi(S)+\chi(E),
\]
where $E$ is the exceptional divisor of the blow-up $\varpi$. Since $E$ is a $\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}} P^1$-bundle over $S$,
we have
\begin{align}\label{eq:Euler}
\begin{split}
\chi(M)&=2(\chi(\overline{X})-\chi(D)) \\
&=2(\chi(\mathbb{P}_{\Delta})+\chi(S)-\chi(D)).
\end{split}
\end{align}
It is easy to compute $\chi(\mathbb{P}_{\Delta})$ using toric geometry. Thus, \eqref{eq:Euler} and the results of
(c) give $\chi(M)$.
\item[(h)] Similarly, $\tau(\overline{X})$ is given by the formula
\[
\tau(\overline{X})=\tau(\mathbb{P}_{\Delta})-\tau(S)
\]
as the exceptional divisor has no contribution to $\tau(\overline{X})$. Thus we have
\begin{align}\label{eq:Signature}
\begin{split}
\tau(M)&=\tau(X\cup X) \\
&=2\tau(\overline{X})-\tau(D\times \ensuremath{\mathbb{C}} P^1)\\
&=2(\tau(\mathbb{P}_{\Delta})-\tau(S)).
\end{split}
\end{align}
We remark that $b^{2p}(\mathbb{P}_{\Delta})=h^{p,p}(\mathbb{P}_{\Delta})$ and $b^{2p+1}(\mathbb{P}_{\Delta})=0$ hold by \cite{CLS},
Theorem $9.3.2$.
Then we compute $\tau(\mathbb{P}_{\Delta})$ using the Hodge index theorem
and \cite{Ful93}, p. $92$.
Substituting $\tau (S)$ in \eqref{eq:Hodge_index} and $\tau (\mathbb{P}_\Delta )$ gives $\tau (M)$.
\item[(i)] Substituting $\chi(M)$ and $\tau(M)$ into \eqref{eq:A-hat}, we conclude $\widehat{A}(M)=2$.
\end{enumerate}
The following Section $\ref{sec:Ex}$ illustrates good examples of these computations.
\section{Examples}\label{sec:Ex}
We shall compute $\widehat{A}(M)$ using the classification of toric Fano fourfolds \cite{Bat98}, \cite{Sato02}.
\begin{example}[$\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}} P^4$]\label{ex:CP4}\rm
Let $\Delta$ be the complete fan in $\mathbf{N}_\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}\cong \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^4$ whose $1$-dimensional cones are given by
$\Delta (1)=\set{\rho_1,\rho_2,\rho_3,\rho_4,\rho_5}$ where
\begin{eqnarray*}
\rho_1=\mathrm{Cone} (e_1), \quad \rho_2=\mathrm{Cone} (e_2), \quad \rho_3=\mathrm{Cone} (e_3), \\
\rho_4=\mathrm{Cone} (e_4), \quad \text{and} \quad \rho_5=\mathrm{Cone} (-e_1-e_2-e_3-e_4).
\end{eqnarray*}
Then the associated toric variety is $\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}} P^4$ and $\mathrm{PC}(\Delta)=\set{\set{\rho_1,\rho_2,\rho_3,\rho_4,\rho_5}}$
(see \cite{Bat98}, \cite{Sato02}).
Hence the Stanley-Reisner ideal $\mathscr{I}_{\Delta}$
is given by $\braket{x_1 x_2 x_3 x_4 x_5}$.
Then Proposition $\ref{prop:cohomology}$ yields
\begin{align*}
H^{\bullet} (\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}} P^4, \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}})& \cong \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}[x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,x_5]/ \braket{x_1 x_2 x_3 x_4 x_5, x_1-x_5, x_2-x_5,x_3-x_5,x_4-x_5}\\
& \cong \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}[x_1]/\braket{x_1^5}.
\end{align*}
The map $\mathbf{M}\longrightarrow \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}^{\Delta(1)}$ can be written as
\begin{equation*}
\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}^4 \longrightarrow \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}^5 ,\qquad (m_1,m_2,m_3,m_4)\longmapsto (m_1,m_2,m_3,m_4,-(m_1+m_2+m_3+m_4)).
\end{equation*}
Using the map
\begin{equation*}
\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}^5 \longrightarrow \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}} ,\qquad (a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4,a_5)\longmapsto a_1+a_2+a_3+a_4+a_5,
\end{equation*}
we have the exact sequence
\begin{equation*}
0 \longrightarrow \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}^4 \longrightarrow \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}^5 \longrightarrow \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}} \longrightarrow 0.
\end{equation*}
Thus \eqref{diagram:Ful} implies that $A_3(\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}} P^4)\cong \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}$ with the generator
$[D_1]=[D_2]=[D_3]=[D_4]=[D_5]$. Then Proposition $\ref{prop:chern}$ (i) gives $c(\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}} P^4)=(1+x)^5$.
It is easy to see that the total coordinate ring is
$S(\Delta)=\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}} [x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,x_5]$ with $\deg(x_i)=1$. This gives a direct sum decomposition
\[
\displaystyle S(\Delta)=\bigoplus_{\alpha \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}} S(\Delta)_{\alpha}.
\]
Now the anticanonical degree of $S(\Delta)$ is given by $\sum_{i=1}^5\deg(x_i)=5$.
Hence we consider $D\in\norm{-K_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}} P^4}}$ defined by $D={\bf{V}}(f)$ for a generic homogeneous
polynomial $f\in S(\Delta)_5$.
Then $1+c_1([D])=1+5x$ (see, Proposition $\ref{prop:chern}$ (ii)).
Therefore $c(D)=(1+x)^5(1+5x)^{-1}$, so that the Chern-Gauss-Bonnet theorem \eqref{eq:Euler2} implies
\[
\chi(D)=\braket{c_3(D), [D]}=\braket{-40x^3, [5x]}=-200,
\]
where we used the normalization $\int_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}} P^4}x^4=1$.
Especially the Lefschetz hyperplane theorem implies $h^{1,1}(D)=b^2(\mathbb{P}_{\Delta})=1$. As $D$ is a Calabi-Yau divisor,
we also see that $h^{3,0}(D)=h^{0,0}(D)=1$, whence $h^{2,1}(D)=\frac{1}{2}(2h^{1,1}(D)-\chi(D))=101$.
Let $S$ be a generic smooth complex surface in $D$ representing the self-intersection class of $D\cdot D$. The Chern class
$c(S)=(1+x)^5(1+5x)^{-2}$ determines the Euler characteristic by
\[
\chi(S)=\braket{c_2(S), [S]}=\braket{35x^2, [(5x)^2]}=875.
\]
Remark that $b^1(S)=0$ as $S$ is simply-connected. In order to find the cohomology of the middle dimension
$H^{p,q}(S) \;\; (p+q=2)$, we will use Noether's formula as follows.
Since $h^{0,0}(S)=1$ and $h^{0,1}(S)=0$, Theorem $\ref{th:Noether}$ implies that
\[
12(1+h^{0,2}(S))=\braket{35x^2+25x^2, [(5x)^2]}.
\]
Hence we conclude that $h^{0,2}(S)=124$. Similarly we have
\[
6(-h^{1,1}(S))=\braket{25x^2-5\cdot 35x^2, [(5x)^2]}.
\]
Then $h^{1,1}(S)=625$. Summing up these computations, we conclude
\begin{equation*}
h^{p,q}(S) =
\begin{array}{ccccc}
&& 1 && \\
& 0 && 0 & \\
124 && 625 && 124 \\
& 0 && 0 & \\
&& 1 && \\
\end{array}.
\end{equation*}
This result is consistent with the value $\chi(S)=875$.
By the Hodge index theorem, we find the signature of $S$ is $\tau(S)=-375$.
Finally we shall show that the resulting $8$-manifold $M$ admits a metric with holonomy $\ensuremath{\mathrm{SU}}(4)$.
By \eqref{eq:Euler}, we have $\chi(M)=2(5+875-(-200))=2160$. Meanwhile, $\tau(M)=2(1-(-375))=752$ by \eqref{eq:Signature}.
Therefore \eqref{eq:A-hat} gives $\widehat{A}(M)=2$. The assertion follows from Corollary $\ref{cor:doubling}$.
\end{example}
\begin{example}[$B_1$]\rm
Let $\Delta$ be the complete fan in $\mathbf{N}_\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}\cong \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^4$ whose $1$-dimensional cones are given by
$\Delta (1)=\set{\rho_1,\dots, \rho_6}$ where
\begin{eqnarray*}
\rho_1=\mathrm{Cone} (e_4), \quad \rho_2=\mathrm{Cone} (e_1), \quad \rho_3=\mathrm{Cone} (e_2), \quad \rho_4=\mathrm{Cone} (e_3),\\
\rho_5=\mathrm{Cone} (-e_4), \quad \text{and} \quad \rho_6=\mathrm{Cone} (-e_1-e_2-e_3+3e_4).
\end{eqnarray*}
Then we readily see that $\mathbb{P}_{\Delta}=\mathbb{P}(\mathcal{O}_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}} P^3}\oplus \mathcal{O}_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}} P^3}(3))$,
$\mathrm{PC}(\Delta)=\set{\set{\rho_1,\rho_5}, \set{\rho_2, \rho_3, \rho_4, \rho_6}}$ and
$\mathscr{I}_{\Delta}=\braket{x_1x_5, x_2x_3x_4x_6}$.
Therefore, Proposition $\ref{prop:cohomology}$ implies that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:B2_cohomology}
H^{\bullet} (\mathbb{P}_{\Delta}, \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}) \cong \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}[x,y]/\braket{x(x+3y), y^4}.
\end{equation}
The map $\mathbf{M}\longrightarrow \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}^{\Delta(1)}$ is defined by
\begin{equation*}
\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}^4 \longrightarrow \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}^6 ,\qquad (m_1,\dots, m_6)\longmapsto (m_4,m_1,m_2,m_3,-m_4,-m_1-m_2-m_3+3m_4).
\end{equation*}
Meanwhile, the Chow group is generated by the classes of $D_i$ with the relations
\begin{align*}
0\sim \divisor(\chi^{e_1})&=D_2-D_6, &\quad 0\sim \divisor(\chi^{e_2})&=D_3-D_6, \\
0\sim \divisor(\chi^{e_3})&=D_4-D_6, &\quad 0\sim \divisor(\chi^{e_4})&=D_1-D_5+3D_6,
\end{align*}
by \eqref{diagram:Ful}.
Hence we conclude that $A_3(\mathbb{P}_{\Delta})\cong \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}^2$ with generators
$[D_2]=[D_3]=[D_4]=[D_6]$ and $[D_5]=[D_1]+3[D_6]$. Then Proposition $\ref{prop:chern}$ (i) gives
$c(\mathbb{P}_{\Delta})=(1+x)(1+y)^4(1+x+3y)$. In this case, the map $\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}^{\Delta(1)}=\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}^6\longrightarrow \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}^2=A_3(\mathbb{P}_{\Delta})$ is
$(a_1,\dots, a_6)\longmapsto (a_1+a_5, a_2+a_3+a_4+3a_5+a_6)$. This gives the grading on
$S(\Delta)=\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}[x_1,\dots,x_6]$, where
\begin{align*}
\deg(x_1)&=(1,0), \qquad \deg(x_5)=(1,3), \\
\deg(x_2)&=\deg(x_3)=\deg(x_4)=\deg(x_6)=(0,1).
\end{align*}
In particular, $S(\Delta)$ is a bihomogeneous polynomial ring.
Now the anticanonical degree of $S(\Delta)$ is $\alpha:=\sum_{i=1}^6\deg(x_i)=(2,7)$.
Taking a generic homogeneous polynomial $f\in S(\Delta)_{\alpha}$, we consider a torus-invariant anticanonical
divisor $D={\bf{V}}(f)$ on $\mathbb{P}_{\Delta}$.
Since $1+c_1([D])=1+(2x+7y)$, we have
$c(D)=(1+x)(1+y)^4(1+x+3y)(1+2x+7y)^{-1}$, so that
\[
\chi(D)=\braket{c_3(D), [D]} =\braket{(-4)\cdot(26y^3+8xy^2), [2x+7y]}=-240,
\]
where we used the normalization $\int_{B_1}xy^3=1$.
The Lefschetz hyperplane theorem gives $h^{1,1}(D)=b^2(\mathbb{P}_{\Delta})=2$, whence $h^{2,1}(D)=122$.
Let $S$ be a generic ample hypersurface of degree $\alpha$ in $D$ as in Example $\ref{ex:CP4}$. Since
$c(S)=(1+x)(1+y)^4(1+x+3y)(1+2x+7y)^{-2}$, we have $c_2(S)=67y^2+36xy+4x^2=67y^2+24xy$ where we used
the relation\footnote{In the practical computation we used packages (a) Macaulay2 and (b) Maxima.
These open source algebra systems are available at {\tt{http://www.math.uiuc.edu/Macaulay2}} and {\tt{http://maxima.sourceforge.net}} respectively. }
in the cohomology ring \eqref{eq:B2_cohomology}. Hence
\[
\chi(S)=\braket{67y^2+24xy, [(2x+7y)^2]}=1096.
\]
Now Theorem $\ref{th:Noether}$ implies that
$12(1+h^{0,2}(S))=1896$ and $6h^{1,1}(S)=4680$.
Consequently we have
\begin{equation*}
h^{p,q}(S) =
\begin{array}{ccccc}
&& 1 && \\
& 0 && 0 & \\
157 && 780 && 157 \\
& 0 && 0 & \\
&& 1 && \\
\end{array}.
\end{equation*}
Then the Hodge index theorem gives $\tau(S)=-464$. Thus $\tau(M)=2(0-(-464))=928$ by \eqref{eq:Signature}.
Also, \eqref{eq:Euler} gives $\chi(M)=2(8+1096-(-240))=2688$. Hence $\widehat{A}(M)=\frac{1}{48}(3\cdot 928
-2688)=2$ by \eqref{eq:A-hat}.
\end{example}
\newpage
\section{Table of examples from toric Fano fourfolds}
In the following table we give the list of all Calabi-Yau fourfolds constructed in Proposition $\ref{prop:CY4}$.
In the table below `ID' denotes the database ID in \cite{graded_ring},
and $(\chi (M),\tau (M))$ denotes the pair of the Euler characteristic and the signature
of the resulting Calabi-Yau fourfold $M$. In the last column
we indicate the same notation of toric Fano fourfolds as in \cite{Bat98} and \cite{Sato02}.
\begin{table}[H]
\caption{All possible Calabi-Yau fourfolds from toric Fano fourfolds} \vspace{0.3cm}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{rrcc} \toprule
No. & ID & ($\chi(M),\tau(M))$ & Notation \\ \midrule
$1$ & $147$ & $(2160,752)$ & $\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}} P^4$ \\
$2$ & $25$ & $(2688,928)$ & $B_1$ \\
$3$ & $139$ & $(2208,768)$ & $B_2$ \\
$4$ & $144$ & $(1920,672)$ & $B_3$ \\
$5$ & $145$ & $(1824,640)$ & $B_4$ \\
$6$ & $138$ & $(1824,640)$ & $B_5$ \\
$7$ & $44$ & $(2058,718)$ & $C_1$ \\
$8$ & $141$ & $(1824,640)$ & $C_2$ \\
$9$ & $70$ & $(1824,640)$ & $C_3$ \\
$10$ & $146$ & $(1746,614)$ & $C_4$ \\
$11$ & $24$ & $(2124,740)$ & $E_1$ \\
$12$ & $128$ & $(1764,620)$ & $E_2$ \\
$13$ & $127$ & $(1584,560)$ & $E_3$ \\
$14$ & $30$ & $(2064,720)$ & $D_1$ \\
$15$ & $31$ & $(2016,704)$ & $D_2$ \\
$16$ & $49$ & $(1968,688)$ & $D_3$ \\
$17$ & $35$ & $(1968,688)$ & $D_4$ \\
$18$ & $42$ & $(1776,624)$ & $D_5$ \\
$19$ & $129$ & $(1776,624)$ & $D_6$ \\
$20$ & $97$ & $(1740,612)$ & $D_7$ \\
$21$ & $134$ & $(1728,608)$ & $D_8$ \\
$22$ & $66$ & $(1680,592)$ & $D_9$ \\
$23$ & $132$ & $(1680,592)$ & $D_{10}$ \\
$24$ & $117$ & $(1662,586)$ & $D_{11}$ \\
$25$ & $140$ & $(1632,576)$ & $D_{12}$ \\
$26$ & $143$ & $(1584,560)$ & $D_{13}$ \\
$27$ & $133$ & $(1584,560)$ & $D_{14}$ \\
$28$ & $135$ & $(1584,560)$ & $D_{15}$ \\
$29$ & $68$ & $(1584,560)$ & $D_{16}$ \\
$30$ & $109$ & $(1506,534)$ & $D_{17}$ \\
$31$ & $43$ & $(1488,528)$ & $D_{18}$ \\
$32$ & $136$ & $(1488,528)$ & $D_{19}$ \\
$33$ & $41$ & $(1872,656)$ & $G_{1}$ \\
$34$ & $40$ & $(1626,574)$ & $G_{2}$ \\
$35$ & $64$ & $(1584,560)$ & $G_{3}$ \\
$36$ & $60$ & $(1536,544)$ & $G_{4}$ \\
$37$ & $69$ & $(1506,534)$ & $G_{5}$ \\
$38$ & $137$ & $(1488,528)$ & $G_{6}$ \\
$39$ & $26$ & $(1974,690)$ & $H_{1}$ \\
$40$ & $45$ & $(1812,636)$ & $H_{2}$ \\
$41$ & $28$ & $(1734,610)$ & $H_{3}$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular} \hfill
\begin{tabular}{rrcc} \toprule
No. & ID & ($\chi(M),\tau(M))$ & Notation \\ \midrule
$42$ & $118$ & $(1632,576)$ & $H_{4}$ \\
$43$ & $123$ & $(1536,544)$ & $H_{5}$ \\
$44$ & $48$ & $(1524,540)$ & $H_{6}$ \\
$45$ & $32$ & $(1446,514)$ & $H_{7}$ \\
$46$ & $124$ & $(1422,506)$ & $H_{8}$ \\
$47$ & $125$ & $(1392,496)$ & $H_{9}$ \\
$48$ & $67$ & $(1344,480)$ & $H_{10}$ \\
$49$ & $74$ & $(1728,608)$ & $L_{1}$ \\
$50$ & $75$ & $(1680,592)$ & $L_{2}$ \\
$51$ & $83$ & $(1632,576)$ & $L_{3}$ \\
$52$ & $105$ & $(1584,560)$ & $L_{4}$ \\
$53$ & $95$ & $(1536,544)$ & $L_{5}$ \\
$54$ & $112$ & $(1488,528)$ & $L_{6}$ \\
$55$ & $106$ & $(1440,512)$ & $L_{7}$ \\
$56$ & $142$ & $(1440,512)$ & $L_{8}$ \\
$57$ & $130$ & $(1440,512)$ & $L_{9}$ \\
$58$ & $114$ & $(1440,512)$ & $L_{10}$ \\
$59$ & $131$ & $(1344,480)$ & $L_{11}$ \\
$60$ & $108$ & $(1344,480)$ & $L_{12}$ \\
$61$ & $96$ & $(1344,480)$ & $L_{13}$ \\
$62$ & $33$ & $(1776,624)$ & $I_{1}$ \\
$63$ & $29$ & $(1686,594)$ & $I_{2}$ \\
$64$ & $47$ & $(1620,572)$ & $I_{3}$ \\
$65$ & $38$ & $(1578,558)$ & $I_{4}$ \\
$66$ & $34$ & $(1542,546)$ & $I_{5}$ \\
$67$ & $93$ & $(1518,538)$ & $I_{6}$ \\
$68$ & $37$ & $(1488,528)$ & $I_{7}$ \\
$69$ & $115$ & $(1440,512)$ & $I_{8}$ \\
$70$ & $94$ & $(1452,516)$ & $I_{9}$ \\
$71$ & $111$ & $(1458,518)$ & $I_{10}$ \\
$72$ & $59$ & $(1440,512)$ & $I_{11}$ \\
$73$ & $116$ & $(1326,474)$ & $I_{12}$ \\
$74$ & $126$ & $(1392,496)$ & $I_{13}$ \\
$75$ & $104$ & $(1362,486)$ & $I_{14}$ \\
$76$ & $39$ & $(1290,462)$ & $I_{15}$ \\
$77$ & $61$ & $(1440,512)$ & $M_{1}$ \\
$78$ & $50$ & $(1536,544)$ & $M_{2}$ \\
$79$ & $58$ & $(1392,496)$ & $M_{3}$ \\
$80$ & $57$ & $(1392,496)$ & $M_{4}$ \\
$81$ & $110$ & $(1374,490)$ & $M_{5}$ \\
$82$ & $36$ & $(1398,498)$ & $J_{1}$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[H]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{rrcc} \toprule
No. & ID & ($\chi(M),\tau(M))$ & Notation \\ \midrule
$83$ & $65$ & $(1266,454)$ & $J_{2}$ \\
$84$ & $71$ & $(1620,572)$ & $Q_{1}$ \\
$85$ & $79$ & $(1506,534)$ & $Q_{2}$ \\
$86$ & $73$ & $(1476,524)$ & $Q_{3}$ \\
$87$ & $77$ & $(1506,534)$ & $Q_{4}$ \\
$88$ & $81$ & $(1410,502)$ & $Q_{5}$ \\
$89$ & $84$ & $(1392,496)$ & $Q_{6}$ \\
$90$ & $91$ & $(1374,490)$ & $Q_{7}$ \\
$91$ & $90$ & $(1344,480)$ & $Q_{8}$ \\
$92$ & $82$ & $(1314,470)$ & $Q_{9}$ \\
$93$ & $102$ & $(1296,464)$ & $Q_{10}$ \\
$94$ & $120$ & $(1296,464)$ & $Q_{11}$ \\
$95$ & $88$ & $(1278,458)$ & $Q_{12}$ \\
$96$ & $76$ & $(1284,460)$ & $Q_{13}$ \\
$97$ & $103$ & $(1266,454)$ & $Q_{14}$ \\
$98$ & $113$ & $(1248,448)$ & $Q_{15}$ \\
$99$ & $92$ & $(1212,436)$ & $Q_{16}$ \\
$100$ & $107$ & $(1182,426)$ & $Q_{17}$ \\
$101$ & $27$ & $(1404,500)$ & $K_{1}$ \\
$102$ & $46$ & $(1368,488)$ & $K_{2}$ \\
$103$ & $119$ & $(1296,464)$ & $K_{3}$ \\
$104$ & $122$ & $(1260,452)$ & $K_{4}$ \\
$105$ & $89$ & $(1278,458)$ & $R_{1}$ \\
$106$ & $51$ & $(1248,448)$ & $R_{2}$ \\
$107$ & $56$ & $(1200,432)$ & $R_{3}$ \\
$108$ & $52$ & $(1218,438)$ & \\
$109$ & $72$ & $(1224,440)$ & $U_{1}$ \\
$110$ & $80$ & $(1188,428)$ & $U_{2}$ \\
$111$ & $78$ & $(1188,428)$ & $U_{3}$ \\
$112$ & $101$ & $(1152,416)$ & $U_{4}$ \\
$113$ & $121$ & $(1152,416)$ & $U_{5}$ \\
$114$ & $85$ & $(1152,416)$ & $U_{6}$ \\
$115$ & $86$ & $(1116,404)$ & $U_{7}$ \\
$116$ & $87$ & $(1080,392)$ & $U_{8}$ \\
$117$ & $62$ & $(1200,432)$ & $\widetilde{V}^4$ \\
$118$ & $63$ & $(960,352)$ & ${V}^4$ \\
$119$ & $98$ & $(1170,422)$ & $S_2\times S_2$ \\
$120$ & $99$ & $(1044,380)$ & $S_2\times S_3$ \\
$121$ & $100$ & $(936,344)$ & $S_3\times S_3$ \\
$122$ & $55$ & $(1248,448)$ & $Z_1$ \\
$123$ & $53$ & $(1266,454)$ & $Z_2$ \\
$124$ & $54$ & $(1026,374)$ & $W$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
|
\section{k-Induction with Invariants}
Our verification approach consists of two algorithms that run concurrently.
One algorithm is responsible for the generation of program invariants,
starting with imprecise invariants that are continuously refined (strengthened).
The other algorithm is responsible
for finding counterexamples with BMC
and constructing safety proofs with $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace,
for which it periodically picks up the invariants
that the former algorithm has constructed so far.
The $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace algorithm uses information from the invariant analysis,
but not vice versa.
\subsection{Iterative-Deepening k-Induction}
Algorithm \ref{k-induction-algo} shows our extension
of the $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace algorithm
to a combination with continuously-refined invariants.
Starting with an initial value for the bound $k$, e.g.,~$1$,
we iteratively increase the value of~$k$ after each unsuccessful attempt at
finding a specification violation or proving correctness of the program using $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace.
The following description of our approach to $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace
is based on split-case $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace~\cite{Software-Verification-Using-k-Induction},
where for the propositional state variables $s$ and $s'$
within a state transition system representing the program,
the predicate $I(s)$ denotes that $s$ is an initial state,
$T(s,s')$ states that a transition from $s$ to $s'$ exists,
and $P(s)$ asserts the safety property for the state $s$.
\smallsec{Base Case}
Lines~\ref{k-induction-algo-base-start} to~\ref{k-induction-algo-base-end} show the \textit{base case},
which consists of running BMC with the current bound~$k$.
This means that starting from an initial program state,
all paths of the program up to a maximum loop bound~$k$
are explored.
(As an optimization, one can omit checking for property violations
which have been checked in previous iterations with lower values of~$k$ already.)
Formally,
there exists a counterexample of length at most~$k$
if the following holds:
\[
I(s_0) \land \bigvee_{n=0}^{k-1} \left(\bigwedge_{i=0}^{n-1} T(s_i, s_{i+1}) \land \lnot P(s_n)\right)
\]
If a counterexample is found, the algorithm terminates.
\smallsec{Forward Condition}
Otherwise we check
whether there exists a path with length $k' > k$ in the program,
or whether we have already fully explored the state space of the program (lines~\ref{k-induction-algo-fc-start} to~\ref{k-induction-algo-fc-end}).
In the latter case the program is safe and the algorithm terminates.
This check is called the \textit{forward condition}\cite{Proving-Transaction-and-System-level-Properties}.
Formally, the program was fully explored and is safe
if the following is unsatisfiable:
\[
I(s_0) \land \bigwedge_{i=0}^{k-1} T(s_i, s_{i+1})
\]
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{Iterative-Deepening $k$\nobreakdash-Induction\xspace}
\label{k-induction-algo}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\REQUIRE ~\\
the initial value $k_{init} \geq 1$ for the bound $k$,\\
an upper limit $k_{max}$ for the bound $k$,\\
a function $\mathsf{inc}:\mathbb{N}\rightarrow\mathbb{N}$ with $\forall n\in\mathbb{N}: \mathsf{inc}(n) > n$\\\quad for increasing the bound $k$,\\
the initial states defined by the predicate $I$,\\
the transfer relation defined by the predicate $T$, and\\
a safety property $P$\\
\ENSURE \TRUE{} if $P$ holds, \FALSE{} otherwise
\STATE $k := k_{init}$
\WHILE{$k \leq k_{max}$}
\STATE $\mathit{base\_case} := I(s_0) \land \bigvee\limits_{n=0}^{k-1} \left(\bigwedge\limits_{i=0}^{n-1} T(s_i, s_{i+1}) \land \lnot P(s_n)\right)$
\label{k-induction-algo-base-start}
\IF{$\mathsf{sat}(\mathit{base\_case})$}
\label{invariant-gen-algo-safety-start}
\RETURN \FALSE
\ENDIF
\label{invariant-gen-algo-safety-end}
\label{k-induction-algo-base-end}
\vspace*{0.3\baselineskip}
\STATE $\mathit{forward\_condition} := I(s_0) \land \bigwedge\limits_{i=0}^{k-1} T(s_i, s_{i+1})$
\label{k-induction-algo-fc-start}
\IF{$\lnot\,\mathsf{sat}(\mathit{forward\_condition})$}
\RETURN \TRUE
\ENDIF
\label{k-induction-algo-fc-end}
\vspace*{0.4\baselineskip}
\STATE $\begin{aligned}\mathit{step\_case}_n :=& \bigwedge\limits_{i=n}^{n+k-1} \left(P(s_i) \land T(s_i, s_{i+1})\right)\\ & \land \lnot P(s_{n+k})\end{aligned}$
\label{k-induction-algo-ind-start}
\REPEAT
\STATE $\mathit{Inv} := \mathsf{get\_currently\_known\_invariant}()$ \tikzmark{inv-consumer}
\vspace*{0.2\baselineskip}
\IF{$\lnot\,\mathsf{sat}(\exists n \in \mathbb{N}: \mathit{Inv}(s_n) \land \mathit{step\_case}_n)$}
\label{k-induction-algo-ind-sat}
\RETURN \TRUE
\vspace*{0.2\baselineskip}
\ENDIF
\UNTIL{$\mathit{Inv} = \mathsf{get\_currently\_known\_invariant}()$}
\label{k-induction-algo-repeat-ind}
\label{k-induction-algo-ind-end}
\vspace*{0.5\baselineskip}
\STATE $k$ := $\mathsf{inc}(k)$
\ENDWHILE
\RETURN \textbf{unknown}
\end{algorithmic}
\vspace{1mm}
\end{algorithm}
\smallsec{Inductive Step}
Checking the forward condition can, however,
only prove safety for programs with finite (and short) loops.
Therefore the algorithm also attempts an inductive proof (lines~\ref{k-induction-algo-ind-start} to~\ref{k-induction-algo-ind-end}).
The base case for induction was already checked before.
The \textit{inductive-step case} checks that,
after any sequence of $k$~loop iterations without a property violation,
there is also no property violation in loop iteration~$k+1$.
For model checking of software, however, this would often fail.
The reason for this is that by induction
we try to prove the property for every part of the state space of the program.
Typically, a program has large parts of the state space that are unreachable,
for which the property might not hold
but which are irrelevant for the safety of the program.
As an example, a typical loop in a program
uses a loop counter which has only positive values,
and with induction we would try to prove the property
for all possible values of the loop counter,
including negative values.
The key to success for using induction for safety proofs of programs
is thus to exclude as many unreachable parts of the state space
as possible from the proof.
This can be done by adding assumptions about program variables
to the induction hypothesis.
In our approach, we make use of the fact
that the invariants that were generated so far
by the concurrently-running invariant-generation algorithm hold,
and conjunct these facts to the induction hypothesis.
Thus, the inductive-step case can prove a program as safe if the following is unsatisfiable:
\[
\exists n \in \mathbb{N}: \mathit{Inv}(s_n) \land \bigwedge\limits_{i=n}^{n+k-1} \left(P(s_i) \land T(s_i, s_{i+1})\right) \land \lnot P(s_{n+k})
\]
where $\mathit{Inv}$ are the currently available program invariants.
If this formula is satisfiable,
the induction check is inconclusive,
and the program cannot be proved as safe or unsafe
with the current value of~$k$ and the current invariants.
If during the time of the satisfiability check of the step case
a new (stronger) invariant has become available
(condition in line~\ref{k-induction-algo-repeat-ind} is false),
we immediately recheck the step case with the new invariant.
This can be done efficiently using an incremental SMT solver
for the repeated satisfiability checks in line~\ref{k-induction-algo-ind-sat}.
Otherwise we start over with an increased value of~$k$.
Note that the inductive-step case is similar to BMC
that checks for the presence of counterexamples of exactly length~${k+1}$.
However, as the step case needs to consider any consecutive $k+1$ loop iterations,
and not only the first such iterations,
it does not assume that the execution of the loop iterations
begins in the initial state.
Instead, it assumes that there is a sequence of $k$ iterations
without any property violation
(this is the induction hypothesis).
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{Continuous Invariant Generation}
\label{invariant-gen-algo}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\REQUIRE ~\\
a configurable program analysis with dynamic precision adjustment $\mathbb{D}$,\\
the initial states defined by the predicate $I$,\\
a coarse initial precision $\pi_0$,\\
a safety property $P$\\
\ENSURE \TRUE{} if $P$ holds
\STATE $\pi := \pi_0$
\STATE $\mathit{Inv} := \mathit{true}$
\LOOP
\STATE $\mathit{reached} := \mathsf{CPAAlgorithm}(\mathbb{D}, I(s), \pi)$
\IF{$\forall s \in \mathit{reached} : P(s)$}
\RETURN \TRUE
\ENDIF
\vspace*{0.5\baselineskip}
\STATE \tikzmark{inv-producer}$\mathit{Inv} := \mathit{Inv} \land \bigvee\limits_{s\,\in\,\mathit{reached}} s$
\label{invariant-gen-algo-inv}
\vspace*{0.5\baselineskip}
\STATE $\pi := \mathsf{RefinePrec(\pi)}$
\label{invariant-precision-refinement}
\ENDLOOP
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{tikzpicture}[remember picture,overlay]
\draw[->,double,out=200,in=0] ($(inv-producer) + (-0.3em,0.3em)$) to ($(inv-consumer) + (-0.1em,0.3em)$);
\end{tikzpicture}
\subsection{Continuous Invariant Generation}
Our continuous invariant generation
incrementally produces stronger and stronger program invariants.
It is based on an invariant-generation procedure
that is run in a loop, each time with an increased precision.
Each time the invariant has been strengthened,
it can be used as auxiliary invariant by the $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace procedure.
It may happen that this analysis proves safety of the program all by itself,
but this is not its main purpose in our application.
\smallsec{Algorithm}
Algorithm \ref{invariant-gen-algo} shows our continuous invariant generation.
The initial program invariant is represented by the formula $true$.
We start with running the invariant-generation analysis once with a coarse initial precision.
After each run of the program-invariant generation,
we strengthen the previously-known program invariants
with the newly-generated invariants (line~\ref{invariant-gen-algo-inv})
and announce it globally (such that the $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace algorithm can use it).
If the analysis was able to prove safety of the program,
the algorithm terminates
(lines~\ref{invariant-gen-algo-safety-start} to~\ref{invariant-gen-algo-safety-end}).
Otherwise, the analysis is restarted with a higher precision.
Our approach works with any kind of invariant generation procedure,
as long as its precision, i.e., its level of abstraction, is configurable.
We use the reachability algorithm $\mathsf{CPAAlgorithm}$
for configurable program analysis with dynamic precision adjustment~\cite{CPAplus}.
It takes as input a configurable program analysis~(CPA),
an initial abstract state, and a precision.
It returns a set of reachable abstract states
that form an over-approximation of the reachable program state.
This algorithm works with any abstract domain
that can be formalized as a CPA.
Depending on the used CPA and the precision,
the analysis done by $\mathsf{CPAAlgorithm}$
can be efficient and abstract like data-flow analysis
as well as expensive and precise like model checking.
\smallsec{Abstract Domain}
For the invariant generation
we use an abstract domain based on expressions over intervals.
Note that this is not a requirement of our approach,
which works with any kind of domain.
Our choice is based on the high flexibility of this domain,
which can be fast and efficient as well as precise.
The analysis is formalized and implemented as a~CPA~\cite{CPA}
with dynamic precision adjustment~\cite{CPAplus}.
An abstract state of our invariant-generation domain consists of
a mapping $M : X \rightarrow Expr$ from program variables to arithmetic expressions,
where $Expr$ is the set of expressions
and $X$ is the set of variables.
The set $Expr$ of expressions
consists of binary expressions, unary expressions, program variables,
and disjunctions of intervals,
and is defined recursively as
$Expr \subseteq ((Expr \times B \times Expr) \cup (U \times Expr) \cup X \cup I)$,
where
$B$ is the set of supported binary operators
$B = \{+, *, /, \%, =, <, $\textasciicircum$, |, \lor, \&, \land, \gg, \ll, \cup\}$,
$U$ is the set of supported unary operators
$U = \{\lnot, \sim, -\}$, and
$I$ is the set of
disjunctions of intervals of the form~$[u, l]$ with $u, l \in \mathbb{Z} \cup \infty$.
The disjunctions of intervals
allow for an efficient representation of ranges,
and, unlike in single-interval-based approaches, gaps between ranges can also be represented.
\smallsec{Precision}
In our CPA, the precision is a triple~$(Y, n, w)$,
where $Y \subseteq X$ is a specific selection of important program variables,
$n$~is the maximal nesting depth of expressions in the abstract state,
and $w$~is a boolean specifying whether widening should be used.
Those variables that are considered important
will not be over-approximated by merging abstract states.
With a higher nesting depth,
more precise relations between variables can be represented.
The use of widening ensures timely termination
(at the expense of a lower precision)
even for programs with loops with many iterations,
like those in the examples~\ref{fig:example-safe} and \ref{fig:example-unsafe}.
\smallsec{Merge}
Our CPA merges two abstract states
if both states do not differ in the expressions that are stored
for the important program variables from the set~$Y$ of the precision.
This way, the loss of information resulting from merging two abstract states does not affect
the selected variables in~$Y$.
Naturally, the more variables are in the precision,
the fewer merges occur, resulting in a more precise but slower analysis.
To guarantee timely termination of the analysis
even over loops with many iterations,
like those shown in the examples \ref{fig:example-safe} and \ref{fig:example-unsafe},
a widening strategy for over-approximating
variable values may be used when merging abstract states.
Formally, for two abstract states~$e_1, e_2$ and a precision~$\pi = (Y,n,w)$
the merge operator is defined as
\[\mathsf{merge}(e_1, e_2, \pi) = \begin{cases}
\mathsf{widen}(e_1, e_2) & \text{if } w \land \neg\mathsf{differ}_\pi(e_1,e_2)\\
\mathsf{union}(e_1, e_2) & \text{if } \neg w \land \neg\mathsf{differ}_\pi(e_1,e_2)\\
e_2 & \text{if } \mathsf{differ}_\pi(e_1,e_2)
\end{cases}\]
with $\mathsf{differ}_\pi(e_1,e_2) = \exists v\in Y:e_1(v) \not= e_2(v)$.
The operation $\mathsf{union}(e_1, e_2)$ returns an abstract state
where for each variable the union of the values for this variable in~$e_1$ and~$e_2$ is used.
The operation $\mathsf{widen}(e_1, e_2)$ over-approximates
by assigning to each variable only a single (potentially infinite) interval.
\smallsec{Precision Refinement}
The initial precision~$(\emptyset, 1, \mathit{true})$ for this analysis
specifies an empty set of variables as important variables,
i.e., abstract states belonging to the same program location
are always merged (by applying widening).
The maximum expression-nesting depth of~$n=1$
means that abstract states map program variables to a single variable or
to a disjunction of intervals (no arithmetic operators allowed).
Our main refinement strategy is to add variables to the set~$Y$ of important program variables,
first adding one variable,
and then doubling the size of the set in each refinement step.
When choosing variables for this step,
we visit the control-flow automaton backwards from the error location and pick variables
that appear in assume edges,
such that variables appearing in conditions close to the error location
get added first.
This refinement strategy is property-guided,
rather than counterexample-guided like CEGAR.
Additionally, we have a refinement step
that increments the expression-nesting depth to~$2$,
allowing more complex expressions,
such as an addition of a variable with a disjunction of intervals;
this refinement is helpful if an invariant
$x = y + 1$ is required, but the values of~$x$ and~$y$ cannot
be over-approximated precisely enough.
The third refinement strategy is to disable the use of widening.
Thus, the precision and the efficiency of the analysis is dynamically adjusted during
the analysis.
The maximal precision we use for our CPA is~$(X,2,\mathit{false})$
which tracks all program variables almost fully precisely.
Of course, any other precision-refinement strategy applicable for the chosen CPA
can be used for our continuous invariant generation, too.
\addtolength\textfloatsep{-\baselineskip}
\section{Background}
We briefly explain existing concepts that our approach uses.
\subsection{Programs}
We use the same notion of programs to describe the theoretical aspects of our ideas
as in previous work~\cite{CPA}.
The presentation of our work is restricted
to a simple imperative programming language
that contains only assume operations and assignments.
All variables are assumed to be integers%
\,\footnote{Our implementation is based on \cpachecker, which supports C programs.}.
\textit{Programs} are represented by control-flow automata.
A \textit{control-flow automaton} (CFA) consists of a set~$L$ of program locations,
modeling the program counter~$l$,
the initial program location~$l_0$, modeling the program entry,
and a set $G \subseteq L \times Ops \times L$ of control-flow edges,
each of which models the operation that is executed during the flow of control from one program location to another.
The variables that occur in operations from $Ops$ are contained in the set~$X$ of program variables.
In our presentation, we assume that each program contains at most one loop.
In our implementation,
we handle programs with multiple loops
by transforming all loops into a single monolithic loop~\cite{Compilers:-Principles-Techniques-and-Tools}.
\subsection{Configurable Program Analysis}
We use the concepts of \textit{configurable program analysis}~(CPA)\cite{CPA}
with dynamic precision adjustment~\cite{CPAplus}.
A CPA defines an abstract domain and a transfer relation,
together with a merge operator to specify what happens at meet points in the control-flow
and a stop operator to specify the fixed-point conditions.
The software-verification framework \cpachecker allows plugging in CPAs as components,
and CPAs can be reused and combined,
such that common tasks like tracking the program counter or the call stack
do not need to be considered in every single analysis.
The CPA algorithm optionally merges (as defined by the merge operator)
newly-discovered abstract states
with previously existing abstract states
to produce an abstract state covering both states,
over-approximating them.
This over-approximation may result in a loss of information,
but reduces the amount of states in favor of efficiency.
Each abstract state is paired with a precision, which specifies
how fine-grained the analysis should work
(to find a compromise between being efficient and precise).
\subsection{Bounded Model Checking}
The technique of \textit{bounded model checking} (BMC)~\cite{BMC} was
originally introduced as alternative to binary decision diagrams (BDD)
in symbolic model checking,
to produce counterexamples more quickly,
and to speed up verification in general.
Classic BMC reduces model checking
to propositional satisfiability~(SAT):
Only counterexamples up to a given length~$k$ are considered
and a propositional formula~$f$ is constructed
such that $f$ is satisfiable iff such a counterexample exists.
A SAT~solver can be used to check the satisfiability of~$f$
and, if $f$ is satisfiable,
the counterexample can be reconstructed from the model for~$f$,
which is provided by the SAT~solver.
However, if $f$ is unsatisfiable,
no counterexample with a length smaller than or equal to~$k$ exists.
Thus, unless it is known that all reachable states are covered
by BMC with length~$k$,
the absence of longer counterexamples cannot be guaranteed.
Therefore, BMC is often classified as a technique for falsification,
not for verification.
Nowadays, BMC is based on solvers for satisfiability modulo theories~(SMT)~\cite{SMT-Based-Bounded-Model-Checking-for-Embedded-ANSI-C-Software}.
\subsection{k-Induction}
BMC-based approaches can be extended from falsification to verification
by induction.
Consider a program that contains a loop, and a safety property~$P$.
BMC with $k = 1$ may show that no counterexample
(a violation of $P$) of length $k = 1$ exists (a),
but a longer counterexample might still exist.
If, however, we are able to prove that
for any given iteration through the loop where $P$ holds before,
$P$~also holds after the iteration (b),
the program is verified by induction,
where (a) is the base case and (b) is the inductive-step case.
Consider as a more formal example
the standard induction principle over natural numbers:
\[
\left(P(0) \land \forall n: \left( P(n) \implies P(n+1) \right) \right) \implies \forall n: P(n)
\]
This can be extended to greater values of~$k$
by asserting the safety property~$P$
for not only $1$ but $k$ consecutive predecessors in the step case,
which is known as \textit{$k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace{}}.
$k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace over natural numbers can be written as:
\[
\!\left(\bigwedge^{k-1}_{i=0}\! P(i) \land \forall n: \left(\!\!\left(\bigwedge^{k-1}_{i=0}\! P(n\!+\!i) \!\right) \implies P(n\!+\!k)\!\!\right)\!\!\right)\! \implies \forall n: P(n)
\]
Intuitively, the induction proof is more likely to succeed
for higher values of~$k$,
because the inductive-step case asserts the safety property for more consecutive predecessors,
thus a less general case is checked.
It holds that for $k>1$, ${(k-1)}$-induction implies $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace
and that therefore $(k-1)$-induction must always be at least as hard as
$k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace~\cite{The-k-Induction-Principle}.
\subsection{Invariants}
An assertion~$p$ is called an \textit{invariant} of a program
if $p$ is true for all states of that program~\cite{Temporal-Verification-of-Reactive-Systems}.
If $p$ is an assertion that specifies the safety property of a program
and $p$ is invariant,
then the program is safe.
Proving the invariance of an assertion is therefore a method of software verification.
An assertion $\varphi$ is called \textit{inductive},
if it is provable by induction~\cite{Property-Directed-Incremental-Invariant-Generation}.
However, not every \textit{invariant} assertion is \textit{inductive}.
One solution to this problem
is trying to find an \textit{inductive} assertion
$\varphi$ that is stronger than~$p$,
i.e., $\varphi \implies p$.
Trivially, if $\varphi$ is invariant then $p$ is also invariant.
This strengthening of assertions can be achieved
by creating the conjunction of $p$
and an \textit{auxiliary invariant}~$p'$
such that $\varphi := p \land p'$\cite{Automatic-Invariant-Strengthening-to-Prove-Properties-in-Bounded-Model-Checking}.
By choosing the auxiliary invariant in a way
that excludes those unreachable "good" states
that have transitions to "bad" successor states,
the stronger \textit{invariant} may be \textit{inductive}
where the weaker one was not.
\section{Conclusion}
We have presented the novel idea
of combining $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace with continuously-refined invariants,
and contribute a publicly available implementation of our idea
within the software-verification framework \cpachecker.
Our extensive experiments show
that our approach outperforms all existing implementations of $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace
for software verification, and that it is competitive
compared to other, more mature techniques for software verification.
We showed that a sound, effective, and efficient $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace approach
to general purpose software verification is possible,
and that the additional resources
required to achieve these combined benefits
are negligible if invested judiciously.
At the same time,
there is still room for improvement of our technique.
In the future, we plan to integrate successful features
of other approaches to $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace{}
such as the parallel algorithm of \esbmc.
The experiments with \esbmc show that we can avoid more timeouts on unsafe programs
by running
the iteratively-deepening BMC
decoupled from the slower inductive-step case.
We are also interested
in adding an information flow
between the two cooperating algorithms
in the reverse direction.
If the $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace procedure could tell
the invariant generation which facts
it misses to prove safety,
this could lead to a more efficient and effective approach
that generates invariants that are specifically tailored
to the needs of the $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace proof.
Already now, \cpachecker is parsimonious in terms of unrollings,
compared to other tools.
The low $k$-values required to prove many programs
show that even our current invariant generation is powerful enough
to produce invariants that are strong enough
to help cut down the necessary number of loop unrollings.
$k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace-guided precision refinement might direct the invariant generation towards
providing weaker but still useful invariants
for $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace more efficiently.
\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}{-3.25ex plus -1ex minus
\newcommand\definetool[2]{\newcommand{#1}{{\smaller\sc #2}\xspace}}
\definetool{\blast} {Blast}
\definetool{\cpachecker}{CPAchecker}
\definetool{\cbmc} {Cbmc}
\definetool{\cil} {Cil}
\definetool{\llvm} {Llvm}
\definetool{\tvla} {Tvla}
\definetool{\ocaml} {OCaml}
\definetool{\tvp} {Tvp}
\definetool{\camplp} {CamlP4}
\definetool{\foci} {Foci}
\definetool{\tcp} {TCP}
\definetool{\escjava} {ESC/Java}
\definetool{\slam} {Slam}
\definetool{\jpf} {JPF}
\definetool{\sycmc} {SyCMC}
\definetool{\impact} {Impact}
\definetool{\wolverine} {Wolverine}
\definetool{\ufo} {UFO}
\definetool{\java} {Java}
\definetool{\scratch} {Scratch}
\definetool{\esbmc} {Esbmc}
\definetool{\pkind} {\textsc{PKind}}
\definetool{\mathsat} {\textsc{MathSAT5}}
\newcommand{$k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace}{$k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace}
\newcommand{$k$\nobreakdash-Induction\xspace}{$k$\nobreakdash-Induction\xspace}
\newcommand{{CPA}\xspace}{{CPA}\xspace}
\newcommand{{CEGAR}\xspace}{{CEGAR}\xspace}
\newcommand{{\sc safe}\xspace}{{\sc safe}\xspace}
\newcommand{{\sc unsafe}\xspace}{{\sc unsafe}\xspace}
\newcommand{{\sc unknown}\xspace}{{\sc unknown}\xspace}
\newcommand{\text{\small\sc mo}}{\text{\small\sc mo}}
\newcommand\gt{\raisebox{0.3ex}[0pt][0pt]{\smallestfontsize\ensuremath{>}}\,}
\newcommand{\mathit{true}}{\mathit{true}}
\newcommand{\mathit{false}}{\mathit{false}}
\newcommand{\seq}[1]{{\langle #1 \rangle}}
\newcommand{\sem}[1]{[\![ #1 ]\!]}
\newcommand{\setsem}[1]{\bigcup_{e \in #1} \sem{e}}
\newcommand{\mathit{L}}{\mathit{L}}
\newcommand{\mathit{op}}{\mathit{op}}
\newcommand{\mathit{l}}{\mathit{l}}
\newcommand{\mathit{l}}{\mathit{l}}
\newcommand{{\pc_0}}{{\mathit{l}_0}}
\newcommand{{\pc_E}}{{\mathit{l}_E}}
\newcommand{\sqcap}{\sqcap}
\newcommand{\mathbb{D}}{\mathbb{D}}
\newcommand{\mathbb{C}}{\mathbb{C}}
\newcommand{\mathbb{L}}{\mathbb{L}}
\newcommand{\mathbb{LM}}{\mathbb{LM}}
\newcommand{\mathbb{R}}{\mathbb{R}}
\newcommand{\mathbb{P}}{\mathbb{P}}
\newcommand{\mathbb{E}}{\mathbb{E}}
\newcommand{\mathbb{U}}{\mathbb{U}}
\newcommand{\mathbb{RD}}{\mathbb{RD}}
\newcommand{\mathbb{CO}}{\mathbb{CO}}
\newcommand{\mathbb{A}}{\mathbb{A}}
\newcommand{\mathbb{S}}{\mathbb{S}}
\newcommand{\mathbb{C}}{\mathbb{C}}
\newcommand{\mathbb{A}}{\mathbb{A}}
\newcommand{\mathbb{O}}{\mathbb{O}}
\newcommand{\text{CPA+}\xspace}{\text{CPA+}\xspace}
\newcommand{\text{CPA++}\xspace}{\text{CPA++}\xspace}
\newcommand{\mathcal{C}}{\mathcal{C}}
\newcommand{\mathcal{E}}{\mathcal{E}}
\newcommand{\mathcal{Z}}{\mathcal{Z}}
\newcommand{\mathcal{P}}{\mathcal{P}}
\newcommand{P}{P}
\newcommand{\mathbb{N}}{\mathbb{N}}
\newcommand{\mathbb{B}}{\mathbb{B}}
\newcommand{\mathbb{Z}}{\mathbb{Z}}
\newcommand{\sqsubseteq}{\sqsubseteq}
\newcommand{\sqcup}{\sqcup}
\newcommand{\mathit{sep}}{\mathit{sep}}
\newcommand{\mathit{join}}{\mathit{join}}
\newcommand{\mathord{\downarrow}}{\mathord{\downarrow}}
\newcommand{\transconc}[1]{\smash{\stackrel{#1}{\rightarrow}}}
\newcommand{\transabs}[2]{\smash{\stackrel[#2]{#1}{\rightsquigarrow}}}
\newcommand{\mathsf{merge}}{\mathsf{merge}}
\newcommand{\mathsf{stop}}{\mathsf{stop}}
\newcommand{\mathit{waitlist}}{\mathit{waitlist}}
\newcommand{\mathit{reached}}{\mathit{reached}}
\newcommand{\mathit{result}}{\mathit{result}}
\newcommand{\mathit{Inv}}{\mathit{Inv}}
\newcommand{\preceq}{\preceq}
\renewcommand{\implies}{\Rightarrow}
\newcommand{{\sc fa}}{{\sc fa}}
\newcommand{\mathit{flag}}{\mathit{flag}}
\newcommand{\Itp}[3]{\smash{\mbox{\sc Itp}{(#2,#3)(#1)}}}
\newcommand{{\sf pre}}{{\sf pre}}
\newcommand{\Pi}{\Pi}
\newcommand{\Pi}{\Pi}
\newcommand{\pi}{\pi}
\DeclareMathOperator{\prunion}{%
{\ooalign{\hidewidth$\pi$\hidewidth\cr$\bigcup$}}%
}
\newcommand{p}{p}
\newcommand{\mathsf{prec}}{\mathsf{prec}}
\newcommand{\mathsf{prec}}{\mathsf{prec}}
\newcommand{\Psi}{\Psi}
\newcommand{\psi}{\psi}
\newcommand{\mathit{break}}{\mathit{break}}
\newcommand{\mathit{continue}}{\mathit{continue}}
\newcommand{\mid}{\mid}
\newcommand{\rightharpoonup}{\mbox{$\;\longrightarrow\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\circ\;\;\;$}}
\newcommand{\mathit{dom}}{\mathit{dom}}
\newcommand\widen{\mathsf{widen}}
\newcommand{\preccurlyeq}{\preccurlyeq}
\newcommand\refine{\mathsf{refine}}
\newcommand\finetune{\mathit{FineTune}}
\newcommand\extractscg{\mathit{ExtractSCG}}
\newcommand\abstr{\mathsf{abstract}}
\newcommand{\top\hspace{-2.77mm}\bot}{\top\hspace{-2.77mm}\bot}
\renewcommand{\hat}{\widehat}
\newcommand{{[\![}}{{[\![}}
\newcommand{{]\!]}}{{]\!]}}
\newcommand{\zug}[1]{{\langle #1 \rangle}}
\newcommand{\SP}[2]{{\sf SP_{#1}({#2})}}
\newcommand{\mathsf{blk}}{\mathsf{blk}}
\newcommand{\labs}[2]{{{l^\psi}^{#1}_{\!\!#2}}}
\newcommand{\mathsf{fcover}}{\mathsf{fcover}}
\newcommand{\abs}[3]{(\ensuremath{{#1}})^{#2}_{#3}}
\newcommand{\pf}{\varphi}
\newcommand{\clv}[1]{\langle#1\rangle}
\newcommand{\eq}[2]{\textsf{eq}.(#1).(#2)}
\newcommand{\textsf{clos*}}{\textsf{clos*}}
\newcommand{\clos}[3]{\textsf{clos*}(#1,#2,#3)}
\newcommand{\ite}[3]{\textsf{ite}.#1.#2.#3}
\newcommand{\textsf{sub}}{\textsf{sub}}
\newcommand{\Sub}[2]{\textsf{sub}(#1,#2)}
\newcommand{\Subp}[2]{\textsf{sub}^+(#1,#2)}
\newcommand{\textit{n}}{\textit{n}}
\newcommand{\inter}[2]{[#1..#2] }
\newcommand{\textit{var}}{\textit{var}}
\newcommand{\mathsf{F}}{\mathsf{F}}
\newcommand{\textit{field}}{\textit{field}}
\newcommand{\textsf{may}}{\textsf{may}}
\newcommand{\may}[2]{\textsf{may}(#1,#2)}
\newcommand{\textsf{Alloc}}{\textsf{Alloc}}
\newcommand{{\texttt{-\hspace{-.4ex}>}}}{{\texttt{-\hspace{-.4ex}>}}}
\newcommand{T}{T}
\newcommand{{\it alloc}}{{\it alloc}}
\newcommand{{\it malloc}}{{\it malloc}}
\newcommand{\displaystyle\bigwedge}{\displaystyle\bigwedge}
\newcommand{\textsf{eqvar}}{\textsf{eqvar}}
\newcommand{\eqvar}[2]{\textsf{eqvar}((#1),(#2))}
\newcommand{\baseof}[1]{\textsf{base}(#1)}
\newcommand{\;\texttt{=}\;}{\;\texttt{=}\;}
\newcommand{\Phi}{\Phi}
\newcommand{{M}}{{M}}
\newcommand{{E}} %{\widehat{M}}{{E}}
\newcommand{\sigma}{\sigma}
\newcommand{m}{m}
\newcommand{D}{D}
\newcommand{\mathcal{D}}{\mathcal{D}}
\newcommand{\Psi}{\Psi}
\newcommand{\widehat{\Psi}}{\widehat{\Psi}}
\newcommand{\mathbb{T}}{\mathbb{T}}
\newcommand{\mathbb{S}}{\mathbb{S}}
\newcommand{\mathcal{S}}{\mathcal{S}}
\newcommand{\mathbb{N}}{\mathbb{N}}
\newcommand{\predgen}[1]{P_{#1}}
\newcommand{\predgen{\mathit{core}}}{\predgen{\mathit{core}}}
\newcommand{\predgen{\mathit{instr}}}{\predgen{\mathit{instr}}}
\newcommand{\predgen{\mathit{abs}}}{\predgen{\mathit{abs}}}
\newcommand{\predgen{\mathit{pt}}}{\predgen{\mathit{pt}}}
\newcommand{\predgen{\mathit{fd}}}{\predgen{\mathit{fd}}}
\newcommand{\mathcal{P}}{\mathcal{P}}
\newcommand{\mathit{assume}}{\mathit{assume}}
\newcommand{\pt}[1]{\mathit{pt}_{\mathit{#1}}}
\newcommand{\fieldp}[1]{\mathit{fd}_{#1}}
\newcommand{\nullp}[1]{\mathit{np}_{#1}}
\newcommand{\textit{sm}}{\textit{sm}}
\newcommand{\textit{eq}}{\textit{eq}}
\newcommand{\reach}[1]{r_{#1}}
\newcommand{\mathcal{P}}{\mathcal{P}}
\newcommand{\textit{val}}{\textit{val}}
\newcommand{V}{V}
\newcommand{\mathrel{\mathit{bop}}}{\mathrel{\mathit{bop}}}
\newcommand{{\mathit{PathFormula}}}{{\mathit{PathFormula}}}
\newcommand{{\mathit{ExtractInterpolants}}}{{\mathit{ExtractInterpolants}}}
\newcommand{{\sf{Con}}}{{\sf{Con}}}
\newcommand{\widehat{\sf{Con}}}{\widehat{\sf{Con}}}
\newcommand{{\sf{Atoms}}}{{\sf{Atoms}}}
\newcommand{\mathit{val}}{\mathit{val}}
\newcommand{\mathsf{sel}}{\mathsf{sel}}
\newcommand{\mathsf{upd}}{\mathsf{upd}}
\newcommand{\mathsf{alloc}}{\mathsf{alloc}}
\newcommand{\textit{lvalue}}{\textit{lvalue}}
\newcommand{{\it operation}}{{\it operation}}
\newcommand{{\it statement}}{{\it statement}}
\newcommand{{\it predicate}}{{\it predicate}}
\newcommand{{\it expression}}{{\it expression}}
\newcommand{{\it constant}}{{\it constant}}
\newcommand{{\sf{Clean}}}{{\sf{Clean}}}
\newcommand{\mathit{depth}}{\mathit{depth}}
\newcommand{}{}
\newcommand{}{}
\subsection{Example}
\label{example}
We illustrate the open problem of $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace that we address,
and the strength of our approach, on two example programs.
Both programs encode an automaton,
which is typical, e.g., for software that implements
a communication protocol.
The automaton has a finite set of states,
which is encoded by variable~\texttt{s},
and two data variables~\texttt{x1} and~\texttt{x2}.
There are some state-dependent calculations (lines~5 and~6 in both programs)
that alternatingly increment \texttt{x1}~and~\texttt{x2},
and a calculation of the next state (lines~8 and~9 in both programs).
The state variable cycles through the range from~1~to~4.
These calculations are done in a loop
with a non-deterministic number of iterations.
Both programs also contain a safety property
(the label \texttt{ERROR} should not be reachable).
The program \texttt{example-safe} in Fig.~\ref{fig:example-safe}
checks that in every fourth state,
the values of \texttt{x1}~and~\texttt{x2} are equal;
it satisfies the property.
The program \texttt{example-unsafe} in Fig.~\ref{fig:example-unsafe}
checks that when the loop exits,
the value of state variable~\texttt{s} is not greater or equal to $4$;
it violates the property.
First, note that the program \texttt{example-safe}
is difficult or impossible to prove with other software-verification approaches:
(1)~BMC cannot prove safety for this program
because the loop may run arbitrarily long.
(2)~Explicit-state model checking fails
because of the huge state space
(\texttt{x1} and \texttt{x2} can get arbitrarily large).
(3)~Predicate analysis with counterexample-guided abstraction refinement (CEGAR)
and interpolation is able to prove safety,
but only if the predicate $\mathit{x1} = \mathit{x2}$ gets discovered.
If the interpolants contain instead only predicates such as
$\mathit{x1} = 1$, $\mathit{x2} = 1$, $\mathit{x1} = 2$, etc., the analysis will not terminate.
Which predicates get discovered is hard to control
and usually depends on internal interpolation heuristics of the
satisfiability-modulo-theory (SMT) solver.
(4)~Traditional $1$\nobreakdash-induction is also not able to prove the program safe
because the assertion is checked only in every fourth loop iteration
(when \texttt{s} is $1$).
Thus, the induction hypothesis is too weak
(the program state \texttt{s = 4}, \texttt{x1 = 0}, \texttt{x2 = 1}
is a counterexample for the step case in the induction proof).
Intuitively, this program should be provable
by $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace with a~$k$ of at least $4$.
However, for every~$k$, there is a counterexample
to the inductive-step case that refutes the proof.
For such a counterexample, set \texttt{s = }$-k$, \texttt{x1 = 0}, \texttt{x2 = 1}
at the beginning of the loop.
Starting in this state, the program would increment~\texttt{s} $k$~times (induction hypothesis)
and then reach \texttt{s = 1} with property-violating values of \texttt{x1}~and~\texttt{x2}
in iteration~$k+1$ (inductive step).
It is clear that~\texttt{s} can never be negative,
but this fact is not present in the induction hypothesis,
and thus the proof fails.
This illustrates the general problem of $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace-based verification:
safety properties often do not hold in unreachable parts of the state space of a program,
and $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace alone does not distinguish between reachable and unreachable parts of the state space.
If \esbmc with $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace analyzes program \texttt{example-safe},
the analysis ---as expected--- iteratively increments~$k$ and loops infinitely,
failing to prove safety.
This program could of course be verified more easily
if it were rewritten to contain a stronger safety property such as
$s \geq 1 \wedge s \leq 4 \wedge (s = 2 \Rightarrow \mathit{x1} = \mathit{x2}+1) \wedge (s \neq 2 \Rightarrow \mathit{x1} = \mathit{x2})$
(which is a loop invariant and allows a proof by 1-induction without auxiliary invariants).
However, our goal is to automatically verify real programs,
and programmers usually
neither write down trivial properties such as $s \geq 1$
nor too complex properties such as $s \neq 2 \Rightarrow \mathit{x1} = \mathit{x2}$.
With our approach of combining $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace with invariants,
the program is proved safe with $k = 4$
and the invariant $s \geq 1$.
This invariant is easy to find automatically using an inexpensive static analysis,
such as an interval analysis.
For bigger programs, a more complex invariant might be necessary,
which might get generated at some point
by our continuous strengthening of the invariant.
Furthermore, stronger invariants can reduce
the $k$~that is necessary to prove a program.
For example, the invariant
$s \geq 1 \wedge s \leq 4 \wedge (s \neq 2 \Rightarrow \mathit{x1} = \mathit{x2})$
(which is still weaker than the full loop invariant above)
allows to prove the program with $k = 2$.
Thus, our strengthening of invariants can also shorten
the inductive proof procedure and lead to better performance.
\esbmc~\cite{ESBMC-COMP13}
tries to solve this problem of a too-weak induction hypothesis
by initializing only the variables of the loop-termination condition
to a non-deterministic value in the step case,
and initializing all other variables to their initial value in the program.
However, this approach is not strong enough for the program \texttt{example-safe}
and even produces a wrong proof (unsound result) for the program \texttt{example-unsafe}.
This second example program contains a different safety property about~\texttt{s},
which is violated.
Because the variable~\texttt{s} does not appear in the loop-termination condition,
it is not set to an arbitrary value in the step case as it should be,
and the inductive proof wrongly concludes that the program is safe
because the induction hypothesis is too strong.
\esbmc misses the bug in this program and claims it is correct.
Our approach does not suffer from this unsoundness,
because we only add invariants to the induction hypothesis
that the invariant generation had proven to hold.
\section{Experimental Evaluation}
We compare our approach
with other $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace-based approaches
implemented in the same tool
as well as with other $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace-based tools.
\subsection{Benchmark Verification Tasks}
As benchmark set we use verification tasks from
the 2015 Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP'15)~\footnote{\url{http://sv-comp.sosy-lab.org/2015/}}.
We took all \nPrograms verification tasks from the categories
\textit{ControlFlow},
\textit{DeviceDrivers64},
\textit{HeapManipulation},
\textit{Sequentialized},
and \textit{Simple}.
The remaining categories were excluded
because they use features
(such as bitvectors, concurrency, and recursion)
that not all configurations of our evaluation support.
742~verification tasks in the benchmark set contain a known specification violation.
Although we cannot expect an improvement for these verification tasks when using auxiliary invariants,
we did not exclude them because this would unfairly benefit our approach
(which spends some effort generating invariants
which are not helpful when proving existence of a counterexample).
\subsection{Experimental Setup}
All experiments were conducted on computers with
two 2.6\,GHz 8-Core~CPUs (Intel Xeon E5-2560~v2) with 135\,GB of RAM.
The operating system was Ubuntu~14.04 (64~bit),
using Linux~3.13 and OpenJDK~1.7.
Each verification task was limited to
two CPU cores,
a CPU run time of 15\,min
and a memory consumption of 15\,GB.
\subsection{Presentation}
All benchmarks, tools, and the full results
of our evaluation are available on
a supplementary web page%
\,\footnote{\url{http://www.sosy-lab.org/~dbeyer/cpa-k-induction/}}.
All reported times are rounded to two significant digits.
We use the scoring scheme of SV-COMP'15
to calculate a score for each configuration.
For every real bug found, 1~point is assigned,
for every correct safety proof, 2 points are assigned.
A score of 6 points is subtracted for every wrong alarm (false positive) reported by the tool,
and 12 points are subtracted for every wrong proof of safety (false negative).
This scoring scheme values proving safety higher than finding counterexamples,
and significantly punishes wrong answers,
which is in line with the community consensus~\cite{SVCOMP14}
on difficulty of verification vs. falsification
and importance of correct results.
We consider this a good fit for evaluating an approach
such as $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace,
which targets at producing safety proofs.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:experiments-quantile-cputime-scores-tools}~and~\ref{fig:experiments-quantile-cputime-scores-other},
we present experimental results using a plot
of quantile functions for accumulated scores
as introduced by the Competition on Software Verification~\cite{SVCOMP13},
which shows the score and CPU~time for successful results
and the score for wrong answers.
A data point $(x, y)$ of a graph means
that for the respective configuration
the sum of the scores of all wrong answers
and the scores for all correct answers with a run time of less than or equal to $y$~seconds
is~$x$.
For the left-most point $(x,y)$ of each graph, the $x$-value
shows the sum of all negative scores for the respective configuration
and the $y$-value shows the time for the fastest successful result.
For the right-most point $(x,y)$ of each graph, the $x$-value
shows the total score for this configuration, and the $y$-value shows the
maximal run time.
A configuration can be considered better,
the further to the right (the closer to $0$) its graph begins (fewer wrong answers),
the further to the right it ends (more correct answers),
and the lower its graph is (less run time).
\subsection{Comparison of $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace-based approaches}
To allow a meaningful evaluation of our approach,
we implemented it together with other existing approaches in the same tool.
We used
the \java-based open-source software-verification framework \cpachecker~\cite{CPAchecker},
which is available online%
\,\footnote{\url{http://cpachecker.sosy-lab.org}}
under the Apache~2.0 license.
For benchmarking, we used revision~15\,499 from the trunk of the \cpachecker repository,
with \mathsat{}\,\footnote{\url{http://mathsat.fbk.eu}} as SMT solver.
The $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace algorithm of \cpachecker
was configured to increment~$k$ by~$1$ after each try
(in Alg.~\ref{k-induction-algo},
$\mathsf{inc}(k) = k+1$).
The precision refinement of the continuous invariant generation
was configured to increment the number of important program variables
in the first, third, fifth, and any further precision refinements.
The second precision refinement increments the expression-nesting depth,
and the fourth precision refinement disables the widening operator.
We evaluated the following $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace-based configurations:
(1)~without any auxiliary invariants,
(2)~with statically-generated invariants of different precisions,
(3)~with unsound invariants using a reimplementation of the heuristic of \esbmc~\cite{ESBMC-COMP13},
(4)~with our new continuously-refined invariants.
The $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace-based configuration using no auxiliary invariants
is an instance of Alg.~\ref{k-induction-algo} where
$\mathsf{get\_currently\_known\_invariant}()$ always returns an empty set of invariants
and Alg.~\ref{invariant-gen-algo} does not run at all.
The configurations using statically-generated invariants
are also instances of Alg.~\ref{k-induction-algo}.
Here, Alg.~\ref{invariant-gen-algo} runs in parallel,
however, it terminates after one loop iteration.
We denote these configurations with triples~$(s, n, w)$
which represent the precision~$(Y, n, w)$ of the invariant generation
with $s$~being the size of the set of important program variables ($s = |Y|$).
The first of these configuration is~$(0,1,\mathit{true})$,
which means that no variables are in the set~$Y$ of important program variables
(i.e., all variables get over-approximated by the merge operator),
the maximum nesting depth of expressions in the abstract state is~$1$,
and the widening operator is used.
The second configuration is~$(16,2,\mathit{true})$,
which means that $16$~variables are in the set~$Y$,
the nesting depth of expressions in the abstract state is limited to~$2$,
and the widening operator is used.
The third configuration is~$(16,2,\mathit{false})$,
where $16$~variables are in the set~$Y$,
the maximum nesting depth of expressions in the abstract state is~$2$,
and the widening operator is not used.
These configurations were selected
because they represent some of the extremes
of the precisions used during dynamic invariant generation.
It is, however, impossible to cover every possible valid configuration
within the scope of this paper.
The heuristic of \esbmc is to preserve information
about variable values before the loop
to help the step-case check to succeed.
A sound technique for using pre-loop information in the step-case
is to havoc the loop-modified variables,
i.e., to remove all information about these loop-modified variables,
but keep all other information~\cite{Software-Verification-Using-k-Induction},
effectively propagating constants to the step case.
\esbmc, however, heuristically selects only those variables for havocing
that appear in loop-termination conditions~\cite{ESBMC-COMP13}.
This technique is easier and computationally cheaper than generating sound auxiliary invariants,
but may lead to wrong verification results,
as shown in Sec.~\ref{example} for our Example~\ref{fig:example-unsafe}.
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Results of $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace-based configurations in \cpachecker for~all~\nPrograms~verification tasks
with different approaches for generation of auxiliary invariants}
\label{tab:induction-results}
\begin{tabular}{@{}l@{\quad}ff@{~}f@{~}fff@{}}
\hline
Invariant & \multicolumn{1}{@{}c@{}}{\multirow{2}{*}{none}} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{static} & \multicolumn{1}{@{}c@{}}{\esbmc} & \multicolumn{1}{@{}c@{}}{cont.-} \\
generation & & \multicolumn{1}{@{}c@{}}{$(0,1,t)$} & \multicolumn{1}{@{}c@{~\,}}{$(16,2,t)$} & \multicolumn{1}{@{}c@{}}{$(16,2,f)$} & \multicolumn{1}{@{}c@{}}{heuristic} &\multicolumn{1}{@{}c@{}}{refined} \\
\hline
Score \phantom{\Large X}&1\,557 & 3\,184 & 3\,263 & 3\,177 & 204 & \textbf{3\,464} \\
Correct results &1\,036 & 1\,852 & 1\,893 & 1\,849 & 1\,827 & \textbf{1\,981} \\
Wrong proofs & 2 &\textbf{1} &\textbf{1} & 2 & 263 & \textbf{1} \\
Wrong alarms & 12 & 10 & 11 & 9 & 8 & \textbf{7} \\
CPU time (h) & 400 & 200 & 190 & 200 & 140 & 170 \\
Wall time (h) & 380 & 150 & 130 & 120 & 130 & 100 \\
\hline
\multicolumn{6}{@{}l}{Times for correct results only: \phantom{\Large X}}\\
CPU time (h) & 7.1 & 14 & 15 & 13 & 8.8 & 17 \\
Wall time (h) & 5.7 & 8.4 & 8.9 & 7.6 & 6.9 & 9.4 \\
\hline
\multicolumn{6}{@{}l}{$k$-Values for correct safe results only: \phantom{\Large X}} \\
Max. final $k$ & 101 & 101 & 101 & 119 & 120 & 88 \\
Avg. final $k$ & 2.4 & 2.0 & 2.3 & 2.3 & 2.0 & 2.4 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsubsection{Score}
Using the unsound heuristic of \esbmc for invariant generation produces $263$~wrong proofs,
which shows that this is not a suitable approach for proving program safety.
In contrast, the few wrong proofs produced by the other configurations
are not due to conceptual problems,
but only due to incompletenesses in the analyzer's handling
of certain constructs such as unbounded arrays and pointer aliasing.
The configuration with no invariant generation
receives the second-lowest score of~$1\,557$,
and (as expected) can verify only $1\,036$~programs successfully,
producing more than $800$~results less than any of the configurations
that use sound auxiliary invariants.
This shows that it is indeed important in practice
to enhance $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace-based software verification with invariants.
The configurations using static invariant generation
produce~$1\,852$,~$1\,893$, and~$1\,849$ correct results
and achieve scores of~$3\,184$,~$3\,263$, and~$3\,177$ points, respectively.
These results are close to each other,
but improve upon the results of the plain $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace
without auxiliary invariants by a score of~$1\,600$ to~$1\,700$.
This observation explains the high score of~$3\,464$ points
achieved by our approach using continuously-refined invariant generation.
By combining the advantages of fast and coarse precisions
with those of slow but fine precisions,
it correctly solves~$1\,981$ verification tasks,
which is~$88$ more correct results
than the best of the chosen static configurations.
It is thus clearly the best of all evaluated
$k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace-based approaches.
\subsubsection{Performance}
Table~\ref{tab:induction-results} shows that
the fastest configuration in terms of CPU time
is the unsound approach,
which is easily explained by the fact
that it often produces incorrect proofs
after analyzing a low number of loop iterations of the program.
Due to the vast amount of wrong results,
the speed of the approach can hardly be considered a success.
By far the highest amount of time is spent
by the configuration using no auxiliary invariants,
because for those programs that cannot be proved without auxiliary invariants,
the $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace procedure loops incrementing~$k$ until the time limit is reached.
For the sound configurations,
the wall times for the correct results correlate with the amount of correct results,
i.e., on average about the same amount of time is spent on correct verifications,
whether or not invariant generation is used.
This shows that the overhead of generating auxiliary invariants is well-compensated.
The configurations with static and continuously-refined invariant generation
have a relatively higher CPU time compared to their wall time
because these configurations spend some time generating invariants in parallel
to the $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace algorithm.
The results show, however,
that the time spent for the continuously-refined invariant generation
clearly pays off
as this configuration is not only the one with the most correct results,
but at the same time the fastest sound configuration with only~$170$\,h in total
($20$\,h~less than the second-fastest sound configuration).
The fact that the accumulated wall time ($9.4$\,h) it spent on correct results
is slightly higher than for most of the other sound configurations
is simply because it produced more correct results.
The accumulated CPU time ($17$\,h) spent on correct results
is higher than for most of the other configurations partly due to the same reason,
but also because of the multiple iterations
of the invariant-generation algorithm
as opposed to only one iteration
for the configurations using static invariant generation
or even zero iterations
for the configuration using no invariant generation
and the unsound configuration using the \esbmc heuristic.
Even though it produced much more correct results,
the configuration using continuous invariant generation
did not exceed the times of the
chosen configurations using static invariant generation ($>170$\,h).
These results show that the additional effort invested in
generating sound auxiliary invariants is well-spent,
as it even decreases the overall time due to the fewer timeouts.
As expected, the continuously-refined invariants
solve many tasks quicker than
the configurations using invariant generation with high static precisions.
\subsubsection{Final value of~$k$}
The bottom of Table~\ref{tab:induction-results} shows some statistics
about the final values of~$k$ for the correct safety proofs.
There is no difference between the maximum $k$~values
for the configuration using no auxiliary invariants,
the configuration~$(0,1,t)$ using low-precision invariants,
and the configuration~$(16,2,t)$ using medium-precision invariants.
The configuration using static invariant generation with high-precision
and the unsound configuration using the \esbmc heuristic
have higher maximum final values of~$k$,
with~$119$ for the high-precision configuration~$(16,2,f)$
and~$120$ for the unsound configuration.
The logs revealed that this unique deviation
of the high-precision static invariant-generation configuration
was caused by a situation where the static invariant generation
completed only shortly before the timeout ($k = 119$ instead of $k = 101$).
For the unsound configuration,
there was one case where due to the low overhead of the approach,
the iterative deepening of $k$ progressed quickly up until the value~$120$,
where the $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace proof then succeeded.
The configuration using continuously-refined invariants, on the other hand,
has a significantly lower maximum final $k$-value than the other configurations.
This is due to the following two reasons:
First, with continuously-refined invariants,
less time is wasted on generating unnecessarily strong invariants
than for static high-precision configurations,
and the proofs terminate before high values of $k$ are reached.
Second, the dynamicity of the approach
allows for generating stronger invariants than static low-precision configurations,
thus reducing the value of $k$ required for the proof to succeed.
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Results of $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace-based tools for~all~\nPrograms~verification tasks}
\label{tab:tool-results}
\begin{tabular}{l@{\quad}ffrf}
\hline
Tool & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\cbmc} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\esbmc} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\cpachecker} \\
Configuration & & \multicolumn{1}{c}{sequential} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{parallel} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{cont. refined} \\
\hline
Score \phantom{\Large X} & -971 & 1\,659 & 2\,027 & \textbf{3\,464}\\
Correct results & 1\,216 & \textbf{2\,214} & 2\,137 & 1\,981\\
Wrong proofs & 261 & 184 & 137 & \textbf{1}\\
Wrong alarms & \textbf{4} & 28 & 24 & 7\\
CPU time (h) & 350 & 100 & 130 & 170\\
Wall time (h) & 350 & 100 & 76 & 100\\
\hline
\multicolumn{5}{l}{Times for correct results only: \phantom{\Large X}}\\
CPU time (h) & 1.9 & 34 & 25 & 17 \\
Wall time (h) & 1.9 & 34 & 14 & 9.4 \\
\hline
\multicolumn{5}{l}{$k$-Values for correct safe results only: \phantom{\Large X}} \\
Max. final $k$ & 50 & 100 & 100 & 88 \\
Avg. final $k$ & 1.1 & 8.4 & 7.4 & 2.4 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsection{Comparison with other tools}
For comparison with other $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace-based tools,
we evaluated \esbmc and \cbmc,
two other successful software model checkers with support for $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace.
The \cpachecker configuration in this comparison
is the same as the one above
using continuously-refined invariants.
For \cbmc, we used the latest version~5.0
in combination with a wrapper script
for split-case $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace
provided by Michael Tautschnig.
For \esbmc we used the latest version~2.24.1
in combination with the wrapper script
of their submission to the 2013 Competition on Software Verification~\cite{ESBMC-COMP13}
(the script configures \esbmc to use $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace).
We also provide results for the experimental parallel $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace of \esbmc,
but note that our benchmark setup is not focused on parallelization
(using only two CPU cores and a CPU-time limit instead of a wall-time limit).
Table~\ref{tab:tool-results} summarizes the results;
Fig.~\ref{fig:experiments-quantile-cputime-scores-tools} shows the quantile functions
of the accumulated scores for each configuration.
The results for \cbmc are not competitive,
which may be attributed to the experimental nature of its $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace support.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{experiments/quantile-cputime-score-tools.pdf}
\caption{Quantile functions of $k$-induction-based tools
for accumulated scores showing the CPU time for the successful results;
linear scale between 0\,s and 1\,s, logarithmic scale beyond}
\label{fig:experiments-quantile-cputime-scores-tools}
\vspace{-2mm}
\end{figure}
\smallsec{Score}
Both configurations of \esbmc
produce a significant number of wrong results.
All tools do produce some wrong answers,
which are probably related to unsoundness and imprecision in the handling of some C~features.
\cpachecker with $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace and sound invariants has only 1~missed bug
(i.e, wrong claim of safety),
whereas \esbmc, in the sequential version, has 184~wrong safety proofs.
This large number of wrong results must be attributed to the unsound heuristic of \esbmc
for strengthening the induction hypothesis,
where it retains potentially incorrect information about loop-modified variables.
The large number of wrong proofs
reduces the confidence in the soundness of the correct proofs.
Consequently, the score achieved by \cpachecker
with continuously-refined invariants
is much higher than the score of \esbmc
(3\,464 instead of 2\,027 points).
This clear advantage is also visible in Fig.~\ref{fig:experiments-quantile-cputime-scores-tools}.
When comparing the results of \esbmc
to \cpachecker with a reimplemention of the unsound heuristic of \esbmc,
we see that \esbmc produces fewer wrong results.
The reason for this difference is that
the heuristic only works well
if relevant variables are identified on loop-exit conditions.
Due to \cpachecker's encoding of multiple loops in a program
into a single loop for $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace,
the number of loop-exit conditions is smaller than in the original program,
and the heuristic performs worse.
However, even with the implementation in \esbmc,
this unsound heuristic produces so many wrong results
that it is not suited for verifying program safety.
The parallel version of \esbmc performs somewhat better than its sequential version,
and misses fewer bugs.
This is due to the fact that the base case and the step case are performed in parallel,
and the loop bound~$k$ is incremented independently for each of them.
The base case is usually easier to solve for the SMT solver,
and thus the base-case checks proceed faster than the step-case checks
(reaching a higher value of~$k$ sooner).
Therefore, the parallel version manages to find some bugs
by reaching the relevant~$k$ in the base-case checks
earlier than in the step-case checks, which would produce a wrong safety proof at reaching~$k$.
However, the number of wrong proofs is still
much higher than with our approach, which is conceptually sound.
Thus, our score is more than 1\,400~points higher.
\smallsec{Performance}
Table~\ref{tab:tool-results} shows that,
if only the times for correct results are considered,
our approach is considerably faster than \esbmc
(\cbmc has so few correct results that the time for them is even less).
This indicates that due to our invariants,
we succeed more often with fewer loop unrollings
and thus in less time.
It also shows that the effort invested for generating the invariants
is well spent.
If considering the total time for the analysis of all results,
\cpachecker needs more time.
This is due to the fact that these measurements are dominated
by those programs for which the tool runs into a timeout,
and \cpachecker has more timeouts,
whereas \esbmc has more wrong results
(for which less time is spent).
A timeout is generally preferable to a wrong result, though.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{experiments/scatter-k.pdf}
\caption{Scatter plot of the final value of $k$
for all safe programs verified successfully by both \cpachecker (continuously-refined invariants) and \esbmc (sequential) with $k$-induction;
the color of each data point indicates the number of programs solved with this value of $k$}
\label{fig:experiments-scatter-k}
\vspace{-2mm}
\end{figure}
\smallsec{Final value of $k$}
The bottom of Table~\ref{tab:tool-results}
contains some statistics
on the final value of~$k$ that
was needed to verify a program.
Figure~\ref{fig:experiments-scatter-k} shows a scatter plot
comparing the values of the loop bound~$k$ for \cpachecker
with continuously-refined invariants
and \esbmc in its sequential version.
Both axes and the color range have a logarithmic scale.
Data points are shown only for those $1\,460$~verification tasks that can be proved safe
by both configurations.
A~point in the lower right half means
that \cpachecker needed a lower~$k$ (fewer loop unrollings)
than \esbmc for the same verification task.
The color of each data point gives an indication
of how many verification tasks are represented by the data point.
For example, the dark point at~$(2, 1)$
signifies that there are $845$~programs
that can be verified by \cpachecker
with a final value of~$k = 1$,
whereas \esbmc needs $k = 2$ for these programs.
The table shows that for safe programs, \cpachecker
only needs a loop bound
that is (on average) less than a third of the loop bound that \esbmc needs.
The bottom of the plot shows that there are many programs
(including the $845$~programs at $(2, 1)$)
that \cpachecker verifies with only one loop unrolling,
but for which \esbmc needs to unroll the loops more often.
To the right of the plot,
there is also a group of programs for which \esbmc
needs a~$k$ between $45$ and $65$ to verify the program,
and \cpachecker succeeds with significantly smaller~$k$.
There are only four programs for which \cpachecker needs a~$k$ larger than~$32$
(one program for $k=40$, $k=45$, $k=50$, and $k=88$ each).
For \esbmc, the largest number of loop unrollings is~$100$,
which is necessary for $71$~programs.
These advantages are due to the use of generated invariants,
which make the induction proofs easier
and likely to succeed with a smaller number of~$k$.
There is also a group of programs where \esbmc
succeeds with $2$~loop unrollings
but \cpachecker needs up to~$16$.
However, the number of such programs is relatively small
(note that the data points with a green-to-orange color
only represent $1$~to $9$~programs)
and there is only a single program where \cpachecker
unrolls the loops more than $10$~times more than \esbmc
(while there are many with the reverse being true).
The reason why \esbmc needs fewer loop unrollings
for some programs is its (unsound) heuristic
of keeping information about some program variables
from the initial program state in the inductive-step case.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{experiments/quantile-cputime-score-other.pdf}
\caption{Quantile functions
for accumulated scores showing the CPU time for the successful results}
\label{fig:experiments-quantile-cputime-scores-other}
\vspace{-2mm}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Comparison with other approaches}
We also compare with the predicate-abstraction implementation of \cpachecker~\cite{ABE},
which uses the same framework (parser, formula encoding, etc.) and SMT solver
as our implementation of $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace.
The score-based quantile functions
for our $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace approach
and the existing predicate abstraction
in Fig.~\ref{fig:experiments-quantile-cputime-scores-other}
show that the latter is somewhat faster and achieves a higher score.
It is surprising that even the well-tuned \cpachecker implementation
of the mature predicate-abstraction approach
only slightly outperforms our novel $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace implementation.
The difference in performance and score between these two configurations
is much smaller than the improvement of our approach
compared to existing $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace-based approaches
(cf. Fig.~\ref{fig:experiments-quantile-cputime-scores-tools}).
This is a promising result,
considering that there is room for improvement
in our approach.
Especially the invariant generation could be further enhanced,
e.g., by tailoring the invariant generation to the special needs
of the $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace proof,
and a more targeted invariant-refinement procedure.
\subsection{Acknowledgments}
We would like to thank M.~Tautschnig
and L.~Cordeiro
for explaining the optimal available configuration for $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace,
for the verifiers \cbmc and \esbmc, respectively.
\section{Introduction}
Advances in software verification in the recent years
have lead to increased efforts towards applying formal verification methods
to industrial software, in particular operating-systems code~\cite{LDV,SLAMtransfer}.
One model-checking technique that is implemented by more than half of the verifiers
that participated in the 2014 Competition on Software Verification~\cite{SVCOMP14}
is bounded model checking (BMC)~\cite{Bounded-Model-Checking}.
For unbounded systems, BMC can be used only for falsification,
not for verification~\cite{Handbook-of-Satisfiability}.
This limitation to falsification can be overcome
by combining BMC with mathematical induction
and thus extending it to verification~\cite{Automatic-Analysis-of-Scratch-pad-Memory-Code-for-Heterogenous-Multicore-Processors}.
Unfortunately, inductive approaches
are not always powerful enough
to prove the required verification conditions,
because not all program invariants are inductive~\cite{Automatic-Invariant-Strengthening-to-Prove-Properties-in-Bounded-Model-Checking}.
This problem can be mitigated by using the more general $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace
instead of the standard induction~\cite{Checking-Safety-Properties-Using-Induction-and-a-SAT-Solver},
an approach which has already been implemented in the DMA-race analysis tool \scratch~\cite{Automatic-Analysis-of-DMA-Races-Using-Model-Checking-and-k-Induction}
and in the software verifier \esbmc~\cite{ESBMC-COMP13}.
Nevertheless, additional supportive measures are often required
to guide $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace and take advantage of its full potential~\cite{Software-Verification-Using-k-Induction}.
Our goal is to provide a powerful and competitive approach
for reliable, general-purpose software verification
based on BMC and $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace,
implemented in a state-of-the-art software verification framework.
Our contribution is a new combination of
$k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace-based model checking with
automatically-generated continuously-refined invariants
that are used to strengthen the induction hypothesis,
which increases the effectiveness of the approach.
BMC and $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace are combined
in an algorithm that iteratively increments the induction parameter~$k$.
The invariant generation runs in parallel to the $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace proof construction,
starting with relatively weak (but inexpensive to compute) invariants,
and increasing the strength of the invariants over time as long as the analysis continues.
The $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace-based proof construction adopts
the currently known set of invariants in every new proof attempt.
This approach can verify easy problems quickly
(with a small initial~$k$ and weak invariants),
and is able to verify complex problems by increasing the effort
(by incrementing~$k$ and searching for stronger invariants).
Thus, it is both efficient and effective.
In contrast to previous work~\cite{ESBMC-COMP13}, the new approach is sound.
We implemented our approach as part of the open-source
software-verification framework \cpachecker~\cite{CPAchecker},
and we perform an extensive experimental comparison of our implementation against the two existing tools
that use similar techniques
and against another successful software-verification approach.
\subsection{Availability of Data and Tools}
Our experiments are based on benchmark verification tasks
from the 2015 Competition on Software Verification.
All benchmarks, tools, and results
of our evaluation are available on
a supplementary web page%
\,\footnote{\url{http://www.sosy-lab.org/~dbeyer/cpa-k-induction/}}.
\subsection{Contributions}
We make the following novel contributions:
We develop an approach
for providing continuously refined invariants to $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace
by using configurable program analysis with precision refinement.
We also present an extensive evaluation
where we compare various different approaches and implementations
against the implementation of our proposed approach
and show that our technique outperforms
other approaches to software verification with $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace.
\subsection{Related Work}
The use of auxiliary invariants is a common technique in software verification~\cite{Automatic-Generation-of-Invariants-and-Intermediate-Assertions},\cite{Incremental-Invariant-Generation-Using-Logic-Based-Automatic-Abstract-Transformers},\cite{InvGen-An-Efficient-Invariant-Generator},
and techniques combining abstract interpretation and SMT solvers also exist~\cite{UFO-COMP13}.
In most cases, the purpose is to speed up the analysis.
For $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace, however,
the use of invariants is crucial in making the analysis terminate at all
(cf. Fig.~\ref{fig:example-safe}).
There are several approaches to software verification
using BMC in combination with $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace.
\smallsec{Split-Case Induction}
We use the \textit{split-case $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace{}} technique~\cite{Automatic-Analysis-of-DMA-Races-Using-Model-Checking-and-k-Induction, Automatic-Analysis-of-Scratch-pad-Memory-Code-for-Heterogenous-Multicore-Processors},
where the base case and the step case are checked in separate steps.
Due to the fact that this technique is only able to handle one loop at a time,
another similarity to the approach of
the earlier versions of \scratch~\cite{Automatic-Analysis-of-DMA-Races-Using-Model-Checking-and-k-Induction}
is the transformation of programs with multiple loops
into programs with only one single monolithic loop
using a standard approach~\cite{Compilers:-Principles-Techniques-and-Tools}.
The alternative of recursively applying the technique to nested loops
is discarded by the authors of \scratch~\cite{Automatic-Analysis-of-DMA-Races-Using-Model-Checking-and-k-Induction},
because the experiments suggested it was less efficient
than checking the single loop that is obtained by the transformation.
\scratch also supports \textit{combined-case $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace{}}~\cite{Software-Verification-Using-k-Induction},
for which all loops are cut
by replacing them with $k$ copies each for the base and the step case,
and setting all loop-modified variables to non-deterministic values
before the step case.
That way, both cases can be checked at once in the transformed program
and no special handling for multiple loops is required.
When using combined-case $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace,
\scratch requires loops to be manually annotated with the required $k$ values,
whereas its implementation of split-case $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace
supports iterative deepening of $k$
as in our implementation.
Contrary to \scratch,
we do not focus on one specific problem domain~\cite{Automatic-Analysis-of-DMA-Races-Using-Model-Checking-and-k-Induction, Automatic-Analysis-of-Scratch-pad-Memory-Code-for-Heterogenous-Multicore-Processors},
but want to provide a solution for solving a wide range
of heterogeneous verification tasks.
\smallsec{Auxiliary Invariants}
While both the split-case and the combined-case $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace supposedly succeed
with weaker auxiliary invariants
than for example the inductive invariant approach~\cite{Weakest-Precondition-of-Unstructured-Programs},
the approaches still do require auxiliary invariants in practice,
and the tool \scratch
requires these invariants to be annotated manually~\cite{Automatic-Analysis-of-DMA-Races-Using-Model-Checking-and-k-Induction, Software-Verification-Using-k-Induction}.
There are techniques for automatically generating invariants
that may be used to help inductive approaches to succeed~\cite{InvGenX,Property-Directed-Incremental-Invariant-Generation, Automatic-Invariant-Strengthening-to-Prove-Properties-in-Bounded-Model-Checking}.
These techniques, however,
are not guaranteed to justify their additional effort
by providing the required invariants on time,
especially if strong auxiliary invariants are required.
Based on previous ideas of supporting $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace
with invariants generated by lightweight static analysis~\cite{Strengthening-Induction-Based-Race-Checking-with-Lightweight-Static-Analysis},
we therefore strive to leverage the power of the $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace approach
to succeed with auxiliary invariants
generated by a static analysis
based on intervals.
However, to handle cases where it is necessary to invest more effort
into invariant generation,
we increase the precision of these invariants over time.
A verification tool using a strategy similar to ours is \pkind~\cite{PKind:-A-parallel-k-induction-based-model-checker, Incremental-Invariant-Generation-Using-Logic-Based-Automatic-Abstract-Transformers},
a model checker for Lustre programs based on $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace.
In \pkind, there is a parallel computation of auxiliary invariants,
where potential invariants derived by templates
are iteratively checked via $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace
and, if successful, added to the set of known invariants.
While this allows for strengthening the induction hypothesis over time,
the template-based approach lacks the flexibility that is
available to an invariant generator using dynamic precision refinement~\cite{CPAplus},
and the required additional induction proofs are potentially expensive.
\smallsec{Unsound Strengthening of Induction Hypothesis}
\esbmc does not require additional invariants for $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace,
because it assigns non-deterministic values only to the loop-termination condition variables
before the inductive-step case~\cite{ESBMC-COMP13}
and thus retains more information than our as well as the \scratch implementation~\cite{Automatic-Analysis-of-DMA-Races-Using-Model-Checking-and-k-Induction, Software-Verification-Using-k-Induction},
but $k$\nobreakdash-induction\xspace in \esbmc is therefore potentially unsound.
Our goal is to
perform a real proof of safety by removing all pre-loop information in the step case,
thus treating the unrolled iterations in the step case truly as "any $k$ consecutive iterations",
as is required for the mathematical induction.
Our approach counters this lack of information
by employing incrementally improving invariant generation.
\smallsec{Parallel Induction}
In \pkind, base case and step case are checked in parallel,
and the latest version of \esbmc, version 1.23,
supports parallel execution of
the base case,
the forward condition,
and the inductive-step case.
In contrast, our base case and inductive-step case
are checked sequentially,
while our invariant generation runs in parallel
to the aforementioned base- and step-case checks.
|
\section{Introduction}
\subsection{Background}
\label{sec:intro}
Magnetic Feshbach resonances (MFRs) have become a staple of quantum gas experiments with alkali-metal atoms, allowing for unprecedented control of interatomic interactions \cite{Chin2010}. The MFR technique is so powerful that it has extended the reach of dilute quantum gas experiments to a variety of areas of physics. Examples of high impact experiments that utilize MFRs are the study of strongly correlated systems \cite{Bloch2008} such as unitary Bose \cite{Rem2013,Wild2012} and Fermi \cite{Kinast2004,Regal2004,Zwierlein2004} gases, the discovery of exotic few-body bound states \cite{Kraemer2006,Braaten2006,Ferlaino2011,Wang2013}, the ability to make ultracold molecules~\cite{Ni2008,Quemener2012}, and the engineering of novel quantum matter \cite{Chotia2012,Yan2013}. Feshbach resonances based on laser fields---known as ``optical Feshbach resonances'' (OFRs) \cite{Fedichev1996,Bohn1997}---have also been observed \cite{Fatemi2000,Jones2006}, but so far their utility has been limited. Since laser fields can be focused tighter and switched faster than magnetic fields, it is expected that OFRs could yield an MFR-like effect but with orders of magnitude better spatial and temporal control \cite{Yamazaki2010}.
Furthermore, OFRs are better suited for alkaline-earth-metal atoms, which have magnetically insensitive electronic ground states. The study of alkaline earth atoms is now a rich field, attracting attention for metrology \cite{Bloom2014}, quantum information \cite{Daley2008,Gorshkov2009}, and many-body physics \cite{Gorshkov2010}. Quantum degenerate gases of these atoms have also been realized \cite{Takasu2003,Kraft2009,Stellmer2013}. Many-body physics has been demonstrated in strontium lattice clocks \cite{Martin2013}, and it has been shown that controlling many-body interactions in gases of alkaline earth metals could lead to better clock accuracy \cite{Swallows2011}. Without MFRs to facilitate the same many-body control enjoyed by alkali-metal experiments, OFRs have been suggested as an alternative \cite{Ciuryo2005}.
OFRs have been the focus of several experiments. These resonances have been observed in alkali gases \cite{Fatemi2000,Theis2004} and in alkaline-earth-like atoms \cite{Enomoto2008}. P-wave OFRs have been reported \cite{Yamazaki2012}, and OFRs have been successfully applied to induce thermalization in Sr gases \cite{Blatt2011} and manipulate the condensate dynamics of a Sr Bose-Einstein condensate \cite{Yan2013a,Yan2013b}. The theory used to describe these experiments was based on a quantum defect treatment by Bohn and Julienne, who used an isolated resonance approximation to derive the optically modified scattering length \cite{Bohn1999}.
Although the isolated resonance theory has been successful in describing some observations of OFRs, it fails to explain OFR behavior in the large detuning regimes that are critical to a proposal for practically applying these resonances \cite{Ciuryo2005}. Attempts to experimentally realize this proposal did not succeed \cite{Blatt2011}; therefore, the limited theoretical understanding of OFRs has hindered experimental progress. To broaden the theoretical understanding of OFRs, we perform the most complete theoretical analysis of this effect to date. To this end, we treat OFRs with a numerical coupled channel method, which has been highly successful for treating MFRs \cite{Kohler2006,Chin2010}. Like the MFR theory, our coupled channel approach is capable of treating multiple interacting resonances without being restricted to the more limited isolated resonance approximation. Consequently, this more general treatment allows us to study the range of validity of the isolated resonance approximation, and it also enables us to point out similarities and significant differences between OFRs and MFRs. Finally, we use the isolated resonance theory to derive experimentally useful formulas that can be used to understand real experimental OFR data.
\subsection{Basic Collision Theory}
\label{subsec:Basic}
In the context of cold-atom physics, a Feshbach resonance is a collisional resonance of two particles that is tunable by an external field. This is possible if a molecular bound state from an excited scattering channel (called the ``closed channel") couples to the free atom continuum of the ground state scattering channel (called the ``entrance channel" or the ``background channel"). Furthermore, the bound state energy is tunable by an external magnetic or electromagnetic field. The presence of this bound molecular state modifies the $s$-wave scattering length of the atoms, thereby changing the atomic interactions as the external field is tuned.
We emphasize that both MFRs and OFRs can be treated by the same scattering formalism, which accounts for the differences in their coupling and control mechanisms, as presented in the review by Chin {\it et al.}~\cite{Chin2010}. A typical MFR is coupled to the entrance channel by internal short range spin-dependent couplings within the ground state manifold of Zeeman levels. MFRs are tuned by varying
an external magnetic field $B$ to move a molecular bound state across a collision threshold, creating a pole in the scattering $S$-matrix as a function of $B$. An OFR involves coupling a bound molecular state to two colliding atoms in their ground states using a photon from a laser, hereafter called the ``photoassociation laser" or ``PA laser.'' In this case, the coupling depends on both the PA laser detuning from a photoassociation resonance (the ``molecular detuning'') and the PA laser intensity. In contrast to MFRs, which are often based on molecular states that have very long lifetimes, spontaneous decay of the excited molecular state in an OFR introduces an appreciable linewidth to the molecular transition. Any population transferred to the excited state undergoes spontaneous decay, which translates to inelastic loss collisions that must be minimized in order to utilize an OFR. However, resonance decay does not necessarily prevent the application of OFRs since MFRs with 2-body decay channels ~\cite{Thompson2005b,Kohler2005,Naik2011} have proven experimentally useful ~\cite{Cornish2000,Donley2002,Papp2008,Trenkwalder2011,Kohlstall2012}.
In the OFR studies presented here, we consider bosonic \ensuremath{^{88}}Sr\ with the two ground state atoms providing the $^1S_0 + ^1\!\!S_0$ ground state entrance channel and the excited state $^1S_0 + ^3\!\!P_1$ providing the closed channels, schematically represented in Fig.~\ref{fig:atoms_in_radiation_field}. Since bosonic isotopes of alkaline earths have no nuclear spin, the \ensuremath{^{88}}Sr\ resonance structure is considerably simpler than for atoms with hyperfine interactions, making it a good atom for an OFR experiment. The $^1S_0 \rightarrow ^3\!\!P_1$ atomic transition is an intercombination line with a natural linewidth of $\gamma_a = 2\pi \times$ 7.4 kHz. The narrowness of this transition means that all OFRs in \ensuremath{^{88}}Sr\ are well resolved from the atomic line, decreasing the severity of off-resonant atomic light scattering.
To analyze the scattering of two colliding \ensuremath{^{88}}Sr\ atoms in a light field, we calculate the scattering \emph{S}-matrix to determine the elastic and inelastic scattering cross sections. Since the \ensuremath{^{88}}Sr\ ground state is completely spinless, and since current OFR experiments are typically performed at temperatures of a few $\mu$K or below, the scattering is described by an $s$-wave collision with a single nondegenerate entrance channel. Therefore, we will develop our theory for this experimentally simple OFR system, for which we only need a single $s$-wave $S$-matrix element $S(k)=e^{2i\eta(k)}$, represented in general by a complex energy-dependent phase shift $\eta(k)$. Here $k$ is defined via the collision velocity $\hbar k / \mu$, $\mu = m/2$ is the reduced mass, and $m$ is the mass of an \ensuremath{^{88}}Sr\ atom. This phase shift in turn defines an energy-dependent scattering length $\alpha(k)$ as~\cite{Hutson2007,Idziaszek2010a,Quemener2012},
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:scattering_length}
\alpha(k) = a(k) - i b(k) = -\frac{\tan \eta(k)}{k} = \frac{1}{i k} \frac{1 - S(k)}{1 + S(k)} \,.
\end{equation}
This expression is useful for small but nonvanishing collision energies, and the standard complex scattering length is the $k \to 0$ limit of this expression. The elastic and inelastic loss cross sections are
\begin{align}
\sigma_{el} & = \frac{\pi g}{k^{2}} |1 - S(k)|^{2} = 8 \pi |\alpha(k)|^{2} f^{2}(k), \label{eqn:el_cross_section} \\
\sigma_{in} & = \frac{\pi g}{k^{2}} \left( 1 - |S(k)|^{2} \right) = \frac{8 \pi}{k} b(k) f(k). \label{eqn:in_cross_section}
\end{align}
Here $g$ is a collisional symmetry factor, which is equal to 2 for identical bosons (as assumed here). The function
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:f_factor}
f(k) = \frac{1}{1 + k^{2} |\alpha(k)|^{2} + 2 k b(k)} \,
\end{equation}
approaches unity when $k|\alpha| \ll 1$ for all detunings. For a trapped gas of atoms, this limit occurs when $k_B T/\hbar \gamma \ll 1$, where $k_B$ is Boltzmann's constant and $T$ is the sample temperature. The elastic and inelastic collision rate coefficients are related to these cross sections as
\begin{align}
\label{eqn:rate_coefficients}
K_{el} (k) & = \frac{\hbar k}{\mu} \sigma_{el} (k) \to 8\pi\frac{\hbar}{\mu} k|\alpha(k)|^2 \,\,\,\mathrm{as}\,\,\, k \to 0 \\
K_{in} (k) & = \frac{\hbar k}{\mu} \sigma_{in} (k) \to 8\pi\frac{\hbar}{\mu} b(k) \,\,\,\mathrm{as}\,\,\, k \to 0 \,. \label{eqn:loss_rate}
\end{align}
These general expressions are valid in the $s$-wave limit for OFRs and for decaying or non-decaying MFRs. A sum over higher partial waves is needed when these begin to contribute at higher $k$, and a thermal average of $K_{el}(k)$ and $K_{in}(k)$ is needed when comparing to experiment.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{colliding_atoms.eps}
\caption{(Color online) a) The $^1S_0 + ^1\!S_0$ entrance channel of \ensuremath{^{88}}Sr\ couples to a bound state of the $^3P_1 + ^1\!S_0$ closed channel via the PA laser field. The atomic transition is a 7.5 kHz intercombination line. Here $E$ is the collision energy, $\omega_0$ is the atomic resonance frequency, and $\omega$ is the laser frequency. b) In the dressed state picture, two free atoms in the entrance channel are brought into resonance with a molecular bound state. Here $\delta$ is the ``molecular detuning'' (defined in Section \ref{sec:isolated_res}), and $n_p$ is the photon number. The Condon radius $R_c$ is defined as the value of $R$ where the two potentials cross.}
\label{fig:atoms_in_radiation_field}
\end{figure}
\section{Coupled Channels Formulation of Optical Feshbach Resonances}
\label{sec:CC}
\subsection{Background}
\label{subsec:CC_background}
The standard treatment for atomic collisions involving two or more internal states of the atoms is the coupled channels (CC) method. Numerical models based on CC methods have been very successful in treating collisions and MFRs of ground state alkali-metal atoms~\cite{Chin2010,Kohler2006}. The CC method involves setting up a basis set representing the ``channels'' of the electronic, spin, and rotation degrees of freedom of the colliding atoms and then solving the matrix Schr{\"o}dinger equation for the amplitude of the radial motion in the interatomic separation coordinate $R$ for each of these channels.
In MFR theory, the channels represent the states of the atoms in a magnetic field for $R \rightarrow \infty$, the Born-Oppenheimer potentials characterize the $R$-dependent interactions, and spin coupling matrix elements are approximated by their atomic values. An external $B$ field shifts the energies of the atomic and molecular energy levels. In the case of OFRs, the channels represent the field dressed atoms, where the ground and excited states are coupled by the light field in the dipole approximation, and the $R$-dependent molecular interactions are represented by the ground and excited state Born-Oppenheimer potentials together with any non-adiabatic coupling between them. The OFR case has the added complication of including the spontaneous emission of light by excited state atoms or molecules.
To date, all cold atom OFRs have been treated by a resonant scattering formulation ~\cite{Thorsheim1987,Fedichev1996,Bohn1999}. The next section will discuss the approximation of treating each OFR as an isolated resonance. Here we concentrate on giving a full CC treatment ~\cite{Zimmerman1977,DeVries1978a,DeVries1978b,Mies1981} that includes the effect of multiple overlapping resonances without restricting the theory to treating isolated single resonances. This enables us to establish the conditions under which the isolated resonance approximation is valid.
We follow the field-dressed collision approach of Julienne~\cite{Julienne1982a,Julienne1982b}, which was applied to explain experiments on the collisional redistribution of light ~\cite{Julienne1984,Julienne1986}. To do this it is necessary to properly represent the three-dimensional (3D) nature of the collision and the role of atomic degeneracy. References~\cite{Julienne1982b,Napolitano1997} treat the exchange of multiple photons during a collision, by which one partial wave is coupled to higher partial waves through the intrinsically anisotropic nature of the interaction with light. Reference~\cite{Napolitano1997} adapts the CC dressed atom formalism to cold atom collisions in strong optical fields to explain the phenomena of optical shielding.
Three effects need to be incorporated within a CC theory to describe OFRs in the collision of $^1$S$_0$ Sr atoms in a light field tuned near the $^1S_0 \rightarrow ^3\!\!P_1$ line: (1) the field dressing of the collision, (2) the inherently 3D nature of the collision, with a space axis defined for the separated atoms by the PA laser polarization but with a rotating interatomic axis needed for the excited molecular bound states, and (3) the spontaneous emission while in the excited state. If we make the approximation that the light field is weak, the total angular momentum $J$ is a good quantum number (the optical coupling matrix element remains small compared to the spacing of rotational levels in the excited state). In this case Refs.~\cite{Julienne1984,Julienne1986} showed that six CCs are needed to describe optically coupled $^1$S$_0+ ^1$S$_0 \to ^1$S$_0+ ^1$P$_1$ collisions. The same is true when we replace $^1$P$_1$ with $^3$P$_1$. One set of channels represents the ground state collision with partial wave $\ell=J$ and $n_p$ photons at an angular frequency $\omega$. Another set represents the excited $0_u$ and $1_u$ molecular states with $n_p-1$ photons at frequency $\omega$ and respective projection $\Omega=$ 0 and 1 of electronic angular momentum $j=1$ on the interatomic axis. These excited state channels have total angular momentum $J_e=J-1$ (two channels), $J$ (one channel), and $J+1$ (two channels). In the special case of $s$-wave collisions ($J=0$) of cold atoms, only three channels are needed, representing the ground state and the $0_u$ and $1_u$ states with $J=1$. Finally, spontaneous emission from the excited molecular state can be included with a complex potential ~\cite{Napolitano1994}, with a caveat that the imaginary decay part of the potential has to be turned off when the atoms are far apart in the free atom limit.
We assume that the free atoms are weakly dressed---that is, the PA laser with photon energy $\hbar\omega$ is detuned from the atomic excitation energy $\hbar\omega_0$ by a large amount compared to the optical coupling strength
\begin{equation}
V_\mathrm{opt}=\left (2\pi I/c\right )^{1/2} d \,,
\label{eqn:Vopt}
\end{equation}
where $I$ is PA laser intensity, $c$ the speed of light, and $d$ is a molecular transition dipole matrix element~\cite{Julienne1986}. However, the short range molecular states can be strongly dressed, so that the peak of an on-resonant PA line at $\hbar\omega_n$, where $n$ is the molecular vibrational level, can be power broadened. The rotational quantum number $J_e$ will remain a good approximate quantum number as long as $V_\mathrm{opt}$ remains small compared to the rotational constant $B_n$ of level $n$. (The separations of the $J=0$ and 2 levels from the $J=1$ level are $2B_n$ and $4B_n$ respectively.)
\subsection{Formulation for $^{88}$Sr}
\label{subsec:CC_formulation}
We include in our treatment here the minimal number of three channels needed to get a basic description of near-threshold $s$-wave OFRs. This minimal treatment could be written in either of two basis sets representing the electronic, spin, rotational, and photon degrees of freedom. One basis set for the molecular degrees of freedom is the Hund's case (c) basis represented as $|\Omega_sJM\rangle_c$, where the projection of electronic plus spin angular momentum $j$ on the rotating body-fixed axis is $\Omega$, $s$ represents the {\it gerade} or {\it ungerade} inversion symmetry of electronic coordinates, and $M$ is the projection of total angular momentum $J$ on a space-fixed axis. The other molecular basis is the Hund's case (e) asymptotic basis of Refs.~\cite{Julienne1982a,Julienne1986} represented as $|j_s\ell JM\rangle_e$, where $j_s=0$ or 1 represents the separated atoms in the respective $^{1}S_{0} + ^{1} \! S_{0}$ and $^{1}S_{0} + ^{3} \! P_{1}$ channels with partial wave $\ell$, coupled to total angular momentum $J$ and projection $M$. The subscript $s$ on $j$ indicates that the electronic wavefunction is symmetrized with respect to the exchange of electronic coordinates. Table~\ref{tab:basis} shows the three basis functions for a dressed CC calculation in either representation. The transformation between the molecular and asymptotic representations is (see, for example, Eq.~(36) of Ref.~\cite{Julienne1982a}):
\begin{eqnarray}
|0_uJM\rangle_c &=& \left (\frac{J}{2J+1}\right)^{1/2} |1_u,J-1,JM\rangle_e \nonumber \\ & &- \left (\frac{J+1}{2J+1}\right)^{1/2} |1_u,J+1,JM\rangle_e \label{eqn:c-e1} \\
|1_uJM\rangle_c &=& \left (\frac{J+1}{2J+1}\right)^{1/2} |1_u,J-1,JM\rangle_e \nonumber \\ & & + \left (\frac{J}{2J+1}\right)^{1/2} |1_u,J+1,JM\rangle_e \,. \label{eqn:c-e2}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{table}
\caption{Minimal CC basis sets in the Hund's case $b=$ (c) and (e) representations, where $\sigma=0,\pm1$ represents the polarization of the light with $n_p$ photons of frequency $\omega$ that couples the ground and excited states.}
\label{tab:basis}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\hline\hline
Channel & Case (c): $|\Omega_sJM\rangle|n_p\omega\sigma\rangle$ & Case (e): $|j\ell JM\rangle|n_p\omega\sigma\rangle$ \\
\hline
$|1\rangle_b$ & $|0_g00\rangle_c|n_p\omega\sigma\rangle$ & $|0_g000\rangle_e|n_p\omega\sigma\rangle$ \\
\rule{0pt}{2ex}
$|2\rangle_b$ & $|0_u1\sigma\rangle_c|n_p-1,\omega\sigma\rangle$ & $|1_u01\sigma\rangle_e|n_p-1,\omega\sigma\rangle$ \\
$|3\rangle_b$ & $|1_u1\sigma\rangle_c|n_p-1\omega\sigma\rangle$& $|1_u21\sigma\rangle_e|n_p-1\omega\sigma\rangle$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
Using the CC expansion of the full wavefunction at total energy $E$,
\begin{equation}
\Psi(R,E) = \sum_{i=1}^3 |i\rangle_b F_{i,b}(R,E)/R
\label{eqn:CC_Psi}
\end{equation}
where $F_{i,b}$ represents the amplitude of the wavefunction projected on the basis function $| i \rangle_b$ for Hund's case b = (c) or (e). The CC matrix Schr{\"o}dinger equation for the $s$-wave collision of the two atoms in a (moderately) weak light field is
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial^2{\Psi}}{\partial R^2} + \frac{2\mu}{\hbar^2} \left (E\cdot \bf{I} - \bf{V}(R) \right )\Psi = 0
\label{eqn:CC}
\end{equation}
where $\bf{I}$ is the identity matrix and the potential matrix $\bf{V}$ describes the diagonal and off-diagonal matrix elements of the collisional and optical interactions. Either the $b=$ (c) or (e) representations (Table \ref{tab:basis}) of the excited state could be used to set up the expansion and $\bf{V}$ matrix in Eqs.~(\ref{eqn:CC_Psi}) and~(\ref{eqn:CC}). Our numerical calculations use the Hund's case (e) basis, for which the matrix elements are given in Table I of Ref.~\cite{Julienne1986}, and quoted in the supplemental online material for Ref.~\cite{Blatt2011}:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:CC_V}
\bf{V} = \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
V_g & V_\mathrm{opt} & 0 \\
V_\mathrm{opt} & \frac{1}{3}(V_{0u}+2V_{1u}) & \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}(V_{1u}-V_{0u}) \\
0 & \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}(V_{1u}-V_{0u}) & \frac{1}{3}(2V_{0u}+V_{1u})+6 V_\mathrm{cen}
\end{array} \right ) \, ,
\end{equation}
where the $6 V_\mathrm{cen}$ term represents the $d$-wave centrifugal potential with $V_\mathrm{cen}=\hbar^2/(2\mu R^2)$. Here $V_g(R)$, $V_{0u}(R)$, and $V_{1u}(R)$ represent the ground state and $0_u$ and $1_u$ excited state BO potentials, each of which we model as a Lennard-Jones potential plus an additional long range term:
\begin{eqnarray}
V_g(R) &=& \left ( \left(\frac{R_{0,g}}{R}\right)^6 - 1 \right ) \frac{C_{6,g}}{R^6} -\frac{C_{8,g}}{R^8} +V_{g\infty} \label{eqn:Vg}\\
V_{0u}(R) &=& \left ( \left(\frac{R_{0,0u}}{R}\right)^6 - 1 \right ) \frac{C_{6,0u}}{R^6}-\frac{C_{3,0u}}{R^3} +V_{u\infty} \label{eqn:V0u} \\
V_{1u}(R) &=& \left ( \left(\frac{R_{0,1u}}{R}\right)^6 - 1 \right ) \frac{C_{6,1u}}{R^6}+\frac{C_{3,1u}}{R^3} +V_{u\infty} \label{eqn:V1u} \,,
\end{eqnarray}
The $V_{s\infty}$ terms give the asymptotic values of the potentials as $R \to \infty$, as explained below. We use the excited state potential parameters from Zelevinsky {\it et al.}~\cite{Zelevinsky2006,footnote1}. The ground state $C_{6,g}$ and $C_{8,g}$ parameters come from Ref.~\cite{Porsev2006}, and $R_{0,g}$ was optimized to reproduce the measured bound state binding energies of Ref.~\cite{Escobar2008} to within 0.4\% ~\cite{footnote2}. $V_g(R)$ has an $s$-wave scattering length of $-1.4$ a$_0$, consistent with that reported in Ref.~\cite{Escobar2008}.
The optical coupling matrix element in Eq.~(\ref{eqn:CC_V}) is given by Eq.~(\ref{eqn:Vopt}) in the dipole approximation, where we neglect retardation (that is, the phase difference between the optical fields separated by distance $R \ll \lambda$, where $\lambda=2\pi c/\omega$ is the wavelength of the excitation light). Thus, since we use the symmetrized $g$ and $u$ electronic states, $d=\sqrt{2} d_a$, where the atomic transition dipole $d_a= 0.08682$ atomic units (1 a.u. $=$ $ea_0$, where $e$ is the electron charge and $a_0$ is the Bohr radius), corresponding to an atomic $^3$P$_1$ lifetime of 21.46 $\mu$s or linewidth of $\gamma_a$ $=$ $2 \pi \times$ 7.416 kHz. Thus, introducing units into Eq.~(\ref{eqn:Vopt}),
\begin{equation}
V_\mathrm{opt}/h = 24.83 \, \mathrm{MHz} \, \times \, d_a \sqrt{I/\mathrm{(1 W/cm}^2)} \,,
\end{equation}
where $d_a$ is in atomic units. The optical coupling in $\bf{V}$ conforms to the case (e) selection rule that $\Delta \ell =0, \Delta m_\ell =0$ (it is only the electronic $j$ quantum number that changes). This coupling is also independent of light polarization $\sigma$ for this transition. Using Eq.~(\ref{eqn:CC_V}), there will be an asymptotic light shift
\begin{equation}
V_\infty= \frac{\hbar(\omega_0-\omega)}{2} \left ( \sqrt{\left ( \frac{2 V_\mathrm{opt}}{\hbar(\omega_0-\omega)}\right )^2+1}-1 \right ) ,
\end{equation}
which is negative for the ground state and positive for the excited state. Thus, taking $V_{g\infty}=V_\infty$ and $V_{u\infty}=\hbar(\omega_0-\omega)+V_\infty$ in Eqs.~(\ref{eqn:Vg})-(\ref{eqn:V1u}) ensures that when $\bf{V}$ is diagonalized the lowest energy eigenvalue at large $R$ for the field-dressed ground state is zero. With this definition of the zero of energy, the total energy $E$ in the CC Schr{\"o}dinger equation~(\ref{eqn:CC}) represents the relative collision kinetic energy $\hbar^{2} k^{2}/2 \mu$ of the dressed ground state atoms, and $E = \hbar^{2} k^{2}/2 \mu \to 0$ at the collision threshold.
The matrix $\bf{V}$ in Eq.~(\ref{eqn:CC_V}) could be transformed to the molecular case (c) representation by transforming the $2 \times 2$ excited state block using the (c) to (e) transformation matrix used in Eqs.~(\ref{eqn:c-e1}) and~(\ref{eqn:c-e2}). This would give the diagonal $J=1$ $0_u$ and $1_u$ potentials given in Eqs.~(1) and (2) of Zelevinsky {\it et al.}~\cite{Zelevinsky2006} and generate the body-frame Coriolis coupling term between these two states. The optical coupling in the case (c) molecular basis is different from that in the asymptotic case (e) basis. Using the transformations in Eqs.~(\ref{eqn:c-e1}) and~(\ref{eqn:c-e2}) shows that the optical couplings matrix elements between the ground $J=0$ $0_g$ state and the respective excited $J=1$ $0_u$ and $1_u$ states are determined from Eq.~(\ref{eqn:Vopt}) with the molecular dipole matrix elements
\begin{eqnarray}
d_{0u} &=& \sqrt{1/3} \sqrt{2}d_a \,, \label{eqn:d0u} \\
d_{1u} &=& \sqrt{2/3} \sqrt{2}d_a \,. \label{eqn:d1u}
\end{eqnarray}
The $\sqrt{2}$ is the same homonuclear $ g \to u$ enhancement factor that affects the case (e) matrix element. The other factor corresponds to the usual H{\"o}nl-London factor for R-branch ($J \to J+1$) molecular transitions.
Treating an OFR requires that we include the decay from the excited state, which has a molecular decay rate $\gamma$. Our calculations assume $\gamma=\gamma_m$, where we define $\gamma_m=2\gamma_a$. This rate $\gamma_m$ is the rate of spontaneous emission from the excited molecular state in the long-range non-retarded dipole approximation. A nonzero value of $\gamma-\gamma_m$ would be due to other processes that induce decay of the excited state or change the emission rate from its long-range non-retarded dipolar value. While Bohn and Julienne~\cite{Bohn1999} introduced artificial channels to simulate excited state decay, a simpler method is to introduce an imaginary term in the excited state potentials in Eqs.~(\ref{eqn:V0u}) and (\ref{eqn:V1u}), replacing $V_{ju}$, $j=0,1$, with:
\begin{equation}
V_{ju} -i\frac{\hbar \gamma}{2} \left ( 1+e^{\beta (R-R_\mathrm{cut})} \right )^{-1} ,
\label{eqn:ImV}
\end{equation}
where $\gamma$ is an $R$-independent constant. The function in parenthesis ensures that molecular decay turns off at large distances when $R$ exceeds the arbitrary cutoff radius $R_\mathrm{cut}$ by an amount large compared to the length $1/\beta$. Furthermore, this function ensures that the full molecular decay rate turns on at small distances where $R_\mathrm{cut} - R$ is appreciably less than $1/\beta$. The constant $\beta$ parametrizes the distance over which molecular decay becomes appreciable.
When the coupled equations are solved with this complex potential in Eqs.~(\ref{eqn:V0u}) and (\ref{eqn:V1u}), the $S$-matrix is non-unitary, and $1 - |S(k)|^2$ in Eq.~(\ref{eqn:in_cross_section}) represents loss of ground state atoms due to molecular excitation followed by excited state decay. We assume that every spontaneous emission event represented by the imaginary term in $V_{ju}$ results in hot atom or molecular products that are lost from the trap. Our numerical studies show that this assumption is good for all the excited levels except the state nearest in energy to the atomic resonance (Section \ref{subsec:CC_Results}). We calculate that 60\% of the emission from this state does not result in loss from a 10 $\mu$K trap~\cite{Zelevinsky2006,Reinaudi2012}. The cutoff ensures that there is no spurious excited state decay associated with the asymptotically dressed atoms. We find that in the core of a PA line, out to molecular detunings of several hundred line widths from molecular resonance, the loss associated with the imaginary part of the scattering length is not sensitive to the value chosen for $R_\mathrm{cut}$, as long as it is significantly outside the outer turning point of classical motion for the excited state vibrational level. Furthermore, the real part of the scattering length is completely insensitive to the choice of $R_\mathrm{cut}$. We typically choose $R_\mathrm{cut}=$ 500 a$_0$ and $\beta=$ 0.05 a$_0^{-1}$. We find that our numerical calculations were insensitive to the choice of $\beta$.
\subsection{Approximations and limitations}
\label{subsec:CC_approx}
This three-channel model makes several approximations, but is capable of representing the essential qualitative and semi-quantitative effects associated with OFRs in the weak to moderate field regime. Our model only includes the minimal number of partial waves needed to represent the change in scattering length and molecular losses due to the OFR. It leaves out the coupling of the excited $J=1$ levels to the ground state $d$-waves as well as coupling to the doubly excited states associated with the $^3$P$_1$ $+$ $^3$P$_1$ separated atom limit. This means that the light shifts calculated from the three-channel model will not be accurate, since ground state $d$-waves are known to contribute to PA light shifts~\cite{Simoni2002,Ciurylo2006}, and doubly excited states may contribute also. Furthermore, the effect of field-dressing in modifying the ground state threshold elastic scattering of partial waves with $\ell >0$ is not included. This modification is due to field dressing that brings in $1/R^3$ terms in the long range potential that will affect the $d$-wave collisions of like bosons or the $p$-wave collisions of like fermions or unlike species. Note that in our three-channel treatment, the field dressed $s$-wave interactions have the correct property that they have no long-range $1/R^3$ component, since such variation vanishes in the $V_{2,2}$ matrix element of Eq.~(\ref{eqn:CC_V}) (if we had attempted only a two-channel field dressed treatment, the presence of the single $0_u$ excited state potential would have introduced a spurious $1/R^3$ term in the ground state dressed $s$-wave potential).
It would be straightforward to introduce higher partial waves and strong field dressing into the calculation, using the formalism of Napolitano {\it et al.}~\cite{Napolitano1997}. This formalism uses the ``uncoupled" asymptotic basis $|j m_j \ell m_\ell\rangle$, which is better for treating strong field dressing than the ``coupled'' $|j \ell JM\rangle$ basis we use here. The subtle effects of retardation, switching off the dipole approximation, and including the weak coupling to the {\it gerade} states as $R$ increases~\cite{Takasu2012} should be taken into account in a more complete theory. We do not perform a time-domain analysis, so we cannot reproduce the transient OFR dynamics \cite{Naidon2008} observed in Ref. \cite{Yan2013b}. Furthermore, a full treatment of excited state spontaneous emission during a collision is beyond the scope of CC methods, and would require treatment by stochastic Schr{\"o}dinger equation methods (density matrix methods are computationally intractable)~\cite{Suominen1994,Suominen1998a}. Last, as we show in the next section, our analysis with a cutoff of the long range decay is sufficient for treating OFRs for molecular detunings that are of order 100 line widths (or less) from the center of a PA line.
\subsection{Coupled Channels Results}
\label{subsec:CC_Results}
The CC calculations to solve Eq.~(\ref{eqn:CC}) were carried out using the standard renormalized Numerov method~\cite{Johnson1977} using complex variables so as to represent the effect of the complex potential in the excited state channels. A step-doubling algorithm was employed to optimize the number of steps needed as $R$ increases between the short and long range regions. The single $S$-matrix element $S(E,I,\omega)$ for the dressed ground state $s$-wave was extracted from the log derivative of the single open channel solution $F_{1,e}(R)$ of the three channel propagated wavefunction of Eq.~(\ref{eqn:CC_Psi}) at a suitable large asymptotic value of $R$. Using Eq.~(\ref{eqn:scattering_length}) then gives the complex energy-dependent scattering length $\alpha(k,I,\omega)$, which then gives the elastic and inelastic rate coefficients $K_{el}$ and $K_{in}$ (Eqns. \ref{eqn:rate_coefficients} and \ref{eqn:loss_rate}).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{a_and_b_10W_scan_4uK.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Real (solid line) and imaginary (dashed line) parts of the complex scattering length $\alpha=a-ib$. Here the detuning from atomic resonance $\nu-\nu_0$ (the ``atomic detuning'') is measured with respect to the $^{88}$Sr intercombination line transition at $\nu_0$. Also, $E/k_B=4$ $\mu$K and $I=10$ W/cm$^2$. The dotted line shows the background $a_{bg}$ for $E/k_B=4$ $\mu$K and $I=0$. Inset: A close up of the off-resonant behavior of the $n = -2$ OFR (solid line). Also plotted is the scattering length predicted by treating the $n = -2$ OFR as an isolated resonance (dashed line).}
\label{fig:CC_abscan}
\end{figure}
Fig.~\ref{fig:CC_abscan} shows the real and imaginary parts of $\alpha(k)$ as the PA laser frequency $\nu = \omega/2\pi$ is detuned from atomic resonance at $\nu_0=\omega_0/2\pi$ (where $\nu - \nu_0$ is the ``atomic detuning''). This particular example was taken for a PA laser intensity of 10 W/cm$^2$ and a relative collision kinetic energy of $E/k_B=4$ $\mu$K. Here the background $a_\mathrm{bg}=$ 0.495 a$_0$ at $E/k_B=4$ $\mu$K differs from the background value -1.4 a$_0$ in the limit of $E=0$ due to the energy dependence of $a_\mathrm{bg}(k)$. The calculations were carried out for atomic detunings larger in magnitude than -20 MHz to avoid strong field-dressing effects at atomic detunings near resonance (the optical coupling matrix element $V_\mathrm{opt}/h=0.84$ MHz for this $I$). The decay rate was taken to be $\gamma =\gamma_m=2\gamma_a= 2 \pi \times$ 0.014833 MHz. The figure shows a series of four OFRs in this region. These four resonances correspond to the previously observed~\cite{Zelevinsky2006} $n=$ -2, -3, and -4 members of the $0_u$ $J=1$ series at binding energies $E_n/h =$ 24 MHz, 222 MHz, and 1084 MHz and a single $n=$ -1 member of the $1_u$ $J=1$ series at 353 MHz. Here $n<0$ counts bound states down from the last level (of a given $0_u$ or $1_u$ symmetry) designated as $n=-1$. The scattering lengths show a series of overlapping resonances that cause a large change in scattering length near the poles of the resonances but return to $a_\mathrm{bg}$ between resonances. The fact that the stronger $n = -2$ resonance returns to its background value near the $n = -3$ line (Fig. \ref{fig:CC_abscan} inset) illustrates an important general feature of a vibrational sequence of OFRs: interfering resonances cause the scattering length to return to its background value in between resonances. Even the presence of a neighboring OFR that is comparatively weak will diminish the off-resonant magnitude of a stronger OFR (Fig. \ref{fig:CC_abscan} inset). This property imposes a constraint on OFR experiments, namely that molecular detunings cannot be so large as to be comparable to the frequency separation between the resonance of interest and the nearest resonance. In contrast, MFRs arising from neighboring spin-channel resonances interfere with one another in a manner that is qualitatively different than for a vibrational series (see Section \ref{subsec:OFR_MFR_multires}).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{b_10W_scan_4uK.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Imaginary part of $\alpha = a - i b$ from Fig.~\ref{fig:CC_abscan} shown on a log scale. The diamonds show a $1/(\nu-\nu_0)^2$ scaling. The inset shows an expanded view of the $0_u$ $n=-4$ resonance near $-1084$ MHz. The dashed, solid, and dotted lines show the results for $R_\mathrm{cut}=$ 200 a$_0$, 500 a$_0$, and 1000 a$_0$ respectively. Near the peak of the resonance, $b$ is independent of $R_\mathrm{cut}$.}
\label{fig:CC_bscan}
\end{figure}
The imaginary part $b$ of the scattering length that gives the loss rate coefficient, Eq.~(\ref{eqn:loss_rate}), shows a series of sharp spikes near the poles of the resonances in Fig.~\ref{fig:CC_abscan}, and shows a value very near zero on the linear scale of the figure. Figure~\ref{fig:CC_bscan} provides a better way to illustrate the basic features of $b$ by showing it on a log scale. Here the ``background'' on which the poles sit varies as $1/(\nu-\nu_0)^2$, with this functional form indicated by the diamonds on the figure. Furthermore, far detuned from a molecular resonance, the magnitude of this background is found to scale linearly with $R_\mathrm{cut}$ as $R_\mathrm{cut}$ increases. This is because away from resonance, most of the loss of flux in the collision due to the presence of a complex potential comes from the long range region, where decay should not be counted as loss, since it merely represents atomic light scattering that returns an atom to its ground state. Thus, loss is overcounted by use of a complex potential if $R_\mathrm{cut}$ is too large.
In the core of the line spanning molecular detunings of $100 \gamma_m$, $b$ and $K_{in}$ are independent of $R_\mathrm{cut}$. For example at a molecular detuning of $100 \gamma_m$ (inset to Fig.~\ref{fig:CC_bscan}) the values of $b$ calculated with $R_\mathrm{cut}=$ 200 a$_0$ or 500 a$_0$ differ by less than \%. The difference grows to 10\% if $R_\mathrm{cut}=$ 1000 a$_0$. The difference with $R_\mathrm{cut}=$ 200 a$_0$ or 500 a$_0$ only grows to 10\% when the molecular detuning is over 250 line widths. Consequently, if $R_\mathrm{cut}$ is selected to have a small enough ``physical'' value where spontaneous decay for $R<R_\mathrm{cut}$ represents actual loss of atoms, the loss calculated for molecular detunings up to a few hundred line widths are meaningful and not sensitive to the choice of $R_\mathrm{cut}$. In any case, the scattering length $a$ given by the real part of $\alpha$ is completely insensitive at all detunings to the choice of $R_\mathrm{cut}$. Comparing our CC theory to experimental data taken at small molecular detunings, we are able to reproduce the resonance strengths measured in Refs. \cite{Blatt2011} and \cite{Yan2013a}. However, the atom loss rate of Ref. \cite{Yan2013a} is measured at a molecular detuning large enough for our theory to be sensitive to $R_\mathrm{cut}$; therefore, our theory is not designed to reproduce this rate.
Within the inherent limitations of our approximations that we have outlined above, we expect our CC calculations to give the correct change in scattering length for all detunings and the atom loss rate coefficient for at least 100 line widths from the peak of a molecular resonance. Consequently, since the resonances are spaced by many thousands of line widths apart, we turn our attention in the next section to understanding the theory for single isolated OFRs for molecular detunings in the vicinity of a photoassociation resonance.
\section{Isolated Resonance Theory of Optical Feshbach Resonances}
\label{sec:isolated_res}
The OFR features in Figs.~\ref{fig:CC_abscan} and~\ref{fig:CC_bscan} tend to be well-isolated from one another and thus can be described quite successfully by theory designed to treat an isolated single resonance situated on a background. Isolated resonance theory has been used for cold atom OFRs since they were first proposed ~\cite{Thorsheim1987,Napolitano1994,Fedichev1996,Bohn1997,Bohn1999}. This theory successfully explained alkali-metal atom PA spectra with hyperfine structure (in good agreement with experiment~\cite{Napolitano1994,Tiesinga2005}), and it also explained the saturation of PA lines at high intensity~\cite{McKenzie2002,Prodan2003,Simoni2002}. In fact, both OFRs and MFRs can be treated by the same resonance scattering formalism when the possibility of decay of the closed channel resonance state is taken into account~\cite{Chin2010}.
The isolated resonance approximation assumes that each molecular bound state is far from the other molecular states in the closed channel and can be described by a strength parameter that is local to the resonance---that is, independent of energy and molecular detuning in the vicinity of the resonance. Bohn and Julienne give a general resonance scattering treatment for an OFR based on quantum defect theory~\cite{Bohn1999}. They derive a general expression for the $S$-matrix element $S(k)$ for a single $s$-wave entrance channel coupled to an isolated resonance scattering bound state, including a decay rate $\gamma$ to exit channels that lead to atom loss. The elastic scattering $S$-matrix element $S(k)$ (equivalent to Eq.~(3.13) of Ref.~\cite{Bohn1999}) for an isolated decaying resonance is:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:bohn_s_matrix}
S(k) = \left( 1 - \frac{i \hbar\Gamma(k)}{ E - E_\mathrm{res}+ i\frac{1}{2}\hbar [\gamma + \Gamma(k)]} \right) e^{2 i \eta_{bg}(k)} \,.
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:Eres}
E_\mathrm{res} =\hbar ( \omega_{n}+s_n I - \omega) = -\hbar\delta
\end{equation}
is the energy of the field-dressed molecular resonance level $n$. Its ``bare'' location at $\hbar \omega_n=\hbar \omega_a-E_n$ is shifted by an intensity-dependent shift $\hbar s_n I$, where $E_n$ is the binding energy with respect to the excited separated atom limit when $I=0$. We define the molecular detuning $\delta$ so it is negative for red detuning, in which case a resonance peak occurs when $E=E_\mathrm{res}$.
We assume low power, in which case the shift varies linearly with intensity. The coefficient $s_n$ can be either positive or negative~~\cite{Bohn1999,Ciurylo2006}, where a positive value corresponds to a shift of the resonance peak closer to the atomic line. The closed channel resonance bound state is coupled to the entrance channel by the stimulated decay rate,
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:Gamma}
\Gamma(k) = \frac{2\pi}{\hbar} |\langle n |V_\mathrm{opt}|E\rangle |^2 \,.
\end{equation}
Here, $|n\rangle$ represents the excited bound state, which in general would be a mixture of the two $|2\rangle$ and $|3\rangle$ excited case (c) states in Table I. In practice $|n\rangle$ would be well-approximated by a single $0_u$ or $1_u$ $J=1$ vibrational state. The ground state scattering wavefunction $|E\rangle$ is assumed to be energy normalized \cite{Julienne2009}, so that
\begin{equation}
F_1(R,E) \to \left ( \frac{2\mu}{\pi \hbar^2 k} \right )^{1/2} \sin(kR +\eta_\mathrm{bg}) \,\,\mathrm{as} \,\, R \to \infty \,,
\end{equation}
where the phase shift $\eta_\mathrm{bg}$ is related to the scattering length $a_\mathrm{bg}$ in the $k \to 0$ threshold limit as $\eta_\mathrm{bg} = -ka_\mathrm{bg}$.
We emphasize that the form of the expression in Eq.~(\ref{eqn:bohn_s_matrix}) is completely general for any isolated threshold resonance and applies equally well for MFRs and OFRs, if the terms are identified properly. The Fermi golden rule width $\Gamma(k)$ expresses the strength of the resonance pole term with a tunable denominator. When $\Gamma(k)=0$, there is no Feshbach resonance, and we recover the standard expression $S(k)=e^{2i\eta_\mathrm{bg}}$ for the uncoupled entrance channel. The expression in Eq.~(\ref{eqn:Gamma}) ensures that $\Gamma(k)$ follows the standard threshold law, and thus for an $s$-wave entrance channel, $\Gamma(k) \propto k$. For non-decaying resonances, $\gamma=0$, and the imaginary term in the denominator vanishes as $k \to 0$.
\section{Comparison Between Optical Feshbach Resonances and Magnetic Feshbach Resonances}
\subsection{Isolated Resonance Theory}
\label{subsec:OFR_MFR_isores}
The resonance length formalism summarized in Section II.A.3 of Ref.~\cite{Chin2010} shows how to relate MFR and OFR resonance strengths and compare OFRs to MFRs in a unified approach. All we need to note is that in the case of an isolated MFR, the threshold width $\Gamma(k)$ in Eq.~(\ref{eqn:bohn_s_matrix}) is given by an expression similar to Eq.~(\ref{eqn:Gamma}), except that $V_\mathrm{opt}$ needs to be replaced with an appropriate internal spin-dependent Hamiltonian~\cite{Kohler2006,Chin2010}. Furthermore, $E_\mathrm{res}$ would be replaced with a $B$-dependent tuning and shift~\cite{Julienne2006,Chin2010,Jachymski2013}, $E_\mathrm{res} = \delta\mu (B-B_c)+E_\mathrm{shift}$, where $B$ represents magnetic field, $B_c$ is the field where the bare resonance level crosses threshold, $\delta \mu$ represents the difference between the sum of the magnetic moments of the two atoms and the magnetic moment of the bare resonance level, and $E_\mathrm{shift}$ represents an energy-dependent shift term.
The threshold law for $s$-wave collisions shows that as $k \to 0$ the quantity $\hbar \Gamma(k)/k$ (for either an OFR or the MFR analog) becomes a $k$-independent constant having the units of length times energy. Thus, for either an MFR or an OFR, we can decompose $\Gamma(k)/k$ into a product of a length factor $L_\mathrm{r}$ and an energy $E_\mathrm{r}$,
\begin{equation}
\frac{\hbar \Gamma(k)}{2k} = L_\mathrm{r} E_\mathrm{r}\,,
\label{eqn:res_constant}
\end{equation}
Since only the $L_\mathrm{r} E_\mathrm{r}$ product is significant, we are free to choose either the length $L_\mathrm{r}$ or the energy $E_\mathrm{r}$ factor to yield a convenient expression for the scattering length.
In the case of non-decaying MFRs, it is conventional to choose $L_\mathrm{r}= a_\mathrm{bg}$. The $E_\mathrm{r}$ factor is typically written as $ \delta\mu \, \Delta$, thereby defining the magnetic ``width'' $\Delta$ of the MFR:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:Gamma_MFR}
\frac{ \hbar \Gamma_\mathrm{MFR}(k)}{2k} = a_\mathrm{bg} ( \delta\mu \, \Delta ) \,.
\end{equation}
Here the subscript ``MFR'' indicates the type of resonance. When this form is substituted in Eq.~(\ref{eqn:bohn_s_matrix}), $\gamma$ is set equal to zero, and the $k \to 0$ limit is taken with the shift term in Refs.~\cite{Chin2010,Julienne2006}, Eq. (\ref{eqn:scattering_length}) reduces to the standard expression for an MFR,
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:a_MFR}
a(B) = a_\mathrm{bg} - a_\mathrm{bg} \frac{\Delta}{B-B_0} \,,
\end{equation}
where $B_0 = B_c-E_{\mathrm{shift}}/\delta\mu$ is the pole position. In the case $\gamma \neq 0$, this procedure would give the complex scattering length for a decaying MFR \cite{Chin2010,Naik2011}.
By analogy to MFRs, one can define an OFR resonance frequency width $w$ by
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:Gamma_OFR}
\frac{ \hbar \Gamma_\mathrm{OFR}(k)}{2k} = a_\mathrm{bg} (-\hbar w ) \,.
\end{equation}
Note that $-a_\mathrm{bg} w$ is positive definite. In the limit $|\delta| \gg \gamma$ where we can ignore the decay of the resonance, the scattering length due to an OFR is
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:a_OFR_abg}
a(\omega) = a_\mathrm{bg} - a_\mathrm{bg} \frac{w}{\omega-(\omega_n+s_n I)} \,.
\end{equation}
The standard way to express the $L_\mathrm{r} E_\mathrm{r}$ product in the case of an OFR is to define $E_\mathrm{r}$ to be the known quantity $\hbar \gamma_\mathrm{m}$ and call the length parameter the ``optical length'' $l_\mathrm{opt}$~\cite{Ciuryo2005,Blatt2011},
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:Gamma_OFR_lopt}
\frac{ \hbar \Gamma_\mathrm{OFR}(k)}{2k} = l_\mathrm{opt} (\hbar\gamma_{m}) \,.
\end{equation}
\noindent For large detunings $|\delta| \gg \gamma$ the scattering length is
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:a_OFR_lopt}
a(\omega) = a_\mathrm{bg} + l_\mathrm{opt} \frac{\gamma_{m}}{\omega-(\omega_n+s_n I)} \,.
\end{equation}
A similar resonance length parameter has been defined for a decaying MFR by Hutson \cite{Hutson2007} by using the total decay width of the resonance for $E_\mathrm{r}$.
In the case of an OFR that decays only to the ground state, choosing $E_\mathrm{r}=\hbar \gamma_m$ has the advantage of eliminating the dipole strength from the expression for $ l_\mathrm{opt}$. Using $\hbar \gamma_a= 32\pi^3 d_a^2/3 \lambda_a^3$, the definition $\gamma_m = 2\gamma_a$, taking $V_\mathrm{opt}$ in Eq.~(\ref{eqn:Vopt}), and assuming the $R$-independent molecular dipole moments of Eqs.~(\ref{eqn:d0u}) or~(\ref{eqn:d1u}), we find
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:l_opt}
l_{\mathrm{opt}} =\frac{\Gamma(k)}{2 k \gamma_{m}} = \frac{\lambda_{a}^{3}}{16 \pi c} \frac{| \langle n | E \rangle |^{2}}{k} I f_{\mathrm{rot}} \,,
\end{equation}
where $f_{\mathrm{rot}}$ is equal to 1 for $0_u$ states and 2 for $1_u$ states (due to the different rotational H{\"o}nl-London factors for parallel and perpendicular transitions). Consequently, $L_r E_r$ is proportional to the product of a Franck-Condon factor and the square of the molecular electronic transition dipole moment.
Equation~(\ref{eqn:l_opt}) shows that $l_\mathrm{opt}$ varies linearly with PA laser power $I$. The only molecular physics parameter it depends on is the free-bound Franck-Condon factor $| \langle n | E \rangle |^{2}$, which varies linearly with $k$ at small $k$. As an example, direct calculation of $| \langle n | E \rangle |^{2}/k$ for the $J=0$ $n=-4$ $0_u$ level shows that this quantity decreases at a rate of 0.66\% per $\mu$K as $E/k_B$ ranges from 0 to 10 $\mu$K. Thus, $l_\mathrm{opt}/I$ is only weakly dependent on collision energy in ultracold gases and may be approximated as a constant. Its weak variation with energy could be estimated from approximate theories based on the reflection approximation~\cite{Bohn1999} or the stationary phase approximation~\cite{Ciurylo2006}.
A useful way to compare the strengths of MFRs and OFRs is to use a dimensionless resonance ``pole strength'' parameter that applies to either case: $s_\mathrm{res} = L_\mathrm{r} E_\mathrm{r}/\bar{a}\bar{E}$, where $\bar{a}$ is the mean scattering length of the van der Waals potential~\cite{Gribakin1993} and $\bar{E}=\hbar^2/(2\mu \bar{a}^2)$ is the corresponding energy. These are $\bar{a}=$ 71.8~$a_0$ and $\bar{E}/h=$ 7.97~MHz for $^{88}$Sr collisions. Chin {\it et al.}~\cite{Chin2010} used $s_\mathrm{res}$ to characterize and classify MFRs according to whether $s_\mathrm{res} >1$ (open channel dominated) or $s_\mathrm{res} <1$ (closed channel dominated), where the former tends to be ``broad'' and the latter ``narrow.'' Thus we have
\begin{equation}
s_\mathrm{res}^\mathrm{MFR} = \frac{a_\mathrm{bg}}{\bar{a}} \frac{ \Delta \delta \mu}{\bar{E}} \,, \,\,\,\,
s_\mathrm{res}^\mathrm{OFR} = \frac{l_\mathrm{opt}}{\bar{a}} \frac{ \hbar \gamma_m}{\bar{E}} \,.
\end{equation}
One obvious difference between MFRs and OFRs is that the strength of an OFR can be controlled by increasing the PA laser power to increase $l_\mathrm{opt}$, whereas the strength of a MFR is fixed. However, $l_\mathrm{opt}$ cannot be increased too much since the light scattering loss rate due to either atomic or molecular processes also increases with $I$~\cite{Blatt2011}.
Experimentally useful MFRs tend to have a pole strength parameter between unity and 100~\cite{Chin2010}. The width ratio $\hbar \gamma_m/\bar{E} =0.0019$ is much less than unity for the narrow OFRs near the intercombination line of $^{88}$Sr, so $s_\mathrm{res}^\mathrm{OFR} \ll 1$ unless it can be compensated by making $l_\mathrm{opt}/\bar{a}$ very large compared to unity. Thus, $^{88}$Sr OFRs tend to be weak, narrow, ``closed channel dominated'' resonances. An interesting comparison is with the experimentally useful broad open channel dominated MFR of two $^{85}$Rb atoms at 155.2 G, for which $s_\mathrm{res}=$ 28~\cite{Chin2010}. This is a decaying MFR in an excited spin channel~\cite{Kohler2006}, with a natural decay width of $\gamma/(2\pi)=$ 5.0 kHz due to spin relaxation of the ``bare'' closed channel state of the resonance. The lifetime of 32 $\mu$s~\cite{Kohler2005} of this spin channel is comparable to that of the excited Sr $^3$P$_1$ state. The major difference between the $^{85}$Rb MFR and $^{88}$Sr OFRs is the much smaller resonance strength $s_\mathrm{res}$ of the latter at intensities where the atomic light scattering is not harmful.
In contrast to $^{88}$Sr, OFRs for the species $^{172} \!\!$~Yb were found to have an $l_\mathrm{opt}$ on the order of $10^4 a_0$ at $I = 1 \mathrm{W/cm}^2$ for levels near 1~GHz atomic detuning \cite{Borkowski2009}. This implies that broad open-channel-dominated OFRs with $s_\mathrm{res} > 1$ may be realizable with $^{172} \!\!$~Yb. It is not yet known whether OFRs might exist with $s_\mathrm{res} > 1$ for frequencies near the alkaline earth intercombination line in mixtures of alkaline earth species and alkali metal species. This is a subject for future experimental and theoretical research.
\subsection{Multiresonance Theory}
\label{subsec:OFR_MFR_multires}
It is useful to compare isolated OFRs and MFRs since isolated resonance theory is widely utilized in both cases; however, both OFRs and MFRs exist as sets of resonances that interfere with one another, so it is instructive to compare multiresonance treatments of the two effects. Although a thorough treatment of a multiresonance OFR-MFR comparison could be the subject of an entire publication, in this section we provide an overview of such a comparison using results from multichannel quantum defect theory (MQDT).
When resonance interference is considered, significant qualitative differences between OFRs and MFRs emerge. There are two sources of such differences. First, the molecular physics that determines the resonance strength is due to short range spin-dependent interactions for MFRs and long-range photoassociation for OFRs. Second, OFRs typically span many vibrational levels of the same closed channel molecular state whereas experimentally utilized MFRs are typically different spin components rather than a vibrational progression.
Sets of overlapping MFRs are well-studied for different alkali metal species~\cite{Naik2011,Berninger2013,Takekoshi2012,Tung2013,Repp2013,Jachymski2013}, and overlapping MFRs have recently been shown to be important for few-body physics~\cite{Wang2014}. The interference of overlapping MFRs can be quantitatively explained by MQDT~\cite{Mies1984a,Mies1984b,Jachymski2013}, with which one can derive an $S$-matrix that is a multiresonance generalization of the isolated resonance formula in Eq. (\ref{eqn:bohn_s_matrix}). We introduce the MQDT theory here to highlight the differences between overlapping OFRs and MFRs.
Considering one background channel and one closed channel, the background is characterized by the usual $E$-dependent phase shift $\eta_\mathrm{bg}(E)$~\cite{Jachymski2013,Mies1984a,Mies1984b,MQDTnote1}. The closed channel c is characterized by a bound state phase function $\nu_\mathrm{c}(E-E_\mathrm{c})$. The energy $E_\mathrm{c}$ of the separated atoms in the closed channel is modified with the ``field tuning,'' which means varying the external magnetic field in the MFR case or the atomic detuning in the OFR case. Bound states of the closed channel exist where $\tan\nu_\mathrm{c}(E-E_\mathrm{c})=0$. Thus, the external field tuning moves the bound state spectrum relative to the background channel $E=0$ threshold, allowing bound states to be tuned across threshold. The coupling between the background and the closed channel is characterized by the dimensionless MQDT parameter $s_\mathrm{res}$, which may also depend on the external fields.
If we follow Ref.~\cite{Jachymski2013} and express energies as $\epsilon=E/\bar{E}$ and $\kappa = k \bar{a}$, then the equivalent MQDT expression to Eq. (\ref{eqn:bohn_s_matrix}) for an MFR or an OFR can be written in a universal dimensionless form,
\begin{equation}
S_{MQDT} = S_\mathrm{bg}
\left(1-i\frac{2\kappa s_\mathrm{res}}{(\epsilon_\mathrm{m}/\pi)\tan\nu_\mathrm{c}+\epsilon_\mathrm{shift}+i\epsilon_\mathrm{width}}\right)\, ,
\label{eqn:MQDT_S}
\end{equation}
where $S_\mathrm{bg}(\epsilon)=e^{2i\eta_\mathrm{bg}(\epsilon)}$ is the background term,
\begin{equation}
\epsilon_\mathrm{m}(\epsilon)=\frac{\pi}{\partial \nu_\mathrm{c}(\epsilon)/\partial \epsilon}
\end{equation}
represents the mean spacing between different eigenenergies, and $\epsilon_\mathrm{shift}(\epsilon)$ and $\epsilon_\mathrm{width}(\epsilon)=\frac12 \hbar \gamma/\bar{E}+\kappa s_\mathrm{res}$ represent the respective shift and decay parts of the complex energy of the interacting, decaying resonance. The shift term $\epsilon_\mathrm{shift}(\epsilon)$ will scale as $s_\mathrm{res}$, and both of these quantities are only very weakly dependent on energy near threshold. Here we need to view the MQDT parameter $s_\mathrm{res}$ as a continuous function of the external field that defines the Hamiltonian.
Using Eq.~(\ref{eqn:MQDT_S}), we can now describe some key differences of OFRs and MFRs. These come from the variation with field strength of both the numerator and the denominator of Eq.~(\ref{eqn:MQDT_S}). In the MFR case, it is an excellent approximation to take $s_\mathrm{res}$ to be a constant, independent of $B$ and $E$, since the interactions that determine this parameter are short range, where $R \ll \bar{a}$ and the energy scale is large. Consequently, the matrix element that sets the magnitude of $s_\mathrm{res}$ is independent of small field tuning. On the other hand for an OFR, $s_\mathrm{res}$ scales linearly with laser power, and we must also think of $s_\mathrm{res}(\omega)$ as being highly sensitive to field tuning, since the optical coupling is determined by the Condon point at very long range (on the order of $\bar{a}$ or larger). The Condon point varies rapidly with PA laser frequency, so the crossing structure of the field-dependent Hamiltonian varies with laser frequency in a major way, changing the response of the system to the optical field. Another way of thinking about this variation is that for an isolated resonance $s_\mathrm{res}$ is proportional to a Franck-Condon factor, which will vary rapidly from level to level in the closed channel, so that the general MQDT coupling parameter can not be taken as a field-tuning-independent parameter \cite{MQDTnote2}.
Secondly, note that the proper MQDT expression in the denominator of Eq.~(\ref{eqn:MQDT_S}) that contains the effect of field tuning is the $\tan\nu_\mathrm{c}$ term, which vanishes at resonance poles. To get the normal isolated resonance approximation near a tunable eigenenergy $\epsilon_\mathrm{res}$, as in Eq.~(\ref{eqn:bohn_s_matrix}), it is necessary to expand this function in a Taylor series as~\cite{Mies1984b,Jachymski2013}
\begin{equation}
\tan\nu_\mathrm{c}(\epsilon-\epsilon_\mathrm{c}) \approx \frac{\partial \nu_\mathrm{c}(\epsilon-\epsilon_\mathrm{c})}{\partial \epsilon}{|}_{\epsilon=\epsilon_\mathrm{res}} \left ( \epsilon - \epsilon_\mathrm{res} \right ) \,.
\label{eqn:tan_nu}
\end{equation}
In the ultracold case, $\epsilon$ tends to remain very close to 0 but $\epsilon_{res}$ is varied by tuning the field, so the expansion in Eq.~(\ref{eqn:tan_nu}) should be made near $\epsilon=0$. This linearizing approximation is normally quite good as long as the range of expansion $\epsilon-\epsilon_\mathrm{res}$ remains small compared to the mean spacing $\epsilon_\mathrm{m}$ to adjacent levels. This is normally the case for MFRs, where the widths of even broad resonances tend to be small compared to the distance to the next vibrational level in the same spin channel \cite{MQDTnote3}. On the other hand, it is common to observe a series of vibrational levels of the same electronic state in the OFR case. In this case, the $\tan\nu_\mathrm{c}$ must be left unexpanded and $\nu_\mathrm{c}$ treated as a continuous function of field tuning if multiple resonances are present \cite{MQDTnote4}.
Reference~\cite{Jachymski2013} showed how to extend the MQDT formalism for Eq.~(\ref{eqn:MQDT_S}) to multiple spin channels with overlapping resonances. Generally, for the reasons discussed above $s_\mathrm{res}$ for each separate channel can be well-approximated as a $E$- and $B$-independent constant, and the linearizing approximation in Eq.~(\ref{eqn:tan_nu}) is used for detunings spanning multiple spin channels. Then the generalization of Eq.~(\ref{eqn:tan_nu}) gives a sum of resonance terms similar to that in the pole term of Eq.~(\ref{eqn:tan_nu}), where there is a global background scattering length $a_\mathrm{bg}$ for all channels and the shift terms in each denominator depend on all the poles simultaneously. The formula can be transformed to a form where each narrow resonance can be viewed as an isolated resonance having a ``local'' (in field tuning) background modified from the global one by nearby interfering resonances. An extension to OFRs from different electronic states may not be possible, because of the rapid variation of MQDT parameters with field tuning. Furthermore, the MFR theory should not be used for different members of the same vibrational series because of the inability to linearize the $\tan\nu_\mathrm{c}$ function across two or more vibrational levels. It may be possible to develop some approximations appropriate to the OFR case, but meanwhile the isolated resonance approximation or CC calculations remain the best tools for understanding OFRs.
\section{Elastic and Inelastic Collisions}
\subsection{OFR isolated resonance formulas}
\label{subsec:iso_res_formulas}
For detunings as large as hundreds of linewidths from the resonance center (but smaller than the separation between resonances), the complex scattering length $\alpha(k,\omega,I)$ and the elastic or inelastic collision rate coefficients derived from the $S$-matrix of Eq.~(\ref{eqn:bohn_s_matrix}) are in excellent agreement with the full CC calculations. In this regime, Eq.~(\ref{eqn:bohn_s_matrix}) fully describes an isolated OFR as a function of energy, detuning, and intensity.
The expression in Eq.~(\ref{eqn:bohn_s_matrix}) gives the isolated resonance approximation to the entrance channel loss probability $P_\textrm{loss}$ in terms of only two parameters, $l_\mathrm{opt}$ and the resonance position $E_\mathrm{res}$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:loss}
P_\textrm{loss} = 1 - |S(k)|^2 = \frac{2 k l_\textrm{eff}}{D^2 + \frac14(1+ 2 k l_\textrm{eff})^2} \,,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
l_\textrm{eff} &=& l_\mathrm{opt} (\gamma_m/\gamma), \label{eqn:x} \\
D &=& (E -E_\mathrm{res})/\hbar \gamma \label{eqn:D} \,.
\end{eqnarray}
Here the effective optical length $l_\textrm{eff}$ determines the resonance coupling strength for the general case when $\gamma >\gamma_m$. $P_\textrm{loss}$ determines the inelastic cross section in Eq.~(\ref{eqn:in_cross_section}) and thus the loss rate coefficient $K_{in}$ in Eq.~(\ref{eqn:loss_rate}). Note that for $2 k l_\textrm{eff} \gg 1$, Eq. \ref{eqn:loss} describes power broadening.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{broadening.eps}
\caption{(Color online) (a) Coupled-channel calculated inelastic loss probability $1 - |S(k)|^2$ versus atomic detuning $\nu-\nu_0$ for different values of collision energy $E/k_B$. We have used $I=$ 5 W/cm$^2$ and the $0_u$ $J=1$ $n=-4$ feature, where $E_n/h = -1084.0763$ MHz. The black dots indicate the peak values calculated with $l_\mathrm{opt}=$161.5 a$_0$, $\gamma =\gamma_m$, and $\nu-\nu_0=(E_n-E)/h$ (where $D$ vanishes in Eq.~(\ref{eqn:loss})). Since $1 - |S(k)|^2$ calculated from the isolated resonance formula in Eq.~(\ref{eqn:loss}) is indistinguishable from the CC calculation on this graph, only the peak comparisons are shown by the black dots on the figure. Panel (b) Coupled channels calculated inelastic loss rate coefficient $K_{in}$ versus molecular detuning. Here we plot different values of PA laser intensity $I$. We use a collision energy $E/k_B=$ 1 nK and the $0_u$ $J=1$ $n=-4$ feature near $\nu - \nu_0 =$ $-1084$ MHz. The black dots show the predictions of the analytic formula in Eq.~(\ref{eqn:loss}). The line wings beyond around $|\delta/\gamma_m| = 6$ scale linearly with power. The black dotted line represents the unitarity limit where $K_{in}$ saturates.}
\label{fig:Iso_Ploss}
\end{figure}
Figures~\ref{fig:Iso_Ploss}(a) and ~\ref{fig:Iso_Ploss}(b) show the behavior of $P_\textrm{loss}$ as a function of detuning for different intensities and collision energies. In Fig. \ref{fig:Iso_Ploss}(a), $P_\textrm{loss}$ is not saturated at low collision energy. As collision energy increases, $P_\textrm{loss}$ broadens, and its peak value (when $E=E_\mathrm{res}$) approaches its upper bound of unity. This only occurs for red molecular detunings. Fig. \ref{fig:Iso_Ploss}(b) shows similar broadening in the inelastic rate coefficient $K_{in} \propto P_\mathrm{loss}$ as intensity is increased and collision energy is kept low. For large intensities, $K_{in}$ saturates at its value given by the unitarity limit. Note that according to Eq. \ref{eqn:Eres}, the intensity-dependent frequency shift of the resonance is accounted for in $\delta$. For temperatures in the $\mu$K range, thermal averaging of the line shape is essential to compare with experiment. As is well-known~\cite{Jones2006}, PA lines have a pronounced red-blue asymmetry when $k_B T$ is larger than the natural width of the PA line.
The isolated resonance \textit{S} matrix can be used to derive the complex $k$-dependent scattering length $\alpha(k)$. Combining Eqs. (\ref{eqn:bohn_s_matrix}) and (\ref{eqn:scattering_length}),
\begin{equation}
\alpha(k) = \alpha_\mathrm{bg}(k) + \frac{\frac{\hbar \Gamma(k)}{2k} \left ( 1 + k^2 \alpha_\mathrm{bg}(k)^2 \right )} {E-E_\mathrm{res} - k \alpha_\mathrm{bg}(k) \frac{\hbar \Gamma(k)}{2} + i \frac{\hbar \gamma}{2}} \,,
\end{equation}
where $\alpha_\mathrm{bg}(k)$ is found by using the background $S_\mathrm{bg}(k)=e^{2i\eta_\mathrm{bg}}$ in Eq.~(\ref{eqn:scattering_length}). Notice that this expression does not contain power broadening, which enters the elastic and inelastic cross sections through the $f(k)$ factor in Eqs.~(\ref{eqn:el_cross_section})-(\ref{eqn:f_factor}).
In the limit that $k|\alpha_\mathrm{bg}| \ll 1$ (valid for a Bose-Einstein condensate), we obtain
\begin{equation}
\alpha = a_\mathrm{bg} + l_\mathrm{eff} \frac{\delta \gamma}{\delta^{2} + \gamma^{2}/4} - \frac{i}{2} l_\mathrm{eff} \frac{\gamma^{2}}{\delta^{2} + \gamma^{2} / 4} \,,
\label{eqn:Iso_alpha}
\end{equation}
where we have taken $\alpha_\mathrm{bg}=a_\mathrm{bg}$ to be real. Fig.~\ref{fig:Iso_a+b} illustrates the real and imaginary parts of $\alpha=a-ib$ calculated at $E/k_B=$ 1 nK. The results from Eq.~(\ref{eqn:Iso_alpha}) are in excellent agreement with the CC calculations. The peak values of $b=2 l_\mathrm{opt}$ at $\delta=0$ and of $a=\pm l_\mathrm{opt}$ at $\delta=\pm \gamma/2$ are also plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:Iso_a+b}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{a_and_b_vs_d_n-4_10W_1nK_lin2.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Coupled channel calculation of $a$ and $b$ versus molecular detuning in line width units $\delta/\gamma_\mathrm{m}$, with $\gamma=\gamma_\mathrm{m}$. We use the $0_u$ $J=1$ $n=-4$ feature and 10W/cm$^2$ PA laser intensity. The dots show the analytic predictions at the peak extrema using Eq.~(\ref{eqn:Iso_alpha}) with $l_\mathrm{opt}=323.2$ a$_0$.}
\label{fig:Iso_a+b}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Photoassociation}
\label{subsec:PA}
The isolated resonance approximation also describes photoassociation~\cite{Ciuryo2004}, the process by which two ground state atoms and a photon combine to form an electronically excited molecule~\cite{Jones2006}. This phenomenon can be used to measure $l_\mathrm{eff}$, which characterizes the strength of an OFR. This strength can be inferred from measurements of the trapped atom loss (into untrappable molecules) that results from driving a photoassociation resonance. Using Eqs. (\ref{eqn:in_cross_section}) and (\ref{eqn:loss_rate}), the inelastic rate coefficient, which describes molecule formation, is
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:K_in}
K_{in} (\delta,l_\textrm{eff},k) = \frac{4 \pi \hbar}{\mu} \frac{\gamma^{2} l_\textrm{eff}}{(\delta + E/\hbar)^{2} + \frac{\gamma^2}{4} (1 + 2 k l_\textrm{eff})^{2}}.
\end{equation}
For a trapped ultracold thermal gas, one must introduce Boltzmann averages into the theory. To this end, we approximate that the PA laser interacts with an entire velocity class at each point in space within the trap. This approximation, which is good for large densities, means that one must momentum average $K_{in}$. Furthermore, we use the fact that photoassociation is a short-range phenomenon in the isolated resonance approximation~\cite{Bohn1999}; therefore, we do not perform a Boltzmann spatial average in this treatment.
The quantity $\overline{K}_{in}$, which is the momentum-averaged $K_{in}$, is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqn:Kin_averaged}
\overline{K}_{in} &=& \frac{1}{\pi^3 p_0^6} \int \!\! d^3 \vec{p}_1 \!\! \int \!\! d^3 \vec{p}_2 \, e^{-(p_1^2 + p_2^2)/p_0^2} K_{in}(\delta,l_\textrm{eff},k) \notag \\
&=& \frac{4}{\sqrt{\pi}k_{th}^3} \int_0^\infty \!\! dk \, k^2 \, e^{-k^2/k_{th}^2} K_{in}(\delta,l_\textrm{eff},k),
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent where $p_0 = \sqrt{2 m k_B T}$, $k_{th} = \sqrt{2 \mu k_B T}/\hbar$, $\vec{p}_1$ and $\vec{p}_2$ are the momenta of the two collision partners, and $|\vec{p}_1 - \vec{p}_2| = \hbar k$.
In order to use $\overline{K}_{in}$ to describe trap loss due to photoassociation, we must understand what fraction of molecules is ejected from the trap. As mentioned in Section \ref{subsec:CC_formulation}, we approximate that every photoassociated molecule is lost to the trap. We have numerically studied this approximation, finding that it is good to 1\% for all molecular states except for the least-bound $0_u$ level. In this case, the evolution of the in-trap atomic density is
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:two_body_rate_equation}
\dot{\rho} = -2 \overline{K}_{in} \frac{\rho^{2}}{2} - \frac{\rho}{\tau},
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\rho$ is the atomic density and $\tau$ is the one-body lifetime (due to loss mechanisms such as background gas molecules and atomic light scatter). Here the $\rho^{2}$ term arises from the number of pairs in an $N$-particle sample, $N(N-1)/2 \simeq N^{2}/2$. The signal in photoassociation experiments is typically the atom number $N$ after the application of the PA laser \cite{Blatt2011,Escobar2008}, given by integrating the solution to Eq. (\ref{eqn:two_body_rate_equation}) over space,
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:number_signal}
N(\delta,l_\mathrm{eff}) = \int d^{3} \vec{r} \frac{\rho_{0} (\vec{r}) \,\, e^{-t_{PA} / \tau}}{1 + \overline{K}_{in}(\delta,l_\textrm{eff}) \,\, \rho_{0}(\vec{r}) \,\, \tau (1 - e^{-t_{PA}/\tau})}.
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{signal.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Trap loss, given by Eq. \ref{eqn:number_signal}, as a function of detuning for various cloud temperatures. Here $\gamma = \gamma_\textrm{m}$, $l_\textrm{eff} = 100 a_0$, $t_{PA} = 200 \mathrm{ms}$, and we take the limit of $\tau \gg t_{PA}$. We also assume a spherical trapped cloud with $N_0 = 6 \times 10^4$ atoms and a 20 $\mu$m r.m.s. radius. Note the broadening toward red detunings, which is a result of momentum averaging $K_{in}$.}
\label{fig:signal}
\end{figure}
\noindent Here $t_{PA}$ is the pulse duration of the PA laser and $\rho_{0} (\vec{r})$ is the in-trap density before the PA laser is applied. Fig. (\ref{fig:signal}) depicts $N(\delta,l_\mathrm{eff})$ for different temperatures and detunings. The density $\rho_{0}(\vec{r})$ can be determined by fitting experimental in-trap absorption images to a 3D Gaussian distribution (Ref. \cite{Blatt2011}, supplementary online material).
Unless a magic wavelength trap is employed, the ac Stark shift from optical traps causes a position-dependent frequency shift of the atomic resonance \cite{Blatt2011, Escobar2008}. For photoassociation experiments, this effect results in a broadening of the lineshape feature in the signal $N$. To model this broadening, one must understand both the atomic response to the optical trap and the intensity profile $I_{trap}(\vec{r})$ of the trap laser (Ref. \cite{Blatt2011}, supplementary online material). In the case of \ensuremath{^{88}}Sr, the $^1S_0$ and $^3P_1$ polarizabilities are known well enough to calculate the differential polarizability, $\alpha_{^3 \! P_1}(\omega_{trap}) - \alpha_{^1 \! S_0}(\omega_{trap})$, to better than 10\% for typical trap laser wavelengths (such as 1064 nm).
One can model $I_{trap}(\vec{r})$ with the Gaussian beam equation, using parametric heating measurements to obtain the beam waists \cite{Savard1997}. This broadening can be included in the photoassociation signal by adding a Stark shift,
\begin{equation}
\omega_{Stark}(\vec{r}) = -\frac{1}{2 \hbar \epsilon_0 c} \left[ \alpha_{^3 \! P_1}(\omega_{trap}) - \alpha_{^1 \! S_0}(\omega_{trap}) \right] I_{trap}(\vec{r}),
\end{equation}
to $\delta$ in Eq. \ref{eqn:K_in} and then carrying this term through to Eq. (\ref{eqn:number_signal}). With the trap ac Stark shift accounted for, we can fit experimental photoassociation data (Fig. \ref{fig:inelastic_loss_frequency}). For these fits it is necessary to approximate the integrals in Eqs. (\ref{eqn:number_signal}) and (\ref{eqn:Kin_averaged}) as sums (Ref. \cite{Blatt2011}, supplementary online material).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{inelastic_loss_frequency.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Atom number data from Ref. \cite{Blatt2011} as a function of the PA laser detuning from the atomic resonance. The false color pictures above the plot are the measured optical depths corresponding to the data points directly below the centers of the pictures. These measurements were performed in a non-magic wavelength trap, which caused broadening toward blue detunings since $\omega_{Stark}(0) = 2 \pi \times 327 \,\, \mathrm{kHz}$. The solid line is a fit using Eq.~(\ref{eqn:number_signal}) with $\omega_{Stark}(\vec{r})$ included in $\overline{K}_{in}$. The quantities $T$ and $l_\mathrm{eff}$ were free parameters in the fit.}
\label{fig:inelastic_loss_frequency}
\end{figure}
A full treatment of the photoassociation lineshape would include Doppler broadening. However, according to theoretical studies of narrow-line photoassociation~\cite{Ciuryo2004}, since a $T$ of a few $\mu$K (typical for narrow-line laser cooled \ensuremath{^{88}}Sr{}) is greater than the PA laser photon recoil temperature, Doppler broadening is negligible compared to the momentum broadening shown in Fig. \ref{fig:signal}. We numerically checked whether Doppler effects are significant for our analysis, and we find that Doppler broadening can only be neglected in the fits of Fig. \ref{fig:inelastic_loss_frequency} due to the presence of both a large momentum broadening and an appreciable Stark shift broadening toward blue detunings.
Treating collisions in this manner breaks down when elastic processes become important. The elastic-to-inelastic collision ratio is approximately
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:collision_ratio}
\overline{K_{el} (k) / K_{in} (k)} \simeq 2 \overline{k}
l_\textrm{eff} = 2 k_{th} l_\textrm{eff},
\end{equation}
\noindent where the overline denotes thermal averaging. In deriving this formula, we made the approximation $e^{2 i \eta_{bg}} \simeq 1$, which is acceptable for the above estimate since $a_{bg}$ is only -1.4 $a_{0}$. Therefore, when $l_\textrm{eff} \sim 1 / 2 k_{th}$, elastic collisions must be treated.
\subsection{Elastic Collisions}
\label{subsec:elastic_collisions}
If photoassociation can be minimized and elastic collision rate modifications can be made large, the OFR effect could be used to manipulate atomic interactions with relatively little particle loss. The usefulness of such manipulations is evident from experiments based on the MFR effect, which has proved to be a very fruitful technique that is central to numerous experiments \cite{Chin2010}. To access this regime in a quantum degenerate gas (for which $k \rightarrow 0$), the ratio of the optically modified elastic scattering length to the inelastic scattering length, $\left[ a(0)-a_{bg} \right]/b(0) = 2 \delta/\gamma$, must be much greater than unity. For a thermal gas, the rate coefficients determine the relevant limit, $\langle K_{el} (k) / K_{in} (k) \rangle \gg 1$, which implies via Eqn.\ref{eqn:collision_ratio} that $l_\textrm{eff} \gg 1/2 k_{th}$.
We estimate from the latter condition that a thermal \ensuremath{^{88}}Sr{} gas at $T = 3~\mu\mathrm{K}$ (typical of narrow-line laser cooling) will require $l_\mathrm{eff}$ to be much greater than $400~a_0$. Using the isolated resonance approximation, large changes in elastic scattering were predicted to arise from an OFR based on the $n = -1$ vibrational state~\cite{Ciuryo2005}. This prediction required high PA laser intensity and very large molecular detunings from the $n = -1$ state. However, as our CC theory has shown, these conditions will not yield an effect comparable to a lossless MFR because the requisite detunings are larger than the separation between resonances. Instead, the OFR physics is determined by the nearest resonance to a given detuning (Section \ref{subsec:CC_Results}).
Experimentally, elastic collisions can be studied using cross-dimensional thermalization. For instance, in Ref. \cite{Monroe1993}, a trapped atomic gas was prepared in a nonequilibrium state using parametric heating in 1D of the trap. Due to elastic collisions, the authors observed thermalization of the non-equilibrium gas. The thermalization time of the gas can be calculated from a simple treatment based on Enskog's equation or a full molecular dynamics simulation~\cite{Goldwin2005}. These treatments show that, on average, each particle participates in about three elastic collisions events during the $1/e$ thermalization time.
Elastic collisions induced by OFRs were experimentally studied in Ref.~\cite{Blatt2011} using cross-dimensional thermalization. In this work, an OFR was accessed in a trapped \ensuremath{^{88}}Sr{} gas prepared in a non-thermal state. In the absence of OFR-induced collisions, this gas would not thermalize over experimental time scales because of the negligible $a_\mathrm{bg} = - 1.4 a_0$ in \ensuremath{^{88}}Sr{}. With a PA laser applied, clear temperature changes were observed as a function of $\nu - \nu_0$. To understand whether these observations were caused by elastic collisions, we apply our theory to the experimental data.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{simulation.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Temperature data from Ref.~\cite{Blatt2011} for horizontal (H) and vertical (V) trap eigenaxes. The solid lines are the results of a Monte Carlo simulation including elastic and inelastic collisions.}
\label{fig:simulation}
\end{figure}
Since the atomic samples in this measurement never reached thermal equilibrium over the time scale of the experiment, it is not possible to study the resulting data analytically. Instead, a time-dependent simulation of the phase-space density is necessary to understand the data quantitatively. Our analysis uses a numerically efficient method due to Bird~\cite{Bird94} for simulating collisions between thousands of particles. The method discretizes the trap volume into small ``collision volumes'' containing much less than one particle on average. If there is more than one particle in a collision volume, the probabilities $P_{el}$ and $P_{in}$ of elastic and inelastic collisions between these atoms is calculated as $P_{el/in} = |\vec{v}_1 - \vec{v}_2| \sigma_{el/in} t_{step}/V$. Here $\vec{v}_1$ and $\vec{v}_2$ are the velocities of the two atoms, $t_{step}$ is the time step of the simulation, $V$ is the collision volume, and the cross sections are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqn:collision_cross_sections}
\sigma_\mathrm{el} &=& \frac{8 \pi}{1 + k^2 a_\mathrm{bg}^2}
\frac{\left[l_\mathrm{eff} \gamma + a_\mathrm{bg} (\delta +
\frac{E}{\hbar})\right]^2 + a_\mathrm{bg}^2
\gamma^2/4}{(\delta + E/\hbar)^2 + \frac{\gamma^2}{4}
(1 + 2 k l_\mathrm{eff})^2} \\
\sigma_\mathrm{in} &=& \frac{4 \pi l_\mathrm{eff}}{k} \frac{\gamma^2}{(\delta
+ E/\hbar)^2 + \frac{\gamma^2}{4} (1 + 2 k
l_\mathrm{eff})^2}.
\end{eqnarray}
If an inelastic collision occurs, both particles are removed from the simulation. For an elastic collision event, the particles' velocity vectors are rotated using a random rotation matrix. Between each of these collision steps, the particles evolve in the trap potential using an embedded Runge-Kutta method. We have checked this simulation against known results for cross-dimensional thermalization in harmonic traps and have also confirmed that, with elastic collisions removed, the simulation reproduces the results of photoassociation theory of the previous section~\cite{Blatt2011thesis}.
Fig. \ref{fig:simulation} depicts temperature data from the experiments of Ref.~\cite{Blatt2011} as well as our simulation results. Our simulation tells us that the temperature peaks for certain detunings because the PA laser is driving photoassociative loss of the coldest atoms, resulting in antievaporative heating. We also find that without including elastic collisions in our simulation, the simulation does not predict the dip in the horizontal temperature apparent in the data. Therefore, we conclude that this temperature dip indicates partial thermalization of the gas. The fact that antievaporation and thermalization have different detuning dependence arises because the elastic and inelastic collision rates average differently over the collision momentum $k$.
The interplay between elastic and inelastic processes is sensitive to the value of $\gamma$ used in the simulation. The simulation only agrees with the experimental data if we set $\gamma = 2\pi\times 40~\mathrm{kHz} = 2.7 \gamma_m$. This leads us to conclude that the OFR effect in \ensuremath{^{88}}Sr{} is broadened beyond the natural spontaneous decay of the ${^{88}\mathrm{Sr}_2}$ molecules. Extra broadening has also been seen in other \ensuremath{^{88}}Sr{}~\cite{Zelevinsky2006, Yan2013a} and Rb~\cite{Theis2004} OFR experiments.
\section{Summary and Conclusion}
We have developed CC and isolated resonance theories of OFRs. The CC theory predicts resonance interference for detunings between OFRs, causing the OFR effect to vanish between resonances. We conclude that OFR experiments have a ``nearest resonance'' constraint, meaning that the OFR effect is dictated by the nearest resonance to a given detuning. The isolated resonance theory agrees with the more complete CC theory for detunings near a molecular resonance. In this regime, it is possible to use the simpler isolated resonance theory to model photoassociation and OFR measurements and fit the data from these experiments. Such models have shown a broadening beyond the expected linewidth of the molecular state accessed by an OFR.
|
\section{Introduction} \label{sec:intro}
Network analysis and graph mining play a prominent role in providing insights and studying phenomena across various domains, including social, behavioral, biological, transportation, entertainment, and financial domains.
This paper presents a \emph{web-based network visual analytics} platform called $\ensuremath{\textsc{GraphVis}}$ that integrates powerful statistical analysis, graph mining, and machine learning techniques with interactive visualization to aid in the discovery of important patterns and insights for sense making, reasoning, and decision making.
$\ensuremath{\textsc{GraphVis}}$ is a visual analytics tool for network data, designed for rapid interactive visual exploration and graph mining (Figure~\ref{fig:graphvis-ca-netscience}).
Starting from a simple drag-and-drop of a graph file into the browser, users can move from data to insights within seconds.
Unlike other network visualization software that requires installation and updates, $\ensuremath{\textsc{GraphVis}}$ is web-based working directly from the browser.
Furthermore, it is designed to be consistent with the way humans learn via immediate-feedback upon every user interaction (e.g., change of a slider for filtering)~\cite{ahlberg1992dynamic,thomas2005illuminating}.
Users have rapid, incremental, and reversible control over all graph queries with immediate and continuous visual feedback.
\begin{figure}[b!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{graphvis-platform-power-network.pdf}
\caption{Screenshot of $\ensuremath{\textsc{GraphVis}}$}
\label{fig:graphvis-ca-netscience}
\end{figure}
While $\ensuremath{\textsc{GraphVis}}$ serves as a web-based platform for visual interactive graph mining, it also has a number of important features that aid the discovery process including:
{
\medskip
\vspace{-2mm}
\begin{list}{$\bullet$}{}
\parskip=0.4mm
\item Drag-and-drop graph file(s) to quickly visualize and interactively explore networks in seconds.
\item Support for a wide variety of graph formats such as edge-lists (txt, csv, tsv, mtx, etc), XML-based formats (gexf, graphml), and a variety of others (gml, json, net/pajek).
\item Online profile and system to help manage your data, settings, visualizations, etc.
\item Export visualizations as high-quality images (SVG, PNG) as well as (transformed/filtered) graph data, attributes, etc (Fig.~\ref{fig:exported-svg-image}).
\item All macro and microscopic graph properties and statistics (triangles, kcore, etc.) are automatically updated in an efficient manner after each graph manipulation is performed such as inserting and deleting nodes and links.
\item Mouseover nodes to analyze their microscopic properties (e.g., betweenness, PageRank, number of triangles).
\item Real-time visual graph filtering and querying capabilities including chaining multiple filters as well as exporting the resulting data for other tasks.
\item To aid the analytic process, both nodes and edges may be \emph{colored} and \emph{sized} according to a variety of network properties (k-core number, eccentricity, etc) or customized by the user.
\item Subgraphs may be selected by brushing over interesting regions of the network visually (i.e., click-and-drag while holding shift). Multiple selections from different regions of the graph are also supported.
\item Brushed nodes, edges, and subgraphs may be deleted (by pressing `D'), or manually adjusted by clicking on a selected node and dragging to the desired location.
\item Interactive graph generation including three newly proposed block model approaches that capture community structure.
\item Nodes, edges, and subgraph patterns (cliques, stars, chains, cycles, as well as probabilistic patterns via block models, etc) are also easily added with a simple click to allow for easy exploration, hypothesis testing (e.g., what if scenarios, as well as simulations to understand the impact of insertions/deletion on the local and global network), or simply to quickly generate a benchmark network for testing correctness of an algorithm.
\item Tools for dynamic network analysis and visualization.
\item Powerful graph mining and learning techniques are developed including interactive visual role discovery as well as advanced network analysis methods such as triangle-core decomposition.
\item Node information may also be updated easily via double-clicking the node.
\item Nearly all visualizations are interactive and support brushing, linking, zooming, panning, tooltips, etc.
\item Multiple visual representations of the graph data are supported, including the multi-level graph properties (e.g., interactive scatter plot matrix, and other statistical plots).
\item Network may also be searched via textual query (e.g., node name).
\item There are many other features including full customization of the visualization (color, size, opacity, background, fonts, etc), text annotation, graph layouts, collision detection, fish eye, and many others.
\end{list}
}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.00\linewidth]{gv-ca-netscience.pdf}
\label{fig:ca-netscience-overview}
\caption{Exported SVG image from $\ensuremath{\textsc{GraphVis}}$}
\label{fig:exported-svg-image}
\end{figure}
\section{Multi-scale Visual Analytics}
\label{sec:graph-analytics}
Visual analytic tools need to allow for interacting and reasoning across multiple simultaneous scales of data representations~\cite{ebert2014cross}.
Thus, we developed $\ensuremath{\textsc{GraphVis}}$ with a \emph{multi-scale visual graph analytics engine} to support (visual) interactive network exploratory analysis at both the global macro-level as well as the local microscopic level.
Visual graph mining and machine learning techniques lie at the heart of $\ensuremath{\textsc{GraphVis}}$ and provide the analysts with a set of powerful tools to discover key insights and reveal important structural patterns interactively in real-time.
Such an approach is vital for interactively exploring big data in real-time by summarizing its patterns, statistics (binning, distributions, etc), as well as spotting anomalies.
Statistical techniques are used to find interesting nodes, allowing the user to sort through the top-k most interesting nodes for further investigation.
Every update, insertion, or deletion of a node, edge, or subgraph is immediately reflected in the visualization window.
Furthermore, the visualization and analytics are also updated immediately upon any parameter change via sliders or other interface controls.
This allows to quickly test a hypothesis as well as investigate the impact of certain actions on the network structure and its properties/statistics.
For instance, suppose we use betweenness to filter the graph, as we adjust the slider, the analyst receives visual feedback immediately at each change in the slider (in contrast to adjusting the slider to the desired value, then receiving feedback on the selection\footnote{This type of visual network analysis is also extremely useful for learning and education, since students can quickly grasp the behavior of the various statistical techniques through interactive exploration.}.
\subsection{Macro-level Interactive Graph Analysis} \label{sec:macro-measures}
At the macroscopic level, we use a variety of key network properties.
A few of these include max/avg degree, total triangles, global clustering, max k-core number, diameter, mean distance, approx. chromatic number, number of communities/roles, and max triangle-core number.
To help guide the interactive exploration, we display many of the important macro properties that help characterize the global structure of the network in the visualization window.
Moreover, statistical aggregates (mean, max, mode, sum, var) are used to summarize the global structure and behavior of the network.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.80\linewidth]{comp-geom-karp.pdf}
\caption{
Node profile tools highlight important properties including microscopic and neighborhood information}
\label{fig:comp-geom-collab-karp}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Micro-level Interactive Analysis} \label{sec:micro-measures}
To facilitate the discovery process, $\ensuremath{\textsc{GraphVis}}$ provides interactive exploration at the microscopic level, e.g., using edge and node degree, eccentricity, k-core number, and triangle-core number.
In addition, many important social network analysis measures are used in the interactive visual analytics including betweenness, number of triangles, clustering coefficient, path lengths, PageRank, and many others.
These node and edge properties are displayed in visual form and can be explored/manipulated directly by the user in a free-flowing manner (e.g., using brushing, linking, zooming, mouseover, filtering, etc). For instance, the neighborhood of a node can be highlighted as well as its micro-level statistics and properties (Figure~\ref{fig:comp-geom-collab-karp}).
Multiple visual representations of the graph data are also provided. For example, $\ensuremath{\textsc{GraphVis}}$ leverages an interactive scatter plot matrix for analysis of the correlation between pairs of node statistics (Figure~\ref{fig:scatter-matrix-micro-level}).
We also support brushing to allow users to highlight interesting nodes (and links) across the various measures.
Furthermore, semantic zooming can be used to drill-down in order to understand the differences between individual nodes and links.
Links may also be analyzed more closely using a similar approach.
A few important link measures are available including triangle-core numbers, number of triangles incident to an edge, as well as a variety of other measures.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\frame{\includegraphics[width=.90\linewidth]{gv-scatterplot_matrix_mirco_level.pdf}}
\caption{Microscopic network properties may be interactively analyzed using scatter plot matrices.
$\ensuremath{\textsc{GraphVis}}$ supports interactive techniques such as brushing, linking, highlighting, as well as semantic zooming.}
\label{fig:scatter-matrix-micro-level}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Graph Partitioning Methods} \label{sec:graph-partitioning}
$\ensuremath{\textsc{GraphVis}}$ provides a diverse collection of visual interactive graph partitioning methods.
For example, community detection, role discovery~\cite{rossi2014roles}, and graph coloring.
All graph partitioning methods are designed to be efficient taking at most linear time in the number of edges to compute.
\subsection{Distributions of Measures} \label{sec:distributions}
Node and link summarization techniques (e.g., binning/histograms, statistical distributions) are used to obtain fast, meaningful and useful data representations.
For example, we leverage binning methods to interactively compute and maintain the frequency distribution of some graph properties (e.g., degree distribution) upon any update, insertion, or deletion of a node, edge, or subgraph. Furthermore, we also interactively plot the cumulative distribution function (CDF) and the complementary CDF, which are easily computed from the frequency distribution.
These are known to be important for networks, capturing interesting structural properties (e.g., heavy-tailed distributions).
Furthermore, we also utilize sampling~\cite{ahmed2014graph} as well as fast ranking algorithms for displaying top-k nodes, links, and subgraphs to the user for further exploration.
In addition to distributions, the macro-level measures are also useful for big graph data and vital to the multi-level strategy offered by $\ensuremath{\textsc{GraphVis}}$.
\begin{figure}[b!]
\centering
\subfigure[Block PA]{
\includegraphics[width=0.47\linewidth]{block-PA.pdf}
\label{fig:block-PA}
}
\subfigure[Block Chung-Lu]{
\includegraphics[width=0.47\linewidth]{block-CL.pdf}
\label{fig:block-CL}}
\caption{Networks generated from the proposed Block-PA (BPA) and Block-CL (BCL) models.}
\label{fig:interactive-block-models}
\end{figure}
\section{Interactive Graph Generation} \label{sec:interactive-graph-gen}
Graph generators are useful for simulations, testing algorithms, assumptions, benchmarks, etc~\cite{barabasi2003linked}.
The interactive graph generators developed in this work are broadly categorized into
\begin{list}{}{}
\item[1)] Model-based synthetic graph generation and visualization, using standard models such as Erd{\H{o}}s-R{\'e}nyi~\cite{erdos1960evolution}, Chung-Lu (CL)~\cite{aiello2001random}, and preferential attachment (PA)~\cite{barabasi2003linked}.
\item[2)] Pattern-based synthetic graph generation and visualization, using subgraph patterns such as nodes, edges, cliques, stars, cycles, and chains.
\item[3)] Hybrid synthetic graph generation and visualization that allows users to generate graphs using a standard model (such as Erd{\H{o}}s-R{\'e}nyi) in addition to adding certain patterns to the generated graph (e.g., cliques, and stars).
\end{list}
For capturing community-structure, we proposed three additional block model approaches that combine multiple one-stage probabilistic models such as Chung-Lu, Erd{\H{o}}s-R{\'e}nyi, or preferential attachment by probabilistically creating inter-community edges.
See Figure~\ref{fig:interactive-block-models} for an illustration.
Notably, these block-model approaches may also be used as patterns allowing the user to interactively experiment with adding various patterns to already existing networks in the visualization window.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.70\linewidth]{gv-enron-anomaly-detection.pdf}
\label{fig:enron-kitchen-tooltip}
\caption{Screenshot of the enron email communication network using a window of one day.
Here, we immediately see many of the major players involved in the Enron scandal.}
\label{fig:dynamic-network-analysis}
\end{figure}
\section{Dynamic Network Exploration}\label{sec:dynamic-network-analysis}
Dynamic networks arise in many settings (e.g, email communications).
To understand the evolution and dynamic patterns in networks,
$\ensuremath{\textsc{GraphVis}}$ provides tools to interactively analyze the evolution of the graph over time (Figure~\ref{fig:dynamic-network-analysis}).
In particular,
users can filter temporal networks by date and time.
Additionally, the time scale can be selected (via brushing) and adapted based on the application or data properties.
This controls the range of time being visualized.
Using these tools, analysts can begin to understand the dynamics and trends present in the network (e.g., seasonality, spike, trends).
Additionally, community detection, role discovery, and all other analytic techniques and tools may also be used for deeper understandings of the dynamics and network evolution.
\section{Conclusion} \label{sec:conc}
This paper introduced a \emph{web-based interactive visual analytics platform} for graph and network data.
Our work is based on a multi-level visual analytics engine, designed for rapid interactive visual exploration and graph mining.
Furthermore, it integrates macro and microscopic statistical techniques as well as graph mining and machine learning with interactive visualization to aid in the discovery of important patterns and insights for sense making, reasoning, and decision making.
\bibliographystyle{abbrv}
|
\section{Introduction} \label{sec:intro}
The outbreaks of diseases can involve the diffusion of information in regard to the diseases, including the risk of
infection, rumors, fears and so on, which can stimulate
individuals to take spontaneous behavioral responses to protect
themselves, thereby bring profound impacts on the spreading of
disease~\cite{funk2009spread,kitchovitch2010risk,zhang2014effects,bu2013efficient,funk2010modelling,yang2012efficient}. For example, recent outbreaks of the H1N1 flu, the bird flu, and the severe acute respiratory syndrome
(SARS) have brought the reduction of going out and the plenty of
people wearing face masks. For
this reason, there has been an increasing focus on the development
of formal models aimed at investigating the interplay of epidemic
spreading and information-based behavioral responses\cite{bagnoli2007risk,wang2013impact,wang2013human,ruan2012epidemic}. Such as, based
on the assumption that the probability of susceptible individual
going to the alter state is proportional to the number of infected
neighbors, Sahneh\emph{et al.} extended the SIS
(Susceptible-Infected-Susceptible) model to a
Susceptible-Alter-Infected-Susceptible (SAIS) model~\cite{sahneh2011epidemic,sahneh2012existence},
and they found that the way of behavioral response can enhance the
epidemic threshold; Meloni \emph{et~al.} studied a meta-population
model that incorporates several scenarios of self-initiated
behavioral changes into the mobility patterns of individuals, and
they found that such behavioral changes do not alter the epidemic
threshold, but may produce a negative impact on disease, i.e., the
density of infection is increased~\cite{meloni2011modeling}; In Refs.~\cite{wu2012impact,wu2014responsive,zhang2014suppression}, authors
investigated the effects of the information-based behavioral
responses on the epidemic dynamics by designing the transmission
rate as a function of the local infected density or the global
infected density.
Though the effects of information-based behavioral responses on the
epidemic dynamics have been studied by many authors, most of works
assumed the spreadings of information and epidemic are in the same
network. As we know, with the development of technology, information
can fast diffuse through many different channels, such as, the word
of mouth, news media, online social networks, and so on. In view of
this, recent well-studied multiplex network theory has been used
to mimic the interplay of information or related awareness and the
epidemic dynamics\cite{gomez2013diffusion,wang2013interdependent,de2013mathematical,boccaletti2014structure}.
For instance, Sahneh \emph{et al.} have shown
that the information dissemination spread in another network can
help boost the resilience of the agents' population against the
spreading and found optimal information dissemination for different
topologies~\cite{sahneh2012optimal}; Wang \emph{et al.} investigated the
interplay of the epidemic dynamics and the information dynamics in
multiplex network based on the SIR (R-recovery) model, and focused on
the two fundamental quantities underlying any spreading process:
epidemic threshold and the final epidemic prevalence~\cite{wang2014asymmetrically}; Granell
\emph{et~al.} established an SIS-UAU model to investigate the
competing effects of the spreading of awareness and the epidemic
dynamics in multiplex with the transmission rate of awareness as
well as the structure of information network~\cite{granell2013dynamical}. More recently, they
further generalized their model by reducing the probability of
infected individuals becoming awareness and including the effect
of a mass broadcast of awareness (mass media) on the epidemic
dynamics~\cite{granell2014competing}.
Existing works either assume that individuals are self-initiated~\cite{meloni2011modeling,sahneh2012existence},
that is, they become aware because their neighbors are infected, or
individuals can only be informed and become aware by other aware
neighbors~\cite{wang2014asymmetrically,granell2013dynamical}, the combine effects of the two factors have not been well
studied. In reality, individuals can obtain the disease information through many ways. Inspired these factors, in the current work, we study the
interplay between the diffusion of awareness by incorporating the
\emph{self-awareness} effects and the epidemic dynamics under the
framework of multiplex network. In the model, an infectious disease
first spreads among population represented by the contact network,
and then the outbreak of the disease stimulates some people
(infected or susceptible individuals) become aware of the risk of
infection, and they take some protections to reduce the probability of
infection. Meanwhile, unaware individuals can be informed by other
aware individuals through the information network or become \emph{self-awareness}
induced by the infected neighbors in contact network or mass media. The finding
indicates that the additional self-initiated awareness mechanism can
reduce the density of infection, however, which can not alter the epidemic threshold. The results are
verified by the Monte-Carlo simulations and the microscopic Markov
chain approach (MMCA).
The layout of the paper is as follows: we introduce the model in
Sec.~\ref{sec:model}. The simulation results and theoretical
analysis are presented in Sec.~\ref{sec:main results}. Finally,
Conclusions and discussions are presented in
Sec.~\ref{sec:discussion}. The results for the global information-based \emph{self-initiated } awareness are given in Appendix.
\section{Model} \label{sec:model}
In this work, we generalize the model of Ref.~\cite{granell2013dynamical}. In that model, a
multiplex includes two layers, one is physical layer representing the spreading of epidemic (contact network), and the other is
information layer on where the diffusion of the awareness evolves
(information network). All nodes represent the same individuals in
both layers, but the connectivity is different in each of them. In
the contact layer, a Susceptible - Infected - Susceptible (SIS)
model is used to mimic the epidemic dynamics. That is to say, a
susceptible node can be infected by one infected neighbor with
certain probability, and the infected node can return to susceptible
state with probability $\mu$. On the information layer, the
dynamical process of awareness is assumed to be similar to the SIS
model, that is, an unaware node (U) can be informed by an aware
neighbor (A) with probability $\lambda$, and the aware node can loss
awareness and back to unaware state with probability $\delta$. The
interplay of the two processes is modelled as follows: once an
individual is infected, s/he will certainly become aware, that is,
the probability is $\sigma=100\%$. In addition, to distinguish the
protective behaviors between the aware individuals and unaware individuals, let
$\beta$ and $\beta^{A}=\gamma\beta$ (here $0\leq\gamma<1$. If
$\gamma=0$, the aware individuals are completely immune to the
infection.) be the probabilities of unaware and aware susceptible
nodes to get infected, respectively.
From the description of the model, one can find that, on the one hand,
the authors assumed that the infected individuals will
\emph{automatically} become aware and are willing to inform the disease information. As we know, in many cases, infected individuals are
unwilling to tell others since they can be discriminated or isolated
by others once others know they are infected by one certain disease. So we make a progress and
assume that infected individuals becoming aware with probability
$0\leq\sigma\leq1$. On the other hand, in the model, individuals can
\emph{only} be informed by their neighbors through the information
network, that is to say, one individual has no chance to become aware
once their neighbors are unaware. However, as proposed in many
previous works, individuals can become \emph{self-awareness} once their friends are
infected or they are informed by the mass media. Thus, we further
generalize the model as: a susceptible individual can go to aware
state by \emph{self-initiated} response with probability $\kappa$
when contacting one infected friend. Therefore, the probability of the susceptible
individual becoming awareness increases with the number of infected
neighbors in the contact network~\cite{sahneh2012existence}. Note that, for the
original model in Ref.~\cite{granell2013dynamical}, awareness cannot break out if the probability $\sigma=0$, so the roles of awareness cannot be played,
however, in our model, the awareness can diffuse among population
even though $\sigma=0$ since susceptible individuals can become awareness by their
\emph{self-initiated} responses. When $\kappa=0.0$
and $\sigma=1.0$, our model returns to the original model in
Ref.~\cite{granell2013dynamical}.
According to this scheme, an individual can
be in four different states: susceptible and unaware(SU),
susceptible and aware(SA),infected and unaware(IU), infected and
aware(IA). The flow diagram of the model is given in
Fig.~\ref{fig1}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=100mm,width=100mm]{fig1.eps}
\caption{Model description for the UAU-SIS dynamic. An individual can be in four
different states: SU, SA, IU, and IA. The top (bottom) layer is the epidemic process for the aware (unaware) individuals, respectively.
SU (SA) can be infected by an infectious neighbor in
contact layer with a probability $\beta$ ($\beta^{A}=\gamma\beta$).
IU and IA recovers to SU and SA, respectively, with the same
probability $\mu$; The left (right) flow is the awareness process for the susceptible (infected) individuals, respectively.
SU can go to SA with a probability
$\lambda$ of being informed by an aware neighbor through information network, or induced by the infected neighbors in contact network
with a probability $\kappa$. SA recovers to SU with a probability
$\delta$. IU can go to IA by informed the aware neighbors
in information layer with a probability $\lambda$, or self-awareness
with a probability $\sigma$. SA and IA can become unaware and return
to SU and IU with the same probability $\delta$. }\label{fig1}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Main results} \label{sec:main results}
\subsection{Theoretical analysis}\label{analysis}
Denoting $a_{ij}$ and $b_{ij}$ be the adjacency matrices that support the SIS and UAU processes, respectively.
The probability of $i$ in one of four states at time $t$ is denoted
by $p_{i}^{SU}(t)$, $p_{i}^{SA}(t)$, $p_{i}^{IU}(t)$ and
$p_{i}^{IA}(t)$ respectively. Assuming the probability of susceptible
(infect) node $i$ \emph{not} being \emph{informed} by any neighbors is
$\theta_{i}(t)$ ($r_{i}(t)$), and the probability of unaware
(aware) susceptible node $i$ \emph{not} being \emph{infected} is
$q_{i}^{U}(t)$ ($q_{i}^{A}(t)$). They are described as~\cite{granell2013dynamical}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\theta_{i}(t)&=&\prod_{j}(1-b_{ji}p_{j}^{A}(t)\lambda)(1-a_{ji}p_{j}^{I}(t)\kappa),\label{1}\\
r_{i}(t)&=&\prod_{j}(1-b_{ji}p_{j}^{A}(t)\lambda),\label{2}\\
q_{i}^{U}(t)&=&\prod_{j}(1-a_{ji}p_{j}^{I}(t)\beta),\label{3}\\
q_{i}^{A}(t)&=&\prod_{j}(1-a_{ji}p_{j}^{I}(t)\beta^{A}),\label{4}
\end{eqnarray}
where $p_{j}^{A}(t)=p_{j}^{SA}(t)+p_{j}^{IA}(t)$ and
$p_{j}^{I}(t)=p_{j}^{IU}(t)+p_{j}^{IA}(t)$ (Note: to simplify the
model, we do not distinguish the infectivity of IA and IU,
meanwhile, the diffusion capabilities of awareness for SA and IA are
also the same.).
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=120mm,width=120mm]{fig2.eps}
\caption{Transition probability trees for the states of UAU-SIS
dynamics in the multiplex for per time step. The denotations of $\theta_i$, $r_i$, $q^{U}_i$ and $q^{A}_i$ are given in Eqs.~(\ref{1})-(\ref{4}). Other parameters have the same denotations as in Fig.~\ref{fig1}.
}\label{fig2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
For each possible state at time $t$, which may give rise to four
possible states at time $t+1$ with certain probability, the
transition probability trees for node $i$ are illustrated in
Fig.~\ref{fig2}. According to the scheme in Fig.~\ref{fig2}, one can
easily write the Markov Chain Approach (MMCA) equations~\cite{gomez2010discrete,wang2003epidemic} for each state, for example, along
the top branch of the four trees, one can read the probability $p_{i}^{SU}(t+1)$ of SU
at $t+1$ as:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{5}
p_{i}^{SU}(t+1)&=&p_{i}^{IA}(t)\delta\mu+p_{i}^{IU}(t)\gamma_{i}(t)\mu+p_{i}^{SA}(t)\delta
q_{i}^{U}(t)+p_{i}^{SU}(t)\theta_{i}(t) q_{i}^{U}(t).
\end{eqnarray}
Similarly, the other three MMCA equations can be written as:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{6}
p_{i}^{SA}(t+1)&=&p_{i}^{IA}(t)(1-\delta)\mu+p_{i}^{IU}(t)(1-r_{i}(t))\mu\\
\nonumber&&+p_{i}^{SA}(t)(1-\delta)
q_{i}^{A}(t)+p_{i}^{SU}(t)(1-\theta_{i}(t)) q_{i}^{A}(t),\\
p_{i}^{IU}(t+1)&=&(1-\sigma)\bigg\{p_{i}^{IA}(t)\delta(1-\mu)+p_{i}^{IU}(t)r_{i}(t)(1-\mu)\\
\nonumber&&+p_{i}^{SA}(t)\delta
(1-q_{i}^{U}(t))+p_{i}^{SU}(t)\theta_{i}(t)
(1-q_{i}^{U}(t))\bigg\},\label{7}\\
\nonumber
p_{i}^{IA}(t+1)&=&\sigma\bigg\{p_{i}^{IA}(t)\delta(1-\mu)+p_{i}^{IU}(t)r_{i}(t)(1-\mu)+p_{i}^{SA}(t)\delta
(1-q_{i}^{U}(t))\\
&&+p_{i}^{SU}(t)\theta_{i}(t)
(1-q_{i}^{U}(t))\bigg\}+p_{i}^{IA}(t)(1-\delta)(1-\mu)\\
\nonumber&&+p_{i}^{IU}(t)(1-r_{i}(t))(1-\mu)+p_{i}^{SA}(t)(1-\delta)
(1-q_{i}^{A}(t))\\
\nonumber &&+p_{i}^{SU}(t)(1-\theta_{i}(t))
(1-q_{i}^{A}(t)),\label{8}
\end{eqnarray}
where
$p_{i}^{SU}(t)+p_{i}^{SA}(t)+p_{i}^{IU}(t)+p_{i}^{IA}(t)\equiv1$.
When the system goes to the stationary state, we have
$p_{i}^{SU}(t+1)=p_{i}^{SU}(t)=p_{i}^{SU}$ for SU state and
equivalently for the SU, SA and IU states.
Since the epidemic threshold determines whether the
epidemic can outbreak or die out, it is vital to analyze the
effects of the different parameters on the epidemic threshold $\beta_c$. As stated in Ref.~\cite{granell2013dynamical}, near the threshold, the probability of nodes being infected is
very low, i.e., $p_{i}^{I}=\varepsilon_{i}\ll1$. Consequently,
$q_{i}^{A}\approx1-\beta^{A} \sum_j(a_{ji}\varepsilon_{j})$ and
$q_{i}^{U}\approx1-\beta \sum_j(a_{ji}\varepsilon_{j})$. Further
approximate $q_{i}^{A}\approx1$ and $q_{i}^{U}\approx1$ by assuming
$p_{i}^{I}=\varepsilon_{i}\rightarrow0$, and then substitute both of
them into Eq.~(\ref{5}) and Eq.~(\ref{6}), we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{9}
p_{i}^{SU}=p_{i}^{SA}\delta+p_{i}^{SU}\theta_{i}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{10}
p_{i}^{SA}=p_{i}^{SA}(1-\delta)+p_{i}^{SU}(1-\theta_{i})
\end{equation}
Combing Eqs.~(7--10), then a simple
formula is obtained:
\begin{equation}\label{11}
\mu \varepsilon_{i}=(p_{i}^{SU} \beta+p_{i}^{SA} \beta^{A})
\sum(a_{ji}\varepsilon_{j}).
\end{equation}
With $\beta^{A}=\gamma \beta$,
$p_{i}^{U}=p_{i}^{SU}+p_{i}^{IU}\approx p_{i}^{SU}$,
$p_{i}^{A}=p_{i}^{SA}+p_{i}^{IA}\approx p_{i}^{SA}$ and
$\varepsilon_{i}=p_{j}^{IU}(t)+p_{j}^{IA}(t)\ll1$, then
Eq.~(\ref{11}) can be rewritten as:
\begin{equation}\label{12}
\sum[(1-(1-\gamma) p_{i}^{A}) a_{ji}-\frac{\mu}{\beta}
\delta_{ji}]\varepsilon_{j}=0,
\end{equation}
here $\delta_{ji}=1$ if $i=j$; otherwise, $\delta_{ij}=0$.
Defining matrix $H$ with elements:
\begin{equation}\label{13}
h_{ji}=(1-(1-\gamma) p_{i}^{A}) a_{ji},
\end{equation}
Eq.~(\ref{12}) can be read as
\begin{equation}\label{14}
H \bm{\varepsilon}=\frac{\mu}{\beta}\bm{\varepsilon},
\end{equation}
where
$\bm{\varepsilon}=(\varepsilon_1,\varepsilon_2,\cdots,\varepsilon_N)^{T}$
with $T$ be the vector transportation.
The non-trivial solutions of Eq. (\ref{14}) are eigenvectors of $H$,
whose eigenvalues are equal to $\mu/\beta$. Therefore, the onset of
the epidemics is given by the largest eigenvalue of $H$,\emph{i.e.},
$\bigwedge_{max}(H)$,
\begin{equation}\label{15}
\beta_{c}=\frac{\mu}{\bigwedge_{max}(H)}.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Numerical simulations}
To verify our theoretical results, as in Ref.~\cite{granell2013dynamical}, we build a configuration network with degree distribution $P(k)\sim k^{-2.5}$ and network size
$N=2000$ as the contact network, and for the information
network, which is generated by adding 800 extra random links in the
contact network. $a_{ij}$ and $b_{ij}$ represent the adjacency
matrices of the contact network and the information network,
respectively. All simulation results are obtained by averaging 20 realizations.
We first compare the results from MMCA with Monte-Carlo simulation in
Fig.~\ref{fig3} to check the effectiveness of our analysis based on
MMCA, from Fig.~\ref{fig3}, one can observe that the results based
on the two approaches are in good agreement. So in the next figures, our main
results are obtained from MMCA.
Then we investigate the effects of the two main parameters of the
model---$\kappa$ and $\sigma$
on the epidemic threshold and the density of infected individuals. Here, we will present the
results for $\gamma=0$, meaning that $\beta^{A}=0$ and $q^{A}=0$. Obviously, once the value of $\gamma$ is increased, the epidemic threshold is decreased and the density of infected individuals in enhanced correspondingly.
Fig.~\ref{fig4} plots the density of infection [$\rho^{I}$, see Fig.~\ref{fig4}(a)] and aware
individuals [$\rho^A$, see Fig.~\ref{fig4}(b)] as a function of $\beta$ for different values of
$\kappa$, respectively. Observing
the figure, one can see that though the larger value of $\kappa$ can cause more individuals become aware and reduce the density of infection. However, one can find that the increasing of $\lambda$ has no influence on the epidemic threshold. The result is remarkably different from many previous results
which claim that the local information-based behavioral response in the \emph{single-layer network} can alter the epidemic threshold. How to understand this nontrivial result? Since the UAU awareness dynamic is the same to the SIS epidemic process. When the epidemic has not broken out, the density of awareness in information network (\emph{i.e.}, $\rho^A$) is only determined by the transmission rate of awareness, $\lambda$, recovery rate $\delta$ and the structure of information network, but is not related to the value of $\kappa$. Namely, near or below the epidemic threshold point, increasing the value of $\kappa$ only means that the initial number of the aware individuals is increased, which cannot affect the density of aware individuals at stationary state. In this case, the value of $p_{i}^{A}$ is independent of the value of $\kappa$ or $\sigma$, which gives rise to the same value of $\rho^{A}$ [see Fig.~\ref{fig4}(b)]. Thus, according to Eqs.~(\ref{13}) and (\ref{15}), the epidemic threshold $\beta_c$ is invariable owing to the same value of $\rho^A$. One should note that,
for the case of single-layer network, the local information-based behavioral response can \emph{directly} reduce the transmission rate of epidemic, leading to the change of the epidemic threshold. For our model, the self-awareness behavior first diffuses through the information network, and then the epidemic process happens in contact network. Thus, the effect of the awareness behavior on the transmission rate is \emph{indirect}.
The density of infected individuals and aware
nodes as functions of $\beta$ for different values of parameter
$\sigma$ are also shown in Fig.~\ref{fig5}(a) and Fig.~\ref{fig5}(b), respectively. One can see that, similar to Fig.~\ref{4}, varying the value of $\sigma$ has no effect on the epidemic threshold. However, differ to the above case, from Fig.~\ref{fig5}(a) we find that the value of $\sigma$ also has negligible effect on the density of infection, even in the extreme cases where infected unaware individuals remain unaware of its sickness
($\sigma=0$) or certainly become aware of it ($\sigma=1$). The result in Fig.~\ref{fig5} is in accord with the Fig.~3 in Ref.~\cite{granell2014competing}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=60mm,width=130mm]{fig3.eps}
\caption{ Comparison of MMCA(solid line) with Monte Carlo
simulation(dotted line) for $\lambda=0.15$, $\gamma=0$, $\delta=0.6$
and $\mu=0.4$. The fraction of infected (a) and aware (b) nodes as a
function of the infectivity parameter $\beta$ for two different
conditions of the parameters $\kappa$ and $\sigma$.}\label{fig3}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=60mm,width=130mm]{fig4.eps}
\caption{Fraction of infected (a) and aware (b) nodes as a function
of the infectivity parameter $\beta$ for different values of the
parameter $\kappa$.
Here $\lambda=0.15$, $\gamma=0$, $\delta=0.6$, $\mu=0.4$ and
$\sigma=0.4$.}\label{fig4}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In order to systematically study the effects of $\kappa$ and $\sigma$ on the $\rho^I$, we further explore the full phase
diagram ($\lambda-\beta$) in Fig.~\ref{fig6}. Overall, we can see that $\rho^I$ is not influenced by $\lambda$ when $\beta$ is smaller than the epidemic threshold, since epidemic will die out by itself. Once $\beta$ overpasses the epidemic threshold, $\rho^I$ decreases with $\lambda$ for different values of $\kappa$ or $\sigma$. More specifically, by comparing
Fig.~\ref{fig6}(a) with Fig.~\ref{fig6}(b) (or comparing Fig.~\ref{fig6}(c) with
Fig.~\ref{fig6}(d)), we can see that $\rho^I$ is not remarkably influenced by the value of $\sigma$. Likewise, by comparing the
Fig.~\ref{fig6}(a) with Fig.~\ref{fig6}(d) (or comparing
Fig.~\ref{fig6}(b) with Fig.~\ref{fig6}(c)), $\rho^I$ decreases with $\kappa$, especially for the large value of $\beta$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=60mm,width=130mm]{fig5.eps}
\caption{Fraction of infected (a) and aware (b) nodes as a function
of the infectivity parameter $\beta$ for different values of the
parameter $\sigma$. Here
$\lambda=0.15$, $\gamma=0$, $\delta=0.6$, $\mu=0.4$ and
$\kappa=0.05$.}\label{fig5}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=130mm,width=130mm]{fig6.eps}
\caption{The fraction $\rho^{I}$ of infected individuals in the
stationary state. Full phase diagram $\lambda-\beta$ for the same
multiplex described before Where $\gamma=0$, $\lambda=0.15$,
$\delta=0.6$ and $\mu=0.4$. (a): $\kappa=0$, $\sigma=1$; (b):
$\kappa=0$, $\sigma=0.2$; (c): $\kappa=0.2$, $\sigma=0.2$; (d):
$\kappa=0.2$, $\sigma=1$.}\label{fig6}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions and discussions} \label{sec:discussion}
Recognizing that, on the one hand, outbreak of an epidemic through a physical-contact network can trigger the spreading of information awareness through other different channels, such as on-line social networks, mass media; on the other hand, an individual can not only be informed by other aware neighbors but also can become self-awareness once some friends in contact network are infected. By introducing the \emph{self-awareness} mechanism for susceptible individuals, we have investigated interplay between the spreading of epidemic and the diffusion of awareness based on the framework of the multiplex networks. We mainly studied the two parameters $\kappa$ and $\sigma$ characterizing the self-awareness probability of susceptible individuals and infected individuals, respectively. Analysis based on the Markov chain approach as well as the extensive computations reveal that the density of infection can be reduced once the two parameters are increased, however, we found that the impact of self-awareness behavior for susceptible individuals on inhibiting the spreading of epidemic is much better than the self-awareness of the infected individuals, since self-awareness from susceptible individuals can directly reduce their probabilities of being infected. Meanwhile, we found that the self-awareness behavior cannot alter the epidemic threshold no matter of the local or global information, which are in stark contrast with the results obtained from the single-layer networks.
The challenges of studying the intricate interplay between social and biological contagions in human populations are generating interesting science. In this work, we consider the effects of the \emph{self-awareness} behavior based on the multiplex networks on the density of infection and the epidemic threshold, our result implies that the conclusions obtained from single-layer networks may need to be re-examined when they are extended to multiplex networks.
\section{Acknowledgments}
This work is funded the National Natural Science Foundation of China
(Grant Nos. 61473001,11331009) and the Doctoral Research
Foundation of Anhui University (Grant No. 02303319).
\section{Apendix: Global information-based awareness}
In recent work, Granell \emph{et~al.} considered the effect of the mass media on the epidemic process and awareness diffusion~\cite{granell2014competing}. In the model, each individual
becomes aware with probability $m$ by assuming that they are informed by a broadcast or mass media. Thus, it can be regarded as a global information-based awareness. One questionable point is that the probability of being awareness $m$ is irrelevant to the density of infection. As a result, even the epidemic is almost eliminated, individuals also have the fix probability of being aware. In reality, becoming awareness often means that individuals need to take some protective measures, such as, washing hands, wearing masks or reducing outgoings. These measures indicate certain inconveniences or some cost~\cite{haifeng2013braess,fu2011imitation}. Thus, a more realistic situation is that the probability of being awareness should be related to the density of infection. To mimic this case, here we assume the probability of aware from global information is given as: $mI(t)$ with $I(t)$ is the density of infection at time $t$, which indicates that the probability of being awareness adaptively varies with the density of infection.
For this case, we only need to slightly change the
local model described in subsection ~\ref{analysis}. We only need to change $\gamma_{i}(t)$ and
$\theta_{i}(t)$ as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{16}
\gamma_{i}(t)=\prod_{j}(1-b_{ji}p_{j}^{A}(t)\lambda)(1-mp^{I}(t)),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{17}
\theta_{i}(t)=\prod_{j}(1-b_{ji}p_{j}^{A}(t)\lambda)(1-a_{ji}p_{j}^{I}(t)\kappa)(1-mp^{I}(t))
\end{equation}
Similarly to the above analysis, we can get that the epidemic threshold is still determined by Eq.~(\ref{15}),\emph{ i.e.}, the epidemic threshold is also independent of the value of $m$, which is different from the result in Ref.~\cite{granell2014competing}. The result is verified by Fig.~\ref{fig7} for different values of $\gamma$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=90mm,width=100mm]{fig7.eps}
\caption{The density of infected individuals as a function of $\beta$ for different values of $m$. Here $\lambda=0.3$, $\sigma=0.5$
$\delta=0.6$, $\mu=0.4$ and $\kappa=0.0$. (a): $\gamma=1$; (b):
$\gamma=0.5$; (c): $\gamma=0.25$; (d): $\gamma=0$.}\label{fig7}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:into}
A Type Ia supernova is believed to be a thermonuclear explosion of a
carbon-oxygen (CO) white dwarf \citep{1960ApJ...132..565H} in a
binary system, \citep[see, e.g.,][for a
review]{2000ARA&A..38..191H,2005AstL...31..528I}. Most popular scenarios of the
explosion include (i) a gradual increase of the mass towards
Chandrasekhar limit \citep[e.g.,][]{1973ApJ...186.1007W}, (ii) a
merger/collision of two WDs
\citep[e.g.,][]{1984ApJS...54..335I,1984ApJ...277..355W,2013ApJ...778L..37K},
(iii) an initial explosion at the surface of the sub-Chandrasekhar WD,
which triggers subsequent explosion of the bulk of the material
\citep[e.g.,][]{1977PASJ...29..765N,1996ApJ...457..500H}. In all
scenarios a thermonuclear runaway converts substantial fraction of CO
mass into iron-group elements and the released energy powers the
explosion itself. The optical light of the supernova is in turn
powered by the decay of radioactive elements, synthesized during
explosion. For the first year since the explosion the decay chain of
$^{56}$Ni$\rightarrow^{56}$Co$\rightarrow^{56}$Fe is of prime
importance. As long as the expanding ejecta are optically thick for
gamma-rays the bulk of the decay energy is thermalized and is
re-emitted in the UV, optical and IR band. After several tens of days
the ejecta become optically thin for gamma-rays making SNIa a powerful
source of gamma photons.
Here we report the results of \INTEGRAL observations of
SN2014J covering a period from $\sim$16 to $\sim$162 days since the
explosion.
The analysis of the SN2014J data obtained by \INTEGRAL has been
reported in \citet{2014Natur.512..406C} (days $\sim$50-100 since
explosion), \citet{2014Sci...345.1162D} (days $\sim$16-19),
\citet{isern} (days $\sim$16-35), see also
\citet{2015A&A...574A..72D}. Despite of the proximity, SN2014J in
gamma-rays is an extremely faint source and the expected signal is
below 1\% of the background. This makes the results sensitive to the
adopted procedure of the background handling by different groups and
lead to tension between some results. Here we have combined all \INTEGRAL
data and uniformly process them using the same procedure as in
\citet{2014Natur.512..406C}. The resulting spectra and light-curves
are compared with the predictions of basic type Ia models.
Current state-of-the-art 3D simulations of type Ia explosions
\citep[e.g.,][]{2013MNRAS.429.1156S,2014MNRAS.438.1762F,2014ApJ...785..105M}
lead to a complicated distribution of burning products in the ejecta
and introduce a viewing angle dependence in the predicted gamma-ray
flux. However, the overall significance of the SN2014J detection in
gamma-rays by \INTEGRAL (see \S\ref{sec:observations} and
\S\ref{sec:results}) corresponds to $\sim 10$ s.t.d. This precludes a
very detail model-independent analysis. We therefore took a
conservative approach of comparing the data with a subset of popular
1D SNIa models (see \S\ref{sec:models}), some of which were used in
\citet{2004ApJ...613.1101M} for assesment of SNIa gamma-ray
codes. While these models do not describe the full complexity of SNIa
ejecta, they can serve as useful indicators of the most basic
characteristics of the explosion, including the total mass of
radioactive nickel, total mass of the ejecta and the expansion
velocity. We also verify (\S\ref{sec:tem_late}) if adding an extra
component, corresponding to a transparent clump of radioactive Ni, on
top of the best-fitting 1D model, significantly improves the fit. In
\S\ref{sec:opt} we make several basic consistency checks of gamma-ray
and optical data, using optical observations taken
quasi-simultaneously with \INTEGRAL observations. Section
\ref{sec:conclusions} provides the summary of our results.
\section{SN2014J in M82}
\label{sec:sn2014j}
SN2014J in M82 was discovered \citep{2014CBET.3792....1F} on Jan. 21,
2014. The reconstructed
\citep{2014ApJ...783L..24Z,2015ApJ...799..106G} date of the explosion
is Jan. 14.75 UT with the uncertainty of order $\pm0.3$ days. At the
distance of M82 ($\sim3.5$ Mpc), this is the nearest SN Ia in several
decades. The proximity of the SN2014J triggered many follow-up
observations, including those by \INTEGRAL
\citep{2014ATel.5835....1K}.
The SN is located $\sim$1~kpc from the M82 nucleus and has a strong
($A_{V}\sim 2$) and complicated absorption in the UV-optical band
\citep[e.g.,][]{2014ApJ...784L..12G,2015ApJ...798...39M,2014ApJ...788L..21A,2014MNRAS.443.2887F,2014ApJ...792..106W,2015A&A...577A..53P,2015ApJ...805...74B,2014ApJ...795L...4K}.
From the light curves and spectra SN2014J appears to be a ``normal''
SNIa with no large mixing
\citep[e.g.,][]{2015ApJ...798...39M,2014MNRAS.445.4427A}, consistent
with the delayed-detonation models. Detection of stable Ni
\citep{2014ApJ...792..120F,2015ApJ...798...93T} in IR suggests high
density of the burning material \citep[see, e.g.,][]{1992ApJ...386L..13S}, characteristic for near-Chandrasekhar
WD.
Search in X-ray, radio and optical bands (including pre-supernova
observations of M82) didn't reveal any evidence for accretion onto the
WD before the explosion, any candidate for a companion star, or
compelling evidence for a large amount of circumbinary material,
implicitly supporting the DD scenario
`\citep{2014ApJ...790....3K,2014MNRAS.442.3400N,2014ApJ...790...52M,2014ApJ...792...38P},
although some SD scenarios are not excluded.
In gamma-rays the first detection of SN2014J in $^{56}$Co lines was reported
about 50 days since the explosion \citep{2014ATel.5992....1C}. The
gamma-ray signal from SN2014J was also reported in the earlier phase
$\sim$16-35 days after the explosion \citep{2014ATel.6099....1I,2014Sci...345.1162D}.
Throughout the paper we adopt the distance to M82 (and to SN2014J) of
3.5 Mpc. The recent analysis by \citet{2014MNRAS.443.2887F} suggests the
distance of $3.27\pm0.2$ Mpc. This estimate is formally consistent with
the $D\sim 3.53\pm0.26$ Mpc from \citealt{2006Ap.....49....3K} and our
adopted value. Nevertheless, one should bear in mind that all fluxes
and normalizations of best-fitting models can be overestimated
(underestimated) by as much as $\sim20$\%.
The only other supernova sufficiently bright to allow for detailed study in gamma-rays from $^{56}$Ni
and $^{56}$Co decay is the Type II SN1987A in Large Magellanic Cloud. In SN1987A the down-scattered hard X-ray continuum was first seen half a year after the explosion \citep{1987Natur.330..227S,1987Natur.330..230D,1990SvAL...16..171S}, while $\gamma$-ray lines of $^{56}$Co were detected several months later \citep{1988Natur.331..416M,1989Natur.339..122T}. While SN2014J is more than 60 times further away from us than SN1987A, the larger amount of radioactive $^{56}$Ni and less massive/opaque ejecta in type Ia supernovae made the detection of gamma-rays from SN2014J possible.
\section{\INTEGRAL Observations and basic data analysis}
\label{sec:observations}
\INTEGRAL is an ESA scientific mission dedicated to fine
spectroscopy and imaging of celestial $\gamma$-ray sources in the
energy range 15\,keV to 10\,MeV \citep{2003A&A...411L...1W}.
The \INTEGRAL data used here were accumulated during revolutions
1380-1386, 1391-1407 and
1419-1428\footnote{http://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/integral/schedule-information
},
corresponding to the period $\sim$16-162 days after the explosion.
In the analysis we follow the procedures described in
\citet{2014Natur.512..406C,2013A&A...552A..97I} and use the data of two instruments
SPI and ISGRI/IBIS on board \INTEGRAL.
\subsection{SPI}
\label{sec:spi}
SPI is a coded mask germanium spectrometer on board \INTEGRAL.
The instrument consists of 19 individual Ge detectors, has a field of
view of $\sim$30$^{\circ}~$ (at zero response), an effective area $\sim
70$~cm$^2$ at 0.5 MeV and energy resolution of $\sim$2 keV
\citep{2003A&A...411L..63V,2003A&A...411L..91R}. Effective angular resolution of SPI is
$\sim$2$^{\circ}~$. During SN2014J observations 15 out of 19 detectors were
operating, resulting in slightly reduced sensitivity and imaging
capabilities compared to initial configuration.
Periods of very high and variable background due to solar flares and passage through radiation belts were
omitted from the analysis. In particular, based on the SPI
anti-coincidence system count-rates, the revolutions 1389 and 1390
were completely excluded, as well as parts of revolutions 1405, 1406,
1419, 1423 and 1426. The data analysis follows the scheme
implemented for the analysis of the Galactic Center positron
annihilation emission \citep{2005MNRAS.357.1377C,2011MNRAS.411.1727C}. We used only ``single'' events \citep{2003A&A...411L..63V} and for
each detector, a linear relation between the energy and the channel
number was assumed and calibrated (separately for each orbit), using
the observed energies of background lines at ~198, 438, 584, 882,
1764, 1779, 2223 and 2754 keV.
The flux of the supernova $S(E)$ at energy $E$ and the background
rates in individual detectors $B_i(E,t)$ were derived from a simple model
of the observed rates $D_i(E,t)$ in individual SPI detectors, where $i$ is
the detector number and $t$ is the time of observation with a typical
exposure of 2000 s:
\begin{eqnarray}
D_i(E,t)\approx S(E)\times R_i(E,t)+B_i(E,t).
\end{eqnarray}
Here $R_i(E,t)$ is the effective area for the $i$-th detector, as seen from the
source position in a given observation. The background rate is assumed to be linearly proportional to
the Ge detectors' saturated event rate $G_{Sat}(t)$ above 8 MeV, averaged
over all detectors, i.e. $B_i(E,t)=\beta_i(E)G_{Sat}(t)+C_i(E)$, where
$C_i(E)$ does not depend on time.
The coefficients $S(E)$,$\beta_i(E)$ and $C_i(E)$ are free parameters of the model and are obtained by
minimizing $\chi^2$ for the entire data set. Even though the number of
counts in individual exposures is low, it is still possible to use a
plain $\chi^2$ approach as long as the errors are estimated using the mean
count rate and the total number of counts in the entire data set is
large \citep{1996ApJ...471..673C}. The linear nature of the model
allows for straightforward estimation of statistical errors.
Despite its proximity, SN2014J is still an extremely faint source in
$\gamma$-rays. Fig.\ref{fig:background} shows the comparison of the
quiescent SPI background, scaled down by a factor of $10^3$ with a
sample of representative models. Two models labeled ``20d uniform''
and ``16-35d W7'' show the models for the early period of SN2014J
observations. The former model is based on
the best-fitting \PAR3 model to the SN
spectra recorded between 50-100 days after explosion
\citep{2014Natur.512..406C}, recalculated for day 20. The model assumes
uniform mixing of all elements, including the radioactive $^{56}$Ni,
across the ejecta. This model at day 20 produces prominent $^{56}$Ni
lines near 158 keV and 812 keV. The latter model (\W7, see
\S\ref{sec:models}) averaged over period 16-35 days does not include
mixing and it produces much fainter lines. Finally the ``50-162d W7''
model corresponds to later observations. The most prominent features
of this model are the $^{56}$Co lines at 847 and 1238 keV. Among all
these features the $^{56}$Co line at 1238 keV is located in the least
complicated portion of the background spectrum.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[trim = 0 50mm 0 90mm,scale=0.7,clip]{back_mod_3.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{SPI quiescent background in comparison with the
representative model spectra. SPI background is multiplied by a
factor $10^{-3}$. Green and blue lines correspond to the \W7 model
\citep{1984ApJ...286..644N} averaged over the \early and \late periods (see \S\ref{sec:periods}),
respectively. Red line shows the model the \PAR3 model from \citet{2014Natur.512..406C} for
day 20 since the explosion. In this model all elements, including
radioactive isotopes, are mixed uniformly over entire
ejecta. The robust prediction of all plausible models is the
presence of two $^{56}$Co line at 847 and 1238 keV during the late phase. Vertical lines
show two energy bands used for making images. The ``cleanest'' SPI
background is near the 1238 keV line, where no strong instrumental
lines are present.
\label{fig:background}}
\end{figure*}
The spectral redistribution matrix accounts for the instrumental line
broadening estimated from the data, accumulated during SN2014J
observations. We parametrize the energy resolution as a Gaussian with
the energy dependent width
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma_i\approx0.94~(E_{line}/500)^{0.115}~{\rm keV}.
\label{eq:sigma_i}
\end{eqnarray}
Compared to our previous analysis we amended the spectral
redistribution matrix of SPI by including low energy tails, associated
with the interactions (Compton scattering) of incoming photons inside
the detector and in the surrounding material. These photons are still
registered as single events in the SPI data, but their energies are
lower than the true incident energy. We used the results of
Monte-Carlo simulation of SPI energy/imaging response
\citep{2003A&A...411L..81S} and folded-in our procedure of spectrum
reconstruction described above. For steep spectra the account for low
energy tail results in a modest $\sim$10\% change in the spectrum
normalization, while for the very hard SN2014J spectrum it produces a
low energy tail which provides large contribution to the continuum,
while fluxes of narrow lines remain unaffected
(Fig.\ref{fig:offdiag}). With this response matrix the Crab Nebula
spectrum, observed by \INTEGRAL made between Feb 21 and 23, 2014, is
well described by a broken power law obtained by
\citet{2009ApJ...704...17J} for earlier Crab Nebula observations with
\INTEGRAL.
In our analysis we usually ignore the part of the spectrum at energies
higher than 1350 keV, since in the energy range between 1400 and 1700
keV the instrument suffers from the enhanced detector electronic
noise, while at even higher energies only weaker lines from $^{56}$Co
decay are expected (see Table~\ref{tab:tem} in \S\ref{sec:tem}).
The convolution of the fiducial SNIa model (see \S\ref{sec:models})
with the simulated SPI response \citep{2003A&A...411L..81S}
confirmed that the contribution of high energy lines is negligible
below 1350 keV, at least for ``single'' events considered here.
The inspection of Fig.\ref{fig:background} shows that there is no
chance to detect continuum in the SPI data for any of our fiducial
models. E.g., for a 100 keV wide energy bin between 600 and 700 keV
the expected $S/N$ after 4 Msec observation between days 50 and 162
is $\sim 0.5 \sigma$. In the real data no evidence for significant
continuum above 500 keV was found in the time-averaged spectra (see
\S\ref{sec:spectra} below). As Fig.~\ref{fig:offdiag} the off-diagonal tail of the 847 and 1238 keV lines dominates over
intrinsic SN continuum (see Fig.~\ref{fig:offdiag}), while the line
shapes and fluxes are not affected.
In general, we consider the inclusion of the off-diagonal term in
the response as an improvement compared to a pure diagonal
response. We used this improved response throughout the paper and at the same time in \S\ref{sec:spectra} we consider several data sets,
which include or exclude the SPI data below $\sim$400 keV. Inclusion
of the low energy ($\la 400$ keV) data boosts the S/N, while the
exclusion of these data (dominated by off-diagonal continuum) makes
spectral fits less prone to possible uncertainties in the
off-diagonal term calibration.
To verify the whole SPI pipeline, we have done an independent analysis
of the same data using the tools and procedures originally developed
and tuned for SN2011fe \citep[see][]{2013A&A...552A..97I}. This
analysis includes energy calibration, background modeling and the
background and source fluxes fitting. Verification of these steps is
important since the source (SN2014J) is very faint and even subtle
changes in the calibration might result in significant changes in the
source spectrum. The fluxes in the 835-870 keV band were derived using
these two independent pipelines for every revolution during SN2014J
observations. Comparing fluxes point by point, we have found very good
agreement, with the scatter well within statistical errors. The signal
from SN2014J is seen in both pipelines. No systematic trends of
deviations with the variations of the flux level are found. We have
concluded that the results are fully consistent, within the
assumptions made on the background parameterization.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[trim= 0cm 5cm 0cm 2cm,
width=1\textwidth,clip=t,angle=0.,scale=0.49]{offdiag2.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Estimated contribution of the off-diagonal terms in the SPI
spectral response to the SN spectrum. The blue line shows the
predicted spectrum of the \W7 model for the \late period, convolved with a
simplified (nearly diagonal) SPI response. In this approximation the
instrumental broadening is parametrized as an energy dependent
Gaussian with the width according to eq.\ref{eq:sigma_i}. The red line shows
the same spectrum convolved with the response which includes
estimated off-diagonal terms, caused by Compton scattering of
incident photons in the detector and surrounding structures. The
off-diagonal component alone is shown with the dashed black line.
The off-diagonal terms create a long low-energy tails associated
with gamma-ray lines. The impact on the brightest lines is small,
while the continuum is strongly affected, especially at low
energies. The model \W7 is averaged over the period 50-162 days after
the explosion.
\label{fig:offdiag}}
\end{figure}
\subsection{ISGRI/IBIS}
\label{sec:isgri}
The primary imaging instrument inboard \INTEGRAL is IBIS \citep{2003A&A...411L.131U} - a
coded-mask aperture telescope with the CdTe-based detector ISGRI \citep{2003A&A...411L.141L}. It
has higher sensitivity to continuum emission than SPI in the 20-300
keV range\footnote{\texttt{http://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/integral/ao13}} and has a spatial resolution $\sim12'$. We note here, that
neither ISGRI, nor SPI can distinguish the emission of SN2014J from
the emission of any other source in M82. In particular, M82 hosts
two ultra-luminous and variable sources
\citep[e.g.][]{2014AstL...40...65S,2014Natur.514..202B} which
contribute to the flux below $\sim 50$ keV. ISGRI however can easily
differentiate between M82 and M81, which are separated by $\sim30'$. The
energy resolution of ISGRI is $\sim$10\% at 100 keV. The ISGRI energy
calibration uses the procedure implemented in OSA 10.039. The images
in broad energy bands were reconstructed using a standard
mask/detector cross-correlation procedure, tuned to produce zero
signal on the sky if the count rate across the detector matches the
pattern expected from pure background, which was derived from the same
dataset by stacking detector images. The noise in the resulting images
is fully consistent with the expected level, determined by photon
counting statistics. The fluxes in broad bands were calibrated using
the
Crab Nebula observations with \INTEGRAL made between Feb 21 and 23. The
\citet{2009ApJ...704...17J} model was assumed as a reference.
\subsection{Lightcurves, Spectra and Images}
\label{sec:periods}
The lightcurves in several energy bands were generated using IGSRI and
SPI data. The time bins ($\sim$3 days each) correspond to individual
revolutions of the satellite. Finer time bins are not practical given
that the source is very faint. The lightcurves are shown in
Figs.\ref{fig:lc_isgri}-\ref{fig:lc_spi} together with a set of
representative models (see \S\ref{sec:models}). For the broad
100-200 keV band the conversion of the ISGRI flux using Crab spectrum
as a reference is not very accurate because of the difference in the
shape of the incident spectra. The conversion factor has been
recalculated using several representative SN models, resulting in a
modest $\sim$13\% correction factor, applied to the fluxes shown in Fig. \ref{fig:lc_isgri}.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[trim= 0cm 3cm 0cm 10cm,
width=1\textwidth,clip=t,angle=0.,scale=0.99]{lc_isgri_one5.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{ISGRI light curve in the 100-200 keV band. The S/N ratio in
this band is expected to be the highest for the plausible
models. The curves show the expected flux evolution for a
set of models (see \S\ref{sec:models}). Color coding is explained in
the legend.
\label{fig:lc_isgri}}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[trim= 0cm 5cm 0cm 2cm,
width=1\textwidth,clip=t,angle=0.,scale=0.99]{lc_spi_v8.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The same as in Fig.\ref{fig:lc_isgri} for SPI data in two
narrow bands near the brightest $^{56}$Co lines.
\label{fig:lc_spi}}
\end{figure*}
In principle, the spectra can be extracted for any interval covered by
the observations, e.g., for individual revolutions, as is done above
for the lightcurves in several broad bands. For comparison of the
observed and predicted spectra we decided to split the data into two
intervals covering 16-35 and 50-162 days after the explosion,
respectively (see Table~\ref{tab:sets}). The gap between days 35 and
50 is partly due to a major solar flare. Below we refer to these two
data sets as \early and \late periods.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[trim= 0cm 5cm 0cm 2cm,
width=1\textwidth,clip=t,angle=0.,scale=0.49]{nicofe2.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{\early and \late periods of \INTEGRAL observations
used for spectra extraction, shown as thick horizontal bars. Three curves show the evolution of the
$^{56}$Ni, $^{56}$Co and $^{56}$Fe masses, respectively, normalized to the
initial $^{56}$Ni mass. Note that opacity effects tend to suppress
the emergence of gamma-rays at early phases of the supernova
evolution, unless radioactive isotopes are present in the outer
layers of the ejecta, or the explosion is strongly asymmetric.
The dashed red line shows the $^{56}$Co mass scaled down by the ratio of
Co and Ni decay times $\tau_{Co}/\tau{Ni}$, which allows one to
compare the expected relative strength of Ni (blue curve) and Co
(dashed red curve) gamma-ray lines as a function of time.
\label{fig:periods}}
\end{figure}
\begin{deluxetable*}{rccc}
\tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
\tablecaption{Data sets}
\tablewidth{0pt}
\tablehead{
\colhead{Set} &
\colhead{Dates} &
\colhead{Days since explosion} &
\colhead{Exposure\tablenotemark{$\alpha$}, Msec}
}
\startdata
\early & 2014-01-31 : 2014-02-20 & ~16 : ~35 & 1.0\\
\late & 2014-03-05 : 2014-06-25 & ~50 : 162 & 4.3
\enddata
\tablenotetext{$\alpha$}{Corrected for the periods of high background and the dead-time of SPI}
\label{tab:sets}
\end{deluxetable*}
Unlike the \early period, when emergence of the $^{56}$Ni lines
strongly depends on the distribution of the radioactive Ni through the
ejecta, for the \late period the emission in $^{56}$Co lines is a
generic prediction of all plausible models. Two energy bands optimal
for detection of the SN signal in gamma-rays are clear from
Fig.\ref{fig:background}. These two bands, containing the most
prominent $^{56}$Co lines, were used to generate images.
The images were extracted from SPI data from the \late period as in
\citep{2014Natur.512..406C}. Namely, we vary the assumed position of the source and
repeat the flux fitting procedure (see \S\ref{sec:spi}) for each
position. The resulting images of the signal-to-noise ratio in the
835-870 and 1220-1270 keV energy bands are shown in
Fig.\ref{fig:spi_image}. In both energy bands the highest peaks (4.7 and 4.3 $\sigma$
respectively) coincide well (within 0.3$^{\circ}~$) with the
SN2014J position, marked by a cross.
The ISGRI spectra extracted at the known position of SN2014J for the
\early and \late period are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:spec_isgri}. Low
energy (less than $\sim$70 keV) part of the extracted spectrum is
likely contaminated by other sources in M82.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[trim= 0cm -2cm 0cm 0cm,
width=1\textwidth,clip=t,angle=0.,scale=0.90]{spi_sn_maps_2lines4.png}
\end{center}
\caption{SPI images (S/N ratio) during \late period in two narrow
bands around most prominent $^{56}$Co lines. Contours are at
2, 2.5 ... 5 $\sigma$. Cross shows the position of SN2014J. The
brightest peaks in each image coincide well with the position of
SN2014J. Due to the dither pattern\footnote{http://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/integral} used during observations of SN2014J the central part of the image is much better covered than the outer regions. It is therefore not surprising that the level of noise is increasing away from the nominal target.
\label{fig:spi_image}}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[trim= 0cm 5cm 0cm 10cm,
width=1\textwidth,clip=t,angle=0.,scale=0.9]{spec_isgri2.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{ISGRI spectrum measured at the position of SN2014J during
\early (red) and \late (blue) periods. The energies of the second
set of points are multiplied by a factor 1.02 for the sake of
clarity. Dashed histograms show the predicted spectra of the \W7 model for
the same periods. The agreement with the predictions is reasonable
except for the energies lower than $\sim 70$ keV, where the spectrum
is likely contaminated by other sources in M82 \citep[see, e.g,][]{2014AstL...40...65S}. Dark green line shows crude approximation of the M82 spectrum measured before 2014.
\label{fig:spec_isgri}}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[trim= 0cm 4cm 0cm 11cm,
width=1\textwidth,clip=t,angle=0.,scale=0.99]{comb_flate_spec3.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Combined ISGRI/SPI spectrum for the \late period. The
model (\W7, see Tab.\ref{tab:models}) has been convolved with the SPI
off-diagonal response. The
SPI data below 450 keV are omitted since during \late period the data at these energies are
expected to be dominated by the off-diagonal response of SPI.
\label{fig:spec_flate}}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[trim= 0cm 4cm 0cm 11cm,
width=1\textwidth,clip=t,angle=0.,scale=0.99]{comb_early_spec.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Combined ISGRI/SPI spectrum for the \early period. The
model (\W7, see Tab.\ref{tab:models}) has been convolved with the SPI
off-diagonal response.
\label{fig:spec_early}}
\end{figure*}
\section{Models}
\label{sec:models}
\subsection{A set of representative models}
\label{sec:1d}
For comparison with the \INTEGRAL data we used a set of representative
1D models (Table \ref{tab:models}), based on calculations of explosive
nucleosynthesis models. To the first approximation, these models are
characterized by the amount of radioactive nickel, total mass of the
ejecta and the expansion velocity. Although current state-of-the-art
simulations of type Ia explosions can be done in 3D
\citep[e.g.,][]{2013MNRAS.429.1156S,2014MNRAS.438.1762F,2014ApJ...785..105M},
using these models would introduce an additional viewing angle
dependence. In order to avoid this extra degree of freedom and given
that the overall significance of the SN2014J detection in gamma-rays
by \INTEGRAL (see \S\ref{sec:observations} and \S\ref{sec:results})
corresponds to only $\sim 10$ s.t.d., we decided to keep in this work
only a set of 1D models to confront with the data.
\begin{deluxetable}{llll}
\tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
\tablecaption{Set of models used in the paper}
\tablewidth{0pt}
\tablehead{
\colhead{Model} &
\colhead{$M_{Ni},~M_\odot$} &
\colhead{$M_{tot},~M_\odot$} &
\colhead{$E_K,~10^{51}~{\rm erg}$}
}
\startdata
\texttt{DDT1p1} & 0.54 & 1.36 & 1.29 \\
\texttt{DDT1p4halo} & 0.62 & 1.55 & 1.3 \\
\texttt{DDTe } & 0.51 & 1.37 & 1.09\\
\DETO & 1.16 & 1.38 & 1.44 \\
\HED6 & 0.26 & 0.77 & 0.72 \\
\W7 & 0.59 & 1.38 & 1.24 \\
\texttt{ddt1p4} & 0.66 & 1.36 & 1.35 \\
\BALL3 & 0.66+0.04\tablenotemark{$\alpha$} & 1.36 & 1.35\\
\DD4 & 0.61 & 1.39 & 1.24
\enddata
\tablenotetext{$\alpha$}{additional ``plume'' of $^{56}$Ni.}
\label{tab:models}
\end{deluxetable}
The set of models includes the deflagration model \W7
\citep{1984ApJ...286..644N}, pure detonation model \DETO
\citep{2003ApJ...593..358B}, the sub-Chandrasekhar model \HED6
\citep{1996ApJ...457..500H}, and several variants of the delayed
detonation models: \DD4 \citep{ww91}, \texttt{DDTe }
~\citep{2003ApJ...593..358B}, \texttt{DDT1p1}, \texttt{DDT1p4halo},
\texttt{ddt1p4}, \BALL3 \citep{isern}. The \texttt{ddt1p4} model was
built to match the mass of $^{56}$Ni suggested by the early optical
evolution of SN2014J
as detected with the OMC of INTEGRAL (\citet{2014ATel.6099....1I};
P. Hofflich, private communication). In it, the
transition density from deflagration to detonation was fixed at
$1.4~10^7~{\rm g~cm^{-3}}$. Model \texttt{DDT1p4halo} is a variant of
the later in which the white dwarf is surrounded by a 0.2 $M_\odot$
envelope, as might result from a delayed merger explosion. The \BALL3
model is essentially the same as the \texttt{ddt1p4} plus a plume of
$0.04~M_\odot$ of radioactive $^{56}Ni$ receding from the observer
\citep[see][for details]{isern}.
The emerging X-ray and gamma-ray radiation from the expanding SNIa is
determined by the total amount of radioactive isotopes, their
distribution over velocities, the mass and the chemical composition of
the ejecta and expansion rate. The processes are essentially the same
as in type II supernovae \citep[see, e.g.][ for a prototypical example
of type II supernova - SN1987A]{1987Natur.330..227S}. However, the
mass of the ejecta and expansion rate differ strongly leading to much
earlier and stronger signal in gamma-rays \citep[see,
e.g.][]{1969ApJ...155...75C,1981CNPPh...9..185W,1988ApJ...325..820A}. A
comprehensive set of computations of the expected gamma-ray flux for
different representative models was presented in \citet{2014ApJ...786..141T}.
Here we use the
results of similar calculations (see below), which account for line broadening,
needed for systematic comparison with the \INTEGRAL data.
A Monte-Carlo code follows the propagation of the $\gamma-$photons
through the ejecta and accounts for scattering and photoabsorption of
photons and annihilation of positrons. The predicted spectra were
generated with a time step of one day, covering the entire
observational period. These model spectra were then averaged over the
periods of 16-35 and 50-162 days respectively, to provide fair
comparison with the \INTEGRAL results for the \early and \late
periods. In particular, the effect of varying opacity in each model over the observational period is correctly captured by this procedure.
The computations include full treatment of Compton scattering
(coherent and incoherent), photoabsorption and pair production
\citep[see][for details]{2004ApJ...613.1101M}. The positrons produced by $\beta^+$
decay of $^{56}$Co (19\% of all decays) annihilate in place via
positronium formation. Both two-photon annihilation into the 511 keV
line and the orthopositronium continuum are included.
\subsection{Transparent ejecta model (\tem)}
\label{sec:tem}
As we discuss below (\S\ref{sec:results}) the \INTEGRAL data are
broadly consistent with the subset of models listed in
Table~\ref{tab:models}. However, \citet{2014Sci...345.1162D} reported
an evidence of $^{56}$Ni at the surface in the first observations of
SN2014J with \INTEGRAL \citep[see also][for an alternative analysis of
early SN2014J observations]{isern}. Presence of radioactive material
at the surface would be an important result, since traditional models,
listed in Table~\ref{tab:models} do not predict it. One can
attempt to patch our 1D models with an additional component
describing an extra radioactive material at the surface. Assuming
that the material at the surface is transparent to gamma-rays, the
fluxes of individual lines associated with Ni and Co decay, their
energies and widths can be tied together. The transparency
assumption is justified by the large velocities and small initial
densities expected for matter at the surface of supernovae
ejecta. In any case, it provides a lower limit to the mass of
radioactive material, as opacity would demand a larger gamma-ray
production rate in order to explain a given gamma-ray flux.
This approach allows to describe many
lines, associated with a transparent clump with only 3
parameters. Below we refere to this component as a Transparent
Ejecta model (\texttt{TEM}), and use it in combination with the
best-performing \W7 model from out default set 1D models (see
\S\ref{sec:1d}), i.e., the data are compared with the predictions of
\W7+\texttt{TEM} model. While this model by itself is not
selfconsistent, it can be used to answer the following questions:
\begin{itemize}
\item Once the predicted signal for the \W7 model is removed from
the observed spectra, do residuals resemble a signal expected from
a transparent clump of radioactive material?
\item Given the statistics accumulated by {\it INTEGRAL}, how much
radioactive material in a transparent clump can be ``hidden'' in
the data on top of a given 1D model?
\end{itemize}
In this section we describe the \texttt{TEM} model and then apply it
to the data in \S\ref{sec:tem_late}.
The \texttt{TEM} model assumes that all line energies are shifted
proportionally to their energies (i.e., the same velocity structure
for all lines), while their flux ratios follow the predicted ratios
\citep{1994ApJS...92..527N} based on the decay chains of
$^{56}$Ni$\rightarrow^{56}$Co$\rightarrow^{56}$Fe and
$^{57}$Ni$\rightarrow^{57}$Co$\rightarrow^{57}$Fe. The list of the
lines and their fluxes normalized to 1~$M_\odot$ of $^{56}$Ni are
given in Table~\ref{tab:tem}. For a given time period the model has 3
parameters: the initial $^{56}$Ni mass ($M_{Ni}$), energy/redshift of
the 847 keV line ($E_{847}$) and the broadening of the 847 keV line
($\sigma_{847}$). The width of each line (Gaussian $\sigma$) is
defined as
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma_{line}=\sigma_{847}\times \left(
\frac{E_{line}}{E_{847}}\right ).
\end{eqnarray}
Ortho-positronium continuum and pair
production by gamma-ray photons are
neglected, while the 511 keV line is added assuming that 19\% of
$^{56}$Co decays produce positrons, of which 25\% form
para-positronium yielding two 511 keV photons.
\begin{deluxetable}{rlll}
\tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
\tablecaption{Line fluxes averaged over days 50-162 for a transparent
ejecta model (\tem) for the initial $1~M_\odot$ of $^{56}$Ni}
\tablewidth{0pt}
\tablehead{
\colhead{$E_{line}$, keV} &
\colhead{$F_{line}/F_{847}$} &
\colhead{Flux$^a$} &
\colhead{Isotope}
}
\startdata
846.78 & $ 1.00 $ & $ 6.57~10^{-4}$ & $^{56}$Co \\
158.38 & $ 7.98~10^{-3}$ & $ 5.25~10^{-6}$ & $^{56}$Ni \\
1561.80 & $ 1.12~10^{-3}$ & $ 7.34~10^{-7}$ & $^{56}$Ni \\
749.95 & $ 3.99~10^{-3}$ & $ 2.62~10^{-6}$ & $^{56}$Ni \\
269.50 & $ 2.87~10^{-3}$ & $ 1.89~10^{-6}$ & $^{56}$Ni \\
480.44 & $ 2.87~10^{-3}$ & $ 1.89~10^{-6}$ & $^{56}$Ni \\
811.85 & $ 6.86~10^{-3}$ & $ 4.51~10^{-6}$ & $^{56}$Ni \\
511.00 & $ 9.50~10^{-2}$ & $ 6.24~10^{-5}$ & $^{56}$Co \\
1037.83 & $ 1.40~10^{-1}$ & $ 9.20~10^{-5}$ & $^{56}$Co \\
1238.28 & $ 6.80~10^{-1}$ & $ 4.47~10^{-4}$ & $^{56}$Co \\
$^*$1771.49 & $ 1.60~10^{-1}$ & $ 1.05~10^{-4}$ & $^{56}$Co \\
$^*$2034.92 & $ 7.90~10^{-2}$ & $ 5.19~10^{-5}$ & $^{56}$Co \\
$^*$2598.58 & $ 1.69~10^{-1}$ & $ 1.11~10^{-4}$ & $^{56}$Co \\
$^*$3253.60 & $ 7.40~10^{-2}$ & $ 4.86~10^{-5}$ & $^{56}$Co \\
$^*$14.41 & $ 1.19~10^{-3}$ & $ 7.80~10^{-7}$ & $^{57}$Co \\
122.06 & $ 1.03~10^{-2}$ & $ 6.79~10^{-6}$ & $^{57}$Co \\
136.47 & $ 1.19~10^{-3}$ & $ 7.80~10^{-7}$ & $^{57}$Co
\tablecomments{$^a$ - Flux is in units of $~{\rm phot~s^{-1}~cm^{-2}}$ \\
$^*$ - Line is outside the energy range used for fitting} \\
\label{tab:tem}
\end{deluxetable}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[trim= 0cm 5cm 0cm 2cm,
width=1\textwidth,clip=t,angle=0.,scale=0.49]{tem_spe.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Spectra predicted by the \tem model for \early (blue) and
\late (red) data sets, convolved with the SPI response. The
broadening of the reference 847 keV line is set to 20 keV (Gaussian
sigma). The initial $^{56}$Ni mass is 1 $M_\odot$.
\label{fig:tem}}
\end{figure}
\section{Results}
\label{sec:results}
\subsection{Combined ISGRI+SPI spectrum}
\label{sec:spectra}
The SPI images (Fig.\ref{fig:spi_image}) for \late period unambiguously
show the characteristic signatures of $^{56}$Co decay from SN2014J. A
more quantitative statement on the amount of $^{56}$Ni synthesized
during explosion and on the properties of the ejecta can be obtained
from the comparison of the data with the predictions of the
models. Since the \late period is less affected by the transparency of
the ejecta we start our analysis with the total spectrum obtained by
\INTEGRAL over this period.
\subsubsection{{\bf Late} data}
The results of fitting of the combined ISGRI+SPI spectrum
(Fig.\ref{fig:spec_flate}) for the \late period are given in Table
\ref{tab:mfit_late}. A full set of
models from Tab.\ref{tab:models} is used. The two groups of columns in Table~\ref{tab:mfit_late} differ by the energy range in the SPI data used for comparison with the model. In the first group the data of ISGRI (70-600 keV) and SPI (400-1350 keV) are used. The
data below 70 keV are likely contaminated by other sources in M82. The
SPI data below 400 keV are omitted since during the \late period the data at
these energies are expected to be dominated by the off-diagonal
response of SPI. I.e. the observed SPI spectrum below 500 keV includes
significant contribution of the gamma-ray photons at higher energies,
which are down-scattered inside the body of the telescope (see
Fig.\ref{fig:offdiag}). The Null model (no source) gives $\chi^2=1945.38$ for 1906 spectral
bins. The improvement of the $\chi^2$ relative to the Null is
calculated by fixing the normalization at the predicted value for
$D=3.5$ Mpc (column 2) and by letting it free (columns 3 and
4). The typical value of the $\Delta \chi^2\sim 65$ suggests $\sim
8~\sigma$ detection.
One can draw two conclusions from this exercise. First of all a set of
canonical 1D deflagration (\W7) or delayed detonation models (e.g., \DD4)
fit the data well without any adjustments to the normalization. The
pure detonation model \DETO and a sub-Chandrasekhar model \HED6 give
poor fit and overproduce/underproduce the observed flux,
respectively. Secondly, once the normalization is allowed to vary, all
models give almost identical gain in the $\chi^2$, suggesting that
relative strength of all prominent features is comparable in all
models. Given the uncertainty in the distance to SN2014J (or M82) a
deviation of the normalization at the level of $\sim$20\% can not be
excluded. But \DETO and \HED6 models require by far larger changes in
the normalization.
\begin{deluxetable*}{lcrrcrr}
\tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
\tablecaption{$\Delta\chi^2$ for basic models for fixed and free
normalization relative to the Null model of no source for the \late period. }
\tablewidth{12cm}
\tablehead{
\colhead{Dataset:} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{ISGRI(70-600 keV)\&SPI(400-1350 keV)} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{ISGRI(70-600 keV)\&SPI(70-1350 keV)}\\
\\
\colhead{Model} &
\colhead{$N=1,\Delta\chi^2$} &
\colhead{$N_{free}$} &
\colhead{$\Delta\chi^2$} &
\colhead{$N=1,\Delta\chi^2$} &
\colhead{$N_{free}$} &
\colhead{$\Delta\chi^2$}
}
\startdata
\texttt{DDT1p1} & 66.4 & 1.03$\pm$ 0.13 & 66.5 & 87.3 & 1.09$\pm$ 0.12 & 87.9 \\
\texttt{DDT1p4halo} & 65.9 & 0.89$\pm$ 0.11 & 66.9 & 88.1 & 0.93$\pm$ 0.10 & 88.5 \\
\texttt{DDTe } & 62.1 & 1.09$\pm$ 0.14 & 62.5 & 82.3 & 1.15$\pm$ 0.13 & 83.7 \\
\DETO & 10.1 & 0.52$\pm$ 0.06 & 66.4 & 30.2 & 0.55$\pm$ 0.06 & 87.7 \\
\HED6 & 47.8 & 1.86$\pm$ 0.24 & 60.7 & 60.1 & 2.01$\pm$ 0.22 & 80.5 \\
\W7 & 65.0 & 0.94$\pm$ 0.12 & 65.3 & 86.9 & 1.01$\pm$ 0.11 & 86.9 \\
\texttt{ddt1p4} & 64.9 & 0.85$\pm$ 0.10 & 66.9 & 87.4 & 0.90$\pm$ 0.10 & 88.4 \\
\BALL3 & 63.2 & 0.83$\pm$ 0.10 & 66.1 & 85.7 & 0.88$\pm$ 0.09 & 87.5 \\
\DD4 & 64.7 & 0.89$\pm$ 0.11 & 65.7 & 87.0 & 0.95$\pm$ 0.10 & 87.3 \\
& & & & & & \\
\texttt{No source}, $\chi^2$ (d.o.f.) & & 1945.4 (1906) & & & 2696.9 (2566) &
\enddata
\tablecomments{$N$ is the normalization of the model with $N=1$ corresponding to the explosion at the distance of 3.5 Mpc.
$\Delta\chi^2$ characterizes an improvement of $\chi^2$
for a given model relative to the Null model. Larger positive values
indicate that the model is describing the data significantly better than other models (see Appendix).
The data below 70 keV are likely contaminated by other sources
in M82. SPI data below 400 keV
are omitted in the first dataset (left half of the Table) since the data at these energies are
expected to be dominated by the off-diagonal response of SPI (see \S\ref{sec:spi}).}
\label{tab:mfit_late}
\end{deluxetable*}
While in the above analysis the SPI data with $E<400$ keV have been omitted to
concentrate on the data less affected by the off-diagonal response, the right part of Tab.\ref{tab:mfit_late} extends the analysis down to 70 keV for
both instruments. The basic conclusions remain the same, although, as
expected, the significance of the detection increases to $\gtrsim
9~\sigma$.
\subsubsection{{\bf Early} data}
We now proceed with the same analysis of the \early data. Table
\ref{tab:mfit_early} contains the gain in the $\chi^2$ for the same
set of models.
The \DETO is clearly inconsistent with the data - inclusion of the
model increases the $\chi^2$ relative to the Null model (no source).
The \HED6 model, which gave a poor fit to the \late data, yields the
$\chi^2$ comparable to other models. This is because smaller amount of
$^{56}$Ni is compensated by larger transparency of the lower-mass
ejecta, which is important for the \early data.
The \BALL3 model gives poor gain in $\chi^2$ if the normalization is
fixed and the SPI data below 400 keV are excluded. If the
normalization is free, and, especially, if the SPI data below 400 keV
are included, this model performs marginally better than other
models. However, it performs significantly better than other models
when the SPI data below 400 keV are included. This is not surprising,
since \BALL3 model has been designed to fit the SPI data during this
period \citep[see][for details]{isern}. The different ``ranking'' of
the \BALL3 model seen in Table \ref{tab:mfit_early} when SPI data
below 400 keV are included or excluded, suggests a tension in the
comparison of the fixed-normalization \BALL3 model with the SPI and
ISGRI data and also with the SPI data below and above 400 keV (see below).
\begin{deluxetable*}{lcrrcrr}
\tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
\tablecaption{The same as in Table \ref{tab:mfit_late} for the \early period.}
\tablewidth{12cm}
\tablehead{
\colhead{Dataset:} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{ISGRI(70-600 keV)\&SPI(400-1350 keV)} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{ISGRI(70-600 keV)\&SPI(70-1350 keV)}\\
\\
\colhead{Model} &
\colhead{$N=1,\Delta\chi^2$} &
\colhead{$N_{free}$} &
\colhead{$\Delta\chi^2$} &
\colhead{$N=1,\Delta\chi^2$} &
\colhead{$N_{free}$} &
\colhead{$\Delta\chi^2$}
}
\startdata
\texttt{DDT1p1} & 14.9 & 0.84$\pm$ 0.21 & 15.4 & 33.2 & 1.11$\pm$ 0.19 & 33.5 \\
\texttt{DDT1p4halo} & 14.6 & 1.00$\pm$ 0.26 & 14.6 & 29.8 & 1.34$\pm$ 0.24 & 31.8 \\
\texttt{DDTe } & 14.3 & 1.30$\pm$ 0.33 & 15.1 & 26.9 & 1.72$\pm$ 0.30 & 32.6 \\
\DETO & -83.9 & 0.28$\pm$ 0.07 & 14.8 & -64.8 & 0.37$\pm$ 0.06 & 35.2 \\
\HED6 & 15.7 & 1.05$\pm$ 0.26 & 15.8 & 32.7 & 1.39$\pm$ 0.23 & 35.5 \\
\W7 & 15.9 & 0.87$\pm$ 0.22 & 16.2 & 34.8 & 1.14$\pm$ 0.19 & 35.3 \\
\texttt{ddt1p4} & 11.3 & 0.65$\pm$ 0.17 & 15.7 & 33.3 & 0.86$\pm$ 0.15 & 34.2 \\
\texttt{3Dbball} & 6.7 & 0.56$\pm$ 0.13 & 17.6 & 37.0 & 0.76$\pm$ 0.12 & 41.4 \\
\DD4 & 14.1 & 0.77$\pm$ 0.19 & 15.5 & 33.6 & 1.01$\pm$ 0.17 & 33.6 \\
& & & & & & \\
\texttt{No source}, $\chi^2$ (d.o.f.) & & 1856.7 (1906) & & & 2615.9 (2566) &
\enddata
\label{tab:mfit_early}
\end{deluxetable*}
\begin{deluxetable*}{lcc}
\tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
\tablecaption{$\Delta\chi^2$ for the joint data set of the \early and \late spectra for a basic set of models with fixed normalization. The value of $\Delta\chi^2$ shows the improvement of the $\chi^2$ relative to the Null model of no source.
}
\tablewidth{12cm}
\tablehead{
\colhead{Model} &
\colhead{ISGRI \& SPI(400-1350 keV)} &
\colhead{ISGRI \& SPI(70-1350 keV)}\\
\colhead{} &
\colhead{$\Delta\chi^2$} &
\colhead{$\Delta\chi^2$}
}
\startdata
\texttt{DDT1p1} & \bf{81.3} & \bf{120.5} \\
\texttt{DDT1p4halo} & \bf{80.5} & 117.8 \\
\texttt{DDTe } & 76.4 & 109.2 \\
\DETO & -73.8 & -34.7 \\
\HED6 & 63.5 & 92.8 \\
\W7 & \bf{80.9} & \bf{121.7} \\
\texttt{ddt1p4} & 76.2 & \bf{120.7} \\
\texttt{3Dbball} & 69.9 & \bf{122.7} \\
\DD4 & \bf{78.8} & \bf{120.7}
\enddata
\tablecomments{Bold-faced are the models which have $\Delta\chi^2$ different from the model with the largest $\Delta\chi^2$ by less than 4, the criterion used to group models into ``more plausible'' and ``less plausible'' respectively (see Appendix).}
\label{tab:mfit_eandl}
\end{deluxetable*}
\subsubsection{{\bf Early} and {\bf Late} data together}
Finally, in Table~\ref{tab:mfit_eandl} we compare jointly the \early
and \late data of ISGRI and SPI with the models, calculated for
corresponding periods. The two columns in Table~\ref{tab:mfit_eandl}
differ by the energy range in the SPI data used for comparison with
the model. In each case the normalization was fixed at the value set
by the adopted distance of 3.5 Mpc. In each column we mark with bold
face the models which have $\Delta\chi^2$ different from the model
with the largest $\Delta\chi^2$ by less than 4 (see Appendix for the clarification on the interpretation of this criterion in Bayesian and frequentist approaches). Once again, 1D deflagration model \W7 and
"standard" delayed detonation model perform well. The \BALL3, which
was designed to account for tentative feature in the \early SPI data
at low energies, not surprisingly performs well if the SPI data below
400 keV are included. However, if only the data above 400 keV are used
for SPI, this model yields significantly lower $\Delta\chi^2$ than the
\W7 or \texttt{DDT1p1} models.
\subsection{Comparison of gamma-ray light curves with models}
\label{sec:lightcurves}
While the spectra for the \early and \late periods already provide an
overall test of the basic models, additional information can be
obtained by analyzing the time variations of the fluxes in broad
energy bands (see Fig.\ref{fig:lc_isgri} and \ref{fig:lc_spi}). The
total number of time bins is 34. Each bin corresponds to one
revolution (i.e. $\sim$3 days). The first raw in
Table~\ref{tab:lc_chi2} provides the values of the $\chi^2$ (for Null
model of no source) in three energy bands: 100-200 keV (ISGRI),
835-870 keV (SPI) and 1220-1272 keV (SPI). The normalization of the
model lightcurves is fixed to 1. For 34 bins the value $\chi^2$ for a
correct model is expected to be in the interval $\sim$26-42 in 68\% of
cases. Clearly, the Null model does not fit the data well.
Other raws show the improvement of the $\chi^2$ relative to the Null
model. I.e., $\displaystyle \Delta \chi^2=\chi^2_{Null}-\chi^2_{model}$. From
Table~\ref{tab:lc_chi2} it is clear that \DETO model strongly
overpredicts the flux in all bands and can be excluded ($\chi^2$
becomes worse when this model is used). Other models leads to significant
improvement with respect to the Null model, except for the \BALL3
model in the 100-200 keV band where it exceeds the observed flux in
the early observation, while in the SPI bands all these models are
comparable.
The last column in Table~\ref{tab:lc_chi2} provides the $\chi^2$ for
three bands joints. This is basically the sum of the values of
$\chi^2$ for individual bands. Bold-faced are the best performing
models: \W7 and \texttt{DDT1P1}. As in \S\ref{sec:spectra} these are
the models which have $\Delta\chi^2$ different from the model with the
largest $\Delta\chi^2$ by less than 4 (see Appendix).
One can also compare the lightcurves with the hypothesis of a
constant flux. The mean level of flux was estimated for each band
and the value of the $\chi^2$ was calculated. The values of
$\Delta\chi^2$ relative to ``No source'' are given in the last row
of Table~\ref{tab:lc_chi2}. One can see that this simple model is
almost as good as other best-performing models in individual bands
(even taking into account that this model has a free parameter -
mean flux). This is of course the result of low statistical
significance of the SN2014J detection that makes it difficult to
constrain time variations of a faint signal. For the combined values
for all three band the effective number of free parameter is 3 (mean
fluxes in each band) and one can conclude that, e.g. \W7 model
performs marginally better than the constant flux model.
\begin{deluxetable*}{lrrrr}
\tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
\tablecaption{$\Delta\chi^2$ for light-curves in three energy bands for
different models. The value of $\Delta\chi^2$ shows the improvement of the $\chi^2$ relative to the Null model of no source. The value of the $\chi^2$ for the Null model is given in the first raw.
}
\tablehead{
\colhead{Model} &
\colhead{100-200 keV (ISGRI)} &
\colhead{835-870 keV (SPI)} &
\colhead{1220-1272 keV (SPI)} &
\colhead{Three bands jointly}
}
\startdata
\texttt{No source}, $\chi^2$ & 51.0 & 49.6 & 51.1 & 151.7\\
\\
\texttt{DDT1P1} & 16.9 & 18.6 & 19.3 & {\bf 54.8}\\
\texttt{DDT1P4halo} & 9.2 & 17.4 & 19.5 & 46.1\\
\texttt{DDTe } & 16.7 & 17.1 & 17.6 & 51.4\\
\DETO & -105.0 & -6.3 & 13.5 & -97.8\\
\HED6 & 20.6 & 16.0 & 14.1 & 50.7\\
\W7 & 18.8 & 18.4 & 20.0 & {\bf 57.2}\\
\texttt{DDT1P4} & 9.1 & 17.5 & 20.3 & 46.9\\
\texttt{3Dbball} & -4.8 & 17.4 & 20.4 & 33.0\\
\DD4 & 12.7 & 17.9 & 20.0 & 50.6 \\
\texttt{CONST} & 18.7 & 16.1 & 18.5 & 53.3
\enddata
\tablecomments{Total number of time bins is 34. For the joint $\chi^2$ the effective number of bins is three times larger - 102. }
\label{tab:lc_chi2}
\end{deluxetable*}
\subsection{Search for the velocity substructure in the \late data}
\label{sec:tem_late}
\label{sec:tem_early}
The above analysis suggests that the \INTEGRAL data broadly agree with
a subset of simple 1D models (e.g., \W7 or \DD4). Since the true
structure of SN2014J is surely more complicated than predicted by 1D
models, it is interesting to verify if adding an extra component to
the model (on top of the best-performing \W7 model) significantly
improves the fit. In this section we use \tem model as such extra
component. This choice is partly driven by the discussion of a
possible presence of $^{56}$Ni at or near the surface of the ejecta in
\citet{2014Sci...345.1162D} and \citet{isern}. As described in
\S\ref{sec:tem} the \tem model described a transparent clump of
radioactive Ni. All gamma-ray lines associated with the
Ni$\rightarrow$Co$\rightarrow$Fe decay in the \tem model are tied to
the energy (redshift) and the width of the reference 847 keV line.
The flux ratios are also tied together using a model of an optically
thin clump, taking into account time evolution of the Ni and Co
masses. Examples of spectra predicted by \tem model (for 1~$M_\odot$
of $^{56}$Ni) are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:tem}.
Thus, we consider a composite model, consisting from the \W7 model (with
the normalization fixed to 1) and the \tem model. This two-component (\W7+\tem)
model effectively searches for a transparent clump of radioactive
material on top of the base-line \W7 model (see
Fig.\ref{fig:tem_late}). The horizontal axis shows the energy of the
reference 847 keV line in the observer frame and different colors
correspond to different 847 keV line broadening parameterized through
a Gaussian $\sigma$ - see legend. For a given redshift/energy and
width of the reference 847 keV line the model has the normalization
(initial $^{56}$Ni mass) as the only free parameter. The best-fitting
$^{56}$Ni mass is shown in the top panel of
Fig.\ref{fig:tem_late}. The bottom panel (Fig.\ref{fig:tem_late})
shows the improvement in the $\chi^2$ (relative to the \W7 model
alone) due to the \tem model.
As is clear from Fig.~\ref{fig:tem_late} this model does no provide
compelling evidence for a transparent clump on top of the \W7 in the
\late data. Formally, there is a $\Delta \chi^2\sim 9.5$ peak at
$\sim$858.5 keV, which corresponds to a narrow ($\sim$1 keV broad, red
curve) component with a negative mass of $- 0.05~M_\odot$, which can
be interpreted as a marginal evidence for a dip in the velocity
substructure, given that this improvement of the $\Delta \chi^2$
came at the cost of adding three more parameters\footnote{We note,
that the width and especially energy of the reference line are
very nonlinear parameter that could lead to large changes in the
$\chi^2$.} to the model. One can estimate the constraints on the
line flux (mass of a transparent clump) that such
analysis can provide, by fixing the centroid energy and the width of the
reference 847 keV line and calculating the expected statistical
uncertainty. Since the normalization of the \tem model is the only
free parameter in this particular experiment, the estimation of the
uncertainty is straightforward (see Fig.\ref{fig:sigma_m}). Three
curves shown in Fig.\ref{fig:sigma_m} show 1$\sigma$ uncertainty on
the initial $^{56}$Ni mass for the \early set (dashed-blue: SPI data
in the 70-1350 keV band; long-dashed-green: 400-1350 keV) and \late
set (solid-red: 400-1350 keV), respectively. Conservative upper limit
based on the assumption of pure statistical errors would be 3 times
these values. Letting the broadening and the redshift to be free
parameters (look-elsewhere effect) would increase this limit even
further.
These experiments show that the \late data are consistent with a
presence of a velocity substructure (parameterized via our \tem
model) on top of the 1D \W7 model at the level $\sim 0.05~M_\odot$,
provided that the lines are slightly broadenened.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[trim= 0cm 5cm 0cm 2cm,
width=1\textwidth,clip=t,angle=0.,scale=0.49]{g7_flate_400_w7.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{ Fitting the SPI data in the 400-1350 keV band with a
composite \W7 + \tem model. The normalization of the \W7 model is
fixed to 1. In the \tem model all lines are tied to the energy
(redshift) and the width of the reference 847 keV line. The flux
ratios are tied using a model of optically thin clump, taking into
account time evolution of the Ni and Co masses. This setup is
optimized for a search of a transparent clump on top of the \W7
model). For a given energy and width the model has only
normalization (initial $^{56}$Ni mass in the clump) as a free
parameter. The bottom panel shows the improvement in $\chi^2$ and
the top panel shows the best-fitting $^{56}$Ni clump
mass. Different colors correspond to a different 847 keV line
broadening parameterized through a Gaussian $\sigma$ - see legend.
No compelling evidence for a clump is seen in the data. The
sensitivity of the data to the mass of the clump strongly depends
on the broadening of the lines (see Fig.\ref{fig:sigma_m}).
\label{fig:tem_late}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[trim= 0cm 5cm 0cm 2cm,
width=1\textwidth,clip=t,angle=0.,scale=0.49]{sigma_m.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Uncertainty in the initial $^{56}$Ni mass as a function of
line broadening for \early set (dashed-blue: SPI data in the
70-1350 keV band; long-dashed-green: 400-1350 keV) and \late
set (solid-red: 400-1350 keV), respectively, assuming transparency to gamma-rays generated close to the surface. A conservative upper limit on the initial mass of "extra" radioactive $^{56}$Ni, is three times this value at a given line width. For the line broadening of $10^4~{\rm km~s^{-1}}$ (FWHM), the expected value of $\sigma_{847}$ is $\sim 12~$keV. This value can be regarded as a fiducial value for a simple SNIa model.
\label{fig:sigma_m}}
\end{figure}
We now do a similar experiment with the \early data, using a \tem+\W7
model for SPI data in the 400-1350 keV band (Fig.\ref{fig:tem_early},
left panel) and in the 70-1350 keV band (Fig.\ref{fig:tem_early},
right panel), respectively.
The left panel does not show any significance evidence for a clump on
top of the \W7 model. The structure in the right panel is more
complicated. The data used in this panel now include the $^{56}$Ni
line at 158 keV. We note, that if the 158 keV line is able to escape,
then it is certainly true for higher energy lines of Ni and
Co. Therefore the analysis should be done for the whole band to
achieve the most significant results. First of all, our analysis does
not show compelling evidence for a narrow and unshifted component
reported in \citet{2014Sci...345.1162D} -- there is a weak
($\Delta\chi^2\sim6$, i.e. $\sim 2.4~\sigma$ detection if we ignore the freedom in the redshift and broadening) peak at 847.5 keV,
corresponding to a narrow line (black curve) with a mass of $\sim
0.027~M_\odot$ of $^{56}$Ni. There are several separate peaks of
similar magnitudes, covering the energy range of interest. However
there is a more significant (albeit also marginal) evidence for a
redshifted and broad component with $M_{Ni}\sim0.08~M_\odot$,
$E\sim826.5~$keV and $\sigma\sim8~$keV \citep[see][for
discussion]{isern}. The gain in $\chi^2$ is $\sim$18 and for a
fixed energy and broadening (putting under the rug possible systematic
errors in the background modeling and uncertainties in the calibration
of the off-diagonal response) this would be a 4.2$~\sigma$ detection. However
the freedom in the energy, width (look elsewhere effect) and the
normalization deteriorates the significance. Should all these free
parameters be linear (as is normalization), one would expect the
change in the $\chi^2$ of $\sim 3$ due to pure statistical
fluctuations. However, the energy and the width are nonlinear and the
gain in $\chi^2$ might be significantly larger. In
Fig.~\ref{fig:tem_late} and \ref{fig:tem_early} we see multiple peaks
with the change/gain in $\chi^2$ up to $\sim$10. Assuming that the
latter value can be used as a crude estimate of a possible gain in
$\chi^2$ due to non-linearity of the \tem model, the significance of
the detection of the excess drops below 3$\sigma$.
Taking the best-fitting parameters at the face value, we can go back
to the \late data and compare the spectra (in the 400-1350 keV band)
with the \tem+\W7 model, freezing \tem model parameters at the
best-fitting values obtained for the \early data. This gives the
$\chi^2=1883.05$, i.e. worse than the \W7 model alone
($\chi^2=1879.3$). If we let the normalizations of both \tem and \W7
models free (but freezing energy and broadening of the \tem model),
then we improve slightly the $\chi^2$ to 1878.9, but the best-fitting
mass becomes slightly negative, although consistent with zero $-3~10^{-3}\pm5~10^{-2}~M_\odot$, while the
best-fitting normalization of \W7 model becomes 0.92
(c.f. Tab.~\ref{tab:mfit_late} where SPI data are used together with
the ISGRI data).
We concluded that there is a tension between ``low'' energy SPI data
in \early observations and the rest of the \INTEGRAL data
(Tab.~\ref{tab:mfit_early} and Tab.~\ref{tab:lc_chi2}). However, this tension is not prohibitively large and could be attributed to statistical fluctuations in the data, if a conservative approach is adopted. A possible
evidence of the redshifted and broadened 158 keV line in the \early
data and possible implications are further discussed in \citet{isern}.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[trim= 0cm 5cm 0cm 2cm,
width=1\textwidth,clip=t,angle=0.,scale=0.49]{g7e_early_400_w7.pdf}
\includegraphics[trim= 0cm 5cm 0cm 2cm,
width=1\textwidth,clip=t,angle=0.,scale=0.49]{g7e_early_070_w7.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Same as in Fig.\ref{fig:tem_late} but for the \early SPI
spectrum. {\bf LEFT:} \tem+\W7 model and the SPI data in
the 400-1350 keV band. The normalization of the \W7 model is fixed to
1. {\bf RIGHT:} \tem+\W7 model and the SPI data in
the 70-1350 keV band. The normalization of the \W7 model is fixed to
1. The low energy part of the SPI spectrum is included to make sure
that the $^{56}$Ni line at 158 keV is within the energy range
probed. There is a marginal evidence of a redshifted (by $\sim$8000 km/s)
component with the width of $\sim 8$ keV (Gaussian sigma),
corresponding to $M_{Ni}\sim0.08~M_\odot$. See text
for the discussion.
\label{fig:tem_early}}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{3PAR model}
\label{sec:3par}
Apart from the models discussed above, we also used \PAR3 model,
introduced in \citet{2014Natur.512..406C}. This is a spherically
symmetric model of homologously expanding ejecta with exponential
density profile $\displaystyle \rho \propto e^{v/V_e}$. The model is
chaaracterized by three parameters: initial mass of the $^{56}$Ni
$M_{Ni}$, total mass of the ejecta $M_{ejecta}$, and characteristic
expansion velocity $V_e$ in the exponential density distribution. In
this model a mass-weighted root-mean-squared velocity of the ejecta is
$\displaystyle \sqrt{12}V_e$.
The main shortcoming of this model is the assumption that all
elements, including radioactive Ni and Co, are uniformly mixed through
the entire ejecta. This is an ad-hoc assumption, made in order to stay
with only three-parameteres model, but it is not justified. It has the
major impact for the early gamma-ray light curve, producing gamma-ray
emission even at the very early phase (see Fig.~\ref{fig:background},
\ref{fig:lc_isgri}, \ref{fig:lc_spi}). At later times (day 50 or
later), the role of mixing is less significant. We therefore applied
this model to the \late ISGRI and SPI spectra to get estimates of
$M_{Ni}$, $M_{ejecta}$ and $V_e$, which are not limited to values characteristic to the set of plausible models given in Table~\ref{tab:models}. The main purpose of using this model is to understand the level of constraints provided by the \INTEGRAL data on the main characteristics of the supernova. Simplicity of the model allows us to calculate this model on a large grid of possible values of $M_{Ni}$, $M_{ejecta}$ and $V_e$.
A Monte Carlo radiative transfer code is used to calculate the
emergent spectrum, which includes full treatment of Compton scattering
(coherent and incoherent) and photoabsorption. Pair production by
$\gamma$-ray photons is neglected. The positrons produced by $\beta^+$ decay
annihilate in place via positronium formation. Both two-photon
annihilation into the 511 keV line and the ortho-positronium continuum
are included.
The results are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:3par}. The best-fitting values
$M_{Ni}=0.63~M_\odot$, $M_{ejecta}=1.8~M_\odot$, $V_{e}=3~10^{3}~{\rm
km~s^{-1}}$ are marked with a cross. The 1$\sigma$ confidence
contours (corresponding to $\Delta \chi^2=1$, i.e. for single
parameter of interest) are shown with the thick solid line. Clearly,
the Ni mass $M_{Ni}$ and the characteristic expansion velocity $V_e$
are better constrained than the ejecta mass. This is not surprizing,
given that the data averaged over the period 50-162 days after
explosion are used, when the ejecta are relatively transparent for
gamma-rays. As a results the flux in the lines depends primarily on
the Ni mass, line broadening is set by the expansion velocity, while
ejecta mass influence mostly the amplitude of the scattered component,
which declines with time relative to the ortho-positronium continuum
when the optical depth declines. If we fix the poorly constrained
ejecta mass to $M_{ejecta}=1.4~M_\odot$, then the derived Ni mass is
constrained to the range 0.54-0.67$~M_\odot$.
For the set of models listed in the Table~\ref{tab:models} we can
estimate the effective $V_e$ using the relation $\displaystyle
V_e=\sqrt{\frac{E_K}{6M_{ejecta}}}$, valid for pure exponential
model. The values $\displaystyle V_e$ vary between $\sim2580~{\rm
km~s^{-1}}$ for \texttt{DDTe } to $\sim2960~{\rm km~s^{-1}}$ for \DETO models
and is equal to $2740~{\rm km~s^{-1}}$ and $2820~{\rm km~s^{-1}}$ for
\W7 and \texttt{DDT1p1} respectively. Not surprisingly all
``successful'' models (e.g. \W7 and \texttt{DDT1p1}) have their
characteristic parameters well inside contours plotted in
Fig.~\ref{fig:3par}, while \DETO and \HED6 are far outside the
contours, primarily because of Ni mass.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[trim= 0cm 12cm 0cm 1cm,
width=1\textwidth,clip=t,angle=0.,scale=0.99]{model_grid_fit2.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Confidence contours for \PAR3 model, corresponding to $\Delta\chi^2=1$ with respect to the best-fitting value. The cross show the best-fitting parameters of the \PAR3 model: $M_{Ni}\sim 0.63~M_\odot$, $v_e\sim 3000~{\rm km~s^{-1}}$, $M_{ejecta}\sim 1.8~M_\odot$. The \late ISGRI and SPI spectra are used for this analysis.
Confidence intervals plotted in this figure correspond to $1~\sigma$ for a single parameter of interest.
The largest uncertainty is in the mass of the ejecta, while the Ni mass is the best determined quantity.
\label{fig:3par}}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Summary of model fitting}
\label{sec:mf_sum}
The comparison of the \INTEGRAL data with the subset of models (see the
sections above) allows one to crudely rank the models according to
their success in different tests. For each test (data set) we can
choose the ``best'' model, which provides the largest improvement
$\Delta\chi^2$ compared to Null model (or having the smallest $\chi^2$
for the lightcurves). We can then adopt an ad hoc definition that
other models that have $\chi^2$ different from the best model by 4
(i.e. $\sim 2~\sigma$ confidence) are classified as ``good''. Similar approach can be applied to the lightcurves in each band (Tab. \ref{tab:lc_chi2}), by adding 4 to the minimal value of the $\chi^2$ among models. Applying
this test to Tables \ref{tab:mfit_late} - \ref{tab:lc_chi2} we
conclude that \W7 and \texttt{DDT1p1} pass all these tests, closely followed by
\DD4, \texttt{ddt1p4}, and then by \texttt{DDT1p4halo} and \BALL3. \DETO and \HED6 fail most of the tests. Of course, given
the uncertainties in the distance, background modeling and calibration
issues, we can not reject models other than \DETO and \HED6. E.g., if we let the
normalization to be a free parameter (equivalent of a statement that
the distance is highly uncertain) then most of the models become
barely distinguishable. We rather state, that a whole
class of near-Chandrasekhar models provides a reasonable description
of the data, with the \W7 and \texttt{DDT1p1} being the most successful, closely followed
by a broader group of delayed-detonation models.
\section{Consistency with optical data}
\label{sec:opt}
We now make several basic consistency checks of gamma-ray and optical
data, using optical observations taken quasi-simultaneously with
\INTEGRAL observations.
\subsection{Optical and gamma-ray luminosities}
We use $BVRIJHK$ photometry reported by \citet{2014MNRAS.443.2887F} to
estimate the bolometric (UVOIR) luminosity of SN~2014J on days 73 and
96 after the explosion. Since the data do not contain the $U$-band
photometry, we include the $U$ magnitude recovered on the bases of the
$U-B$ color of the dereddened normal SN~Ia, SN~2003hv
\citep{2009A&A...505..265L}. The SN~2014J fluxes were corrected for
the extinction using slightly different extinction laws reported by
\citet{2014ApJ...788L..21A} and \citet{2014MNRAS.443.2887F}. The
average of both fluxes for each epoch were used then to produce the
integrated flux. To this end we approximated the spectral energy
distribution by the combination of two functions each of which is a
smooth broken power law. The SED integration in the range of
$0.1<\lambda<10$ $\mu$m with the distance of 3.5 Mpc, results in the
luminosity estimates of $(11\pm1)\times10^{41}$ erg s$^{-1}$ on day
73, and $(6.5\pm0.6)\times10^{41}$ erg s$^{-1}$ on day 96. These
values agree well with the estimated amount of deposited energy in
the best-fitting \PAR3 model: $\sim 1.0\times 10^{42}~{\rm erg~s^{-1}}$
and $\sim 5.3\times~10^{41}~{\rm erg~s^{-1}}$ for day 73 and 96
respectively. According to this model the fraction of thermalized
energy is $\sim$34\% and $\sim$20\% for these dates respectively.
\subsection{Asymmetry in late optical spectra?}
The issue of asymmetry of SN~2014J ejecta is of vital importance
because the strong deviation of the $^{56}$Ni distribution from the
spherical symmetry would affect the interpretation of the gamma-ray
data. Generally, the asymmetry of the $^{56}$Ni distribution is
expected in the binary WD merger scenario
\citep{2012ApJ...747L..10P}. Moreover, a single degenerate scenario
also does not rule out the ejecta asymmetry caused by the noncentral
early deflagration \citep{2014ApJ...782...11M}. In fact, signatures
of asymmetry have been already detected in several SNe~Ia at the
nebular stage ($t > 100$ d). The asymmetry is manifested in the
emission line shift or/and the double peak emission line profiles
\citep{2006ApJ...652L.101M,2010Natur.466...82M,2014arXiv1401.3347D}.
To probe a possible asymmetry of SN~2014J ejecta we rely on the
nebular optical spectrum taken on day 119 after the $B$ maximum, i.e.,
136 d after the explosion \citep{bikmaev15} at the 1.5-m
Russian-Turkish telescope (RTT-150) of the TUBITAK National
Observatory (Antalya, Turkey). The SN~2014J spectrum corrected for
the interstellar reddening in M82 of $E(B-V) = 1$
\citep[c.f.][]{2014MNRAS.443.2887F} is shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig:rtt-sn2011fe} together with that of SN~2011fe obtained
at the same instrument on day 141 after the maximum. The spectra of
both supernovae look similar except for the blueshift of SN~2011fe
emissions by $\sim 10^3$ km s$^{-1}$ relative to SN~2014J.
We focus on the [Co\,III] 5890 \AA\ emission that is not hampered
markedly by the blending with other lines. It should be emphasised
that on day 136 d after the explosion this line is dominated by $^{56}$Co;
the contribution of $^{57}$Co and stable Co isotopes is negligible.
The Thomson optical depth at this epoch is small ($\sim0.2$) and
does not affect the line profile.
The [Co\,III] emission is the superposition of
five lines of the a$^4$F - a$^2$G multiplet. Each line we describe by
the Gaussian with the amplitude proportional to the
collisional excitation rate times the radiative branching ratio.
We adopt the heliocentric recession
velocity of $+104\pm15$ km s$^{-1}$ that takes into account the
recession velocity of +203 km s$^{-1}$ for M 82 (NASA Extragalactic
Database NED) and the rotational velocity of M 82 at the SN~2014J position.
The best fit (Fig. \ref{fig:fco3}) is found for the full width at half
maximum for each line FWHM = 10450 km s$^{-1}$ and the line shift of
$v_s=+130\pm17$ km s$^{-1}$.
With the exception of this small shift, each [Co\,III] line
is fairly symmetric at least in the radial velocity range of
$|v_r| < 6100$ km s$^{-1}$.
The small line shift may be related to either
intrinsically small asymmetry of $^{56}$Ni distribution, or the special
viewing angle, if the ejecta is actually non-spherical.
To summarize, the SN~2014J optical spectrum does not show signatures
of strong asymmetry.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[trim= 0cm 2cm 0cm 0cm,
width=1\textwidth,clip=t,angle=0.,scale=0.5]{snspec_rtt3.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The spectra of SN~2014J (day 119 after the maximum) and
SN2011fe (day 141 after the maximum) obtained with RTT-150
telescope \cite{bikmaev15}. Overall the spectra are very similar in
terms of the flux level, line shape
and line ratios. The exception is the prominent blueshift of [Fe\,III],
[Fe\,II], and [Co\,III] emissions of SN~2011fe relative to SN~2014J.
The strong interstellar Na\,I absorption in the SN~2014J spectrum
arises in the M~82 galaxy.
\label{fig:rtt-sn2011fe}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[trim= 5cm 8cm 0cm 4cm,
width=1\textwidth,clip=t,angle=0.,scale=0.6]{fco3.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{[Co\,III] 5900 \AA\ emission in the SN2014J spectrum on day 119
({\bf thin} line) along with the model ({\bf thick} line) which
includes five component of the a$^4$F - a$^2$G multiplet.
The narrow absorption feature at the top of the profile is due
to Na\,I interstellar absorption in M 82. At the bottom shown is
the residual "model minus observation", which demonstrates a good
fit in the range of 5770-6060 \AA.
\label{fig:fco3}}
\end{figure}
\section{Discussion and conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusions}
We have analyzed a complete set of \INTEGRAL observations of
SN2014J. We confirm our previous results \citep{2014Natur.512..406C}
that the data are broadly consistent with the predictions of a
nearly-Chandrasekhar WD explosion, with (1D) deflagration or delayed
detonation models providing equally good description (see Tables
\ref{tab:mfit_eandl} - \ref{tab:lc_chi2}). While pure deflagration
models are disfavored because of the expected large scale mixing and
incomplete burning in 3D simulations, in the 1D case they yield the
same gamma-ray flux as the delayed detonation models. Pure detonation
(or strongly sub-Chandrasekhar) models strongly overproduce
(underproduce) observed gamma-ray flux and can be excluded. Allowing a
freedom in the normalization of the model (equivalent to allowing the
initial mass of $^{56}$Ni to be a free parameter, while keeping other
parameters unchanged) makes all models essentially indistinguishable
at the level of statistics, accumulated by \INTEGRAL.
We have searched for possible velocity substructure on top of the
predictions from 1D models, by adding a set of broadened Gaussian
lines to the best-performing \W7 model. The energies and fluxes of the
lines are tied to the predictions of the Ni and Co decay chains,
appropriate for the optically thin clump of Ni. This analysis did not
reveal strong evidence for a prominent velocity substructure in the
gamma-ray data during the late phase of the SN evolution (after day
50). Given the statistics accumulated by {\it INTEGRAL}, a clump with
the $^{56}$Ni mass $\sim 0.05~M_\odot$ producing slightly broadened
lines (Fig.\ref{fig:sigma_m}) could be consistent with the \late
gamma-ray data. Similar analysis of the \early data has a best-fitting
solution with a redshifted and broadened component with
$M_{Ni}\sim0.08~M_\odot$, $E\sim826.5~$keV and
$\sigma\sim8~$keV. However, the statistical significance of this extra
component is marginal and the \late observations do not provide
further evidence for the presence of such component \citep[see
also][for independent analysis of early observations of
SN2014J]{2014Sci...345.1162D,isern}.
From the optical light curves and spectra SN2014J appears to be a
``normal'' SNIa with layered structure and no evidence for large-scale
mixing \citep[e.g.,][]{2015ApJ...798...39M,2014MNRAS.445.4427A},
consistent with the delayed-detonation models. The detection of
stable Ni \citep{2014ApJ...792..120F,2015ApJ...798...93T} in IR
suggests high density of the burning material, characteristic for
near-Chandrasekhar WD.
Optical spectrum taken at the nebular stage (day $\sim 136$ after the
explosion) also do not show strong asymmetry in the Co and Fe
lines. Unless the viewing angle is special, the distribution of these
elements in the ejecta is symmetric. These data do not provide any
direct support for collision/merger scenario. The late SN2014J
spectrum is very similar to that of SN2011fe, albeit with the
pronounced blueshift of emission lines of the latter.
Apart from the above mentioned feature in the \early observation,
which we consider as marginal, the rest of the \INTEGRAL and optical
data appear consistent with the predictions of ``canonical'' 1D
explosion models of a nearly-Chandrasekhar carbon-oxygen white dwarf.
\vspace*{1cm}
\acknowledgments
This work was based on observations with INTEGRAL, an ESA project with
instruments and a science data centre funded by ESA member states
(especially the principal investigator countries: Denmark, France,
Germany, Italy, Switzerland and Spain) and with the participation of
Russia and the United States. We are grateful to ISOC for their scheduling efforts, and the INTEGRAL Users Group for their support in the observations.
E.C., R.S., S.G. are partly supported by
grant No. 14-22-00271 from the Russian Scientific Foundation. J.I. is
supported by MINECO-FEDER and Generalitat de Catalunya grants. I.B. is partly supported by Russian Government Program of Competitive Growth of KFU. E.B. is supported by Spanish MINECO grant AYA2013-40545.
The SPI project has been completed under the responsibility and
leadership of CNES, France. ISGRI has been realized by CEA with the
support of CNES. We thank Adam Burrows, Peter H\"oflich, Rishi Khatri, Ken Nomoto,
Victor Utrobin, Alexey Vikhlinin and Stan Woosley for helpful discussions.
|
\section{Introduction}
Compact binaries (i. e. black holes, neutron stars and white dwarfs) with
non-vanishing eccentricity are promising sources of gravitational waves.
Depending on their parameters these sources emit radiation
within the sensitivity band of the forthcoming gravitational wave detectors
advanced LIGO and Virgo. Due to their increased sensitivity the
source signals will be visible by these detectors for a longer time period
with the requirement of an accurate description of both the orbital
evolution and the emitted GWs of these systems.
detectability
The measured signal output of the detectors is cross correlated with
theoretical waveform templates in matched filtering. The presence of
orbital eccentricity changes significantly the properties of the
waveforms resulting in the decrease of their detectability with the
use of circular templates.In spite of the general circularization of
binary orbits due to GW emission binaries interacting with their
environment can retain non-negligible eccentricity at the end of
their evolution. For example, there are indications that binaries in
dense galactic nuclei \cite{LearyKocsis,KocsisLevin}, embedded in a
gaseous disk \cite{Cuadra,Sesana} can remain eccentric \ until the
end of their inspiral. Moreover, the interaction of supermassive
black hole binaries with star populations \cite{Preto,Lockman} and
the Kozai mechanism and relativistic orbital resonances in
hierarchial triples \cite{Wen,Hoffman,Seto,NaozKocsis} can also
increase orbital eccentricity.
The first analytic eccentric waveform for the unperturbed motion was given
by \cite{Whalquist}. The time-dependent waveform is computed with the help
of Fourier-Bessel method in Ref. \cite{Moreno} and the waveform in Fourier
space for arbitrary eccentricity was given in Ref \cite{mikoczi}.
Recently, within the post-Newtonian (PN) treatment of compact binary
evolution the theoretical computations are reaching the level of
4PN. The first post-Newtonian eccentric waveform for bound orbits is
computed by Wagoner and Will \cite{Wagoner} in 1976. The description
of the Kepler motion with the 1PN correction is given by Damour and
Deruelle in Ref \cite{DD} which requires three eccentricities
(\textit{radial},\textit{\ time} and \textit{angular}
\textit{eccentricity}). With the help of this Damour-Deruelle
parameterization the eccentric waveform and evolution of the
\textit{semimajor axis} and the radial eccentricity due to radiation
reaction is computed by Junker and Sch\"{a}fer in Ref \cite{Junker}.
The waveform in Fourier domain up to 1PN and 2PN orders are given in
Refs. \cite {Tessmer},\cite{Tessmer2}.
Our work focuses on ready-to-use eccentric 1PN waveforms in frequency
domain. In our description we use the generalized true anomaly
parameterization which has the advantage that the solution of the equations
of motion can be expressed with only two eccentricities. As a consequence,
the gravitational waveforms have a simple structure. Secular terms appearing
in the waveforms are eliminated by the use of the Poincar\'{e}-Lindstedt
method and the introduction of the \textit{drift true anomaly} parameter. We
give both the time-dependent and frequency domain waveforms using the Hansen
expansion and the stationary phase approximation (SPA). Moreover, we compute
the evolution of the semimajor axis and radial eccentricity up to 1PN
accuracy.
The paper is organized as follows. After a short summary of the
Damour-Deruelle parameterization in Sec. II we introduce the generalized
true anomaly parameterization in Sec. III and the 1PN waveform in Sec. IV.
Sec. V. contains the extension of the Hansen coefficients to 1PN order.
Fourier domain SPA waveforms are given in Sec VI. The radiation reaction
problem and the evolution of the time and phase functions to 1PN order are
given in Sec VII. Some of the technical details, i.e. tensor spherical
harmonics, orbital parameters to 1PN order, Hansen coefficients and waveform
expressions are presented in the Appendices.
\section{Damour-Deruelle parameterization}
In the following, we summarize the first post-Newtonian parameterization of
the orbital motion introduced by Damour and Deruelle \cite{DD} for the
description of compact binaries. The Lagrangian of the system contains the
Newtonian and 1PN corrections,
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{L} &\mathcal{=}&\frac{\mu }{2}\mathbf{v}^{2}+\frac{Gm\mu }{r}
\notag \\
&&+\frac{1}{8c^{2}}\left( 1-3\eta \right) \mu \mathbf{v}^{4}+\!\frac{Gm\mu }
2rc^{2}}\!\left[ \!\left( 3\!+\!\eta \right) \mathbf{v}^{2}\!+\!\eta \dot{r
^{2}\!-\!\frac{Gm}{r}\!\right] \mathbf{\ ,}
\end{eqnarray
where $r$ is the relative distance, $\mathbf{v}$ is the relative velocity
vector, $m=m_{1}+m_{2}$ is the total mass, $\mu =m_{1}m_{2}/m$ is the
reduced mass and $\eta =\mu /m$ is the symmetric mass ratio. The overdot
denotes the derivative with respect to time $t$. The radial and angular
motion can be separated to the linear order, so the Euler-Lagrange equation
are
\begin{align}
\left( \frac{dr}{dt}\right) ^{2}& =A+\frac{2B}{r}+\frac{C}{r^{2}}+\frac{D}
r^{3}}\mathbf{\ ,} \label{ddrad} \\
\frac{d\theta }{dt}& =\frac{H}{r^{2}}+\frac{I}{r^{3}}\mathbf{\ ,}
\label{ddteta}
\end{align
where $\theta $ is the azimuthal angle in the orbital plane and the
constants $A,B,C,D,H,I$ depend on the conserved quantities such as energy
and the orbital angular momentum of the perturbed motion, see Appendix B. The
constants $A,B,C,H$ contain Newtonian and 1PN terms while $D$ and $I$ are
purely 1PN corrections. The equations of motion, Eqs. (\ref{ddrad},\ref{ddteta})
can be solved by the \textit{eccentric anomaly} quasi-parameterization $u$,
that is
\begin{equation}
r=a_{r}(1-e_{r}\cos u)\mathbf{\ ,} \label{damour}
\end{equation}
where the orbital parameters are the semimajor axis $a_{r}$ and the radial
eccentricity $e_{r}$. These orbital parameters are characterized by the
turning points ($r_{\max }$ and $r_{\min }$ in \cite{KMG},\cite{KJ}) of the
radial motion. The Kepler equation and angular evolution can be given as
\begin{eqnarray}
n(t-t_{0}) &=&u-e_{t}\sin u\equiv \mathcal{M}\mathbf{\ ,} \label{Kepler} \\
\theta -\theta _{0} &=&(1+k)v_{\theta }\mathbf{\ ,} \label{DD_angle} \\
v_{\theta } &=&2\arctan \sqrt{\frac{1+e_{\theta }}{1-e_{\theta }}}\tan \frac
u}{2}\mathbf{,} \label{intro_v}
\end{eqnarray}
in terms of the orbital elements of the 1PN orbital dynamics such as
the \textit{mean motion} $n$, the \textit{time eccentricity}
$e_{t}$, the \textit{angle eccentricity} $e_{\theta }$, and the
\textit{pericenter drift }$k$ (which is in relationship with the
\textit{pericenter precession} $\left\langle
\dot{\gamma}\right\rangle $ averaged over one radial period, see
\cite{mikoczi}). In the above equations $t_{0}$ and $\theta _{0}$
are integration constants and in our calculations we set $\theta
_{0}=t_{0}=0$. The Damour-Deruelle parameterization contains three
eccentricities, which are different in 1PN order only. In Newtonian
order only the Kepler equation and one eccentricity remain.
We note that the Kepler equation remains the same with the inclusion
of the spin-orbit interaction (see ref. \cite{Wex}) but it contains
higher order contributions such as the spin-spin,
quadrupole-monopole and magnetic dipole-dipole interactions
\cite{KMG} or the second post-Newtonian corrections \cite{SW}. For
this reason we use an other parameterization which has only two
eccentricities and the evolution of the azimuthal angle $\theta $ is
similarly simple as Eq. (\ref{DD_angle}).
\section{Generalized true anomaly parameterization}
We introduce the \textit{generalized true anomaly} parameterization $\phi $
(denoted by $\chi $ in \cite{param},\cite{KMG}) as
\begin{equation}
r=\frac{a_{r}(1-e_{r}^{2})}{1+e_{r}\cos \phi }\mathbf{\ .} \label{mienk}
\end{equation}
This parameterization has a similar form than the Keplerian
parameterization, where the orbital parameters $a_{r}$ and $e_{r}$
include only the leading order Newtonian terms. Eqs. (\ref{mienk})
and (\ref{damour}) lead to the relation $\phi =v_{r}=2\arctan \left[
\left( 1+e_{r}\right) ^{1/2}\left( 1-e_{r}\right) ^{-1/2}\tan \left(
u/2\right) \right] $, cf. Eq. (\ref{intro_v})\textbf{.}
The time evolution of the generalized true anomaly up to 1PN order can be
expressed as
\begin{equation}
\dot{\phi}=\frac{na_{r}^{2}(1-e_{r}^{2})^{3/2}}{r^{2}(1-e_{t}e_{r}+(e_{r}-e_{t})\cos
\phi )}\mathbf{\ .} \label{phidot}
\end{equation}
The integration of Eq. (\ref{ddteta}) with the help of (\ref{phidot}) leads
to the relation
\begin{equation}
\theta -\theta _{0}=\left( 1+\kappa _{1}\right) \phi +\kappa _{2}\sin \phi
\mathbf{,} \label{angleeq}
\end{equation
where we have introduced the 1PN order quantities $\kappa
_{1}=3Gm/[a_{r}(1-e_{r}^{2})c^{2}]$ and $\kappa _{2}=G\mu
e_{r}/[2a_{r}(1-e_{r}^{2})c^{2}]$. In this parameterization only
radial and time eccentricities ($e_{r}$, $e_{t}$) appear while angle
eccentricity does not. The relationship between $\phi $ and
$v_{\theta }$ is given by Eqs. (\ref{DD_angle}) and (\ref{angleeq})
up to 1PN order as
\begin{equation}
\phi =v_{\theta }-\frac{G\mu e_{r}}{2a_{r}(1-e_{r}^{2})c^{2}}\sin v_{\theta
}.
\end{equation}
In the following we will compute the full eccentric 1PN waveform with the
use of the generalized true anomaly parameterization $\phi $ without the
appearance of secular terms in the expressions and give the time-domain
waveforms using the generalized \textit{Hansen expansion}. Our aim is to
express the full analytic eccentric frequency-domain waveform up to 1PN order.
\section{Waveform}
The first explicit description of the 1PN waveform for binaries was
given by Wagoner and Will in 1976 \cite{Wagoner}. We rewrite their
expressions with help of Ref. \cite{Thorne} and, as a result, the
radiation field up to 1PN order has the following form
\begin{eqnarray}
h_{ij}^{TT} &=&\varepsilon ^{4}\frac{G}{D_{L}}\Biggl\{\sum_{m=-2}^{2}\overse
{(2)}{I}_{2m}T_{ij}^{E2,2m}+\epsilon \Biggl[\sum_{m=-2}^{2}{\overset{(2)}{S}
_{2m}\,T_{ij}^{B2,2m} \label{waveform} \\
&&+\sum_{m=-3}^{3}\overset{(3)}{I}_{3m}T_{ij}^{E2,3m}\Biggr]\Biggr\}\,.
\end{eqnarray
Here $D_{L}$ is the luminosity distance, $\varepsilon =Gm/c^{2}r$ is
the post-Newtonian parameter, $T_{ij}^{E2,km}$and $T_{ij}^{B2,km}$
are the tensorial \textit{electric} and \textit{magnetic} scalar
harmonics which are given by Eq. (2.30d) in \cite{Thorne}. The
quantities $\overset{(k)}{I}_{km}, $ ${\overset{(k)}{S}}_{km}$ are
the $k$th time derivatives of the mass and current multipole
moments. The explicit form of these multipoles was given by Junker
and Sch\"{a}fer in 1PN order with eccentric anomaly $u$ in refs.
\cite{Junker} and \cite{Tessmer}. Later, the authors of
\cite{Tessmer2} have computed the explicit time-dependent multipoles
$\overset{(k)}{I}_{km}$ and ${\overset{(k)}{S}}_{km}$ up to 2PN.
Their waveforms contain no secular terms because the authors are not
using Eq. (\ref{DD_angle}) but the exponents containing $\theta $
have been expressed as series in $\overset{(k)}{I}_{km}, $
${\overset{(k)}{S}}_{km}$.
It is well-known that some secular terms will appear in the eccentric
waveforms if one expands the harmonic functions of the angle $\theta $ in
terms of the generalized true anomaly parameterization. These secular terms
have to be eliminated in the waveforms which requires the introduction of
the \textit{drift true anomaly }$\phi ^{\prime }=\left( 1+\kappa _{1}\right)
\phi $. Then the harmonic functions of $\theta $ can be described in a
perturbative sense (see \cite{Soffel}) as
\begin{eqnarray}
\cos \theta &\approx &\cos \phi ^{\prime }-\kappa _{2}\sin \phi \sin \phi
^{\prime }, \\
\sin \theta &\approx &\sin \phi ^{\prime }+\kappa _{2}\sin \phi \cos \phi
^{\prime },
\end{eqnarray}
which relations will be used to eliminate secular terms in the eccentric
waveforms.
The waveform up to 1PN order for the polarization states are
\begin{equation}
h_{+,\times }(\phi )=h_{+,\times }^{N}(\phi )+h_{+,\times }^{H}(\phi
)+h_{+,\times }^{PN}(\phi )\mathbf{.}
\end{equation
The $h_{+,\times }^{N}(\phi )$ is the Newtonian, $h_{+,\times }^{H}(\phi )$
is the half order PN and $h_{+,\times }^{PN}(\phi )$ is the 1PN waveform
(see Appendix D and E). Our 1PN waveform has the well-known structure with
the generalized true anomaly $\phi $ and drift anomaly $\phi ^{\prime }$, as
\begin{eqnarray}
h_{+,\times }^{PN}(\phi ) &=&\sum_{m=0}^{4}\Biggl[\left( c_{m(c4)}^{+,\times
}\cos m\phi +s_{m(c4)}^{+,\times }\sin m\phi \right) \cos 4\phi ^{\prime }
\notag \\
&&+\left( c_{m(s4)}^{+,\times }\cos m\phi +s_{m(s4)}^{+,\times }\sin m\phi
\right) \sin 4\phi ^{\prime } \notag \\
&&+\left( c_{m(c2)}^{+,\times }\cos m\phi +s_{m(c2)}^{+,\times }\sin m\phi
\right) \cos 2\phi ^{\prime } \notag \\
&&+\left( c_{m(s2)}^{+,\times }\cos m\phi +s_{m(s2)}^{+,\times }\sin m\phi
\right) \sin 2\phi ^{\prime } \notag \\
&&+\left( c_{m}^{+,\times }\cos m\phi +s_{m}^{+,\times }\sin m\phi \right)
\Biggr]\mathbf{,} \label{PN}
\end{eqnarray}
where the coefficients $c_{m(c4)}^{+,\times }$, $s_{m(c4)}^{+,\times
}$,$c_{m(c2)}^{+,\times }$, $s_{m(c4)}^{+,\times }$,
$c_{m}^{+,\times }$ and $s_{m}^{+,\times }$ depend on$\ $the radial
eccentricity $e_{r}$, the mass parameters $m$, $\mu $, $\eta $ and
the two polar angles $\Theta $ and $\Phi $ of the line of sight (see
Appendix E). We introduce the quantities
\begin{eqnarray}
\phi _{m}^{\pm 4} &=&m\phi \pm 4\phi ^{\prime }=m_{4\pm }\phi \mathbf{\ ,} \\
\phi _{m}^{\pm 2} &=&m\phi \pm 2\phi ^{\prime }=m_{2\pm }\phi \mathbf{\ ,} \\
\phi _{m} &=&m\phi \mathbf{\ ,}
\end{eqnarray}
with the real numbers $m_{4\pm }=m\pm 4\left( 1+\kappa _{1}\right)
$, $m_{2\pm }=m\pm 2\left( 1+\kappa _{1}\right) $ and coefficients
\begin{eqnarray}
C_{m,+,\times }^{\pm 4} &=&\frac{c_{m(c4)}^{+,\times }\mp
s_{m(s4)}^{+,\times }}{2}\mathbf{\ ,}\mathcal{\qquad }S_{m,+,\times }^{\pm
4}=\frac{s_{m(c4)}^{+,\times }\pm c_{m(s4)}^{+,\times }}{2}\mathbf{\ ,} \\
C_{m,+,\times }^{\pm 2} &=&\frac{c_{m(c2)}^{+,\times }\mp
s_{m(s2)}^{+,\times }}{2}\mathbf{\ ,}\mathcal{\qquad }S_{m,+,\times }^{\pm
2}=\frac{c_{m(c2)}^{+,\times }\pm s_{m(s2)}^{+,\times }}{2}\mathbf{\ .}
\end{eqnarray}
We can use the Hansen expansion for the generalized true anomalies as
\begin{equation}
\cos \lambda \phi =\sum_{k=0}^{\infty }C_{k}^{\lambda }\cos k\mathcal{M}
\mathcal{\qquad }\sin \lambda \phi =\sum_{k=0}^{\infty }S_{k}^{\lambda }\sin
k\mathcal{M}\mathbf{\ ,}
\end{equation}
with $C_{0}^{\lambda }=X_{0}^{0,\lambda }$, $C_{k}^{\lambda
}=X_{k}^{0,\lambda }+X_{-k}^{0,\lambda }$ and $S_{k}^{\lambda
}=X_{k}^{0,\lambda }-X_{-k}^{0,\lambda }$ where $X_{k}^{n,\lambda }$
are the generalized Hansen coefficients for the real number $\lambda
$ (since $\kappa _{1}$ is not integer) up to 1PN order. We note that
in the Keplerian case (where $\lambda $ is integer and
$e=e_{r}=e_{t}=e_{\theta }$) $\cos \lambda \phi $ and $\sin \lambda
\phi $ can be extended by trigonometric functions of $\cos \phi $ $\
$and $\sin \phi $. Using the Fourier coefficients containing
Bessel-functions (see e.g. \cite{Brumberg})\begin{eqnarray}
\cos \phi &=&-e+\frac{2(1-e^{2})}{e}\sum_{k=1}^{\infty }J_{k}(ke)\cos
\mathcal{M}, \label{Kepler1} \\
\sin \phi &=&2\sqrt{1-e^{2}}\sum_{k=1}^{\infty }\frac{J_{k}^{\prime }(ke)}{k
\sin k\mathcal{M}, \label{Kepler2}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\prime $ denotes the derivative with respect to the
eccentricity $e$. This 'classical' extension leads to an increasing
order of sums for the increasing value of $\lambda $. Note that Eqs.
(\ref{Kepler1}) and (\ref{Kepler2}) are not valid for the 1PN
motion. Therefore we extend Hansen coefficients up to 1PN order in
the next chapter.
\section{Generalization of Hansen coefficients}
The Hansen coefficients are well-known already since the 19th century in
celestial mechanics (see Appendix C). In our description of the
time-dependent waveforms there appear Hansen coefficients therefore it is
important to extend the Hansen expansion up to 1PN order. The $X_{k}^{n,m}$
Hansen coefficients appear in next series
\begin{equation}
\left( \frac{r}{a}\right) ^{n}\exp (im\phi )=\overset{\infty }{\underset
k=-\infty }{\sum }}X_{k}^{n,m}\exp (ik\mathcal{M}).
\end{equation}
The definition of Hansen coefficients are
\begin{equation}
X_{k}^{n,m}=\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{-\pi }{\overset{\pi }{\int }}\left(
\frac{r}{a}\right) ^{n}\exp (imv-ik\mathcal{M})d\mathcal{M}.
\end{equation
In the waveform there appear the harmonic functions of $m\phi $ where$\ m$
is not an integer parameter. So we have to generalize the formula of the
\textit{Keplerian} Hansen coefficients \cite{Jarnagin},
\begin{eqnarray}
X_{k}^{n,m} &=&(1+\beta ^{2})^{-n-1}\overset{\infty }{\underset{s=0}{\sum }
\overset{\infty }{\underset{t=0}{\sum }}\binom{n-m+1}{s} \notag \\
&&\times \binom{n+m+1}{t}\left( -\beta \right) ^{s+t}I_{k-m-s+t}(ke),
\label{jarnagin}
\end{eqnarray}
where $p=k-m-s+t$ is a index notation and $I_{p}(z)$ is the contour integra
\begin{equation}
I_{p}(z)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\oint u^{-1-p}\exp \frac{z\left( u-u^{-1}\right) }{
}du.
\end{equation}
It is evident if $p$ is\ an integer (\textit{i.e.} $m$ is integer)
then $I_{p}(z)=J_{p}(z)$ where $J_{p}(z)$ is the Bessel function
(\textit{e.g.} for the Newtonian waveform see \cite{mikoczi}). If
$p$ is not an integer then $I_{p}(z)=J_{p}(z)+g_{p}(z)$, where
$g_{p}(z)$ is the correction integral (\cite{WW})
\begin{equation}
g_{p}(z)=-\frac{\sin p\pi }{\pi }\underset{0}{\overset{\infty }{\int }}\exp
(-pu-z\sinh u)du
\end{equation}
for $R(z)>0$.
Due to the different eccentricities we have to generalize Hansen
coefficient in a different way for case of 1PN order. The mean
anomaly (see Eq. (\ref{dM}) in Appendix C) is
\begin{equation}
\frac{d\mathcal{M}}{du}=1-e_{t}\cos u.
\end{equation}
We have introduced the complex quantity $y=\exp iu$, then
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{r}{a} &=&\left( 1+\beta _{r}^{2}\right) ^{-1}(1-\beta _{r}y)(1-\beta
_{r}y^{-1}), \\
\frac{d\mathcal{M}}{du} &=&1-\frac{e_{t}}{2}\left( y+y^{-1}\right) ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\beta _{r}=\beta (e_{r})$ (see Appendix C, $\beta
=(1-\sqrt{1-e^{2}})/e$ is the parameter in celestial mechanics).
Then the integrand is
\begin{eqnarray}
\left( X_{k}^{n,m}\right) _{PN} &=&\frac{\left( 1+\beta _{r}^{2}\right) ^{-n
}{2\pi }\underset{-\pi }{\overset{\pi }{\int }}y^{m-k}(1-\beta
_{r}y^{-1})^{n+m}(1-\beta _{r}y)^{n-m} \notag \\
&&\times \left( 1-\frac{e_{t}\left( y+y^{-1}\right) }{2}\right) \exp \frac
ke_{t}\left( y-y^{-1}\right) }{2}du \label{intpn}
\end{eqnarray
which can be extended in a form of\ an infinite series of the sum.
Then the generalized Hansen coefficients for 1PN order are
\begin{eqnarray}
\left( X_{k}^{n,m}\right) _{PN} &=&(1+\beta _{r}^{2})^{-n}\overset{\infty }
\underset{s=0}{\sum }}\overset{\infty }{\underset{t=0}{\sum }}\binom{n-m}{s
\binom{n+m}{t}\left( -\beta _{r}\right) ^{s+t} \notag \\
&&\times \left[ I_{p}(ke_{t})-\frac{e_{t}}{2}\left(
I_{p-1}(ke_{t})+I_{p+1}(ke_{t})\right) \right] .
\end{eqnarray}
If we use a new index notation $j=t-s$ then generalized Hansen coefficients
for 1PN are
\begin{eqnarray}
\left( X_{k}^{n,m}\right) _{PN} &=&(1+\beta _{r}^{2})^{-n}\overset{s_{1}}
\underset{s=0}{\sum }}\overset{j_{1}}{\underset{j=-s}{\sum }}\binom{n-m}{s
\binom{n+m}{s+j}\left( -\beta _{r}\right) ^{j} \notag \\
&&\times \left[ I_{p}(ke_{t})-\frac{e_{t}}{2}\left(
I_{p-1}(ke_{t})+I_{p+1}(ke_{t})\right) \right] . \label{Jarnagin}
\end{eqnarray}
where $p=k-m+j$. We note that for an integer $m$ the square bracket in
second line of Eq. (\ref{Jarnagin}) can be written a
\begin{equation}
\lbrack ...]=\left( 1-\frac{p}{k}\right) J_{p}(ke_{t})+\frac{\sin (p\pi )}
k\pi }.
\end{equation}
Then the explicit time-dependent waveforms, Eq. (\ref{PN}), are
\begin{equation}
h_{+,\times }^{PN}(t)=\sum_{m=0}^{4}\sum_{k=0}^{\infty }\left( \mathcal{C
_{k}^{+,\times ,m}\cos k\mathcal{M}+\mathcal{S}_{k}^{+,\times ,m}\sin
\mathcal{M}\right) \mathbf{\ ,} \label{hhh}
\end{equation
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{C}_{k}^{+,\times ,m} &=&C_{m,+,\times
}^{-4}C_{k}^{m_{4-}}+C_{m,+,\times }^{+4}C_{k}^{m_{4+}}+C_{m,+,\times
}^{-2}C_{k}^{m_{2-}} \notag \\
&&+C_{m,+,\times }^{+2}C_{k}^{m_{2+}}+c_{m}^{+,\times }C_{k}^{m}, \\
\mathcal{S}_{k}^{+,\times ,m} &=&S_{m,+,\times
}^{-4}S_{k}^{m_{4-}}+S_{m,+,\times }^{+4}S_{k}^{m_{4+}}+S_{m,+,\times
}^{-2}S_{k}^{m_{2-}} \notag \\
&&+S_{m,+,\times }^{+2}S_{k}^{m_{2+}}+s_{m}^{+,\times }S_{k}^{m},
\end{eqnarray}
These waveform has significantly simpler structure than the corresponding
expressions in \cite{Tessmer}.
\section{Waveform in Fourier space}
The waveform in Fourier space can be described in the
\textit{stationary phase approximation} of the time-dependent
waveform (see Eqs. (B2) and (B3) in the Appendix B of
\cite{mikoczi}). Taking an arbitrary harmonic function
$\mathcal{A}(t)\cos \Phi (t)$, where $\mathcal{A}(t)$, $\Phi (t)$ is
the time-dependent amplitude and phase, respectively, and the
conditions $\mathcal{\dot{A}}/\mathcal{A}\ll \dot{\Phi}$ and
$\ddot{\Phi}\ll \dot{\Phi} ^{2}$ are satisfied, then the Fourier
transform of the function $\mathcal{A}(t)\cos \Phi (t)$ can be
written as
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{F}\left[ \mathcal{A}(t)\sin \Phi (t)\right] &=&\tfrac{\mathcal{A
\left[ f(\mathcal{T})\right] }{2}\sqrt{\tfrac{2\pi }{\left\vert \ddot{\Psi
\left[ f(\mathcal{T})\right] \right\vert }}e^{i\left( \Psi \left[ f(\mathcal
T})\right] +\frac{\pi }{4}\right) }\ , \label{int1} \\
\mathcal{F}\left[ \mathcal{A}(t)\cos \Phi (t)\right] &=&\tfrac{\mathcal{A
\left[ f(\mathcal{T})\right] }{2}\sqrt{\tfrac{2\pi }{\left\vert \ddot{\Psi
\left[ f(\mathcal{T})\right] \right\vert }}e^{i\left( \Psi \left[ f(\mathcal
T})\right] -\frac{\pi }{4}\right) }\ , \label{int2}
\end{eqnarray
where $\Psi \left[ f(\mathcal{T})\right] =2\pi f(\mathcal{T})t\left[
\nu (\mathcal{T})\right] -\Phi \left[ \nu (\mathcal{T})\right] $ is
the phasing function, $\mathcal{T}$ is the saddle point and the
functions $t\left[ \nu (\mathcal{T})\right] $ and $\Phi \left[ \nu
(\mathcal{T})\right] $ appearing in the above expressions can be
obtained from the leading order equations for gravitational
radiation by Appell functions (see the Appendix in \cite{mikoczi}).
It is necessary to add, that here the phase and frequency ($\Psi
_{n}$ and $\Psi _{n\pm }$) are not splitting into triplet due to
pericenter precession (it was a consequence of the appearance of
$\dot{\gamma}$, \textit{i.e.} \textit{heuristic precession} in
\cite{mikoczi}), because it is contained directly the 1PN equations
of motion (see the orbital parameter $k$). Therefore the 1PN
waveform depends on the single phase and frequency $\Psi _{n}$.
Accordingly, the waveform, Eq. (\ref{hhh}), in the Fourier space
becomes
\begin{eqnarray}
h_{+}^{PN}(f) &=&\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\tfrac{2\pi }{\left\vert \ddot{\Psi}\left[
f(\mathcal{T})\right] \right\vert }}\sum_{m=0}^{4}\sum_{k=0}^{\infty }\Biggl
\mathcal{C}_{k}^{+,m}\left[ f(\mathcal{T})\right] e^{i\left( \Psi \left[ f
\mathcal{T})\right] -\frac{\pi }{4}\right) } \notag \\
&&+\mathcal{S}_{k}^{+,m}\left[ f(\mathcal{T})\right] e^{i\left( \Psi \left[
f(\mathcal{T})\right] +\frac{\pi }{4}\right) }\Biggr], \\
h_{\times }^{PN}(f) &=&\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\tfrac{2\pi }{\left\vert \ddot{\Psi
\left[ f(\mathcal{T})\right] \right\vert }}\sum_{m=0}^{4}\sum_{k=0}^{\infty
\Biggl[\mathcal{C}_{k}^{\times ,m}\left[ f(\mathcal{T})\right] e^{i\left(
\Psi \left[ f(\mathcal{T})\right] -\frac{\pi }{4}\right) } \notag \\
&&+\mathcal{S}_{k}^{\times ,m}\left[ f(\mathcal{T})\right] e^{i\left( \Psi
\left[ f(\mathcal{T})\right] +\frac{\pi }{4}\right) }\Biggr],
\end{eqnarray}
with the stationary phase condition $\left\vert \ddot{\Psi}\left[
f(\mathcal{T})\right] \right\vert =2\pi n\dot{\nu}$ and the phasing
function $\Psi\left[ f(\mathcal{T})\right] =2\pi
ft(\mathcal{T})-\Phi _{n}(\mathcal{T})$. The above form can be
written as
\begin{eqnarray}
h_{+}^{PN}(f) &=&\frac{\left( n\dot{\nu}\right) ^{-1/2}}{2
\sum_{m,k=0}^{4,\infty }\Biggl[\mathcal{C}_{k}^{+,m}e^{i\Psi -}+\mathcal{S
_{k}^{+,m}e^{i\Psi +}\Biggr], \label{intt1} \\
h_{\times }^{PN}(f) &=&\frac{\left( n\dot{\nu}\right) ^{-1/2}}{2
\sum_{m,k=0}^{4,\infty }\Biggl[\mathcal{C}_{k}^{\times ,m}e^{i\Psi -}
\mathcal{S}_{k}^{\times ,m}e^{i\Psi +}\Biggr], \label{intt2}
\end{eqnarray}
where the phasing functions are $\Psi _{\pm }=2\pi
ft(\mathcal{T})-\Phi _{n}(\mathcal{T})\pm \pi /4$.
Afterwards we shall compute the phase $\Phi _{n}(\mathcal{T})$ and
time $t(\mathcal{T})$ functions appearing in the 1PN waveform.
\section{Radiation reaction to 1PN order}
To leading order the averaged radiative change of the semimajor axis and
eccentricity is governed by the quadrupole formula, see Peters \cite{Peters}.
In these equations the semimajor axis can be replace by the orbital
frequency using Kepler's third law to have the following expressions
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot{\nu}_{N} &=&\frac{48(G\mathcal{M}_{c})^{5/3}(2\pi \nu )^{11/3}}
5c^{5}\pi (1-e^{2})^{7/2}}\left( 1+\frac{73}{24}e^{2}+\frac{37}{96
e^{4}\right) , \\
\dot{e}_{N} &=&-\frac{304(G\mathcal{M}_{c})^{5/3}(2\pi \nu )^{8/3}}
15c^{5}(1-e^{2})^{5/2}}e\left( 1+\frac{121}{304}e^{2}\right) ,
\end{eqnarray
where $\mathcal{M}_{c}=m\eta ^{3/5}$ is the chirp mass of the binary system.
The above equations can be integrated and with the use of the exact solution
the phase and time functions can be expressed in terms of the \textit{Appell
functions} (see \cite{mikoczi}). Afterwards, we will compute 1PN corrections
to these equations.
The averaged losses of the radial orbital parameters due the
gravitational radiation reaction up to 1PN order is given by Junker
and Sch\"{a}fer \cite{Junker}. We have to use Kepler's third law in
1PN order relating the orbital frequency and semimajor axis as
\begin{equation}
a_{r}=\frac{\left( Gm\right) ^{1/3}}{(2\pi \nu )^{2/3}}\left( 1+\left( \eta
-9\right) \frac{\left( 2\pi Gm\nu \right) ^{2/3}}{3c^{2}}\right) .
\label{aa}
\end{equation}
The radiative evolution of the orbital frequency and eccentricity up to 1PN
order can be written as (in this chapter we omit the subscript $r$ of the radial eccentricity)
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot{\nu} &=&\dot{\nu}_{N}+\dot{\nu}_{PN}, \label{nudot} \\
\dot{e} &=&\dot{e}_{N}+\dot{e}_{PN}, \label{edot}
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot{\nu}_{PN} &=&\frac{(G\mathcal{M}_{c})^{7/3}\eta ^{-2/5}(2\pi \nu
)^{13/3}}{560c^{7}\pi (1-e^{2})^{9/2}}\Biggl[20368-14784\eta \notag \\
&&-24e^{2}(2561+2254\eta )-42e^{4}(3885+158\eta ) \notag \\
&&+e^{6}(-13147+1036\eta )\Biggr], \\
\dot{e}_{PN} &=&-\frac{(G\mathcal{M}_{c})^{7/3}\eta ^{-2/5}(2\pi \nu )^{10/3
}{2520c^{7}(1-e^{2})^{7/2}}e\Biggl[211944 \notag \\
&&-180320\eta -60e^{2}(11598+1001\eta ) \notag \\
&&+e^{4}(-168303+16940\eta )\Biggr].
\end{eqnarray
Thereafter we will find the perturbative solution to the above equations up
to 1PN order.
We get the relation between $\nu $ and $e$ from Eqs. (\ref{nudot})
and (\ref{edot}) up to 1PN order as
\begin{equation}
\frac{d\nu }{de}=\frac{\dot{\nu}_{N}}{\dot{e}_{N}}+\frac{\dot{\nu}_{PN}}
\dot{e}_{N}}-\frac{\dot{\nu}_{N}\dot{e}_{PN}}{\dot{e}_{N}^{2}}.
\label{dnude}
\end{equation
The exact general solution in the Newtonian order (without the two last
terms in the right hand side of Eq. (\ref{dnude})) is
\begin{equation}
\nu _{N}=\frac{Ce^{-18/19}\left( 1-e^{2}\right) ^{3/2}}{(1+\frac{121}{304
e^{2})^{1305/2299}},
\end{equation
where $\nu _{N}$ is the general Newtonian solution. Hereafter we use the
expression $\nu _{N}=\nu _{0}\sigma (e)/\sigma (e_{0})$ where the quantities
$\nu _{0}$ and$\ e_{0}$ are initial values for $\nu _{N}(e_{0})=\nu _{0}$
and $\sigma (e)=e^{-18/19}\left( 1-e^{2}\right) ^{3/2}(1+\frac{121}{304
e^{2})^{-1305/2299}$ is a shorthand notation. The perturbative Eq.
(\ref{dnude}) has the exact general solution (including the
Newtonian and 1PN
terms) in a mathematical sens
\begin{equation}
\nu =\left( b_{N}+b_{PN}\right) ^{-3/2}, \label{freqexact}
\end{equation
where the quantities $b_{N}$ and $b_{PN}$ ar
\begin{eqnarray}
b_{N} &=&\frac{Ce^{12/19}(1+\frac{121}{304}e^{2})^{870/2299}}{1-e^{2}}, \\
b_{PN} &=&\frac{(2\pi G\mathcal{M}_{c})^{2/3}}{c^{2}\eta ^{2/5}(1-e^{2})
\left( 1+\frac{121}{304}e^{2}\right) ^{870/2299} \notag \\
&&\times \Biggl[\frac{B_{1}+B_{2}e^{2}+B_{3}e^{4}}{(1+\frac{121}{304
e^{2})^{3169/2299}} \notag \\
&&+\,_{2}F_{1}\left( \frac{870}{2299},\frac{13}{19},\frac{32}{19};-\frac{12
}{304}e^{2}\right) B_{4}e^{2}\Biggr],
\end{eqnarray
with the coefficient
\begin{eqnarray}
B_{1} &=&\frac{1153}{3192}-\frac{89}{114}\eta , \notag \\
B_{2} &=&-\frac{2293125927}{558758080}+\frac{60619}{6984476}\eta , \notag \\
B_{3} &=&-\frac{86928802699}{93871357440}+\frac{129501097}{670509696}\eta ,
\notag \\
B_{4} &=&\frac{703\,785\,517}{4014\,235\,680}-\frac{49\,913}{735\,208}\eta .
\end{eqnarray
Here $_{2}F_{1}\left( \alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ;z\right) $ is the \textit
ordinary hypergeometric function}. These general solutions for $\nu (e)$ and
$a(e)$ are consistent with the 1PN order Kepler equation of (\ref{aa}),
strictly speaking if we solve similarly method the original radiation
reaction (equations of $\{\dot{a},$ $\dot{e}\}$ depending on the semimajor
axis) equation up to 1PN order with the use of Eq. (\ref{aa}) then we will
get an identity for semimajor axis $a$ (note that $a=b_{N}$ for Newtonian
order).
Let us identify the Newtonian expression $b_{N}^{-3/2}\equiv \nu
_{N}=C_{0}\sigma (e)$, where $C_{0}=\nu _{0}/\sigma (e_{0})$. The
integration constant $C$ has leading order corrections at 1PN order
so if we require the equation $\nu (e_{0})=\nu _{0}$ to hold, we get
the valid perturbative solution for the orbital frequency, Eq.
(\ref{freqexact}), to 1PN accuracy $\ $
\begin{equation}
\nu =\nu _{0}\frac{\sigma (e)}{\sigma (e_{0})}\left[ 1+\frac{3}{2}\nu
_{0}^{2/3}\left( b_{PN}(e_{0})-\left( \frac{\sigma (e)}{\sigma (e_{0})
\right) ^{2/3}b_{PN}(e)\right) \right] . \label{solfreq}
\end{equation}
Then our aim is to compute the time and phase function
\begin{eqnarray}
t-t_{c} &=&\int_{0}^{e}\frac{de^{\prime }}{\dot{e}(e^{\prime })}, \\
\Phi -\Phi _{c} &=&2\pi \int_{0}^{e}\frac{\nu (e^{\prime })}{\dot{e
(e^{\prime })}de^{\prime }
\end{eqnarray}
up to 1PN order. The integrals in the Newtonian case is given in
Appendix A of \cite{mikoczi},
\begin{eqnarray}
\left( t-t_{c}\right) _{N} &=&-\frac{15c^{5}\Lambda _{0}^{8/3}}{304(
\mathcal{M}_{c})^{5/3}}\left( \frac{\sigma (e_{0})}{2\pi \nu _{0}}\right)
^{8/3} \notag \\
&&\times \int_{0}^{e}\frac{e^{\prime 29/19}(1-e^{\prime 2})^{-3/2}de^{\prime
}}{\left( 1+\frac{121}{304}e^{\prime 2}\right) ^{-1181/2299}} \label{tN} \\
\left( \Phi -\Phi _{c}\right) _{N} &=&-\frac{15c^{5}\Lambda _{0}^{5/3}}{304(
\mathcal{M}_{c})^{5/3}} \notag \\
&&\times \int_{0}^{e}\frac{e^{\prime 11/19}}{(1+\frac{121}{304}e^{\prime
2})^{124/2299}}de^{\prime }, \label{PhiN}
\end{eqnarray}
where we have introduced the notation $\Lambda _{0}=\sigma
(e_{0})/(2\pi \nu _{0})$ which depends on the initial eccentricity
and orbital frequency. Such type of integrals can be given by
extended hypergeometric functions (\textit{i.e.} Appell functions),
\begin{eqnarray}
\left( t-t_{c}\right) _{N} &=&-\frac{15c^{5}\Lambda _{0}^{8/3}}{304(
\mathcal{M}_{c})^{5/3}} \notag \\
&&\times \frac{e^{1-\alpha }}{1-\alpha }F_{1}\left( \frac{1-\alpha }{2},\hat
\beta},-\gamma ,\frac{3-\alpha }{2};\delta e^{2},e^{2}\right) . \\
\left( \Phi -\Phi _{c}\right) _{N} &=&-\frac{15c^{5}\Lambda _{0}^{5/3}}{304(
\mathcal{M}_{c})^{5/3}} \notag \\
&&\times \frac{e^{1-\tilde{\alpha}}}{1-\tilde{\alpha}}F_{1}\left( \frac{1
\tilde{\alpha}}{2},\breve{\beta},0,\frac{3-\tilde{\alpha}}{2};\delta
e^{2},e^{2}\right) ,
\end{eqnarray
where $F_{1}\left( \alpha ,\beta ,\beta ^{\prime },\gamma
;x,y\right) $ is the Appell function (see \cite{WW}) and the
constants are $\alpha =-10/19, \tilde{\alpha}=8/19$,
$\breve{\beta}=124/2299,\hat{\beta}=-1181/2299,\gamma
=3/2,$ $\delta =$ $-121/304$ \footnote
We have used the following integral formula for the Appell function
$\int_{0}^{x}\frac{(1-x^{\prime 2})^{\gamma }}{x^{\prime \alpha
}\left(
1-\delta x^{\prime 2}\right) ^{\beta }}dx^{\prime }=\frac{x^{1-\alpha }}
1-\alpha }F_{1}\left( \frac{1-\alpha }{2},\beta ,-\gamma ,\frac{3-\alpha }{2
;\delta x^{2},x^{2}\right) $}. Similiar integrands appear in 1PN order. Then
we can compute the integrand of time function to 1PN order a
\begin{eqnarray}
\left( t-t_{c}\right) _{PN} &=&-\frac{5c^{3}\Lambda _{0}^{2}}{76G\mathcal{M
_{c}\eta ^{2/5}}\int_{0}^{e}\frac{e^{\prime 17/19}(1-e^{\prime 2})^{-3/2}}
\left( 1+\frac{121}{304}e^{\prime 2}\right) ^{\allowbreak -1181/2299}}
\notag \\
&&\times \Biggl[\newline
\frac{\tilde{B}_{1}+\tilde{B}_{2}e^{\prime 2}+\tilde{B}_{3}e^{\prime 2}}
\left( 1+\frac{121}{304}e^{\prime 2}\right) ^{3169/2299}} \notag \\
&&+\,_{2}F_{1}\left( \frac{870}{2299},\frac{13}{19},\frac{32}{19};-\frac{12
}{304}e^{\prime 2}\right) \tilde{B}_{4}e^{\prime 2}\Biggr]de^{\prime }
\notag \\
&&-4\nu _{0}^{2/3}b_{PN}(e_{0})\left( t-t_{c}\right) _{N}, \label{timeint}
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{B}_{1} &=&\frac{204288B_{1}-211944+180320\eta }{68096}, \notag \\
\tilde{B}_{2} &=&\frac{204288B_{2}+60(11598+1001\eta )}{68096}, \notag \\
\tilde{B}_{3} &=&\frac{204288B_{3}+168303-16940\eta }{68096}, \notag \\
\,\tilde{B}_{4} &=&3B_{4}.
\end{eqnarray}
Note that in Eq. (\ref{timeint}) the last term is coming from the solution
of the orbital frequency in Eq. (\ref{solfreq}). Computation of the integral
Eq. (\ref{timeint}) is difficult thus we use the approximation $_{2}F_{1}\left( \frac{870}{2299},\frac{13}{19},\frac{32}{19};-\frac{121}{304
e^{2}\right) \simeq 1$ because its limit is $1$ for $e\rightarrow 1$ and
0.9474$ for $e\rightarrow 1$. Then the time function is
\begin{eqnarray}
\left( t-t_{c}\right) _{PN} &\simeq &-\frac{5c^{3}\Lambda _{0}^{2}}{76
\mathcal{M}_{c}\eta ^{2/5}} \notag \\
&&\times \Biggl[\int_{0}^{e}\frac{e^{\prime 17/19}(1-e^{\prime 2})^{-3/2}
\tilde{B}_{1}+\tilde{B}_{2}e^{\prime 2}+\tilde{B}_{3}e^{\prime 4})}{\left( 1
\frac{121}{304}e^{\prime 2}\right) ^{\allowbreak 1988/2299}}\newline
de\prime \notag \\
&&+\tilde{B}_{4}\int_{0}^{e}\,\frac{e^{\prime 55/19}(1-e^{\prime 2})^{-3/2}}
\left( 1+\frac{121}{304}e^{\prime 2}\right) ^{\allowbreak -1181/2299}
de^{\prime }\Biggr] \notag \\
&&-4\nu _{0}^{2/3}b_{PN}(e_{0})\left( t-t_{c}\right) _{N}.
\end{eqnarray}
The final result is
\begin{eqnarray}
\left( t-t_{c}\right) _{PN} &\simeq &-\frac{5c^{3}\Lambda _{0}^{2}}{76
\mathcal{M}_{c}\eta ^{2/5}} \notag \\
&&\times \Biggl[\overset{2}{\underset{i=0}{\sum }}\frac{e^{\alpha _{i}}}
\alpha _{i}}F_{1}\left( \frac{\alpha _{i}}{2},\beta ,\gamma ,\frac{2+\alpha
_{i}}{2};\delta e^{2},e^{2}\right) \tilde{B}_{i} \notag \\
&&+\frac{e^{\alpha _{2}}}{\alpha _{2}}F_{1}\left( \frac{\alpha _{2}}{2},\hat
\beta},\gamma ,\frac{2+\alpha _{2}}{2};\delta e^{2},e^{2}\right) \tilde{B
_{4}\Biggr] \notag \\
&&-4\Gamma _{0}\left( t-t_{c}\right) _{N},
\end{eqnarray}
where we have introduced the shorthand notations $\gamma =3/2,\delta =$
-121/304,$ $\beta =1988/2299$, $\hat{\beta}=-1181/2299,$ $\ \alpha
_{i}=1-(\alpha _{0}+2i)$, $\alpha _{0}=17/19$ and $\Gamma _{0}=\nu
_{0}^{2/3}b_{PN}(e_{0})$. The phase function $\Phi -\Phi _{c}$ can be
computed similarly. The integrand of the phase function $\Phi -\Phi _{c}$ up
to linear order is \
\begin{eqnarray}
\left( \Phi -\Phi _{c}\right) _{PN} &=&-\frac{5c^{3}\Lambda _{0}}{76
\mathcal{M}_{c}\eta ^{2/5}}\int_{0}^{e}\frac{e^{\prime -1/19}}{(1+\frac{121}
304}e^{\prime 2})^{124/2299}} \notag \\
&&\times \Biggl[\frac{\hat{B}_{1}+\hat{B}_{2}e^{\prime 2}+\hat{B
_{3}e^{\prime 4}}{(1+\frac{121}{304}e^{\prime 2})^{3169/2299}} \notag \\
&&+\,_{2}F_{1}\left( \frac{870}{2299},\frac{13}{19},\frac{32}{19};-\frac{12
}{304}e^{\prime 2}\right) \hat{B}_{4}e^{\prime 2}\Biggr]de^{\prime } \notag
\\
&&-\frac{15}{2}\Gamma _{0}\left( \Phi -\Phi _{c}\right) _{N},
\label{phaseint}
\end{eqnarray}
where we have introduced the quantities $\hat{B}_{i}=\tilde{B}_{i}-9B_{i}/8$.
We use the above approximation $_{2}F_{1}(..)\simeq 1$, thus the final
form of the phase function is
\begin{eqnarray}
\left( \Phi -\Phi _{c}\right) _{PN} &\simeq &-\frac{5c^{3}\Lambda _{0}}{76
\mathcal{M}_{c}\eta ^{2/5}} \notag \\
&&\Biggl[\overset{2}{\underset{i=0}{\sum }}\frac{e^{\tilde{\alpha}_{i}}}
\tilde{\alpha}_{i}}F_{1}\left( \frac{\tilde{\alpha}_{i}}{2},\tilde{\beta},0
\frac{2+\tilde{\alpha}_{i}}{2};\delta e^{2},e^{2}\right) \hat{B}_{i} \notag
\\
&&+\frac{e^{\tilde{\alpha}_{2}}}{\tilde{\alpha}_{2}}F_{1}\left( \frac{\tilde
\alpha}_{2}}{2},\hat{\beta},0,\frac{2+\tilde{\alpha}_{2}}{2};\delta
e^{2},e^{2}\right) \hat{B}_{4}\Biggr] \notag \\
&&-\frac{15\Gamma _{0}}{2}\left( \Phi -\Phi _{c}\right) _{N},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\gamma =3/2,\delta =$ $-121/304,$ $\tilde{\beta}=3293/2299$, $\hat
\beta}=-1181/2299,$ $\tilde{\alpha}_{i}=1-(\tilde{\alpha}_{0}+2i)$ and
\tilde{\alpha}_{0}=-1/19$. These constants are summarized in Table
I. In summary, the time and phase function up to 1PN are
\begin{eqnarray}
t-t_{c} &=&t_{N}+t_{PN} \\
\Phi -\Phi _{c} &=&\Phi _{N}+\Phi _{PN}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
t_{N} &=&-\frac{15c^{5}\Lambda _{0}^{8/3}}{304(G\mathcal{M}_{c})^{5/3}
F(e,\alpha ,\hat{\beta},\gamma ,\delta ), \notag \\
t_{PN} &=&-\frac{5c^{3}\Lambda _{0}^{2}}{76G\mathcal{M}_{c}\eta ^{2/5}
\Biggl[\overset{3}{\underset{i=1}{\sum }}F(e,\alpha _{i},\beta ,\gamma
,\delta )\tilde{B}_{i} \notag \\
&&+F(e,\alpha _{2},\hat{\beta},\gamma ,\delta )\tilde{B}_{4}\Biggr]-4\Gamma
_{0}t_{N}, \notag \\
\Phi _{N} &=&-\frac{15c^{5}\Lambda _{0}^{5/3}}{304(G\mathcal{M}_{c})^{5/3}
F(e,\tilde{\alpha},\breve{\beta},0,\delta ), \notag \\
\Phi _{PN} &=&-\frac{5c^{3}\Lambda _{0}}{76G\mathcal{M}_{c}\eta ^{2/5}
\Biggl[\overset{3}{\underset{i=1}{\sum }}F(e,\tilde{\alpha}_{i},\hat{\beta
,0,\delta )\hat{B}_{i} \notag \\
&&+F(e,\tilde{\alpha}_{2},\tilde{\beta},0,\delta )\hat{B}_{4}\Biggr]-\frac{1
}{2}\Gamma _{0}\Phi _{N}.
\end{eqnarray
with $\Lambda _{0}=\sigma (e_{0})/(2\pi \nu _{0})$, $\Gamma _{0}=\nu
_{0}^{2/3}b_{PN}(e_{0})$ and the function $F(e,\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta )\doteq
F_{1}\left( \frac{\alpha }{2},\beta ,\gamma ,\frac{2+\alpha }{2};\delta
e^{2},e^{2}\right) e^{\alpha }/\alpha $. \footnote
It can be noticed that $F(e,\tilde{\alpha}_{N},\tilde{\beta}_{N},0,\delta
)=_{2}F_{1}(...)$ for $\Phi _{N}$ and $\Phi _{PN}$}
The qualitative behavior of the orbital evolution is presented in
Figures 1-3.
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{Constants of the time and phase functions.}
\label{constants
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c}
\hline\hline
$\delta =$ $-\frac{121}{304}$ & N & PN \\ \hline
$t-t_{c}$ & \multicolumn{1}{|l}{$\gamma =\frac{3}{2}$} & \multicolumn{1}{|l}{
\gamma =\frac{3}{2}$} \\
& \multicolumn{1}{|l}{$\hat{\beta}=-\frac{1181}{2299}$} & \multicolumn{1}{|l}
$\beta =\frac{1988}{2299}$} \\
& \multicolumn{1}{|l}{$\alpha =-\frac{10}{19}$} & \multicolumn{1}{|l}{$\alpha
_{0}=\frac{17}{19}$, $\alpha _{1}=\frac{55}{19}$, $\alpha _{2}=\frac{93}{19}
} \\ \hline
$\Phi -\Phi _{c}$ & \multicolumn{1}{|l}{$\gamma =0$} & \multicolumn{1}{|l}{
\gamma =0$} \\
& \multicolumn{1}{|l}{$\breve{\beta}=\frac{124}{2299}$} & \multicolumn{1}{|l}
$\tilde{\beta}=\frac{3293}{2299}$} \\
& \multicolumn{1}{|l}{$\tilde{\alpha}=\frac{8}{19}$} & \multicolumn{1}{|l}{
\tilde{\alpha}_{0}=\frac{1}{19}$, $\tilde{\alpha}_{1}=\frac{37}{19}$,
\tilde{\alpha}_{2}=\frac{75}{19}$} \\ \hline\hline
\end{tabular
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[height=4cm]{eccentricityloss2.eps}
\caption{(color online). Comparison of the analytical and numerical results for the evolution of the eccentricity. The initial eccentricity is $e_{0}=0.6$, the masses of binary are $m_{i}=10^{6}(1+z)M_{\odot }$ with
redshift $z=1$. The inspiral starts one year before the
\textit{last stable orbit (LSO)} calculated in the Newtonian order which corresponds to the
initial frequency $\protect\nu _{0}=8.09\protect\mu \mathrm{Hz}$. In the Newtonian case the
dotted black line denotes the analytic, while the gray line the numeric solution.
For the 1PN orbital evolution the analytic and numeric solutions are denoted by the dotdashed and red lines, respectively. It can be seen that the perturbative solution is in perfect agreement with the numerical one.}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[height=4cm]{tpn.eps}
\caption{(color online). The time function for various initial eccentricities. Newtonian and 1PN expressions are denoted by solid (black) and dashed (red) lines, respectively. The masses of the components are $m_{i}=10^{6}(1+z)M_{\odot }$ with redshift $z=1$. The inspiral time is set to 1 year before LSO calculated in the Newtonian order.}
\label{fig3}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[height=4cm]{phipn.eps}
\caption{(color online). The phase functions for various initial eccentricities.
Newtonian and 1PN expressions are denoted by solid (black) and dashed (red) lines, respectively.
The masses of the components are $m_{i}=10^{6}(1+z)M_{\odot }$ with redshift $z=1$. The
inspiral time is set to 1 year before LSO calculated in the Newtonian order.}
\label{fig4}
\end{figure}
\section{Summary}
In our work we have investigated the orbital evolution and emitted radiation of binary systems on eccentric orbits up to 1PN order. Both the time and frequency domain waveforms are presented in a simple form with use the generalized true anomaly parameterization. To express the time dependence of the waveforms the Hansen coefficients were generalized to 1PN accuracy. Moreover, the radiation reaction problem and the evolution of the time and phase functions are given to 1PN accuracy.
\acknowledgments This work was supported by the Hungarian Scientific
Research Fund (OTKA) grant No. K101709. B.M. was supported by the
Postdoctoral Fellowship Programme, and M.V. by the J\'{a}nos Bolyai
Research Scholarship, of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Partial
support comes from "NewCompStar", COST Action MP1304.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{section:intro}
We consider an equity market with asset capitalizations $\mathfrak{X}(t) =
(X_1(t), . . . ,X_n(t))' \in (0,\infty)^n$ at time $t \in [0,\infty)$, and with local covariation rates \label{p:i}$\alpha( t,\mathfrak{X}) = \left( \alpha_{ij} (t,\mathfrak{X})\right) _{1\le i,j\le n}$ and local relative risk rates $\vartheta(t,\mathfrak{X}) = \left( \vartheta_1(t,\mathfrak{X}), . . . , \vartheta_n(t,\mathfrak{X})\right)'$, which are nonanticipative functionals of (i.e., are determined by) the past and present capitalizations for any given time $t$. We denote by \label{p:S+}$\mathbb{S}_{+}(n)$ is the space of real, symmetric and positive-definite $n \times n$ matrices, fix a collection $\{\mathcal{K}(y)\}_{y\in (0,\infty) \}}$ of nonempty, compact and convex subsets on $\mathbb{R}^n \times \mathbb{S}_{+}(n)$, and pose the following question:
\smallskip
{\it If the pair $\left( \vartheta(t,\mathfrak{X}),\alpha(t,\mathfrak{X})\right) $ is restricted to take values in a given nonempty subset $\mathcal{K}\left( \mathfrak{X}(t)\right) $ of $ \mathbb{R}^n \times \mathbb{S}_{+}(n) $, what is the highest return on investment relative
to the market portfolio over the given time horizon $[0,T]$\label{p:T}, that can be achieved using nonanticipative investment rules, when starting with initial capitalizations \label{p:x}$x=(x_1,\dots,x_n)'\in (0,\infty)^n$, and
with probability one under all possible market model configurations with the above covariance and relative risk structure? }
Equivalently, if the initial configuration of asset capitalizations is $x=(x_1,\dots,x_n)$, what is the smallest
proportion of the initial total market capitalization $x_1+\dots+x_n$\,, starting with which one can match or outperform the market capitalization over a given time horizon $[0,T]$, by using nonanticipative investment rules, and
with probability one under all possible market model configurations with the above covariance and relative risk structure?
\smallskip
Our main result offers the following answers to these two questions: $1/\mathfrak{u}(T,x)$ and $\mathfrak{u}(T,x)$, respectively. Here the function $\mathfrak{u}: [0,\infty) \times \mathbb{R}_+^n\to(0, 1]$ is, subject to appropriate conditions that will be specified as we progress, a {\it viscosity solution} to the \textsc{Cauchy} problem for the {\it H{\scriptsize AMILTON}-J{\scriptsize ACOBI}-B{\scriptsize ELLMAN} (HJB)} fully nonlinear partial differential equation
\begin{equation}\label{eq:PDE}
\big(u_t-\widehat{\mathcal{L}}u\big)(t,x) = 0\,,\quad (t,x) \in (0, \infty)\times \mathbb{R}_{+}^n
\end{equation}
of parabolic type, subject to the initial condition
\begin{equation}\label{eq:initial cond}
u(0\,,\cdot) = 1\,,\quad x \in \mathbb{R}_{+}^n\,.
\end{equation}
Here we are using the notation
\begin{equation}\label{eq:hatL}
\widehat{\mathcal{L}} u(t,x)\,:=\, \sup_{a\in \mathcal{A}(x)} \mathcal{L}_{a}u(t,x)\,,\quad \mathcal{L}_{a}u(t,x)\,
:=\,\sum_{i,j} x_i x_j a_{ij} \left(\frac{D^2_{ij}}{2} + \frac{D_i}{||x||_1}\right) u(t,x)\,,
\end{equation}
for $(t,x) \in (0, \infty)\times \mathbb{R}_{+}^n$ with $a=(a_{ij})_{1\le i,j\le n}$\,; we are also using the $\,\ell^1$-norm\label{p:l1} $\,||x||_1:=\sum_i x_i\,$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:A}
\mathcal{A}(x):= \big\{a\in \mathbb{S}_{+}(n): \exists\ \theta \in \mathbb{R}^n\ \text{s.t.}\ (\theta, a) \in \mathcal{K}(x)\big\}
\end{equation}
and employ the notation $D_{i}u=u_{x_i}$\label{p:D_i}\,, $D^2_{ij}u=u_{x_i x_j}\,$, and
\label{p:R_+^n}$\,\mathbb{R}_{+}^n:=(0,\infty)^n$.
Furthermore, the above function $\mathfrak{u}$ is dominated by any nonnegative classical supersolution of this \textsc{Cauchy} problem; thus, it is the smallest nonnegative classical supersolution of this \textsc{Cauchy} problem, whenever it is of class $\, C\left( [0,\infty) \times\mathbb{R}_{+}^n \right) \, \cap\, C^{1,2}\left( (0,\infty) \times\mathbb{R}_{+}^n \right)$.
\smallskip
The function $\mathfrak{u}$ is called the {\it arbitrage function} for a model with uncertainty, in the terminology of \cite[Sections 1 and 4]{FK11}; this extends the arbitrage function $\mathfrak{u}_{\mathcal{M}}$ for a specified model $\mathcal{M}$ in the terminology of \cite[Section 6]{FK10}. In \cite{FK11} the authors characterized the arbitrage function $\mathfrak{u}$ as a classical solution of the HJB equation \eqref{eq:PDE}, subject to the initial condition of \eqref{eq:initial cond}, but under much stronger assumptions on the uncertainty structure; see Theorem \ref{thm:Knightian} below.
\smallskip
Under much weaker conditions than in \cite{FK11}, we develop here a different characterization of the arbitrage function $\mathfrak{u}$, as a viscosity solution to the \textsc{Cauchy} problem of \eqref{eq:PDE}, \eqref{eq:initial cond}. We first prove in Theorems \ref{thm:viscosity1} and \ref{thm:viscosity2} that the function $\widehat{\Phi}$ -- defined as the supremum of $\mathfrak{u}_{\mathcal{M}}$ over all possible market models $\mathcal{M}$ that satisfies certain strong Markov property ({\it strongly Markovian admissible systems} in Definition \ref{def:MM}) -- and the function ${\Phi}$ --
defined as the supremum of $\mathfrak{u}_{\mathcal{M}}$ over all possible market models $\mathcal{M}$ -- are viscosity subsolution and viscosity supersolution of this \textsc{Cauchy} problem, respectively.
Moreover, we show in Theorem \ref{thm:u=Phi} that the function $\mathfrak{u}$ coincides with ${\Phi}$, if this latter function is continuous. As a consequence, the function $\mathfrak{u}$ is shown to be a viscosity supersolution of (\ref{eq:PDE}), and further, a viscosity solution of (\ref{eq:PDE}) if $\Phi\equiv \widehat{\Phi}^*$ (the {\em upper-semicontinuous envelope} of $\Phi$\,; see \eqref{eq:u^*}).
\subsection{Preview}
Section \ref{section:notation} sets up the model for an equity market with model uncertainty regarding its covariance and relative risk characteristics, and Section \ref{section:previous} interprets the variables in this model, introduces the concepts of investment rules and portfolios as well as the notion of arbitrage function, and reviews the results of \cite{FK11}.
Section \ref{section:visc} recalls the definition of viscosity solutions, states our main results and discusses related work. Section \ref{section:subsol} characterizes the function $\widehat{\Phi}$ as a viscosity subsolution -- and further, in Section \ref{section:supersol}, the function ${\Phi}$ as a viscosity supersolution -- to the \textsc{Cauchy} problem of \eqref{eq:PDE}, \eqref{eq:initial cond}.
Section \ref{section:u} provides conditions, under which the arbitrage function $\mathfrak{u}$ coincides with the function ${\Phi}$ (Theorems \ref{thm:min} and \ref{thm:u=Phi}), and thus becomes a viscosity solution to the \textsc{Cauchy} problem \eqref{eq:PDE}, \eqref{eq:initial cond}. Furthermore, these conditions imply that, if $\mathfrak{u}$ is of class $C\left( [0,\infty) \times\mathbb{R}_{+}^n \right) \, \cap\, C^{1,2}\left( (0,\infty) \times\mathbb{R}_{+}^n \right) $, it is a classical solution and in fact the smallest nonnegative (super)solution of this \textsc{Cauchy} problem (Corollary \ref{coro:u sol}). Additional results, namely, Propositions \ref{prop:suff} and \ref{prop:u_M supersol}, provide conditions on the covariance and relative risk structure, under which $\mathfrak{u}\equiv{\Phi}\equiv\widehat{\Phi}$ and it is indeed the smallest nonnegative (super)solution of this \textsc{Cauchy} problem.
\smallskip
Section \ref{appendix:min} develops the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:min}.
Section \ref{section:example} concludes with examples from the (generalized) volatility-stabilized model of \cite{FK05}, \cite{Pi}. Finally, Appendix \ref{section:subsol2} presents an alternative proof for the viscosity characterizations of the functions $\widehat{\Phi}$ and ${\Phi}$.
\section{Notation and Terminology}\label{section:notation}
We shall fix the dimension $n$, let
$\Omega:= C([0,\infty); \mathbb{R}_+^n)$ be the canonical space of continuous paths \label{p:omega}$\omega: [0,\infty) \to \mathbb{R}_+^n$ equipped with the topology of locally uniform convergence.
We shall also
denote by \label{p:calF}$\mathcal{F}$ the Borel $\sigma$-field of $\Omega$\,,
and \label{p:bbF}$\mathbb{F} = \{\mathcal{F}(t)\}_{0\le t<\infty}$ the raw filtration generated by the canonical process \label{p:B} $\mathfrak{B}(t,\omega):=\omega(t)$.
We shall let $\, \mathbf{ 0} = (0, \cdots, 0)'$ denote the origin in $\mathbb{R}^n$, and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:K}
\mathbb{K}=\{\mathcal{K}(y)\}_{y\in [0,\infty)^n\backslash \{\mathbf{ 0}\}}
\end{equation}
be a collection of nonempty, compact and convex subsets on $\mathbb{R}^n \times \mathbb{S}_{+}(n)$ (recall that $\mathbb{S}_{+}(n)$ is the space of real, symmetric, positive-definite $n \times n$ matrices). We denote by \label{p:frakK}$\,\mathfrak{K}\,$ the collection of pairs $(\sigma, \vartheta)$ consisting of progressively measurable functionals $\sigma = (\sigma_{ik})_{n\times n} : [0,\infty)\times \Omega \to {\mathrm{GL}}(n)$\label{p:sigma} and $\vartheta = (\vartheta_1,\dots,\vartheta_n)^\prime : [0,\infty)\times \Omega \to \mathbb{R}^n$, such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:integrability}
\big(\vartheta(T,\omega),\alpha(T,\omega)\big) \in \mathcal{K}(\omega(T))
\qquad \text{and} \qquad
\int_0^T \left(||\vartheta(t,\omega)||^2 +\mathrm{Tr}(\alpha(t,\omega))\right)\mathrm{d}t <\infty
\end{equation}
hold for all $\omega \in \Omega$, $T \in (0,\infty)$, where
\begin{equation}\label{eq:alpha}
\alpha := \sigma \sigma^\prime \,.
\end{equation}
Here and throughout the paper, $\, \prime \,$\label{p:prime} denotes transposition and \label{p:GL(n)} ${\mathrm{GL}}(n)$ the space of $n\times n$ invertible real matrices.
\begin{definition}
{\bf Admissible Systems \cite[Sections 1 and 2]{FK11}:} \label{def:M}
{\rm
For a given $x = (x_1, \dots, x_n)'\in \mathbb{R}_{+}^n\,$, we
shall call {\em{admissible system}}, subject to the {\em{Knightian uncertainty}} $\,\mathbb{K}$ with initial configuration $x$, a quintuple $\mathcal{M}= (\sigma,\vartheta, \mathbb{P }, W, \mathfrak{X})$ consisting of
\smallskip
\noindent
{\bf (i)} a pair $(\sigma,\vartheta)\in \mathfrak{K}$\,; of\\
{\bf (ii)} a probability measure $\mathbb{P}$ on the measurable space $(\Omega,\mathcal{F} )$; of \\
{\bf (iii)} an $n$-dimensional $\mathbb{F}-$Brownian motion $W(\cdot) = (W_1(\cdot), \dots, W_n(\cdot))'$ on the filtered probability space $(\Omega, \mathcal{F}, \mathbb{P}), \mathbb{F}$\,; and of \\
{\bf (iv)} a continuous, $\mathbb{F}-$adapted
process $\,\mathfrak{X}(\cdot) = (X_1(\cdot), \dots, X_n(\cdot))'$ with values in $\mathbb{R}_{+}^n\,$ and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:SDE}
\mathrm{d}X_i(t) = X_i(t)\sum_k \sigma_{ik}(t,\mathfrak{X}) \big(\vartheta_k(t,\mathfrak{X})\, \mathrm{d}t + \mathrm{d}W_k(t) \big)\,,\ \ \ \ i = 1,\dots,n\,,\ \ \ \ \mathfrak{X}(0)=x\,.
\end{equation}
The integrability condition \eqref{eq:integrability} guarantees that the process $\mathfrak{X}(\cdot)$ indeed takes values in $\mathbb{R}_{+}^n\,$, $\mathbb{P}-$a.s.
\smallskip
We shall write $\sigma^{\mathcal{M}}, \vartheta^{\mathcal{M}}, \mathbb{P}^{\mathcal{M}}, W^{\mathcal{M}}$\label{p:^M} and $\mathfrak{X}^{\mathcal{M}}$ for the elements $\sigma,\vartheta, \mathbb{P }, W$ and $\mathfrak{X}$ of the quintuple $\mathcal{M}$, respectively, and \label{p:M(x)}$\mathfrak{M}(x)$ for the collection of admissible systems with initial configuration $x \in \mathbb{R}_{+}^n\,$. \qed
}
\end{definition}
In Definition \ref{def:M} and throughout this paper, all vectors are assumed to be column vectors, and summations to extend from $1$ to $n$\,.
\begin{definition}\label{def:MM}
{\bf Strongly Markovian Admissible Systems:}
{\rm
For a given initial configuration $x \in \mathbb{R}_+^n\,$, we
shall call {\em{strongly Markovian admissible system}}, subject to the Knightian uncertainty $\,\mathbb{K}$ with initial configuration $x$, an admissible system $\mathcal{M}=(\sigma,\vartheta, \mathbb{P}, W, \mathfrak{X})\in \mathfrak{M}(x)$ satisfying:
\noindent
{\bf (i)}
the functionals $\sigma$ and $\vartheta$ are {\it Markovian} and {\it time-homogeneous}, i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Markovian}
\sigma(t,\omega)=\mathbf{s}(\omega(t))=(\mathbf{s}_{ij}(\omega(t)))_{1\le i,j\le n}\quad \mathrm{and}\quad \vartheta(t,\omega)=\boldsymbol{\theta}(\omega(t))=(\boldsymbol{\theta}_1(\omega(t)),\dots,\boldsymbol{\theta}_n(\omega(t)))'
\end{equation}
for some measurable functions $\mathbf{s}: \mathbb{R}_+^n\to {\mathrm{GL}}(n)$ and $\boldsymbol{\theta}: \mathbb{R}^n_+\to \mathbb{R}^n$; and
\noindent
{\bf (ii)}
for every $y\in \mathbb{R}_{+}^n$\,, there exists an admissible system $\mathcal{M}^y\in \mathfrak{M}(y)$ with the same $\mathbf{s}(\cdot)$ and $\boldsymbol{\theta}(\cdot)$ as in ${\mathcal{M}}$, and a strongly Markovian state process $\mathfrak{X}(\cdot)$.
We shall denote by $\,{\widehat{\mathfrak{M}}}(x)\,$ the subcollection of $\mathfrak{M}(x)$ consisting of all strongly Markovian admissible systems with initial configuration $x$.
}\qed
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
{\rm
It follows from the Markovian selection results of \textsc{Krylov} (see \cite{K73}, \cite[Chapter 12]{SV} and \cite[Theorem 5.4]{EK}) that,
if the collection of subsets $\mathbb{K}$ satisfies the linear growth condition
\begin{equation} \label{eq:KLinearGrow}
\sup_{(\theta,a)\in \mathcal{K}(y),\,b=\varsigma\theta,\, \varsigma\varsigma'=a}
\left[\sum_{i,j}y_i y_j a_{ij} +\sum_i (y_i b_i)^2\right]
\le C(1+||y||)^2, \ \ \forall ~ y\in [0,\infty)^n \backslash \{\mathbf{ 0}\}\,,
\end{equation}
for some constant $C>0$\,, then the state process $\mathfrak{X}(\cdot)$ can be chosen to be
strongly Markovian under $\mathbb{P}^{\mathcal{M}}$ for any admissible system $\mathcal{M}$ with Markovian and time-homogeneous $\sigma$ and $\vartheta$ as in \eqref{eq:Markovian}.
} \qed
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}\label{rmk:nonemptyM}
{\rm
{\bf (i)} A sufficient condition for
$\, \widehat{\mathfrak{M}} (x)\neq \emptyset \,$ to hold for all $x\in \mathbb{R}_+^n$\,, is that there exist locally \textsc{Lipschitz} functions $\mathbf{s}(\cdot)$ and $\boldsymbol{\theta}(\cdot)$ satisfying Condition (i) of Definition \ref{def:MM}, that
$\big(\boldsymbol{\theta}(y),\mathbf{s}(y)\mathbf{s}'(y)\big)$ $\in \mathcal{K}(y) $ for all $y\in \mathbb{R}^n_+$\,,
and that $\mathbf{s}(\cdot)$ and $\mathbf{b}(\cdot):=\mathbf{s}(\cdot)\boldsymbol{\theta}(\cdot)$ are linearly growing, i.e., \begin{equation} \label{eq:linearGrowth}
||\mathbf{s}(y)||+||\mathbf{b}(y)||\le C(1+ ||y||)\quad {\mathrm{for\ all\ }} y\in \mathbb{R}^n_+\,,
\end{equation}
for some real constant $\, C>0\,$. Under this condition and for any $x\in \mathbb{R}^n_+$\,, the SDE \eqref{eq:SDE} with the $\sigma$ and $\vartheta$ as in \eqref{eq:Markovian}, always has a pathwise unique, strong solution starting at $x$ (\cite[Theorem 5.2.2]{FR}; \cite[p.\,8]{T}).
\smallskip
{\bf (ii)} In particular, if
$\mathcal{K}(y)=\left\{\big(\boldsymbol{\theta}(y),\mathbf{s}(y)\mathbf{s}'(y)\big)\right\}$ for all $y\in \mathbb{R}^n_+$ with such $\mathbf{s}$ and $\boldsymbol{\theta}$, then we have $\, {\mathfrak{M}}(x) = \widehat{\mathfrak{M}}(x)\neq \emptyset\,$ for all $x\in \mathbb{R}_+^n$\,.
} \qed
\end{remark}
\section{Interpretation and Previous Results}\label{section:previous}
The above variables can be interpreted in a model for an equity market with $n$ assets, say stocks, as follows:
\smallskip
\noindent
\textbf{(i)} $\mathfrak{X}(t)$ as the vector of capitalizations for the various assets $i=1, \cdots, n$ at time $t\,$, and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:X(t)}
X(t)\,:=\,\sum_i X_i(t)
\end{equation}
as the total capitalization at that time; \\ \textbf{(ii)} $W(\cdot)$ as the vector of independent factors (sources of randomness) in the resulting model; \\
\textbf{(iii)} $\sigma_{ik}(t,\mathfrak{X}), \, k=1, \cdots, n\,$ as the local volatilities for the $i$th asset at time $\,t\,$; \\
\textbf{(iv)} $\alpha_{ij}(t,\mathfrak{X})$\label{p:alpha_{ij}} as the local covariation rate between assets $i$ and $j$ at time $\,t\,$; \\
\textbf{(v)} $~\vartheta(t,\mathfrak{X})$ as the vector of local market prices of risk at time $\,t\,$; and \\
\textbf{(vi)} \label{p:beta}$\beta(t,\mathfrak{X}):=(\sigma\vartheta)(t,\mathfrak{X})$ as the vector of local rates of return at time $t\,$\,.
\subsection{Investment Rules and Portfolios}
Consider now an investor who is ``small", in the sense
that his actions have no effect on market prices. Starting with initial fortune $v > 0$\label{p:v}, he uses a rule that invests a proportion ${\it \Pi}_i (t,\mathfrak{X})$\label{p:Pi_i} of current wealth in the $i$-th asset of the equity market at time $t \in [0,\infty)$ $(i = 1, \dots, n)$, and holds the remaining proportion in cash -- or equivalently in a zero-interest money market.
\smallskip
We shall call {\it investment rule} a progressively measurable functional \label{p:P}${\it \Pi}=({\it \Pi}_1,\,\cdots,{\it \Pi}_n)': [0,\infty)\times\Omega \to \mathbb{R}^n$\label{p:Pi} satisfying
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Pi}
\int_0^T \big(\left|{\it \Pi}^\prime(t,\omega) \sigma (t,\omega)\vartheta(t,\omega)\right| + {\it \Pi}^\prime(t,\omega) \alpha (t,\omega) {\it \Pi}(t,\omega)\big)\,\mathrm{d}t <\infty\ \ \quad {\mathrm{for\ all\ }} \,\,T \in(0,\infty)\,,\ \omega\in \Omega\,,
\end{equation}
and denote by $ \mathfrak{P}$ the set of all such (nonanticipative) investment rules.
\smallskip
We shall call an investment rule ${\it \Pi}$ {\it bounded}\label{p:bdd}, if ${\it \Pi}$ is bounded uniformly on $[0,\infty)\times \Omega$\,; for a bounded investment rule, the requirement \eqref{eq:Pi} is satisfied automatically,
on the strength of \eqref{eq:integrability}.
\smallskip
We shall call an investment rule ${\it \Pi}$ a {\it portfolio,}\label{p:portfolio} if $\sum_i {\it \Pi}_i=1$ on $[0,\infty)\times \Omega$\,; in other words, if it never invests, in or borrows
from, the money market.
We shall call a portfolio ${\it \Pi}$ {\it long-only}\label{p:long} if ${\it \Pi}_i\ge 0$\,, $i=1,\dots,n$ also holds on this domain, that is, it never sells any stock short. A long-only portfolio is also bounded, since it satisfies $0\le {\it \Pi}_i\le 1$\,, $i=1,2,\dots,n$.
\medskip
\noindent
$\bullet~$
Given an initial wealth $v$, an investment rule ${\it \Pi}$ and an admissible
model $\mathcal{M}\in \mathfrak{M}(x)$, the resulting wealth process $Z(\cdot):=Z^{\,v,{\it \Pi}}(\cdot)$
satisfies the initial condition
$Z(0)=v $ and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Z}
\frac{\mathrm{d}Z(t)}{Z(t)}
= \sum_{i} {\it \Pi}_i(t,\mathfrak{X}) \frac{\mathrm{d}X_i(t)}{X_i(t)}
= {\it \Pi}'(t,\mathfrak{X})\sigma(t,\mathfrak{X}) \left[\vartheta(t,\mathfrak{X})\, \mathrm{d} t+ \mathrm{d}W(t) \right] \,,\quad \mathrm{by}\ \eqref{eq:SDE}\,.
\end{equation}
\subsection{The Market Portfolio}
In the special case with
\begin{equation}\label{eq:mu}
{\it \Pi}_i(t,\omega)\,\equiv \, {\mu}_i(t,\omega)\,:=\, \frac{\omega_i(t)}{ \,\omega_1(t) + \cdots + \omega_n(t)\,} \,, \qquad \forall \,\,\,\, i=1, \cdots, n\,, \,\,\,0 \le t<\infty\,,
\end{equation}
we have ${\mu}_i(\cdot\,,\mathfrak{X})=X_i(\cdot)/X(\cdot)$: the resulting strategy $\, \mu\,$ invests in all stocks in proportion to their relative market weights. We call the resulting strategy ${\it \Pi} \equiv \mu $ the (long-only) {\it market portfolio\label{p:mu}.} It follows from the first equality in the dynamics \eqref{eq:Z} that investing according to the market portfolio
amounts to owning the entire market, in proportion of course to the initial wealth: $Z^{\,v,\mu}(\cdot)=vX(\cdot)/X(0)$.
\subsection{The Arbitrage Function}
With these ingredients in place, we define the {\em{arbitrage function}}\label{p:arbitrageFn}
$\mathfrak{u}: [0,\infty)\times \mathbb{R}_{+}^n \to (0,1]$, as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:u}
&\ \ \ & \mathfrak{u}(T, x) := \inf \left\{r >0 : \exists\, {\it \Pi} \in \mathfrak{P}\ \text{s.t.}\ \mathbb{P}^{\mathcal{M}} \left[Z^{\,rX^{\mathcal{M}}(0),{\it \Pi}}(T) \ge X^{\mathcal{M}}(T) \right]= 1\,, \,\,\forall\, \,\mathcal{M}\in \mathfrak{M}(x)\right\}.
\end{eqnarray}
For the strict positivity of this quantity, see \eqref{eq:u>=Phi} below. \qed
\smallskip
We call the function $\mathfrak{u}(\cdot,\cdot)$ the arbitrage function because, for the initial configuration $x=(x_1,\dots,x_n)'\in \mathbb{R}_+^n$ of asset capitalizations, the quantity $\mathfrak{u}(T, x)$ can be thought of as the smallest proportion of the initial total market capitalization $x_1+\cdots+x_n$\,, starting with which one can find a nonanticipative investment rule, whose performance matches or outperforms that of the market portfolio over the time horizon $[0,T]$, with probability one under all admissible systems. Equivalently, $\mathfrak{u}(T, x)$ can be thought of as the reciprocal of the highest return on investment relative to the market portfolio over the time horizon $[0,T]$, that can be achieved using nonanticipative investment rules when starting with the vector $x=(x_1,\dots,x_n)' \in \mathbb{R}_{+}^n$ of initial capitalizations, and with probability one under all admissible systems.
\smallskip
Given an admissible system $\mathcal{M} =(\sigma,\vartheta, \mathbb{P }, W, \mathfrak{X}) \in \mathfrak{M}(x)$, we define the stochastic discount factor $L(\cdot)$ as the associated exponential $\,\mathbb{P}-$local martingale
\begin{equation}\label{eq:L=exp}
L(t)\, :=\, \exp\left(-\int_0^t\vartheta^\prime (s,\mathfrak{X})\, \mathrm{d}W(s) - \int_0^t \frac{1}{\,2\,} \,\big|\big|\vartheta(s,\mathfrak{X})\big|\big|^2 \mathrm{d}s\right), \quad 0\leq t < \infty\,.
\end{equation}
This process is well-defined and a strictly positive $\,\mathbb{P}-$local martingale (thus a $\,\mathbb{P}-$supermartingale), on the strength of the integrability condition \eqref{eq:integrability}; {\it but is not necessarily a $\,\mathbb{P}-$martingale}. It plays the r\^{o}le of a state-price-density or ``deflator" in the present context. We also write $L^{\mathcal{M}}(\cdot)$\label{p:L^M} for this $L(\cdot)$ under $\mathcal{M}$ when needed.
\smallskip
Assuming that $\, \widehat{\mathfrak{M}}(x)\neq \emptyset\,$ holds for all $\, x\in \mathbb{R}_+^n\,$, we consider the functions
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Phi}
\Phi(T, x) := \sup_{\mathcal{M}\in \mathfrak{M}(x)} \mathfrak{u}_{\mathcal{M}}(T, x) \qquad {\mathrm{and}} \qquad
\widehat{\Phi}(T, x) := \sup_{\mathcal{M}\in \widehat{\mathfrak{M}}(x)} \mathfrak{u}_{\mathcal{M}}(T, x)
\end{equation}
for $\, (T, x)\in [0,\infty)\times \mathbb{R}_{+}^n\,$, where
\begin{equation}\label{eq:um}
\mathfrak{u}_{\mathcal{M}}(T, x) \,:= \,\mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{P}^{\mathcal{M}}} \left[L^{\mathcal{M}}(T)X^{\mathcal{M}}(T)\right] /\, ||x||_1
\end{equation}
(recall the $\,\ell^1$-norm $\,||x||_1=\sum_i x_i\,$) and the total capitalization \begin{equation}\label{eq:X^M(T)}
X^{\mathcal{M}}(T):=||\mathfrak{X}^{\mathcal{M}}(T)||_1=\sum_i X^{\mathcal{M}}_i(T)\,.
\end{equation}
As was shown in \cite[Section 10, pp.\,127--129]{FK09}, \cite{KS}, or \cite{R11}, the quantity $\mathfrak{u}_{\mathcal{M}}(T, x)$ in \eqref{eq:um} is obtained by fixing an admissible system $\mathcal{M}$ in the definition \eqref{eq:u} of $\mathfrak{u}$\,, namely,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:u_M}
\mathfrak{u}_{\mathcal{M}}(T, x) \,= \,\inf \left\{r >0 : \exists\ {\it \Pi} \in \mathfrak{P}\ \ \text{s.t.}\ \ \mathbb{P}^{\mathcal{M}} \left[Z^{\,rX^{\mathcal{M}}(0),{\it \Pi}}(T) \ge X^{\mathcal{M}}(T) \right]= 1\right\} \in ( 0,1]\,.
\end{equation}
This can be interpreted as the reciprocal of the highest return on investment over the time horizon $[0,T]$, that can be achieved relative to the market portfolio in the context of the model $\mathcal{M}$, by using nonanticipative strategies and starting with the vector $x$ of initial capitalizations. It can also can be interpreted as the {\em{arbitrage function for}} $\mathcal{M}$\label{p:u_M} in the terminology of \cite[Section 6]{FK10}, at least when $(\mathbb{P}, \mathbb{F})$-martingales can be represented as stochastic integrals with respect to the $W(\cdot)$ in \eqref{eq:SDE}.
Since the processes $L(\cdot)$ and $X(\cdot)$ are strictly positive, so is the function $\mathfrak{u}_{\mathcal{M}}(\cdot\,,\cdot)$ for all admissible system $\mathcal{M}$.
It then follows from the definitions \eqref{eq:u}--\eqref{eq:u_M} that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:u>=Phi}
1\ge \mathfrak{u}(T, x)\ge \Phi(T,x) \ge \widehat{\Phi}(T,x)>0\,,\ \ \ \ \ \forall \ (T, x)\in [0,\infty)\times \mathbb{R}_{+}^n\,.
\end{equation}
\begin{remark}\label{rmk:u<1}
{\rm
{\bf Strong Arbitrage:}
If $ \mathfrak{u} (T,x) <1 $, then a
{\it strong arbitrage} relative to the market portfolio in the terminology of \cite[Definition 6.1]{FK09} exists on $[0,T]$ with the initial capitalizations $x$. Such strong arbitrage is {\it robust}\label{p:robust}, that is, holds under every possible admissible system or model that might materialize.
Instances of $ \mathfrak{u} (T,x) <1 $ with $ T\in (0,\infty)$ occur when there exists a real constant $C>0 $ such that either
\begin{equation*}
\inf_{a\in \mathcal{A}(y)} \left( \sum_{i} \frac{y_i a_{ii}}{y_1+ \cdots+ y_n} - \sum_{i,j} \frac{y_i y_j a_{ij}}{(y_1 + \cdots+ y_n )^2 } \right) \ge C
\end{equation*}
or
\begin{equation*}
\frac{(y_1 \cdots y_n )^{1/n}}{y_1 + \cdots+ y_n} \cdot \inf_{a\in \mathcal{A}(y)}
\left( \sum_{i} a_{ii} - \frac{1}{\,n\,} \sum_{i,j}
a_{ij}\right) \ge C
\end{equation*}
holds for every $y \in\mathbb{R}_+^n $ (recall $\mathcal{A}(\cdot)$ from \eqref{eq:A} and see \cite[Examples 11.1, 11.2]{FK09}, \cite{FK05} and \cite{FKK}).
} \qed
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}\label{rmk:NUPBR}
{\rm
{\bf No Unbounded Profits with Bounded Risk:}
The inequality $\mathfrak{u}(T, x)>0$ in \eqref{eq:u>=Phi} rules out scalable arbitrage opportunities, also known as
{\it Unbounded Profits with Bounded Risk (UPBR)}. We refer the reader to \cite{DSch} for the origin of the resulting ``No Unbounded Profit with Bounded Risk" (NUPBR) concept, and to \cite{KK} for an elaboration of this point in a different context, namely, the existence and properties of the so-called ``num\'{e}raire" portfolio.
} \qed
\end{remark}
\subsection{Previous Results}
The Knightian uncertainty in the above model
shares a lot with the uncertainty regarding the underlying volatility structure of assets in \cite{Lyons}.
The approach in \cite{FK11} is reminiscent of the \textsc{Dubins-Savage} (\cite{DS}) and \textsc{Sudderth} (\cite{HOPS}, \cite{OPS}, \cite{PS}, \cite{SW}) approaches to stochastic optimization.
The arbitrage function $\,\mathfrak{u}\,$ of \eqref{eq:u} was characterized in \cite{FK11} as a classical solution and in fact, the smallest nonnegative classical (super)solution of the \textsc{Cauchy} problem \eqref{eq:PDE}, \eqref{eq:initial cond}, but under rather strong assumptions on the uncertainty structure (see Theorem \ref{thm:Knightian} below), which amount to:
$\Phi\equiv \mathfrak{u}_{\mathcal{M}}$ for some strongly Markovian admissible system ${\mathcal{M}}$, and
$\mathfrak{u}_{\mathcal{M}}$ solves \eqref{eq:PDE}.
\begin{theorem}\cite[Proposition 3, Remark 2]{FK11}\label{thm:Knightian}
We have
$\mathfrak{u}\equiv\Phi$ on $[0, \infty)\times \mathbb{R}_{+}^n$\,, and
in fact, this function is the smallest nonnegative (super)solution of \eqref{eq:PDE}, \eqref{eq:initial cond}, if there exists a strongly Markovian admissible system $\mathcal{M}_o$ under which EITHER:
\smallskip
\noindent
{\bf (i)}
the functions $\mathbf{s}$ and $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ of \eqref{eq:Markovian} are locally L{\scriptsize IPSCHITZ}, and
\noindent
{\bf (ii)}
the function $u(t,x):=\mathfrak{u}_{\mathcal{M}^x_o}(t,x)$, which, by \cite[Theorem 4.7]{R13}, is of class $C^{1,2}$ and solves
\begin{equation}\label{eq:a}
\left( u_t-\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{a}(x)}u\right) (t,x)=0\quad \mathrm{with}\quad \mathbf{a}(x):=\mathbf{s}(x)\mathbf{s}'(x)\,, \quad (t,x)\in (0, \infty)\times\mathbb{R}_{+}^n\quad
\end{equation}
($\mathcal{M}^x_o:=(\mathcal{M}_o)^x$; recall Definition \ref{def:MM} for $\mathcal{M}^y$ and \eqref{eq:hatL} for $\mathcal{L}_{a}$),
is a classical supersolution of \eqref{eq:PDE};
\medskip
OR both of the following conditions hold:
\smallskip
\noindent
{\bf (i)$^\prime$} the functions $\mathbf{s}$ and $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ of \eqref{eq:Markovian} are continuous,
\noindent
{\bf (ii)$^\prime$}
there exists a positive constant $C$ such that\, $$\sum_{i,k}y_i|\mathbf{s}_{ik}(y)\boldsymbol{\theta}_k(y)| \,\le \,C(1+||y||)$$ holds for all $y\in \mathbb{R}_{+}^n\,,$
\noindent
{\bf (iii)$^\prime$}
there exists a $C^2$-function $\mathbf{h}:\mathbb{R}_{+}^n \to \mathbb{R}$ such that $\,\boldsymbol{\theta}_k(y)=\sum_i y_i \mathbf{s}_{ik}(y)D_i\mathbf{h}(y)$, $\,k=1,\dots,n\,,$
\noindent
{\bf (iv)$^\prime$} the function
$$\mathscr{G}(t,x)\,:=\, \mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{P}^{\mathcal{M}^x_o}}\left[\mathscr{F}(\mathfrak{X}(t))\exp\left( \int_0^t \mathscr{K} \big(\mathfrak{X}(t) \big) \right) \right] \in C\left( [0,\infty)\times \mathbb{R}_{+}^n\right) \cap C^{1,2}\left( (0,\infty)\times \mathbb{R}_{+}^n\right), $$
where
$$\mathscr{F}(y)\,:=\,\frac{1}{\,2\,}\sum_{i,j} \mathbf{a}_{ij}(y)\left[ D^2_{ij}\mathbf{h}+D_i\mathbf{h}\cdot D_j\mathbf{h}\right](y) \qquad \text{ and } \qquad \mathscr{K}(y)\,:=\,||y||_1\exp \big(-\mathbf{h}(y)\big)\, , $$
and
\smallskip
\noindent
{\bf (v)$^\prime$} the function $ \mathscr{U}(t,x)\,:=\,\mathscr{G}(t,x)\,/\mathscr{F}(x)$ is a classical supersolution of \eqref{eq:PDE}.
\end{theorem}
A natural question to ask then, is whether the arbitrage function $\mathfrak{u}$ of \eqref{eq:u} is still a solution to \eqref{eq:PDE},
perhaps in some weak or generalized sense, when regularity and other conditions are weakened. The answer turns out to be affirmative, though it is somewhat indirect; it is provided in Theorems \ref{thm:viscosity1}, \ref{thm:viscosity2} and Corollary \ref{coro:u sol} below.
\section{Viscosity Characterizations of the functions ${\Phi}$ and $\widehat{\Phi}$}
\label{section:visc}
We first recall from \cite{CIL} the definition of viscosity (sub/super)solutions for a second-order parabolic partial differential equation, and then state our main results with a discussion of related results.
\subsection{Viscosity (Super/sub)solution of a Second-order Parabolic PDE}
Let $\mathcal{O}$\label{p:O} be an open subset of $\mathbb{R}^n$, let $\mathbb{S}(n)$\label{p:S(n)} be the set of $n\times n$ real symmetric matrices, and consider a continuous, real-valued mapping $(t,x,r,p,q) \mapsto F(t,x,r,p,q)$\label{p:F} defined on $(0,\infty)\times \mathcal{O}\times \mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{R}^n\times \mathbb{S}(n)$ and satisfying the {\it ellipticity condition}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ellipticity}
\ F(t,x,r,p,q_1) \leq F(t,x,r,p,q_2) {\mathrm{ \ \ whenever\ }} \ q_1 \geq q_2\,,\quad {\mathrm{for\ all\ }}(t,x,r,p) \in (0,\infty)\times \mathcal{O}\times \mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{R}^n.
\end{equation}
Consider the second-order parabolic partial differential equation
\begin{equation}\label{eq:F}
u_t + F\left(t,x,u(t,x),Du(t,x),D^2 u(t,x)\right) = 0\,,\quad (t,x)\in (0,\infty)\times \mathcal{O}
\end{equation}
with the gradient $Du=(u_{x_1}, u_{x_2}, \dots, u_{x_n})'$ and the Hessian $D^2 u=(u_{x_i x_j})_{n\times n}$\label{p:Du}\,.
\begin{definition}\label{def:viscosity sol}
{\bf Viscosity Solution:}
{\bf (i)} We say that a function $\,u :(0,\infty) \times \mathcal{O}\to \mathbb{R}\,$ is a {\bf viscosity subsolution} of the equation \eqref{eq:F}, if
\begin{equation}\label{eq:F<=0}
\varphi_t + F\left(t_0,x_0,u^*(t_0,x_0),D\varphi(t_0,x_0),D^2 \varphi(t_0,x_0)\right)\leq 0
\end{equation}
holds for all $(t_0,x_0)\in (0,\infty) \times \mathcal{O}$ and test functions $\varphi \in C^{1,2}\left( (0,\infty) \times \mathcal{O}\right) $ such that $(t_0,x_0)$ is a (strict) (local) maximum of $\,u^*-\varphi\,$ on $(0,\infty) \times \mathcal{O}$. We have denoted here by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:u^*}
u^*(t,x) := \limsup_{(s,y)\rightarrow (t,x)} u(s,y),\ \ \ \ (t,x)\in (0,\infty)\times \mathcal{O}
\end{equation}
the {\em upper-semicontinuous envelope} of $u$, i.e., the smallest upper-semicontinuous function that dominates pointwise the function $u$.
{\bf (ii)} Similarly, we say that $\,u :(0,\infty) \times \mathcal{O}\to \mathbb{R}\,$ is a {\bf viscosity supersolution} of \eqref{eq:F}, if
\begin{equation}\label{eq:F>=0}
\varphi_t + F\left(t_0,x_0,u_*(t_0,x_0),D\varphi(t_0,x_0),D^2 \varphi(t_0,x_0)\right)\geq 0
\end{equation}
holds for all $(t_0,x_0)\in (0,\infty) \times \mathcal{O}$ and test functions $\varphi \in C^{1,2}\left( (0,\infty) \times \mathcal{O}\right) $ such that $(t_0,x_0)$ is a (strict) (local) minimum of $\,u_*-\varphi\,$ on $(0,\infty) \times \mathcal{O}$. We have denoted here by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:u_*}
u_*(t,x) : = \liminf_{(s,y)\rightarrow (t,x)} u(s,y),\ \ \ \ (t,x)\in (0,\infty)\times \mathcal{O}
\end{equation}
the {\em lower-semicontinuous envelope} of $u$, i.e., the largest lower-semicontinuous function dominated pointwise by the function $u$.
{\bf (iii)} Finally, we say that $\,u :(0,\infty) \times \mathcal{O}\to \mathbb{R}\,$ is a {\bf viscosity solution} of \eqref{eq:F}, if it is both a viscosity subsolution and a viscosity supersolution of this equation.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}\label{rmk:u*}
{\rm
The above definition implies that $u$ is a viscosity subsolution (supersolution) of \eqref{eq:F} if and only if $u^*$ ($u_*$) is a viscosity subsolution (supersolution) of this equation.
} \qed
\end{remark}
\subsection{Main Results}
In our setting we have $\mathcal{O}\,=\,\mathbb{R}_{+}^n$ and
\begin{equation} \label{eq:ourF}
F(t,x,r,p,q) \,=\, - \sup_{a\in \mathcal{A}(x)} \left( \sum_{i,j} x_i x_j a_{ij} \left(\frac{q_{ij}}{2} + \frac{p_i}{||x||_1}\right)\right)\
\end{equation}
for $\,q=(q_{ij})_{1\le i,j\le n}\,,\ p=(p_1,\dots,p_n)',$ and thus the left-hand sides of \eqref{eq:F<=0} and \eqref{eq:F>=0} simplify to $\big(\varphi_t-\widehat{\mathcal{L}}\varphi \big)(t_0,x_0)$ in the notation of \eqref{eq:hatL}.
Since each matrix $a$ in the collection $ \mathcal{A}(x)$ of \eqref{eq:A} is positive-definite, we deduce that the matrix $(x_i x_j a_{ij})_{n\times n}$ $ = x^\prime a x$ is always positive-definite, and hence $F$ satisfies the ellipticity condition \eqref{eq:ellipticity}.
In the results that follows, we shall also need $F$ to be a continuous mapping, as well as the following conditions:
\begin{asmp} {\bf Local Boundedness:}
\label{asmp1}
The collection $\mathbb{K}$ of \eqref{eq:K}
is {\rm locally bounded} on $\mathbb{R}_{+}^n\,$; that is, for any $x\in \mathbb{R}_{+}^n$\,, there exists a neighborhood $\mathcal{D}(x)\subset \mathbb{R}_{+}^n$\label{p:D(x)} of $x$ such that $\,\bigcup_{y\in \mathcal{D}(x)}\mathcal{K}(y)$ is bounded.
\end{asmp}
\begin{asmp} {\bf Continuity:}
\label{asmp2}{\rm
For any $\iota>0$\,, $x\in \mathbb{R}_{+}^n$ and $a=\left(a_{ij} \right)_{1\le i,j\le n}\in \mathcal{A}(x)$, there exist a positive number $\delta<\iota$ and locally \textsc{Lipschitz} functions $\mathbf{s}: \mathbb{R}_+^n\to {\mathrm{GL}}(n)$ and $\boldsymbol{\theta}: \mathbb{R}^n_+\to \mathbb{R}^n$ such that $\mathbf{s}(\cdot)$ and $\mathbf{b}(\cdot):=\mathbf{s}(\cdot)\boldsymbol{\theta}(\cdot)$ are linearly growing (i.e., satisfy the condition \eqref{eq:linearGrowth}), and that for $\mathbf{a}(\cdot)=\left(\mathbf{a}_{ij}(\cdot) \right)_{1\le i,j\le n} :=\mathbf{s}(\cdot)\mathbf{s}'(\cdot)$, we have
$\big(\boldsymbol{\theta}(y),\mathbf{a}(y)\big)$ $\in \mathcal{K}(y) $ for all $y\in \mathbb{R}^n_+$ and
\begin{equation} \label{eq:continuous a}
|\mathbf{a}_{ij}(y) - a_{ij}|<\iota\,,\quad 1\le i,j\le n\,, \quad {\mathrm{for\ all}}\ y\in B_{\delta}(x)\,.
\end{equation}
}
\end{asmp}
\noindent
{\it Remark:}
All of the conditions in Assumption \ref{asmp2}, except for \eqref{eq:continuous a}, are inspired by Remark \ref{rmk:nonemptyM}. The aim is to guarantee the existence of an admissible system with the functional $\sigma(t,\omega)=\mathbf{s}(\omega(t))$, as in \eqref{eq:Markovian}. \qed
\smallskip
We have then the following results.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:viscosity1}
{\bf Viscosity Subsolution:} Suppose that the real-valued function $F$ of \eqref{eq:ourF} is continuous on $(0,\infty) \times \mathbb{R}_+^n\times \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^n\times \mathbb{S}(n)$, and that Assumption \ref{asmp1} holds.
The function $\widehat{\Phi}$ of \eqref{eq:Phi} is then a viscosity subsolution of the HJB equation \eqref{eq:PDE}, and thus a viscosity subsolution of the C{\scriptsize AUCHY} problem \eqref{eq:PDE}, \eqref{eq:initial cond}, since it satisfies $\widehat{\Phi}(0,\cdot)=1$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:viscosity2}
{\bf Viscosity Supersolution:}
Suppose that the real-valued function $F$ of \eqref{eq:ourF} is continuous on $(0,\infty) \times \mathbb{R}_+^n\times \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^n\times \mathbb{S}(n)$, and that Assumptions \ref{asmp1} and \ref{asmp2} hold.
The function $\Phi$ of \eqref{eq:Phi} is then a viscosity supersolution of the HJB equation \eqref{eq:PDE}, and thus a viscosity supersolution of the C{\scriptsize AUCHY} problem \eqref{eq:PDE}, \eqref{eq:initial cond}, since it satisfies $\Phi(0,\cdot)=1$.
\end{theorem}
\subsection{Discussion of Related Work}
These results echo similar themes from the literature on models with an analogous type of uncertainty, under which the functionals $\sigma$ and $\vartheta$ are {\it fixed}; instead, the uncertainty comes from a {\it control} process $\mathcal{C}(\cdot)$.
At any time $t$, the values of $\sigma$ and $\vartheta$ are determined not only by the present capitalizations $\mathfrak{X}(t)$, but also by the present value $\mathcal{C}(t)$ of the control process $\mathcal{C}$, i.e., the local volatility matrix and the relative risk vector at time $t$ are $\sigma(\mathfrak{X}(t),\mathcal{C}(t))$ and $\vartheta(\mathfrak{X}(t),\mathcal{C}(t))$, respectively.
A control process is a progressively measurable process that takes values in a given subset $\Gamma$ of some Euclidean space and satisfies certain integrability condition.
\smallskip
Among those papers in the literature are the ground-breaking works \cite{L83a}--\cite{L84} by \textsc{P.L. Lions}, specifically,
\cite[Theorem III.1]{L84} (or \cite[Theorem I.1]{L83b}). These impose much stronger assumptions on the volatility and drift structure: namely, $\sup_{\gamma\in\Gamma} ||h(\cdot,\gamma)||_{W^{2,\infty}(\mathbb{R}^n)}< \infty$,
and continuity of $h(x,\cdot)$ for all $x$, where \label{p:h}$h=\sigma_{ik},\beta_i$\,, $1\le i,k\le n$\,.
A similar result was proved in \cite[Theorem 4.1]{ST}, but under the stronger assumptions that both functions $\sigma$ and $\beta$ be bounded and \textsc{Lipschitz}, that the analogue in their formulation of the function $F$ of \eqref{eq:ourF} be locally \textsc{Lipschitz}, and that the set $\Gamma$ be compact.
\smallskip
If the functions $\alpha_{ij}(\cdot,\gamma)$ $( \gamma\in \Gamma, 1\le i,j\le n)$ are all of class $C^{1,\eta}_{\mathrm{loc}}\left(\mathbb{R}_+^n\right)$ for some constant \label{p:eta}$\eta\in (0,1]$, then in \cite[Theorem 3.3]{BH}, and more generally, in \cite[Theorem 2.1]{KR}, the asymptotic-growth-optimal trading strategy is characterized in terms of a generalized version of the principal eigenvalue of the following fully nonlinear elliptic operator and its associated eigenfunction:
$$\widetilde{\mathcal{L}} u (t,x)\, :=\, \frac{1}{\,2\,}\sum_{i,j} x_i x_j a_{ij} D^2_{ij} u(t,x) \,.
$$
For a model with {\it no} uncertainty and with local volatility matrix $\sigma(\mathfrak{X}(t))$ and relative risk vector $\vartheta(\mathfrak{X}(t))$ at time $t$, the viscosity characterization was obtained in \cite[Proposition 4.5]{BHS} but with additional local \textsc{Lipschitz} condition on $\sigma$ and $\vartheta$. This (local) \textsc{Lipschitz} condition is also a typical assumption in previous literature on stochastic control and dynamic programming, e.g., \cite{BT}, \cite{HL} and \cite{T} (it is even assumed in \cite{FV} that $\sigma(y,\gamma)$ and $\vartheta(y,\gamma)$ are continuous and twice differentiable in $y$).
\smallskip
In the one-dimensional case $(n=1)$ with {\it zero} drift $(\beta\equiv 0)$ but {\it no} uncertainty, the authors of \cite{CHSZ} removed the local \textsc{Lipschitz} condition and hence chose not to pursue a viscosity characterization; instead, provided that the function $\sigma$ is continuous and satisfies $\int_{1}^{\infty} x\sigma^{-2}(x)\,\mathrm{d}x =\infty\,$,
they approximated the arbitrage function by classical solutions to \textsc{Cauchy} problems \cite[Theorem 5.3]{CHSZ}.
\section{The Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:viscosity1}: Viscosity Subsolution}
\label{section:subsol}
We first highlight the main idea without many of the technicalities.
We argue by contradiction, assuming the negation of \eqref{eq:F<=0} in Definition \ref{def:viscosity sol} with the function $F$ as in \eqref{eq:ourF}: namely, that there exist $\varphi \in C^{1,2}\left( (0,\infty) \times \mathbb{R}_{+}^n\right)$ and $(t_0,x_0) \in (0,\infty) \times \mathbb{R}_{+}^n$, such that $(t_0,x_0)$ is a strict maximum of $ \, \widehat{\Phi}^* - \varphi \,$; that the maximal value is equal to zero; and that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:hatG>0}
\big(\varphi_t-\widehat{\mathcal{L}}\varphi\big) (t_0,x_0)>0\,.
\end{equation}
It follows from the definition \eqref{eq:u^*} of $\widehat{\Phi}^*$ that we can take a pair $(t^*,x^*)$ close to $(t_0,x_0)$ such that the nonnegative difference $\big(\varphi-\widehat{\Phi}\big) (t^*,x^*)$ is sufficiently small, say less than a small positive constant $C_3$\,; further, by the definition \eqref{eq:Phi} of $\widehat{\Phi}$, we can take an admissible system $\mathcal{M}^{x^*}\in \widehat{\mathfrak{M}}(x^*)$ such that $0\le \big(\widehat{\Phi}-\mathfrak{u}_{\mathcal{M}^{x^*}} \big)(t^*,x^*)<C_3$\,. Therefore $0\le(\varphi-\mathfrak{u}_{\mathcal{M}^{x^*}} )(t^*,x^*)<2\,C_3$\,.
Under this system, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:xphi>E[LXphi]}
||x^*||_1\,\varphi(t^*,x^*)
- \mathbb{E} \left[L(\rho)X(\rho)\varphi \big(t^*-\rho,\mathfrak{X}(\rho)\big)\right]
=\, \mathbb{E} \left[\int_0^{\rho} L(s)X(s)\, g\big(t^*-s,s,\mathfrak{X}\big)\, \mathrm{d}s \right] >0\,,
\end{equation}
for any sufficiently small positive stopping time $\rho$\,, where
$$g(t,s,\mathfrak{X}) := (\varphi_t-\mathcal{L}_{\alpha(s,\mathfrak{X})}\varphi)\left(t,\mathfrak{X}(s)\right) \ge \big(\varphi_t-\widehat{\mathcal{L}}\varphi\big)\left(t,\mathfrak{X}(s)\right)$$ for $(t,s) \in (0, \infty)\times [0, \infty)$ and with
$\mathcal{L}_{a}$ and $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}$ as in \eqref{eq:hatL}. This displayed quantity is positive for any sufficiently small $s$, and $t$ sufficiently close to $t^*$, by virtue of \eqref{eq:hatG>0} and the continuity of the function $F$ in \eqref{eq:ourF}.
\smallskip
On the other hand, on the left-hand side of \eqref{eq:xphi>E[LXphi]} we can estimate $\varphi(t^*,x^*)$ from above by $\mathfrak{u}_{\mathcal{M}^{x^*}}(t^*,x^*)+2\,C_3$\,, and $\varphi \big(t^*-\rho,\mathfrak{X}(\rho)\big)$ from below by $\widehat{\Phi}\big(t^*-\rho,\mathfrak{X}(\rho)\big)+C_2$ (for some $\omega$'s in $\Omega$) or by $\widehat{\Phi}\big(t^*-\rho,\mathfrak{X}(\rho)\big)$ (for other $\omega$'s in $\Omega$) with $C_2$ a small positive constant; this allows us to deduce
\begin{equation}\label{eq:xu>E[LXPhi]}
||x^*||_1 \, \mathfrak{u}_{\mathcal{M}^{x^*}}(t^*,x^*)> \mathbb{E} \left[L(\rho)X(\rho)\, \widehat{\Phi}\big(t^*-\rho,\mathfrak{X}(\rho)\big)\right].
\end{equation}
But the inequality \eqref{eq:xu>E[LXPhi]} turns out to contradict the martingale property of the process $$L(\cdot)X(\cdot) \, \mathfrak{u}_{\mathcal{M}^{\mathfrak{X}(\cdot)}}\big(T-\cdot\,,\mathfrak{X}(\cdot)\big) ;$$
see Proposition \ref{prop:martingale}, and recall $\mathcal{M}^x$, $\,x\in \mathbb{R}_+^n\,$ from Definition \ref{def:MM}.
\smallskip
When implementing this program, the stopping time $\rho$ needs to be not only small, but also such that on $[0,\rho]$ the processes
$L(\cdot)$ and $\mathfrak{X}(\cdot)$ are bounded, and $\mathfrak{X}(\cdot)$ is close to $x^*$; however, $\rho$ cannot be too small, in order to ensure that $\varphi \big(t^*-\rho,\mathfrak{X}(\rho)\big)\ge \widehat{\Phi}\big(t^*-\rho,\mathfrak{X}(\rho)\big)+C_2$ holds with a probability greater than some positive constant independent of $C_2$ ($1/2$ in the following proof, see Lemma \ref{lemma:rho=nu}). These considerations inspire us to construct $\rho$ as in \eqref{eq:nu}--\eqref{eq:rho} below.
\smallskip
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:viscosity1}:]
According to Definition \ref{def:viscosity sol}\,(i) of viscosity subsolution with the function $F$ as in \eqref{eq:ourF}, it suffices to show that for any test function $\varphi \in C^{1,2}\left( (0,\infty) \times \mathbb{R}_{+}^n\right) $ and $(t_0,x_0) \in (0,\infty) \times \mathbb{R}_{+}^n$ with
\begin{equation}\label{eq:max}
\big(\widehat{\Phi}^* - \varphi\big)(t_0,x_0) = 0 > \big(\widehat{\Phi}^* - \varphi\big)(t,x)\,, \ \ \forall\ (t,x)\in (0,\infty) \times \mathbb{R}_{+}^n\,,
\end{equation}
(i.e., such that $(t_0,x_0)$ is a strict maximum of $ \, \widehat{\Phi}^* - \varphi$), we have $$\big(\varphi_t-\widehat{\mathcal{L}}\varphi\big)(t_0,x_0) \le 0\,.$$
Here $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}$ is defined in \eqref{eq:hatL}, and $\, \widehat{\Phi}^*\,$\label{p:hatPhi^*} is the upper-semicontinuous envelope of $\, \widehat{\Phi}\,$ as in the definition \eqref{eq:u^*}. {\it We shall argue this by contradiction, assuming that}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:hatG}
\widehat{\mathcal{G}}(t_0,x_0)>0\, \quad \text{holds for the function} \qquad \widehat{\mathcal{G}}(t,x) := \big(\varphi_t-\widehat{\mathcal{L}}\varphi\big)(t,x)\,.
\end{equation}
Since the function $F$ of \eqref{eq:ourF} is continuous, so is the function $\widehat{\mathcal{G}}$ just introduced in \eqref{eq:hatG}. There will exist then, under this hypothesis and Assumption \ref{asmp1}, a neighborhood $\,\mathcal{D}_{\delta} := (t_0 - \delta, t_0 + \delta) \times B_{\delta}(x_0)$\label{p:D_delta} of $(t_0,x_0)$ in $(0,\infty) \times \mathbb{R}_{+}^n$ with $0< \delta < ||x_0||_1 / n\,$, on which $\mathcal{K} (\cdot)$ is bounded and $\widehat{\mathcal{G}} (\cdot\,, \cdot) >0$ holds.
\medskip
Let $C$\label{p:C} be a constant such that $||\theta||<C$ and $|a_{ij}|<C$ $(1\le i,j \le n)$ hold for all pairs $(\theta, a=(a_{ij})_{n \times n})\in \mathcal{K}(x)$ and all $x\in B_{\delta}(x_0)$\,. We notice that \label{p:(x_0)_i}$|x_i-(x_0)_i|\le |x-x_0|<\delta$ holds for any $x=(x_1,\dots,x_n)\in \mathcal{D}_{\delta}$, thus
\begin{equation}\label{eq:||x||_1}
0 < ||x_0||_1 - n\delta < ||x||_1< ||x_0||_1 + n\delta \,,
\end{equation}
and introduce the strictly positive constants
\begin{equation}\label{eq:C_1}
C_1:=\sqrt{32\, \delta C^2 + 4\, \delta^2 C^4}\,,\ \ \ \ \
C_2:= - \max_{\partial \mathcal{D}_{\delta}} \, \big(\widehat{\Phi}^* - \varphi \big)(t,x)\,, \ \ \ \ \ \
C_3:=\frac{C_2\, e^{-C_1}(||x_0||_1-n\delta)}{4(||x_0||_1 + n\delta)}
\end{equation}
(the positivity of $C_2$ and $C_3$ follows from \eqref{eq:max} and \eqref{eq:||x||_1}, respectively).
We observe that
$$\limsup_{(t,x)\to (t_0,x_0)}\big(\widehat{\Phi}-\varphi\big)(t,x) = \big(\widehat{\Phi}^*-\varphi\big)(t_0,x_0)=0\,,$$
hence there exists $(t^*,x^*)\in \mathcal{D}_{\delta}$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:t*,x*}
\big(\widehat{\Phi}-\varphi\big)(t^*,x^*) > -C_3\,;
\end{equation}
and by the definition \eqref{eq:Phi} of $\widehat{\Phi}$, there exists an admissible system $\mathcal{M}^{x^*}\in \widehat{\mathfrak{M}}(x^*)$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:u_M^x*}
\mathfrak{u}_{\mathcal{M}^{x^*}}(t^*,x^*)
> \widehat{\Phi}(t^*,x^*) - C_3>\varphi(t^*,x^*) - 2\,C_3\,, \quad{\mathrm{by}}\ \eqref{eq:t*,x*}\,.
\end{equation}
The remaining discussion in this section (with the exception of Proposition \ref{prop:martingale}) will be carried out under this admissible system.
\medskip
\noindent
$\bullet~$ Let us start by recalling the definitions of $\mathcal{D}_{\delta}$ and $ t^*$, and by constructing the positive stopping times
\begin{equation}\label{eq:nu}\ \
\nu \,(=\nu(\omega)):=\inf \big\{s\in (0, t^*] : \big(t^*-s,\mathfrak{X}(s)\big)\notin \mathcal{D}_{\delta} \big\} \le t^*-(t_0-\delta)=(t^*-t_0)+\delta<t^* \wedge 2\delta\,,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:rho}
\lambda \,(=\lambda \,(\omega)):=\inf\{s>0: |\log L(s)| > C_1\}\,, \qquad \rho \,(=\rho(\omega)):=\nu \wedge \lambda
\end{equation}
with the usual convention inf$\,\emptyset = \infty$\,. From the definitions \eqref{eq:hatG} and \eqref{eq:hatL}, we see that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:g}
g(t,s,\mathfrak{X}) := \left( \varphi_t-\mathcal{L}_{\alpha(s,\mathfrak{X})}\varphi\right) \big(t,\mathfrak{X}(s)\big)
\ge \widehat{\mathcal{G}}\big(t,\mathfrak{X}(s)\big)\,,\quad \forall\ (t,s) \in (0, \infty)\times [0, \infty)\,.
\end{equation}
Recall that $\widehat{\mathcal{G}} (\cdot\,, \cdot) >0$ holds on $\mathcal{D}_{\delta}$, from the discussion right below \eqref{eq:hatG}. Combining with \eqref{eq:g}, this observation leads to
\begin{equation}\label{eq:g>0}
g(t^*-s,s,\mathfrak{X}) >0\,,\quad \forall\ s \in [0, \rho)\,.
\end{equation}
\smallskip
Thanks to the assumption $\varphi \in C^{1,2}\left( (0,\infty)\times \mathbb{R}_+^n\right) $, we can apply \textsc{It\^o}'s change of variable rule to $X(t)L(t)\varphi(T-t,\mathfrak{X}(t))$, $0 \le t \le T$ and derive the following decomposition (see Appendix \ref{appendix:Ito} for a detailed proof).
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:Ito}
For any $0\leq t<T<\infty$, $x\in \mathbb{R}_+^n$\,, $\varphi \in C^{1,2}\left( (0,\infty)\times \mathbb{R}_+^n\right) $, and diffusion $\mathfrak{X}(\cdot)$ satisfying \eqref{eq:SDE},
we have
\begin{align}
\nonumber
\mathrm{d}\big(L(t)X(t)\varphi\big(T-t,\mathfrak{X}(t)\big) \big)
\,= \,&-L(t)X(t) g\big(T-t,t,\mathfrak{X}\big)\, \mathrm{d}t
\\
\nonumber
&-X(t)\varphi\big(T-t,\mathfrak{X}(t)\big)L(t)\,\vartheta'(t,\mathfrak{X})\, \mathrm{d}W(t)\\
\label{eq:Ito}
&+L(t)\sum_{i,k} X_i(t) \big[\varphi+X(t) D_i \varphi\big] \big(T-t,\mathfrak{X}(t)\big) \sigma_{ik}(t,\mathfrak{X})\, \mathrm{d}W_k(t)\,.
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
Let us apply now Lemma \ref{lemma:Ito} with $T=t^*$, integrating \eqref{eq:Ito} with respect to $t$ over $[0, \rho]$ and taking the expectation under $\mathbb{P}$, to obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:E[LXphi]}\
||x^*||_1\,\varphi(t^*,x^*)
- \mathbb{E} \left[L(\rho)X(\rho)\varphi \big(t^*-\rho,\mathfrak{X}(\rho)\big)\right]
=\, \mathbb{E} \left[\int_0^{\rho} L(s)X(s)\, g\big(t^*-s,s,\mathfrak{X}\big)\, \mathrm{d}s \right] >\, 0\,.
\end{equation}
Here, the strict inequality comes from \eqref{eq:g>0} and the positivity of $\rho$\,; whereas, in the equality, the expectations of the integrals with respect to $\mathrm{d}W(t)$ or $\mathrm{d}W_k(t)$ have all vanished. This is due to the the boundedness of the processes $\mathfrak{X}(\cdot)$ and $L(\cdot)$ on $[0,\rho]$, of the functions $\varphi$ and $D_i \varphi$ on $\overline{\mathcal{D}_{\delta}}\,$, and of the functionals $\vartheta(\cdot, \mathfrak{X})$, $\alpha_{ij}(\cdot, \mathfrak{X})$ (by Assumption \ref{asmp1}) and thus $\sigma_{ik}(\cdot, \mathfrak{X})$ on $[0,\rho]$.
\smallskip
(We have made use here of the following facts. The eigenvalues $e_i$\label{p:e_i} of $\alpha$ are the nonnegative roots of the characteristic polynomial of $\alpha$, which is determined by the entries $\alpha_{ij}$; since the $\alpha_{ij}(\cdot, \mathfrak{X})$'s are bounded on $[0,\rho]$, so are the $e_i$'s. Thus $\sigma$, which can be written as $\mathbf{QD}$\label{p:QD} for some $n\times n$ orthonormal matrix $\mathbf{Q}$ and diagonal matrix $\mathbf{D}$ with diagonal entries $\sqrt{e_i}$\,, is also bounded.)
\smallskip
Notice that $\,\big(t^*-\nu,\mathfrak{X}(\nu)\big) \in \partial\mathcal{D}_{\delta}\,$ holds by the definition \eqref{eq:nu} of $\nu$, so
we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:partialD}
\varphi \big(t^*-\nu,\mathfrak{X}(\nu)\big)
\ge \widehat{\Phi}^* \big(t^*-\nu,\mathfrak{X}(\nu)\big) +C_2
\ge \widehat{\Phi} \big(t^*-\nu,\mathfrak{X}(\nu)\big) +C_2\,.
\end{equation}
Plugging (\ref{eq:max}), \eqref{eq:u_M^x*} and (\ref{eq:partialD}) into (\ref{eq:E[LXphi]}) yields
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber
&&\ 0 <||x^*||_1\, \big[\, \mathfrak{u}_{\mathcal{M}^{x^*}}(t^*,x^*)+2\,C_3 \, \big]
- \mathbb{E} \left[\bm{1}_{\{\rho=\nu\}}L(\rho)X(\rho)\left(\widehat{\Phi} \big(t^*-\rho,\mathfrak{X}(\rho)\big)+C_2\right)\right. \\
\label{eq:>0}
&&\ \ \ \ \ \ \ + \left.\bm{1}_{\{\rho\neq\nu\}}L(\rho)X(\rho)\,\widehat{\Phi} \big(t^*-\rho,\mathfrak{X}(\rho)\big)\right] \\ \nonumber
&&\ \ \ =
||x^*||_1\,\mathfrak{u}_{\mathcal{M}^{x^*}}(t^*,x^*)
- \mathbb{E} \left[L(\rho)X(\rho)\,\widehat{\Phi} \big(t^*-\rho,\mathfrak{X}(\rho)\big)\right]
+ 2\,C_3\, ||x^*||_1
- C_2\, \mathbb{E} \big[\bm{1}_{\{\rho=\nu\}}L(\rho)X(\rho)\big]\, .
\end{eqnarray}
We start by estimating the last term on the right-hand side of \eqref{eq:>0}.
Recalling the definition \eqref{eq:rho} of $\rho$ and the second inequality in \eqref{eq:||x||_1}, we see that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:L(rho)}
L(\rho) \ge e^{-C_1}\ \ \ \ {\mathrm{and}}\ \ \ \ X(\rho)>||x_0||_1 - n\delta\, >0\,,
\end{equation}
hence
\begin{equation}\label{eq:E[1LX]}
\mathbb{E} \big[\bm{1}_{\{\rho=\nu\}}L(\rho)X(\rho)\big]
\ge e^{-C_1}\big(||x_0||_1 - n\delta \big)\,\, \mathbb{P} \big(\rho=\nu\big)\,.
\end{equation}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:rho=nu}
We have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:rho=nu}
\mathbb{P}\big( \rho =\nu\big) \,=\, \mathbb{P}\big(\lambda\ge \nu\big) \ge \frac{1}{\,2\,}\,.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For any $t\in(0, \nu]\,,$ we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\big( \log L (t) \big)^2 &= &\left|-\int_0^t\vartheta'(s,\mathfrak{X})\, \mathrm{d}W(s) - \int_0^t\frac{1}{\,2\,} \,\big|\big|\vartheta(s,\mathfrak{X})\big|\big|^2\, \mathrm{d}s\right|^2\\
&\le& 2\left|\int_0^t\vartheta'(s,\mathfrak{X})\, \mathrm{d}W(s)\right|^2
+ 2\left|\int_0^t\frac{1}{\,2\,} \,\big|\big|\vartheta(s,\mathfrak{X})\big|\big|^2\, \mathrm{d}s\right|^2.
\end{eqnarray*}
It follows from $t\le \nu<2\delta$ that
\begin{equation*}
\int_0^t \frac{1}{\,2\,} \,\big|\big|\vartheta(s,\mathfrak{X})\big|\big|^2\, \mathrm{d}s
\, \le \, \frac{t}{\,2\,} \,C^2 \,
\le\, \delta C^2,
\end{equation*}
and therefore
\begin{equation*}
\mathbb{E}\left[\sup_{0\le t\le \nu} \big( \log L (t) \big)^2\right]
\le 2\, \mathbb{E}\left[\sup_{0\le t\le \nu} \left|\int_0^t\vartheta'(s,\mathfrak{X})\, \mathrm{d}W(s)\right|^2\right]
+ 2\, \delta^2 C^4.
\end{equation*}
Further, the \textsc{Burkholder-Davis-Gundy} Inequality gives
$$
2\, \mathbb{E}\left[\sup_{0\le t\le \nu} \left|\int_0^t\vartheta'(s,\mathfrak{X})\, \mathrm{d}W(s)\right|^2\right]
\le 8\, \mathbb{E} \left[\int_0^{\nu}\left|\left|\vartheta'(s,\mathfrak{X})\right|\right|^2\mathrm{d}s\right]
\le 8\, \mathbb{E} \left[\nu C^2\right]
\le 16\, \delta C^2,
$$
thus
\begin{equation*}
\mathbb{E}\left[\sup_{0\le t\le \nu} \big( \log L (t) \big)^2\right]
\le 16\, \delta C^2 + 2\, \delta^2 C^4.
\end{equation*}
Finally, appealing to \textsc{Markov}'s Inequality yields
\begin{equation*}
\mathbb{P}\big(\lambda< \nu\big)
= \,\mathbb{P}\left[\sup_{0\le t\le \nu} |\log L (t)|> C_1\right]
\le \,\frac{16\, \delta C^2 + 2\, \delta^2 C^4}{C_1^2} = \frac{1}{\,2\,}
\end{equation*}
(this is why we defined $C_1$ as in \eqref{eq:C_1}; in fact, setting $C_1$ to be any value greater than the right-hand side of the first equation in \eqref{eq:C_1} would also work), and the claim (\ref{eq:rho=nu}) follows.
\end{proof}
Substituting the estimate of Lemma \ref{lemma:rho=nu} into \eqref{eq:E[1LX]}, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
C_2\,\mathbb{E} \big[\bm{1}_{\{\rho=\nu\}}L(\rho)X(\rho)\big]
\ge \frac{1}{\,2\,} C_2\, e^{-C_1}\big(||x_0||_1 - n\delta \big)=2\,C_3 \big( ||x_0||_1 + n\delta \big) >2\,C_3 \,||x^*||_1\,,
\end{equation*}
where we used the definition \eqref{eq:C_1} of $C_3$ and the last inequality in \eqref{eq:||x||_1}.
Plugging into \eqref{eq:>0} yields the inequality \eqref{eq:xu>E[LXPhi]};
however, this inequality contradicts Proposition \ref{prop:martingale}\,(ii) right below with $T=t^*$ and $\tau=\rho$\,. (This explains why we constructed $C_3$ as we did in \eqref{eq:C_1}; in fact, setting $C_3$ to be any value less than the right-hand side of \eqref{eq:C_1} would also work.)
The proof of Theorem 4.5 is complete.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:martingale}
{\bf Martingale Property:} Recall the strongly Markovian admissible systems $\mathcal{M}^{y}\in \widehat{\mathfrak{M}}(y)$ $(y\in \mathbb{R}_+^n)$ from Definition \ref{def:MM}.
\smallskip
\noindent
{\bf (i)}
For $0\leq t\leq T<\infty$, we have
\begin{equation*}
L(t)X(t) \, \mathfrak{u}_{\mathcal{M}^{\mathfrak{X}(t)}}\big(T-t,\mathfrak{X}(t)\big) = \,\mathbb{E} \big[\,L(T)X(T) \,\big|\, \mathcal{F}(t)\, \big]\,,\ \mathbb{P} \mathrm{-a.s.}
\end{equation*}
In particular, the process on the left-hand side is a martingale.
\smallskip
\noindent
{\bf (ii)} For any stopping time $\tau\leq T<\infty$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\mathbb{E} \left[L(\tau)X(\tau)\, \mathfrak{u}_{\mathcal{M}^{\mathfrak{X}(\tau)}}\big(T-\tau,\mathfrak{X}(\tau)\big)\right]
= ||x^*||_1 \, \mathfrak{u}_{\mathcal{M}^{x^*}}(T,x^*)\,.
\end{equation*}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
\textit{(i)} To alleviate notation somewhat, we write $\mathbb{P}^{\,y}$, $W^{y}(\cdot)$, $X^{y}(\cdot)$\label{p:X^y} and $L^{y}(\cdot)$ for $\mathbb{P}^{\,\mathcal{M}^{y}}$, $W^{\mathcal{M}^{y}}(\cdot)$ $X^{\mathcal{M}^{y}}(\cdot)$ and $L^{\mathcal{M}^{y}}(\cdot)$ $(y\in \mathbb{R}_+^n)$, respectively. The definitions \eqref{eq:um} of $\mathfrak{u}_{\mathcal{M}}$ and \eqref{eq:L=exp} of $L^{\mathcal{M}}$ give
\begin{align*}
\mathrm{LHS}
=&\ L(t)\, \mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{P}^{\,\mathfrak{X}(t)}}\left[X^{\mathfrak{X}(t)}(T-t)L^{\mathfrak{X}(t)}(T-t)\right]\\
=&\ L(t)\, \mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{P}^{\,\mathfrak{X}(t)}}\left[X^{\mathfrak{X}(t)}(T-t)\exp\left(-\int_0^{T-t}\vartheta'\left(s,\mathfrak{X}^{\mathfrak{X}(t)}\right)\, \mathrm{d}W^{\mathfrak{X}(t)}(s)- \int_0^{T-t} \frac{1}{\,2\,} \,\big|\big|\vartheta\left(s,\mathfrak{X}^{\mathfrak{X}(t)}\right)\big|\big|^2 \mathrm{d}s\right)\right]\\
=&\ L(t)\, \mathbb{E}\left[ \left. X(T) \exp\left(-\int_t^T\vartheta'(s,\mathfrak{X})\, \mathrm{d}W(s) - \int_t^T \frac{1}{\,2\,} \,\big|\big|\vartheta(s,\mathfrak{X})\big|\big|^2 \mathrm{d}s\right)\right|\mathcal{F}(t)\right]\\
=&\ L(t)\, \mathbb{E}\big[X(T)L(T)\,/\,L(t)\,|\,\mathcal{F}(t)\big]
= \mathrm{RHS}\,,\ \mathbb{P}\mathrm{-a.s.}
\end{align*}
We note that in the third equality we took advantage of \eqref{eq:Markovian} and of the strong Markov property for the process $\mathfrak{X}(\cdot)$.
\smallskip
\textit{(ii)} On the strength of the martingale property from (i), the Optional Sampling Theorem gives
$\mathrm{LHS}
= L(0)X(0)\mathfrak{u}_{\mathcal{M}^{x^*}}(T,\mathfrak{X}(0))
= \mathrm{RHS}\,.$
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
{\rm
In the above proof of Theorem \ref{thm:viscosity1}, the special structure of strongly Markovian admissible systems that we selected in Definition \ref{def:MM}, is indispensable in the context of Proposition \ref{prop:martingale}. On the other hand, the Assumption \ref{asmp1} is important for the existence of the neighborhood $\mathcal{D}_{\delta}\,$ with the stated properties; see the discussion right below \eqref{eq:hatG}.
} \qed
\end{remark}
\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:viscosity2}: Viscosity Supersolution }
\label{section:supersol}
The proof that follows shares many similarities with that in Section \ref{section:subsol}
for Theorem \ref{thm:viscosity1}, the counterpart of Theorem \ref{thm:viscosity2}, but also requires the additional Assumption \ref{asmp2} and a much stronger result -- the {\it Dynamic Programming Principle} (or DPP, Proposition 6.1 below) -- than the martingale property of Proposition \ref{prop:martingale}. Before outlining and presenting the proof, we explain the reasons for such differences.
\medskip
\noindent
$\bullet~$
We begin with an idea similar to that in Section \ref{section:subsol} (with corresponding inequalities in opposite directions, and with $\widehat{\Phi}$ replaced by $\Phi$); however, we cannot proceed in the same way for two reasons:
\smallskip
{\bf (i)} The reverse inequality to \eqref{eq:g}, namely,
$g(t,s,\mathfrak{X}) \le \widehat{\mathcal{G}}\big(t,\mathfrak{X}(s)\big)$
does not hold in general, by the definition \eqref{eq:hatL} of $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}$ (recall $g$ from \eqref{eq:g} and $\widehat{\mathcal{G}}$ from \eqref{eq:hatG}).
Therefore, we cannot obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq:g<0}
g(t^*-s,s,\mathfrak{X})<0\quad {\mathrm{for\ all\ }} s\in [0,\rho)\,,\quad {\mathrm{with}}\ g\ {\mathrm{as\ in\ }} \eqref{eq:g} \ {\mathrm{and\ }} \rho\ {\mathrm{as\ in\ }} \eqref{eq:rho}\,,
\end{equation}
the reverse inequality to \eqref{eq:g>0}, as we did in Section \ref{section:subsol}. Instead, we need to find an admissible system in ${\mathfrak{M}}(x^*)$ under which \eqref{eq:g<0} holds.
If we still want to argue by contradiction, assuming the reverse inequality to \eqref{eq:hatG}, then according to the definitions \eqref{eq:hatL} of $\mathcal{L}$ and \eqref{eq:hatG} of $\widehat{\mathcal{G}}$, there exists $a_0\in \mathcal{A}(x_0)$ such that
$
(\varphi_t-{\mathcal{L}_{a_0}}\varphi)(t_0,x_0)<0\,.
$
Plugging in the definition \eqref{eq:hatL} of $\mathcal{L}_{a_0}$ and comparing the left-hand side of this inequality with the $g(t^*-s,s,\mathfrak{X})$ of \eqref{eq:g},
we see that \eqref{eq:g<0} holds if the $\alpha$ in \eqref{eq:g} is very close to $a_0$ when $s$ is sufficiently small. This accounts for the requirement \eqref{eq:continuous a} of Assumption \ref{asmp2}. Other conditions in Assumption \ref{asmp2} are inspired by Remark \ref{rmk:nonemptyM} aimed for the existence of an admissible system with such $\alpha$.
\smallskip
{\bf (ii)} The reverse inequality of \eqref{eq:xu>E[LXPhi]} with $\widehat{\Phi}$ replaced by $\Phi$, namely
\begin{equation} \label{eq:xu<E[LXPhi]}
||x^*||_1 \, \mathfrak{u}_{\mathcal{M}^{x^*}}(t^*,x^*)< \mathbb{E} \left[L(\rho)X(\rho)\, {\Phi}\big(t^*-\rho,\mathfrak{X}(\rho)\big)\right],
\end{equation}
actually holds in general, on the strength of Proposition \ref{prop:martingale} and the definition \eqref{eq:Phi} of ${\Phi}$. Therefore we need to estimate more accurately the value of $\varphi$ on the left-hand side of the counterpart of \eqref{eq:xphi>E[LXphi]}, by using ${\Phi}$ instead of $\mathfrak{u}_{\mathcal{M}^{x^*}}$, so that we arrive at
\begin{equation} \label{eq:xPhi<E[LXPhi]}
||x^*||_1 \, {\Phi}(t^*,x^*)< \mathbb{E} \left[L(\rho)X(\rho)\, {\Phi}\big(t^*-\rho,\mathfrak{X}(\rho)\big)\right],
\end{equation}
instead of \eqref{eq:xu<E[LXPhi]}. We then need the DPP of Proposition \ref{prop:DPP}, to obtain a contradiction to \eqref{eq:xPhi<E[LXPhi]}.
\subsubsection{Informal Outline}
Now we outline the main steps of the proof.
We prove by contradiction, assuming the negation of \eqref{eq:F>=0} in Definition \ref{def:viscosity sol} with the function $F$ as in \eqref{eq:ourF}, that there exist $\varphi \in C^{1,2}\left( (0,\infty) \times \mathbb{R}_{+}^n\right)$ and $(t_0,x_0) \in (0,\infty) \times \mathbb{R}_{+}^n$ such that: $(t_0,x_0)$ is a strict minimum of $ \, {\Phi}_* - \varphi \,$; the minimal value is equal to zero; and $\big(\varphi_t-\widehat{\mathcal{L}}\varphi\big)(t_0,x_0)<0$\,.
Since $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}\varphi= \sup_{a\in \mathcal{A}(x)}\mathcal{L}_{a} \varphi$ (definition \eqref{eq:hatL}), there exists $a_0\in \mathcal{A}(x_0)$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:G_a<0}
(\varphi_t-{\mathcal{L}_{a_0}}\varphi)(t_0,x_0)<0\,.
\end{equation}
We take $(x,a)=(x_0,a_0)$ and a sufficiently small $\iota$ in Assumption \ref{asmp2}, and let $\delta$, $\mathbf{s}$ and $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ be the corresponding elements.
Further, by the definition \eqref{eq:u_*} of ${\Phi}_*$\,, we can take a pair $(t^*,x^*)$ close to $(t_0,x_0)$ such that the nonnegative difference $(\Phi-\varphi)(t^*,x^*)$ is sufficiently small, say less than a small positive constant $C_3^*$ (depending on $\delta$; defined similarly to the $C_3$ of \eqref{eq:C_1}).
Thanks to Assumption \ref{asmp2}, there exists an admissible system $\mathcal{M}^{x^*}\in \mathfrak{M}(x^*)$ with the functionals $\sigma$ and $\vartheta$ defined by \eqref{eq:Markovian}.
Under this admissible system, we derive \eqref{eq:g<0} from \eqref{eq:G_a<0}, and thus
\begin{equation}\label{eq:xphi<E[LXphi]}
||x^*||_1\,\varphi(t^*,x^*) - \mathbb{E} \left[L(\rho)X(\rho)\varphi \big(t^*-\rho,\mathfrak{X}(\rho)\big)\right]
= \mathbb{E} \left[\int_0^{\rho} L(s)X(s)\, g\big(t^*-s,s,\mathfrak{X}\big)\, \mathrm{d}s \right] <0\,.
\end{equation}
On the other hand, on the left-hand side of \eqref{eq:xphi<E[LXphi]} we estimate the real number $\varphi(t^*,x^*)$ from below by ${\Phi}(t^*,x^*)-C_3^*$\,, and the random quantity $\varphi \big(t^*-\rho,\mathfrak{X}(\rho)\big)$ from above by ${\Phi}\big(t^*-\rho,\mathfrak{X}(\rho)\big)-C_2^*$ (for some $\omega$'s in $\Omega$) or ${\Phi}\big(t^*-\rho,\mathfrak{X}(\rho)\big)$ (for other $\omega$'s in $\Omega$) with $C_2^*$ a small positive constant similar to the $C_2$ of \eqref{eq:C_1}, and then deduce \eqref{eq:xPhi<E[LXPhi]}, which contradicts the Dynamic Programming Principle of Proposition \ref{prop:DPP}.
\qed
\subsection{The Supersolution Property}
We are ready now to present the argument proper.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:viscosity2}:]
According to Definition \ref{def:viscosity sol}\,(ii) of viscosity supersolution with the function $F$ as in \eqref{eq:ourF}, it suffices to show that for any test function $\varphi \in C^{1,2}\left((0,\infty) \times \mathbb{R}_{+}^n\right)$ and $(t_0,x_0) \in (0,\infty) \times \mathbb{R}_{+}^n$ with
\begin{equation}\label{eq:min}
({\Phi}_* - \varphi)(t_0,x_0) = 0 < ({\Phi}_* - \varphi)(t,x)\,, \ \ \forall\ (t,x)\in (0,\infty) \times \mathbb{R}_{+}^n
\end{equation}
(i.e., such that $(t_0,x_0)$ is a strict minimum of $\, {\Phi}_* - \varphi $),
and with $\, {\Phi}_*\,$\label{p:hatPhi_*} the lower-semicontinuous envelope of $\, {\Phi} \,$ as in the definition \eqref{eq:u_*}, we have
$$\big( \varphi_t-\widehat{\mathcal{L}}\varphi\big) (t_0,x_0) \ge 0\,.$$
Recalling $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}$ from \eqref{eq:hatL}, it suffices to establish $(\varphi_t-{\mathcal{L}}_{a}\varphi) (t_0,x_0) \ge 0$ for every fixed $a\in \mathcal{A}(x)$.
\smallskip
{\it We shall argue this by contradiction, assuming that for some $a_0\in \mathcal{A}(x_0)$ we have }
\begin{equation}\label{eq:G_a}\ g_0:=-\,\mathcal{G}_{a_0}(t_0,x_0)>0\,,\ \ \ \mathrm{where}\ \ \
\mathcal{G}_{a}(t,x):=( \varphi_t-{\mathcal{L}}_{a}\varphi) (t,x)\,, \ (a,t,x)\in \mathcal{A}(x) \times (0,\infty)\times \mathbb{R}_+^n\,.
\end{equation}
Under Assumption \ref{asmp1}, there exists a positive number $\delta_1<t_0 \wedge (||x_0||_1 / n)$ such that
$\mathcal{K}(\cdot)$ is bounded on $\mathcal{D}_{\delta_1}:=(t_0-\delta_1, t_0+\delta_1)\times B_{\delta_1}(x_0)$.
Let $C>1$ be a constant such that $||\theta||,|a_{ij}|<C$ $(1\le i,j \le n)$ hold for all pairs $(\theta, a=(a_{ij})_{n \times n})\in \mathcal{K}(x)$ and all $x\in B_{\delta_1}(x_0)$.
Since the functions $\mathcal{G}_{a_0}(\cdot,\cdot)$, $\varphi_t(\cdot,\cdot)$ and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:H_{ij}}
H_{ij}(s,y):= D_i\varphi(s,y)\,/\,||y||_1
+ y_iy_jD^2_{ij}\varphi(s,y)\,/\,2\,, \quad (s,y)\in (0,\infty)\times \mathbb{R}_+^n\,,\ 1\le i,j\le n
\end{equation}
are continuous, there exists under the hypothesis \eqref{eq:G_a}, a positive number $\delta_2<\delta_1$ such that for all $H\in\{\varphi_t, H_{ij}\, (1\le i,j\le n)\}$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:H}
|H(t,x)-H(t_0,x_0)|< g_0\,/\,3n^2 C<g_0\,/\,3\,, \quad \forall\ (t,x)\in \mathcal{D}_{\delta_2}
:=(t_0-\delta_2, t_0+\delta_2)\times B_{\delta_2}(x_0)\,.
\end{equation}
\begin{lemma}
With $\mathcal{G}_{a}(\cdot,\cdot)$ defined in \eqref{eq:G_a}, the inequality
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Ga-Ga0}
\left|\mathcal{G}_{a}(t,x)-\mathcal{G}_{a_0}(t_0,x_0)\right| <g_0
\end{equation}
holds for all $\,(t,x)\in \mathcal{D}_{\delta_2}\,,\
a\in \mathcal{A}(x)\,$ with
\begin{equation}\label{eq:iota}
\max_{1\le i,j\le n} |a_{ij}-(a_0)_{ij}| < \iota := \delta_2\wedge g_0 \left( 1+3n^2\max_{i,j} \left|H_{ij}(t_0,x_0)\right|\right) ^{-1}.
\end{equation}
Recalling the number $g_0$ from the definition \eqref{eq:G_a}, we have also
\begin{equation}\label{eq:G<0}
\mathcal{G}_{a}(t,x)<0\quad {\mathrm{for\ all}}\ (a,t,x)\ {\mathrm{in}}\ \eqref{eq:iota}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Plugging the definition \eqref{eq:G_a} of ${\mathcal{G}_{a}}$ into the left-hand side of \eqref{eq:Ga-Ga0} yields
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:Lambda}
\nonumber {\mathrm{LHS\ of}}\ \eqref{eq:Ga-Ga0}
&= & \left|(\varphi_t-{\mathcal{L}_{a}}\varphi)(t,x) - \left( \varphi_t-{\mathcal{L}}_{a_0}\varphi\right) (t_0,x_0)\right| \\
&\le& \left| \varphi_t(t,x) - \varphi_t (t_0,x_0)\right|
+\left| {\mathcal{L}}_{a}\varphi(t_0,x_0) - {\mathcal{L}}_{a}\varphi(t,x)\right|
+ \left| {\mathcal{L}}_{a_0}\varphi(t_0,x_0)- {\mathcal{L}}_{a}\varphi(t_0,x_0)\right| \\ \nonumber
&=:& \Lambda_1+\Lambda_2+\Lambda_3\,,
\end{eqnarray}
i.e., $\Lambda_j$ $(j = 1, 2, 3)$ denotes the $j$-th term in \eqref{eq:Lambda}.
It suffices to show that $\Lambda_j<g_0\,/\,3$ for all $j$.
Since $(t,x) \in \mathcal{D}_{\delta_2}$\,, we can take advantage of the property \eqref{eq:H} and get $\Lambda_1<g_0\,/\,3\,.$
Moreover, we notice that ${\mathcal{L}}_{a}\varphi(t,x)=\sum_{i,j} a_{ij}H_{ij}(t,x) $ (from the definitions \eqref{eq:hatL} of $\mathcal{L}_{a}$ and \eqref{eq:H_{ij}} of $H_{ij}$) and obtain
\begin{equation*}
\Lambda_2
= \left|\sum_{i,j} a_{ij}\big[H_{ij}(t_0,x_0) -H_{ij}(t,x) \big] \right|
< n^2\cdot C \cdot g_0\,/\,(3n^2C)
=g_0\,/\,3\quad {\mathrm{by}}\ \eqref{eq:H}\,,
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
\Lambda_3
= \left|\sum_{i,j} \big[(a_0)_{ij}-a_{ij}\big] H_{ij}(t_0,x_0) \right|
< n^2\cdot\iota \cdot \left( \max_{i,j} |H_{ij}(t_0,x_0)| \right)
< g_0\,/\,3\quad {\mathrm{by}}\ \eqref{eq:iota}\,.
\end{equation*}
This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\medskip
Take $x=x_0$ and $a=a_0$ in Assumption \ref{asmp2} with $\iota$ defined in \eqref{eq:iota}.
Let $\delta$, $\mathbf{s}$, $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ and $\mathbf{a}$ be the corresponding elements described in Assumption \ref{asmp2}.
We shall now adopt the definitions of $C_1$ from \eqref{eq:C_1} and introduce the strictly positive constants
\begin{equation}\label{eq:C^*_3}
C^*_2:= \min_{\partial \mathcal{D}_{\delta}} \, ({\Phi}_* - \varphi )(t,x) > 0\quad (\mathrm{by}\ \eqref{eq:min})\,, \quad C^*_3:=\frac{C^*_2\, e^{-C_1}(||x_0||_1-n\delta)}{2(||x_0||_1 + n\delta)}> 0 \quad (\mathrm{by}\ \eqref{eq:||x||_1})
\end{equation}
by analogy with $C_2$ and $C_3$ in \eqref{eq:C_1}.
We observe from the definition \eqref{eq:u_*} of ${\Phi}_*$ that
$$
\liminf_{(t,x)\to (t_0,x_0)}({\Phi}-\varphi)(t,x) = ({\Phi}_*-\varphi)(t_0,x_0)=0\,,
$$
hence there exists $(t^*,x^*)\in \mathcal{D}_{\delta}$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:t*,x*2}
({\Phi}-\varphi)(t^*,x^*)<C^*_3\,;
\end{equation}
and thanks to Assumption \ref{asmp2},
there exists an admissible system $\mathcal{M}^{x^*}\in \mathfrak{M}(x^*)$ with the functionals $\sigma$ and $\vartheta$ defined by \eqref{eq:Markovian}.
The remaining discussion in this section (with the exception of Proposition \ref{prop:DPP}) will be carried out under this admissible system.
\smallskip
Now we shall adopt the definitions of $\nu$, $\lambda$ and $\rho$ from \eqref{eq:nu} and \eqref{eq:rho}.
For any $0\le s\le \rho$\,,
we have $\big(t^*-s,\mathfrak{X}(s)\big) \in \overline{\mathcal{D}_{\delta}}\subset \mathcal{D}_{\delta_2}$ and therefore \eqref{eq:iota} holds for $(a,t,x)=\left( \alpha(s,\mathfrak{X}),t^*-s,\mathfrak{X}(s)\right) $ by virtue of \eqref{eq:continuous a} (recall from \eqref{eq:Markovian} that $\alpha(s,\mathfrak{X})=\mathbf{a}(\mathfrak{X}(s))$).
Therefore, we can apply \eqref{eq:G<0} and obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq:G(s)<0}
\mathcal{G}_{\alpha(s,\mathfrak{X})}\big(t^*-s,\mathfrak{X}(s)\big)<0\,.
\end{equation}
\medskip
Let us apply now Lemma \ref{lemma:Ito} with $T=t^*$, integrating \eqref{eq:Ito} with respect to $t$ over $[0, \rho]$ and taking the expectation under $\mathbb{P}$, to obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq:E[LXphi2]}\
||x^*||_1\,\varphi(t^*,x^*)
- \mathbb{E} \left[L(\rho)X(\rho)\varphi \big(t^*-\rho,\mathfrak{X}(\rho)\big)\right]
=\, \mathbb{E} \left[\int_0^{\rho} L(s)X(s)\, g\big(t^*-s,s,\mathfrak{X}\big)\, \mathrm{d}s \right] <\, 0\,,
\end{equation}
by \eqref{eq:G(s)<0} and the same reasoning as right below \eqref{eq:E[LXphi]}. Here $g$ is defined in \eqref{eq:hatG}, and thus the quantity $g\big(t^*-s,s,\mathfrak{X}\big)$ is the left-hand side of \eqref{eq:G(s)<0} with $\ell=\ell^*$.
\smallskip
Notice that $\,\big(t^*-\nu,\mathfrak{X}(\nu)\big) \in \partial\mathcal{D}_{\delta}\,$ holds
by the definition \eqref{eq:nu} of $\nu$, thus
\begin{equation}\label{eq:partialD2}
\varphi \big(t^*-\nu,\mathfrak{X}(\nu)\big)
\le {\Phi}_* \big(t^*-\nu,\mathfrak{X}(\nu)\big) - C^*_2\,.
\end{equation}
Plugging \eqref{eq:min}, (\ref{eq:t*,x*2}) and (\ref{eq:partialD2}) into (\ref{eq:E[LXphi2]}) yields
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber
&& 0> ||x^*||_1\big[ -C^*_3 + {\Phi}(t^*,x^*) \big]
- \mathbb{E} \left[\bm{1}_{\{\rho=\nu\}}L(\rho)X(\rho)\left({\Phi}_* \big(t^*-\rho,\mathfrak{X}(\rho)\big)-C^*_2\right)\right. \\ \label{eq:<0}
&&\ \ \ \ \ + \left.\bm{1}_{\{\rho\neq\nu\}}L(\rho)X(\rho){\Phi}_* \big(t^*-\rho,\mathfrak{X}(\rho)\big)\right] \\ \nonumber
&& =
-C^*_3\, ||x^*||_1+ ||x^*||_1\, {\Phi}(t^*,x^*) - \mathbb{E} \left[L(\rho)X(\rho){\Phi}_* \big(t^*-\rho,\mathfrak{X}(\rho)\big)\right]
+ C^*_2\, \mathbb{E} \big[\bm{1}_{\{\rho=\nu\}}L(\rho)X(\rho)\big].
\end{eqnarray}
On the strength of (\ref{eq:L(rho)}), Lemma \ref{lemma:rho=nu}, the definition (\ref{eq:C^*_3}) of $C^*_3$, and \eqref{eq:||x||_1}, we obtain now
\begin{eqnarray*}
C^*_2\, \mathbb{E} \big[\bm{1}_{\{\rho=\nu\}}L(\rho)X(\rho)\big] &\ge&
C^*_2\, e^{-C_1}(||x_0||_1 - n\delta)\, \mathbb{P}\big(\rho=\nu \big)\\
&\ge& C^*_2\, e^{-C_1}(||x_0||_1 - n\delta)\, /\, 2
= C^*_3(||x_0||_1 + n\delta) > C^*_3\, ||x^*||_1 \,.
\end{eqnarray*}
(This explains why we constructed $C^*_3$ as we did in \eqref{eq:C^*_3}; in fact, setting $C^*_3$ to be any value less than the right-hand side of \eqref{eq:C^*_3} would also work.)
Substituting this inequality into (\ref{eq:<0}), and recalling ${\Phi}_*(\cdot,\cdot)\le {\Phi}(\cdot,\cdot)$ from the definition \eqref{eq:u_*} of ${\Phi}_*\,$, leads now to the inequality
\begin{equation*}
||x^*||_1 \, {\Phi}(t^*,x^*)< \mathbb{E} \left[L(\rho)X(\rho)\, {\Phi}\big(t^*-\rho,\mathfrak{X}(\rho)\big)\right]
\end{equation*}
of \eqref{eq:xPhi<E[LXPhi]}. However, this inequality contradicts the Dynamic Programming Principle of Proposition \ref{prop:DPP} right below, so the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:viscosity2} is complete.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:DPP}
{\bf Dynamic Programming Principle} {\rm (\cite{NN13}--\cite{NV})}{\bf :}
For any given $\, (T,x) \in (0, \infty) \times \mathbb{R}^n_+$ and any stopping time $\, \tau\leq T<\infty \,$, we have
\begin{equation*}
||x||_1 \, {\Phi}(T,x) = \sup_{\mathcal{M}\in{\mathfrak{M}}(x)}
\mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{P}^{\mathcal{M}}}\left[L^{\mathcal{M}}(\tau)X^{\mathcal{M}}(\tau) \, {\Phi}\big(T-\tau,\mathfrak{X}^{\mathcal{M}}(\tau)\big)\right].
\end{equation*}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We refer to \cite[Proposition 2.2, Theorem 2.4, Remark 2.7]{NN13} and \cite[Theorem 2.3]{NV}.
\end{proof}
\section{Viscosity Characterization of the Arbitrage Function}\label{section:u}
Let us go back to the arbitrage function $\mathfrak{u}$ of \eqref{eq:u}. As a consequence of the minimality result
Theorem \ref{thm:min} below, if $\Phi$ of \eqref{eq:Phi} is a classical supersolution of \eqref{eq:PDE}, then the function $\mathfrak{u}$ coincides with $\Phi$ and hence is the smallest nonnegative classical supersolution of the Cauchy problem of \eqref{eq:PDE}, \eqref{eq:initial cond}; in fact, we have $\mathfrak{u}\equiv \Phi$ if $\Phi$ is only continuous (see Theorem \ref{thm:u=Phi} below).
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:min}{\em{ (\eqref{eq:u>=Phi} and \cite[Proposition 2]{FK11}) }}
For any nonnegative classical supersolution $U$ of the C{\scriptsize AUCHY} problem \eqref{eq:PDE}, \eqref{eq:initial cond}, we have
$$U(T,x)\ge \mathfrak{u}(T,x)\ge \Phi(T,x)\ge \widehat{\Phi}(T,x)>0\,, \ \ \forall\ (T,x)\in[0, \infty)\times \mathbb{R}_{+}^n\,.$$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We adopt the idea from the proof in \cite[Proposition 2,\ (5.3)--(5.15)]{FK11}; the detailed proof is provided in section \ref{appendix:min}.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:u=Phi}
The arbitrage function $\mathfrak{u}$ coincides with the function $\,\Phi$ of \eqref{eq:Phi} if $\,\Phi$ is continuous.
\end{theorem}
This theorem is proved right below. Combining it with Theorems \ref{thm:viscosity1}, \ref{thm:viscosity2} and \ref{thm:min}, and recalling Remark \ref{rmk:u*} and $\,\widehat{\Phi}^*$ from \eqref{eq:u^*}, gives the following characterizations of the arbitrage function $\mathfrak{u}$\,.
\begin{corollary}\label{coro:u sol}
Suppose that the conditions in Theorem \ref{thm:viscosity2} are in force and the function $\,\Phi$ is continuous.
Then the arbitrage function $\mathfrak{u}$ is a viscosity supersolution of the HJB equation \eqref{eq:PDE} subject to
the initial condition \eqref{eq:initial cond}.
If furthermore $\,\Phi\equiv \widehat{\Phi}^*$, then $\mathfrak{u}$ is a viscosity solution of \eqref{eq:PDE} subject to \eqref{eq:initial cond}.
\smallskip
If in addition $\mathfrak{u}$ is of class $C\left([0, \infty)\times \mathbb{R}_{+}^n\right)\, \cap\, C^{1,2}\left((0, \infty)\times \mathbb{R}_{+}^n\right)$,
then it is the smallest nonnegative classical (super)solution of the C{\scriptsize AUCHY} problem \eqref{eq:PDE}, \eqref{eq:initial cond}.
\end{corollary}
\begin{remark}
{\rm
If a robust strong arbitrage relative to the market exists on some time horizon $[0,T ]$ for some initial capitalization $x$ (see Remark \ref{rmk:u<1}), then $\mathfrak{u}(T,x)<1$. This amounts to a failure of uniqueness of classical/viscosity solutions for the \textsc{Cauchy} problem of \eqref{eq:PDE}, \eqref{eq:initial cond}, since the constant $u\equiv 1$ is always a (trivial) solution to this problem.
We refer the reader to \cite[p.\,2205]{FK11} or to \cite{Lyons}, for an interpretation of Theorem \ref{thm:u=Phi}.
} \qed
\end{remark}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:u=Phi}:]
Let \,$\mathcal{U}$\label{p:mathcalU} be the collection of positive classical supersolutions of the Cauchy problem \eqref{eq:PDE}, \eqref{eq:initial cond}, and \,$\breve{\mathcal{U}}$\label{p:breve{mathcalU}} the collection of continuous functions \label{p:breveU}$\breve{U}:[0,\infty)\times \mathbb{R}^n_+\to \mathbb{R}_+$ that satisfies \eqref{eq:initial cond} and that the process $L(t)X(t)\Phi(T-t,\mathfrak{X}(t))$ is
a supermartingale under every admissible system.
Note that $\Phi\in \breve{\mathcal{U}}$ by virtue of \cite[Theorem 2.3]{NV}.
Following the idea in \cite[Theorem 1]{FK11}, we have for $T=0$\, the identities $\mathfrak{u}(0, x)=1=\Phi(0, x)$ for all $x \in \mathbb{R}^n_+$ by the initial condition \eqref{eq:initial cond}. Now we fix an arbitrary pair $(T, x) \in (0,\infty)\times \mathbb{R}^n_+$\,. For every $\varepsilon >0$\,, there exists a mollification \label{p:U_epsilon}$U_{\varepsilon}\in \mathcal{U}$ of the function $\Phi$ with $0<U_{\varepsilon}(T , x) \le \Phi(T , x)+\varepsilon$.
Combining with Theorem \ref{thm:min} gives
$$\mathfrak{u}(T , x) \le U_{\varepsilon}(T , x)\le \Phi(T, x) + \varepsilon\,.$$
Since $\varepsilon >0$ is arbitrary, this
leads to $\mathfrak{u}(T, x)\le \Phi(T, x)$. On the other hand, the reverse inequality $\mathfrak{u}(T , x)\ge \Phi(T , x)$ holds on the
strength of \eqref{eq:u>=Phi}. Hence, $\mathfrak{u}(T, x)=\Phi(T, x)$ on $[0,\infty)\times \mathbb{R}^n_+$\,.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
{\rm
With slight modifications our approach can also show that, under appropriate conditions described in Theorems \ref{thm:viscosity1}, \ref{thm:viscosity2} and Corollary \ref{coro:u sol} but now with
\begin{equation*}
F(t,x,r,p,q) \,=\, - \, \frac{1}{\,2\,}\sup_{a\in \mathcal{A}(x)} \left( \sum_{i,j} x_i x_j a_{ij} q_{ij} \right), \ \ \mathrm{for}\ \ q=(q_{ij})_{1\le i,j\le n}\,,\ \ p=(p_1,\dots,p_n)',
\end{equation*}
and $a=(a_{ij})_{1\le i,j\le n}$\,, the functions $${\Psi}(T,x)=||x||_1\,{\Phi}(T,x)\,,\ \ \qquad \widehat{\Psi}(T,x)=||x||_1\,\widehat{\Phi}(T,x)$$ and $$
\mathfrak{v}(T,x) := ||x||_1 \,\mathfrak{u}(T,x)\,, \ \ \ \ (T,x)\in [0,\infty)\times \mathbb{R}^n_+$$
are classical/viscosity (super/sub)solutions of an HJB equation simpler than \eqref{eq:PDE} -- namely, the {\it P{\scriptsize UCCI}-maximal type equation}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Pucci}
u_t (t,x) -\frac{1}{\,2\,}\sup_{a\in \mathcal{A}(x)} \left( \sum_{i,j} x_i x_j a_{ij} D^2_{ij} u (t,x) \right) = 0\,,\ \ \ \ (t,x) \in (0, \infty)\times \mathbb{R}_{+}^n
\end{equation}
subject to the initial condition $u(0,x)=||x||_1$\,,
and are dominated by any nonnegative classical supersolution of the \textsc{Cauchy} problem \eqref{eq:Pucci}, \eqref{eq:initial cond}. } \qed
\end{remark}
\subsection{Sufficient Conditions for $\mathfrak{u}\equiv\Phi\equiv \widehat{\Phi}$ to be a classical supersolution of (\ref{eq:PDE})}
Now let us provide some sufficient conditions under which we have $\mathfrak{u}\equiv\Phi\equiv \widehat{\Phi}$, and this function is a classical solution of \eqref{eq:PDE} -- thus also the smallest nonnegative classical (super)solution of the \textsc{Cauchy} problem \eqref{eq:PDE}, \eqref{eq:initial cond} by virtue of Theorem \ref{thm:min}.
In particular, via the discussions below, we will see that one sufficient condition is the following specific requirements on the Knightian uncertainty $\mathbb{K}$\,.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:suff}
Suppose that there exist locally L{\scriptsize IPSCHITZ} functions $\mathbf{s}: \mathbb{R}_+^n\to {\mathrm{GL}}(n)$ and $\boldsymbol{\theta}: \mathbb{R}^n_+\to \mathbb{R}^n$, and subsets $\mathcal{R}(y)$ $(y\in \mathbb{R}_+^n)$ of $\,\mathbb{R}$ such that
the functions $\mathbf{s}(\cdot)$ and $\mathbf{b}(\cdot):=\mathbf{s}(\cdot)\boldsymbol{\theta}(\cdot)$ are linearly growing $($i.e., satisfy \eqref{eq:linearGrowth}$)$ and with $
\mathbf{a}(y) :=\mathbf{s}(y)\mathbf{s}'(y)$ $(y\in \mathbb{R}^n_+)$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:(theta,a)}
\big(\boldsymbol{\theta}(y),\mathbf{a}(y)\big)\in \mathcal{K}(y)\,,\quad \mathcal{A}(y)=\{r\cdot\mathbf{a}(y): r\in \mathcal{R}(y)\}\,,\quad \min\, \mathcal{R}(y)=1 \quad {\mathrm{for\ all\ }} y\in \mathbb{R}^n_+\,.
\end{equation}
Then $\mathfrak{u}\equiv \Phi\equiv \widehat{\Phi}$
is the smallest nonnegative classical (super)solution of the C{\scriptsize AUCHY} problem \eqref{eq:PDE}, \eqref{eq:initial cond}, and the smallest nonnegative classical (super)solution of the C{\scriptsize AUCHY} problem \eqref{eq:a}, \eqref{eq:initial cond}.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
This result follows directly from Remark \ref{rmk:Markovian} and Theorem \ref{prop:u_M supersol} below.
\end{proof}
We start with the following observation.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:Phi supersol}
If there exist admissible systems $\,\mathcal{M}^{y}\in \widehat{\mathfrak{M}}(y)$ $(y\in \mathbb{R}_{+}^n)$ such that \begin{equation}\label{eq:V}
V(t,y):=\mathfrak{u}_{\mathcal{M}^{y}}(t,y)\,, \quad (t,y)\in [0, \infty)\times\mathbb{R}_{+}^n
\end{equation}
is a classical supersolution of \eqref{eq:PDE}, then $\mathfrak{u}\equiv\Phi\equiv\widehat{\Phi}\equiv V$ is the smallest nonnegative classical (super)solution of the C{\scriptsize AUCHY} problem \eqref{eq:PDE}, \eqref{eq:initial cond}.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Theorem \ref{thm:min} and the definition \eqref{eq:Phi} of $\widehat{\Phi}$ give $V(t,y)\ge \mathfrak{u}(t,y) \ge \Phi(t,y)\ge\widehat{\Phi}(t,y)\ge \mathfrak{u}_{\mathcal{M}^{y}}(t,y)=V(t,y)$, hence $\mathfrak{u}\equiv\Phi\equiv\widehat{\Phi}\equiv V$ is a classical supersolution of \eqref{eq:PDE}.
\end{proof}
To proceed further, we need the following assumption.
\begin{asmp}\label{asmp:Markovian}
{\rm
There exist admissible systems $\mathcal{M}^x \in \widehat{\mathfrak{M}}(x)$, $x\in \mathbb{R}_{+}^n$
such that \\
{\bf (i)} they share the same functionals $\sigma(t,\mathfrak{X})=\mathbf{s}(\mathfrak{X}(t))$ and $ \vartheta(t,\mathfrak{X})=\boldsymbol{\theta}(\mathfrak{X}(t))$ as in \eqref{eq:Markovian}; and\\
{\bf (ii)} for every $x\in \mathbb{R}_{+}^n$\,,
the process $\mathfrak{X}$ in $\mathcal{M}^x$ is unique in distribution in the following sense (and thus strongly Markovian): for any admissible system $\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}
\in {\mathfrak{M}}(x)$ with the same functionals $\sigma$ and $\vartheta$ as in $\mathcal{M}^x$, the two processes $\mathfrak{X}^{\mathcal{M}^x}$ and $\mathfrak{X}^{\widetilde{\mathcal{M}} }$ have the same law.
}\qed
\end{asmp}
\begin{remark}\label{rmk:Markovian}
{\rm
Assumption \ref{asmp:Markovian} holds when the conditions in Remark \ref{rmk:nonemptyM}\,(i) are satisfied.
} \qed
\end{remark}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:u_M vis sol}
Under Assumption \ref{asmp:Markovian}, the function $V$ of \eqref{eq:V} is\\
{\bf (i)} dominated by any nonnegative classical supersolution of the C{\scriptsize AUCHY} problem \eqref{eq:a}, \eqref{eq:initial cond};\\
{\bf (ii)} a viscosity solution of \eqref{eq:a}, if $ \boldsymbol{\theta}(\cdot)$ and $\mathbf{a}(\cdot)$ are locally bounded and $\mathbf{a}(\cdot)$ is continuous; and\\
{\bf (iii)} a classical solution of the C{\scriptsize AUCHY} problem \eqref{eq:a}, \eqref{eq:initial cond} (and thus its smallest nonnegative (super)solution), if $\mathbf{s}(\cdot)$ and $\boldsymbol{\theta}(\cdot)$ are locally L{\scriptsize IPSCHITZ}.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We will see that {\it (i)} and {\it (ii)} are special cases of Theorems \ref{thm:min} and Theorems \ref{thm:viscosity1}--\ref{thm:viscosity2}, respectively, with $\mathcal{K}(y)=\{(\boldsymbol{\theta}(y),\mathbf{a}(y))\}$ $(y\in \mathbb{R}_{+}^n)$ via the following observations.
First, in this case we have $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(t,y)=\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{a}(y)}(t,y)$ (recall the definition \eqref{eq:hatL} for $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}$ and $\mathcal{L}_{a}$).
Moreover, by virtue of Assumption \ref{asmp:Markovian} and definition \eqref{eq:um}, we have $\mathfrak{u}_{\mathcal{M}^{y}}(t,y)=\mathfrak{u}_{\mathcal{M}}(t,y)$ for all $\mathcal{M}\in {\mathfrak{M}}(y)$, and by the definition \eqref{eq:Phi} of $\Phi$ and $\widehat{\Phi}$ gives $$\Phi(t,y)=\widehat{\Phi}(t,y)=\mathfrak{u}_{\mathcal{M}^{y}}(t,y)=V(t,y)\, .$$
{\it (iii)} Under these conditions, we have $V(\cdot \,,\cdot)\in C^{1,2}((0,\infty)\times \mathbb{R}_+^n)$
(see \cite[Theorem 4.7]{R13} for a proof that uses results from the theory of stochastic flows (\cite{Ku}, \cite{Pr}) and from parabolic partial differential equations (\cite{ET}, \cite{JT})), and conclude by invoking (ii) since the local \textsc{Lipschitz} condition on $\mathbf{s}$ and $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ implies the condition in {\it (ii)}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:u_M supersol}
If Assumption \ref{asmp:Markovian} holds with locally L{\scriptsize IPSCHITZ} functions $\mathbf{s}(\cdot)$ and $\boldsymbol{\theta}(\cdot)$, and there exist subsets $\mathcal{R}(y)$ $(y\in \mathbb{R}_+^n)$ of $\,\mathbb{R}$ such that \eqref{eq:(theta,a)} holds, then, with $\mathcal{M}^{y}\in \widehat{\mathfrak{M}}(y)$ as in Assumption \ref{asmp:Markovian}, the function
\begin{equation}\label{eq:u=V}
\mathfrak{u}(t,y) \, \equiv \, \Phi(t,y)\, \equiv \, \widehat{\Phi}(t,y) \, \equiv \, \mathfrak{u}_{\mathcal{M}^y}(t,y)
\end{equation}
is the smallest nonnegative classical (super)solution of the C{\scriptsize AUCHY} problem \eqref{eq:PDE}, \eqref{eq:initial cond}, as well as the smallest nonnegative classical (super)solution of the C{\scriptsize AUCHY} problem \eqref{eq:a}, \eqref{eq:initial cond}.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
By Proposition \ref{prop:u_M vis sol}\,(iii), the right-hand side of \eqref{eq:u=V}, i.e., the function $V$ of \eqref{eq:V} solves \eqref{eq:a}:
\begin{equation*}
V_t(t,y)=\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{a}(y)}V(t,y)\,, \quad (t,y)\in (0, \infty)\times\mathbb{R}_{+}^n\,.
\end{equation*}
Thus
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{L}_{r\cdot\mathbf{a}(y)}V(t,y)\,=\,r\cdot\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{a}(y)}V(t,y)\,=\,r\cdot V_t(t,y)\,, \quad (t,y)\in (0, \infty)\times\mathbb{R}_{+}^n\,.
\end{equation*}
Once we have shown that $V_t(t,y)\le 0$\,, i.e., that $V$ is nonincreasing in $t$ on $(0, \infty)$, for all $y\in \mathbb{R}_{+}^n$\,, then $V$ is a classical supersolution of \eqref{eq:PDE} on the strength of \eqref{eq:(theta,a)}, and the proof will be complete by Proposition \ref{prop:Phi supersol}.
In fact, under any given admissible system, the positive process $L(\cdot)X(\cdot)$ is a local martingale, hence a supermartingale (one can derive the formula $\mathrm{d}( L(t)X(t) ) =L(t)X(t)\left( \pi'\sigma-\vartheta'\right) (t,\mathfrak{X})\, \mathrm{d}W(t) $ with $\pi$ the market portfolio, via \textsc{It\^o}'s Rule; see \eqref{eq:dLZ} for details). Therefore
$V(t,y)=\mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{P}^{\mathcal{M}^y}}\big[L^{\mathcal{M}^y}(t)X^{\mathcal{M}^y}(t)\big]/\,||y||_1$
is indeed nonincreasing in $t$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
{\rm
This result is in agreement with general regularity
theory for fully nonlinear parabolic equations, as in \cite[Theorem II.4]{L83c}.
}
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
{\rm
We have tried to find weaker conditions for Theorem \ref{thm:u=Phi} to hold, or for the function $\Phi$ to be continuous, but did not succeed. Even if all the functions $\mathfrak{u}_{\mathcal{M}}$ are of class $C^{1,2}$, their supremum $\Phi$ might still fail to be continuous.} \qed
\end{remark}
\section{The Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:min}: Minimality}
\label{appendix:min}
The proof consists of two parts, Theorems \ref{thm:U>=Phi} and \ref{thm:U>=u}. Theorem \ref{thm:U>=Phi} shows that any nonnegative classical supersolution $U$ of the C{\scriptsize AUCHY} problem \eqref{eq:PDE}, \eqref{eq:initial cond} is strictly positive, by proving that
$U(T,x)\ge \Phi(T,x)$ and then applying the fact $\Phi(T,x)>0$ from \eqref{eq:u>=Phi}.
In Theorem \ref{thm:U>=u}, the positivity of $U$ from Theorem \ref{thm:U>=Phi} enables us to construct an investment rule from $U$ (see \eqref{eq:pi^U} below) that matches or outperforms the market portfolio over the time horizon $[0,T]$, with probability one under all admissible systems. We then conclude that $U(T,x)\ge \mathfrak{u}(T,x)$ from the definition \eqref{eq:u} of $\mathfrak{u}(T,x)$.
The following proofs of Theorems \ref{thm:U>=Phi} and \ref{thm:U>=u} adopt the idea from \cite[Proposition 2, (5.3)--(5.15)]{FK11} and provide details for completeness.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:U>=Phi}
For any nonnegative classical supersolution $U$ of the C{\scriptsize AUCHY} problem \eqref{eq:PDE}, \eqref{eq:initial cond}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:U>=Phi}
U(T,x)\ge \Phi(T,x)>0\,, \ \ \forall\ (T,x)\in[0, \infty)\times \mathbb{R}_{+}^n\,.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The second inequality was shown in \eqref{eq:u>=Phi}.
For the first inequality, let us fix an admissible system $\mathcal{M} \in \mathfrak{M}(x)$; the remaining discussion in this proof will be carried out under this system. The key point, is to show that the process
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Xi}
\Xi(t):=X(t)L(t)U\big(T-t,\mathfrak{X}(t)\big)
\end{equation}
is a supermartingale.
Once this is proved, with the initial condition $U(0,\cdot)\ge 1$\,, we obtain
\begin{align*}
||x||_1\, U(T,x)= &\
\mathbb{E}\big[ \Xi(0)\big]
\ge \mathbb{E}\big[ \Xi(T)\big]
=\mathbb{E}\big[X(T)L(T)U(0,\mathfrak{X}(T))\big] \\
\ge &\ \mathbb{E}\big[X(T)L(T)\big]
=
||x||_1\, \mathfrak{u}_{\mathcal{M}}(T,x)\,,\quad \mathrm{by\ the\ definition}\ \eqref{eq:um}\,.
\end{align*}
Since $||x||_1>0$\,, we deduce $\, U(T,x)\ge \mathfrak{u}_{\mathcal{M}}(T,x)\,$,
which leads to \eqref{eq:U>=Phi} by the definition \eqref{eq:Phi}.
\smallskip
To show the supermartingale property of $\Xi(\cdot)$, we apply Lemma \ref{lemma:Ito} with $\varphi=U$ and get
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:dXi}
\nonumber \mathrm{d}\left(\Xi(t) \right)
&=& -L(t)X(t)\left(U_t- \mathcal{L}_{\alpha(t,\mathfrak{X})}U\right) \big(T-t,\mathfrak{X}(t)\big)\, \mathrm{d}t
-X(t)U\big(T-t,\mathfrak{X}(t)\big)L(t)\,\vartheta'(t,\mathfrak{X})\, \mathrm{d}W(t)\\
&&+L(t)\sum_{i,k} X_i(t) \left[U\big(T-t,\mathfrak{X}(t)\big)+X(t) D_i U \big(T-t,\mathfrak{X}(t)\big)\right] \sigma_{ik}(t,\mathfrak{X})\, \mathrm{d}W_k(t)\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Thanks to the supersolution property of $U$ that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Ut-LU}
\left( U_t- \mathcal{L}_{\alpha(t,\mathfrak{X})}U\right) (s,y)
\ge \big( U_t- \widehat{\mathcal{L}}U\big) (s,y) \ge 0\,,\quad \forall\ (s,y)\in[0,\infty)\times\mathbb{R}^n_+
\end{equation}
(recall $\mathcal{L}_{a}$ and $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}$ from \eqref{eq:hatL}) and the nonnegativity of the processes $L(\cdot) $, $X(\cdot)$ and the function $U(\cdot,\cdot)$, we conclude that $\Xi(t)$ is a nonnegative local martingale, hence a supermartingale.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:U>=u}
For any nonnegative classical supersolution $U$ of the C{\scriptsize AUCHY} problem \eqref{eq:PDE}, \eqref{eq:initial cond}, the investment rule $\pi^U\in \mathfrak{P}$ generated by this function $U$ through
\begin{equation}\label{eq:pi^U}
\pi_i^U(t,\omega):=\omega_i(t)D_i \log U(T-t,\omega(t))+\frac{\omega_i(t)}{||\omega(t)||_1}\,,\,\,\,\, i=1,\dots,n\,,\,\, \, t\in[0, T]
\end{equation}
for continuous function $\omega:[0,\infty)\to \mathbb{R}_{+}^n\,$,
satisfies the inequality
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Z>=X}
Z^{\,U(T,x)X^{\mathcal{M}}(0),\pi^U}(T)\ge X^{\mathcal{M}}(T)\,,\quad \mathbb{P}\mathrm{-a.s.}, \quad \forall\ \mathcal{M} \in \mathfrak{M}(x)\,.
\end{equation}
It then follows from the definition \eqref{eq:u} of $\,\mathfrak{u}(T,x)$ that
$$U(T,x)\ge \mathfrak{u}(T,x)\,, \ \ \forall\ (T,x)\in[0, \infty)\times \mathbb{R}_{+}^n\,.$$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The investment rule $\pi^U$ is well-defined since $U$ is positive by Theorem \ref{thm:U>=Phi}. Let us fix $\mathcal{M} \in \mathfrak{M}(x)$; the remaining discussion in this proof will be carried out under this system.
We shall set $v:=U(T,x)X(0)$ and ${\pi}:=\pi^U$\label{p:pi}.
The main goal is to show that the growth rate of the process $\log \left( L(t)Z^{v,\pi}(t)\right) $ is no less than that of $\log \Xi(t)$ with $\Xi(t)$ defined in \eqref{eq:Xi}.
Once this is proved, noticing that these two processes start at the same initial value $v$, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
L(T)Z^{v,\pi}(T)\ge \Xi(T)=X(T)L(T)U(0,\mathfrak{X}(T))\ge X(T)L(T)\,,
\end{equation*}
as $U(0,\cdot)\ge 1$ by the initial condition. This leads to \eqref{eq:Z>=X} as $L(T)>0$\,.
\smallskip
To start, we observe from \eqref{eq:Z} with $\pi={\it \Pi}$ that the wealth process $Z^{v,\pi}(\cdot)$ satisfies the dynamics
\begin{equation}\label{eq:dZ}
\mathrm{d}Z^{v,\pi}(t)
= Z^{v,\pi}(t) \pi'(t,\mathfrak{X})\sigma(t,\mathfrak{X}) \left[\vartheta(t,\mathfrak{X})\, \mathrm{d} t+ \mathrm{d}W(t) \right] \quad \mathrm{with }\quad Z^{v,\pi}(0)=v\,.
\end{equation}
We apply \textsc{It\^o}'s Rule
for the product function $f_1(r_1,r_2):=r_1r_2$ with \eqref{eq:L} and \eqref{eq:dZ} yields
\begin{align}\label{eq:dLZ}
\mathrm{d}\left( L(t)Z^{v,\pi}(t) \right)
=&\ L(t)\, \mathrm{d} Z^{v,\pi}(t)+ Z^{v,\pi}(t)\, \mathrm{d}L(t) + \mathrm{d} \langle L, Z^{v,\pi}\rangle(t) \\ \nonumber
=&\ L(t)Z^{v,\pi}(t)
\left[ \pi'\sigma\vartheta\,\mathrm{d}t + \pi'\sigma\,\mathrm{d}W(t) - \vartheta'\,\mathrm{d}W(t)
- \pi'\sigma\vartheta\,\mathrm{d}t \right](t,\mathfrak{X}) \\ \nonumber
=&\ L(t)Z^{v,\pi}(t)\mathcal{H}(t,\mathfrak{X})\, \mathrm{d}W(t) \,,
\end{align}
where
\begin{equation} \label{eq:calH}
\mathcal{H}(t,\mathfrak{X})
:= (\pi'\sigma -\vartheta')(t,\mathfrak{X})\,,
\end{equation}
whose $k$-th component
\begin{align}\label{eq:calH_k}
\mathcal{H}_k(t,\mathfrak{X})
=\sum_{i} \left[X_i(t)D_i \log U\big(T-t,\mathfrak{X}(t)\big)+\frac{X_i(t)}{X(t)}\right]\sigma_{ik}(t,\mathfrak{X}) -\vartheta_k(t,\mathfrak{X})\,, \quad {\mathrm{by}}\ \eqref{eq:pi^U}\,.
\end{align}
Applying \textsc{It\^o}'s Rule to the logarithm function for $L(\cdot)Z^{v,\pi}(\cdot)$, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq:d{LZ}}
\mathrm{d}\log \left( L(t)Z^{v,\pi}(t)\right)
= \mathcal{H}(t,\mathfrak{X})\, \mathrm{d}W(t)-\frac{1}{\,2\,}\left( \mathcal{H}\mathcal{H}'\right) (t,\mathfrak{X})\, \mathrm{d}t\,.
\end{equation}
To determine the growth rate for $\log \Xi(\cdot)$, we recast \eqref{eq:dXi} into
\begin{equation*}
\mathrm{d}\left(\Xi(t) \right)
=\Xi(t)\left[\mathcal{I}\big(T-t,\mathfrak{X}(t)\big)\mathrm{d}t+ \mathcal{H}(t,\mathfrak{X})\,\mathrm{d}W(t)\right],
\end{equation*}
by virtue of
$$\left( \frac{D_i U}{U}\right) (s,y)=D_i \big( \log U(s,y)\big),\quad (s,y)\in[0,\infty)\times\mathbb{R}^n_+$$
and \eqref{eq:calH_k}, where
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{I}(s,y):=- \left(\frac{U_t- \mathcal{L}_{\alpha(t,\mathfrak{X})}U}{U}\right)(s,y)\le 0\,,\quad (s,y)\in[0,\infty)\times\mathbb{R}^n_+\,,\quad \mathrm{by}\ \eqref{eq:Ut-LU}\ \mathrm{and}\ U>0\,.
\end{equation*}
Applying \textsc{It\^o}'s Rule again to the logarithm function for $\Xi(\cdot)$ and juxtaposing with \eqref{eq:d{LZ}} leads to
\begin{align*}
\mathrm{d}\log \Xi(t)
= {\mathcal{I}}\big(T-t,\mathfrak{X}(t)\big)\mathrm{d}t+\mathcal{H}(t,\mathfrak{X})\, \mathrm{d}W(t)-\frac{1}{\,2\,}\left( \mathcal{H}\mathcal{H}'\right) (t,\mathfrak{X})\, \mathrm{d}t \le \mathrm{d}\log \left( L(t)Z^{v,\pi}(t)\right)\,,
\end{align*}
as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
{\rm
In the special case of a model without uncertainty, the HJB equation \eqref{eq:PDE} reduces to a linear PDE. If additionally, the functions $\sigma$ and $\vartheta$ have the form of \eqref{eq:Markovian} and are locally \textsc{Lipschitz} continuous, then the arbitrage function $\mathfrak{u}$ is also shown to be dominated by every nonnegative and lower-semicontinuous viscosity supersolution of the \textsc{Cauchy} problem for the linear PDE \eqref{eq:PDE} and \eqref{eq:initial cond} \cite[Proposition 4.7]{BHS}, that satisfies certain convexity and continuity conditions.
This local \textsc{Lipschitz} condition on $\sigma$ and $\vartheta$ is indispensable in the proof of \cite{BHS}.
It is the subject of future research, to determine whether this result still holds with weaker assumptions and in the presence of model uncertainty.
} \qed
\end{remark}
\section{Examples}\label{section:example}
The volatility-stabilized model was introduced in \cite{FK05} and further generalized in \cite{Pi}, but now we add some uncertainty regarding its local volatility and relative risk structure.
\begin{example} {\bf Volatility-Stabilized Model:}
\label{example:1}
{\rm
Take constants $c_1^*\ge c_1\ge 1/2$ and $c_2\ge 1$\,, and set
$$\mathcal{K}(y)=\big\{ \big(\gamma_2\, \mathbf{a}(y),\gamma_1\gamma_2\,\boldsymbol{\theta}(y)\big):
\gamma_1 \in[c_1,c_1^*],\
\gamma_2\in[1,c_2]\big\}\,,
$$
where
\begin{equation}\label{eq:bf{s}}
\mathbf{a}(y)=\mathbf{s}(y)\mathbf{s}'(y)\ \ {\mathrm{with}}\ \ \mathbf{s}_{ij}(y)=\bm{1}_{\{i=j\}}
(||y||_1/y_i) ^{1/2}\,,\quad \boldsymbol{\theta}_{i}(y)=(||y||_1/y_i)^{1/2}\,,\ \ 1\le i,j\le n\,.
\end{equation}
Then the system of Stochastic Differential Equations \eqref{eq:SDE} becomes
\begin{equation*}
\mathrm{d}X_i(t) = \gamma_1 \gamma^2_2 \, \big(X_1 (t) + \cdots + X_n (t)\big)\, \mathrm{d}t
\qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad
\end{equation*}
$$
\qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad
+\, \gamma_2\sqrt{X_i(t) \big(X_1 (t) + \cdots + X_n (t)\big)\,}\, \mathrm{d}W_i(t)\,,\quad i = 1,\dots,n\,,
$$
\medskip
\noindent
or equivalently, and a bit more succinctly,
\begin{equation*}
{\mathrm{d}}\,\log (X_i(t) )\,=\, \left( \gamma_1 -\frac{1}{2}\right) \frac{\gamma^2_2}{\mu_i(t,\mathfrak{X}) } \, {\mathrm{d}}t + \frac{\gamma_{2}}{ \mu_i(t,\mathfrak{X})}\, {\mathrm{d}}W_i(t), \quad i = 1,\dots,n\,,
\end{equation*}
with $\mu(t,\mathfrak{X})$ the market portfolio defined in \eqref{eq:mu}.
\medskip
\noindent
For every $x \in \mathbb{R}_{+}^n$\,, $\gamma_1 \in[c_1,c_1^*]$ and $
\gamma_2\in[1,c_2]$, this system of SDEs has a unique-in-distribution solution $\mathfrak{X}(\cdot)$ starting at $\mathfrak{X}(0)=x$ whose $X_i(\cdot)$'s are time-changed versions of independent squared-\textsc{Bessel} processes (see \cite{BP}, \cite{FK05} and \cite{G} for more details). In particular, we have $\mathfrak{X}(\cdot)\in \mathbb{R}_{+}^n$\,.
\smallskip
Moreover, this uncertainty structure satisfies the conditions in Remark \ref{rmk:u<1} and Proposition \ref{prop:u_M supersol} with the
$\mathbf{s}$, $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ as in \eqref{eq:bf{s}} and $\mathcal{R}(y)=[1,c_2]$.
Hence \begin{equation}\label{eq:u=Phi<1}
\mathfrak{u}(t,y)\equiv \Phi(t,y) \equiv \widehat{\Phi}(t,y)\equiv \mathfrak{u}_{\mathcal{M}^y}(t,y)
\begin{cases}
<1\,, &\mathrm{if}\ t>0\\ =1\,, &\mathrm{if}\ t=0
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
is the smallest nonnegative classical (super)solution of the \textsc{Cauchy} problem \eqref{eq:PDE}, \eqref{eq:initial cond}, as well as the smallest nonnegative classical (super)solution of the \textsc{Cauchy} problem \eqref{eq:a}, \eqref{eq:initial cond} (recall $\mathcal{M}^y$ from Assumption \ref{asmp:Markovian}; see \cite{G} and \cite{Pal} for a computation of the joint density of $X_1(\cdot), \dots ,X_n(\cdot)$, which leads to an explicit formula for
$$\mathfrak{u}_{\mathcal{M}^y}(t,y) \,=\, \frac{\,\Pi_{i=1}^n\, y_i\,}{\,||y||_1\,} \, \cdot \, \mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{P}^{\mathcal{M}^y}} \left[\frac{\, \Pi_{i=1}^n X^{\mathcal{M}^y}_i(t) \,}{\,||X^{\mathcal{M}^y}(t)||_1\,} \right]$$ and shows that this function is indeed of class $C^{1,2}$).
}
\end{example}
\begin{example} {\bf Generalized Volatility-Stabilized Model:} \label{example:2}
{\rm
Take constants $c_i^*\ge c_i \ge 0$\,, $i=1,2,\dots,n$ and $c_{n+1}\ge 1$\,, and set
$$\mathcal{K}(y)=\left\{ (a,\theta): a=\gamma_{n+1}\, \mathbf{a}(y),\
\theta_{i}=\frac{\gamma_i+\gamma^2_{n+1}}{2\gamma_{n+1}}\,\boldsymbol{\theta}_{i}(y),\
\gamma_i \in[c_i,c_i^*],\ \gamma_{n+1}\in [1,c_{n+1}],\ 1\le i\le n\right\}\,,
$$
where $\, \mathbf{a}(y)=\mathbf{s}(y)\mathbf{s}'(y)\, $ with
\begin{equation}\label{eq:bf{s}2}
\ \mathbf{s}_{ij}(y)=\bm{1}_{\{i=j\}}
\left( \frac{||y||_1}{y_i}\right)^{\kappa}G(y)\,,\ \ \ \ \ \boldsymbol{\theta}_{i}(y)=\left( \frac{||y||_1}{y_i}\right)^{\kappa} G(y)\,,\ \ \ \ 1\le i,j\le n
\end{equation}
where $\kappa$ is a positive constant and $G:\mathbb{R}_+^n\to \mathbb{R}_+$ is a bounded and locally \textsc{Lipschitz} function (Example \ref{example:1} is a special case of this model with $\kappa=1/2$ and $G\equiv 1$).
Then the system of Stochastic Differential Equations \eqref{eq:SDE} becomes
\begin{equation*}
{\mathrm{d}}X_i(t)
= X_i(t) \left[ \frac{\gamma_i+\gamma^2_{n+1}}{2 \left( \mu_i(t,\mathfrak{X})\right) ^{2\kappa}}\, G^2(\mathfrak{X}(t))\, {\mathrm{d}}t + \frac{\gamma_{n+1}}{\left( \mu_i(t,\mathfrak{X})\right) ^{\kappa}}\,G(\mathfrak{X}(t))\, {\mathrm{d}}W_i(t)\right], \quad i = 1,\dots,n
\end{equation*}
\smallskip
\noindent
with $\mu(t,\mathfrak{X})$ the market portfolio defined in \eqref{eq:mu}, or equivalently,
\begin{equation*}
{\mathrm{d}}\log (X_i(t) )
= \frac{\gamma_i}{2\left( \mu_i(t,\mathfrak{X})\right) ^{2\kappa}} \, G^2(\mathfrak{X}(t))\, {\mathrm{d}}t + \frac{\gamma_{n+1}}{\left( \mu_i(t,\mathfrak{X})\right) ^{\kappa}}\,G(\mathfrak{X}(t))\, {\mathrm{d}}W_i(t), \quad i = 1,\dots,n\,,
\end{equation*}
\smallskip
\noindent
For every $x \in \mathbb{R}_{+}^n\,$, $\gamma_i \in[c_i,c_i^*]$, $i=1,2,\dots, n$ and $\gamma_{n+1}\in [1,c_{n+1}]$, this system of SDEs has a unique-in-distribution solution $\mathfrak{X}(\cdot)$ starting at $\mathfrak{X}(0)=x$, the components $X_i(\cdot)$ of this solution are time-changed versions of independent squared-\textsc{Bessel} processes (see \cite{BP} and \cite[Sections 2 and 4]{Pi} for more details). In particular, we have $\mathfrak{X}(\cdot)\in \mathbb{R}_{+}^n$\,.
This uncertainty structure also satisfies the conditions in Proposition \ref{prop:u_M supersol} with the
$\mathbf{s}$, $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ as in \eqref{eq:bf{s}2} and $\mathcal{R}(y)=[1,c_{n+1}]$, therefore
$$\mathfrak{u}(t,y)\equiv \Phi(t,y)\equiv \widehat{\Phi}(t,y) \equiv \mathfrak{u}_{\mathcal{M}^y}(t,y)$$ is the smallest nonnegative classical (super)solution of the \textsc{Cauchy} problem \eqref{eq:PDE}, \eqref{eq:initial cond}, as well as the smallest nonnegative classical (super)solution of the \textsc{Cauchy} problem \eqref{eq:a}, \eqref{eq:initial cond} (recall $\mathcal{M}^y$ from Assumption \ref{asmp:Markovian}).
If in addition $G(\cdot)$ is bounded away from zero, then the condition in Remark \ref{rmk:u<1} is satisfied as well and \eqref{eq:u=Phi<1} follows.
}
\end{example}
\smallskip
|
\section{Introduction}
Relativistic heavy-ion collisions produce a hot, dense phase of strongly-interacting matter commonly known as the quark-gluon plasma (QGP), which rapidly expands and freezes into hadrons \cite{Arsene:2004fa,Adcox:2004mh,Back:2004je,Adams:2005dq,Gyulassy:2004zy,Muller:2006ee,Muller:2012zq}.
Since the QGP is not directly observable---only final-state hadrons are detected---present research seeks to quantify the fundamental properties of the QGP, such as its transport coefficients and the nature of the initial state, through comparisons of experimental measurements to computational model calculations.
Computational models must take a set of input parameters including the physical properties of interest, simulate the full time-evolution of heavy-ion collisions, and produce outputs analogous to experimental measurements.
The true values of the physical properties are extracted by calibrating the input parameters so that the model output optimally reproduces experimental data.
This generic recipe is called ``model-to-data comparison''.
Notably, the QGP shear viscosity to entropy density ratio $\eta/s$ has been constrained by comparing anisotropic flow coefficients $v_n$ between model and experiment.
Explicit calculation of $\eta/s$ directly from QCD is not yet feasible, and while there is a conjectured lower bound $\eta/s~\geq~1/4\pi~\simeq~0.08$ from AdS/CFT holography \cite{Kovtun:2004de}, model-to-data comparison is the most attractive option for determining the optimal input parameter value and corresponding uncertainty.
To this end, previous studies used viscous relativistic fluid dynamics and hybrid transport models to compute $v_n$ at several values of $\eta/s$, then chose the value which most closely matched experimental $v_n$.
A variety of complementary calculations have constrained $\eta/s$ to an approximate range of 0.08--0.20 \cite{Luzum:2008cw,Song:2010mg,Schenke:2010rr,Luzum:2012wu}.
However, $\eta/s$ is not the only model input parameter:
many other parameters remain poorly determined, e.g.~the hydrodynamic thermalization time $\tau_0$ and initial conditions; and models often have non-physical nuisance parameters that nonetheless should be tuned to optimal values.
The flow coefficients $v_n$ are only a small subset of all QGP observables:
models must also describe basic quantities such as the charged-particle multiplicity and transverse-momentum distributions.
Recent work \cite{Soltz:2012rk} moved toward a more global analysis of multiple model parameters and observables, but encountered practical limitations attempting to simultaneously tune these free parameters.
In general, input parameters correlate among each other and contribute to multiple observables, so they cannot be constrained independently.
Algorithms such as Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) can rigorously explore this type of complex high-dimensional parameter space, but require a very large number of model evaluations---often thousands or millions, depending on the problem at hand.
Heavy-ion collision models may run for several hours, so a direct MCMC approach is intractable.
The situation is exacerbated when studying event-by-event fluctuations as opposed to average quantities:
while event-averaged models save computation time by using a smooth initial condition and single hydrodynamic calculation, event-by-event models have realistic, fluctuated initial conditions, each of which requires its own hydrodynamic treatment.
Many thousands of complete events are necessary \emph{at each point in parameter space} to capture event-by-event fluctuations.
These limitations may be overcome through a modern Bayesian method for analyzing computationally expensive models \cite{OHagan:2006ba,Higdon:2008cmc,Higdon:2014tva}.
A set of salient model parameters is chosen for calibration---the set should include any fundamental physical properties of interest---and the model is evaluated at a relatively small \order 2 number of points.
Those points are then interpolated with a Gaussian process emulator \cite{Rasmussen:2006gp} to provide a continuous picture of the parameter space.
The emulator acts as a fast surrogate to the full model:
it predicts model output at arbitrary points in parameter space with negligible computational cost.
This effectively removes most practical barriers and enables parameter calibration through standard techniques such as MCMC.
Emulators have been successfully used to study a wide range of physical systems, including galaxy formation \cite{Gomez:2012ak} and heavy-ion collisions \cite{Novak:2013bqa,Pratt:2014cza,Pratt:2015zsa}.
Reference \cite{Novak:2013bqa} calibrated a hydrodynamic model to identified particle spectra from the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) and extracted constraints on $\eta/s$ and several initial state parameters.
However, this study used an event-averaged initial condition model, limiting its ability to investigate event-by-event fluctuations.
In this work, we apply Bayesian methodology to a full event-by-event heavy-ion collision model.
We calibrate to multiplicity and flow data from the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) and constrain the shear viscosity $\eta/s$ along with other hydrodynamic and initial condition parameters.
The analysis framework handles arbitrary numbers of inputs and outputs, systematically calculates quantitative constraints on all inputs simultaneously, and quickly evaluates the efficacy of physical models.
\section{Model}
State-of-the-art heavy-ion collision models simulate QGP spacetime evolution in several stages \cite{Bass:2000ib,Teaney:2001av,Hirano:2005xf,Nonaka:2006yn,Petersen:2008dd,Song:2010mg,Schenke:2010rr,Shen:2014vra}:
\begin{enumerate}
\item an initial condition model describes the initial state and non-equilibrium dynamics until QGP formation,
\item viscous relativistic hydrodynamics calculates the dynamical expansion of the hot and dense QGP medium including the phase transition to a hadron gas,
\item then a particlization model converts the system into a microscopic ensemble of hadrons,
\item and finally a Boltzmann transport model calculates hadronic rescattering and decays.
\end{enumerate}
In this work, we opt for a mature, well-tested set of event-by-event models \cite{Shen:2014vra} with an established track record of describing diverse RHIC and LHC data \cite{Song:2010mg,Shen:2011zc,Song:2011hk}.
This choice will permit direct comparison between existing results and the outcome of the following systematic model-to-data comparison.
We emphasize, however, that the methodology in this paper can easily be applied to any set of models and corresponding data.
\subsection{Initial conditions}
Initial condition models provide the outcome of the collision's pre-equilibrium evolution at the hydrodynamic thermalization time, approximately 0.5 fm/$c$.
Some models explicitly calculate pre-equilibrium dynamics \cite{Schenke:2012wb} starting from the initial state of the collision; others skip this time frame and generate initial conditions directly at the thermalization time \cite{Drescher:2006pi,Miller:2007ri,Moreland:2014oya}.
We select two of the most widely used models in the latter category:
the Monte Carlo Glauber \cite{Miller:2007ri} and Monte Carlo KLN \cite{Drescher:2006pi} models.
Although more sophisticated models were recently introduced \cite{Schenke:2012wb,Moreland:2014oya}, both Glauber and KLN provide reasonable event-by-event initial conditions with well-understood behavior and a broad basis of published results.
\subsection{Hydrodynamics}
The initial condition furnishes the hydrodynamic stress-energy tensor $T^{\mu\nu}$ at the thermalization time $\tau_0$.
Viscous hydrodynamics then solves the conservation equations
\begin{equation}
\partial_\mu T^{\mu\nu} = 0
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
T^{\mu\nu} = (\epsilon + P) u^\mu u^\nu - P g^{\mu\nu} + \pi^{\mu\nu};
\end{equation}
$\epsilon$, $P$, and $u^\mu$ are the energy density, pressure, and flow velocity of the fluid; $g^{\mu\nu}$ is the metric tensor; and $\pi^{\mu\nu}$ is the shear stress tensor.
An equation of state
\begin{equation}
P = P(\epsilon)
\end{equation}
closes the system of hydrodynamic equations and is usually provided by a parametrization of lattice QCD calculations.
We employ an improved version of \small{VISH2+1} \cite{Song:2007ux}, a stable, extensively tested implementation of boost-invariant viscous hydrodynamics that was recently updated to handle fluctuating event-by-event initial conditions \cite{Shen:2014vra}.
\small{VISH2+1} uses the prevalent s95 partial chemical equilibrium equation of state \cite{Huovinen:2009yb}.
\subsection{Particlization}
As the hydrodynamic medium expands and cools, it undergoes a transition from a deconfined QGP to a hot and dense hadronic system.
At this point it's advantageous to switch to a microscopic transport model, for such models naturally account for the system's increasing viscosity, non-equilibrium break-up, and eventual freeze-out.
Thus, a particlization model converts the fluid into a microscopic ensemble of hadrons once the fluid cools to a pre-specified switching temperature, typically just below the QCD transition temperature $T_c \sim 165$ MeV.
The model generates particles by sampling the Cooper-Frye formula \cite{Cooper:1974mv}
\begin{equation}
E \frac{dN_i}{d^3p} = \int_\sigma f_i(x,p) \, p^\mu \, d^3\sigma_\mu,
\end{equation}
where $f_i$ is the distribution function for particle species $i$, $p^\mu$ is the four-momentum, and the integral is taken over the isothermal spacetime hypersurface $\sigma$ defined by the switching temperature.
We use a recent hypersurface sampler designed to couple with \small{VISH2+1} \cite{Qiu:2013wca,Shen:2014vra}.
\subsection{Hadronic phase}
After particlization, the medium continues to expand as an interacting hadron gas (e.g.\ scatterings and decays).
A hadronic ``afterburner'' calculates these interactions through the Boltzmann equation
\begin{equation}
\frac{df_i(x,p)}{dt} = \mathcal C_i(x,p),
\end{equation}
where $f_i$ is the distribution function and $\mathcal C_i$ is the collision kernel which contains all possible hadronic interactions for particle species $i$.
Particles emerging from the afterburner are analogous to particles streaming into an experimental detector.
We adopt Ultra-relativistic Quantum Molecular Dynamics (UrQMD) \cite{Bass:1998ca,Bleicher:1999xi} as an afterburner.
\subsection{Postprocessing}
The full event-by-event model is executed \order 4 times for each set of input parameters, yielding \order 7 events in total.
Events are binned into centrality intervals and the raw event data are postprocessed into physical observables for direct comparison with experiment.
In this analysis we calculate the centrality dependence of several standard observables:
the average charged-particle multiplicity $\avgN_\text{ch}$ and multi-particle flow cumulants $\vnk n {2k}$.
Note that the method trivially extends to arbitrary numbers and types of observables---all that's required is a model calculation and a corresponding experimental measurement.
Flow cumulants $\vnk n {2k}$ are defined as the $2k$-particle correlation function of the $n$th-order azimuthal anisotropy.
For example, the two-particle cumulant is
\begin{equation}
\vnk n 2^2 \equiv \bigl\langle e^{in(\phi_i - \phi_j)} \bigr\rangle,
\end{equation}
where $\phi_i$ is the azimuthal angle of the transverse momentum of particle $i$ and the average is over all distinct pairs of particles $i,j$.
The two-particle cumulant is also approximately equal to the root-mean-square of the full $v_n$ distribution \cite{Borghini:2000sa}:
\begin{equation}
\vnk n 2 \simeq \sqrt{\avg{v_n^2}}.
\end{equation}
We compute two-particle cumulants for elliptic and triangular flow $\vnk 2 2$, $\vnk 3 2$ using the direct $Q$-cumulant method \cite{Bilandzic:2010jr}.
Higher-order cumulants are currently out of reach due to insufficient quantities of events.
Postprocessed observables are compared to corresponding experimental results recently measured by the ALICE experiment at the LHC for Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\text{NN}} = 2.76$ TeV \cite{Abelev:2014mda}.
All observables are subjected to the same kinematic cuts as the ALICE detector, namely charged particles with $|\eta| < 1$ and $0.2 < p_T < 3.0$ GeV.
\section{Emulator}
This section constructs a Gaussian process (GP) emulator to act as a surrogate for the full event-by-event model.
The strategy is to evaluate the model on a carefully chosen set of input parameter points, then use a GP to interpolate the parameter space.
Unlike alternative interpolation schemes such as splines or polynomial interpolation, a GP emulator provides a \emph{probability distribution} at each point in parameter space, hence, it not only predicts the output of the model at arbitrary points in parameter space, but also quantifies the uncertainty of its predictions.
Further, GPs are non-parametric interpolators, i.e.\ they do not require an assumed functional form for the underlying model.
These features are essential for emulation of computer codes.
\subsection{Gaussian processes}
\newcommand{\mathbf x}{\mathbf x}
\newcommand{\mathbf y}{\mathbf y}
\newcommand{\mathbf 0}{\mathbf 0}
\newcommand{\boldsymbol\mu}{\boldsymbol\mu}
\newcommand{\mathcal N}{\mathcal N}
This subsection summarizes the theory of Gaussian process emulators as detailed in Chap.~2 of \cite{Rasmussen:2006gp}.
A Gaussian process (GP) is defined as a collection of random variables, any finite number of which have a joint Gaussian distribution.
A GP may be thought of as a stochastic function $f(\mathbf x)$ which maps $n$-dimensional input vectors $\mathbf x$ to normally distributed outputs $y$.
It is fully specified by a mean function $\mu(\mathbf x)$ which gives the mean of $f$ at input point $\mathbf x$ and a covariance function $\sigma(\mathbf x, \mathbf x')$ which provides the covariance of $f$ between a pair of points $\mathbf x$, $\mathbf x'$.
As a concrete example, let $\mathbf x_1$ be an input point and $y_1~=~f(\mathbf x_1)$ be the output of the GP at $\mathbf x_1$; then $y_1$ has a normal distribution with mean $\mu(\mathbf x_1)$ and variance $\sigma(\mathbf x_1, \mathbf x_1)$:
\begin{equation}
y_1 \sim \mathcal N(\mu(\mathbf x_1), \sigma(\mathbf x_1, \mathbf x_1)).
\end{equation}
Now if $\mathbf x_2$ is another input and $y_2 = f(\mathbf x_2)$ is the corresponding output, $y_1$ and $y_2$ have a bivariate normal distribution
\begin{equation}
\begin{pmatrix}
y_1 \\ y_2
\end{pmatrix}
\sim \mathcal N\biggl[
\begin{pmatrix}
\mu(\mathbf x_1) \\ \mu(\mathbf x_2)
\end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix}
\sigma(\mathbf x_1, \mathbf x_1) & \sigma(\mathbf x_1, \mathbf x_2) \\
\sigma(\mathbf x_2, \mathbf x_1) & \sigma(\mathbf x_2, \mathbf x_2) \\
\end{pmatrix}
\biggr].
\end{equation}
In general, the set of $m$ random output variables $\mathbf y~=~\{y_1, \ldots, y_m\}~=~f(X)$ corresponding to input points $X~=~\{\mathbf x_1, \ldots, \mathbf x_m\}$ have a multivariate normal distribution
\begin{equation}
\mathbf y \sim \mathcal N(\boldsymbol\mu, \Sigma)
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol\mu = \mu(X) = \{\mu(\mathbf x_1), \mu(\mathbf x_2), \ldots, \mu(\mathbf x_m)\} \\
\end{equation}
is the $m$-dimensional mean vector from applying the mean function to each input, and
\begin{equation}
\Sigma = \sigma(X, X) =
\begin{pmatrix}
\sigma(\mathbf x_1, \mathbf x_1) & \cdots & \sigma(\mathbf x_1, \mathbf x_m) \\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
\sigma(\mathbf x_m, \mathbf x_1) & \cdots & \sigma(\mathbf x_m, \mathbf x_m) \\
\end{pmatrix}
\end{equation}
is the $m \times m$ covariance matrix from applying the covariance function to each pair of inputs.
In practice, the mean function is often set to zero, since the mean of a distribution can always be subtracted off.
The covariance function must be carefully chosen, for it controls the degree of similarity between pairs of points.
A standard choice is the squared-exponential function
\begin{equation}
\sigma(\mathbf x, \mathbf x') = \exp\biggl( -\frac{|\mathbf x - \mathbf x'|^2}{2\ell^2} \biggr),
\end{equation}
where $\ell$ is a characteristic length scale.
Notice that nearby points are strongly correlated ($\sigma \approx 1$) while distant points approach independence ($\sigma \rightarrow 0$).
This implies that the GP is smooth, i.e.\ nearby input points produce similar outputs.
Just as we can sample random numbers from a distribution, we can draw random functions from a GP.
We choose a set of test points $X_*$ (the reason for the subscript $*$ will become clear in a moment), calculate the covariance matrix $\Sigma = \sigma(X_*, X_*)$, and generate multivariate normal samples from $\mathcal N(\mathbf 0, \Sigma)$.
We can then plot the input-output points as smooth curves, as in the top panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:gp}.
Of course, simply generating random functions is not particularly useful---we want to use a GP to interpolate a computer model.
Suppose we have a model which takes a vector of input parameters $\mathbf x$ and produces an output $y$ according to some unknown GP $f(\mathbf x)$; for example, $f$ could be a hydrodynamic model with input parameters $\mathbf x = (\tau_0, \eta/s)$ and the output could be elliptic flow $v_2$.
We choose a set of training points $X$, run the model at each point, and observe a set of outputs $\mathbf y$.
Now, instead of completely random functions, we desire functions which pass through (interpolate) all the training points $(X, \mathbf y)$.
This is achieved by \emph{conditioning} the GP on the training data to yield a predictive distribution for $y$ at any input point $\mathbf x$.
Recalling the test points $X_*$, the predictive distribution for the corresponding outputs $\mathbf y_*$ is the multivariate normal distribution
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\mathbf y_* &\sim \mathcal N(\boldsymbol\mu, \Sigma), \\
\boldsymbol\mu &= \sigma(X_*, X)\sigma(X, X)^{-1}\mathbf y, \\
\Sigma &= \sigma(X_*,X_*) - \sigma(X_*,X)\sigma(X,X)^{-1}\sigma(X,X_*).
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:cond}
\end{equation}
See the bottom panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:gp} for an example of conditioning a GP on one-dimensional training data.
We emphasize that the prediction $\mathbf y_*$ is not constant, but a \emph{probability distribution} for the model outputs at $X_*$.
As demonstrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:gp}, the predictive distribution is narrow when near the training points and wide when far away, hence, it reflects the true state of knowledge of the interpolation.
This is accomplished without assuming a parametric form for the model---we must only assume that the model is a GP with a specified covariance function.
\colfig[t]{gp}{
Top: Random functions drawn from a Gaussian process using a squared-exponential covariance function with length scale $\ell = 1$.
Bottom: Functions drawn from a GP conditioned on the training points indicated by dots.
In both plots, the dashed line represents the GP mean and the grey band is twice the GP standard deviation (roughly 95\% confidence interval).
}
\subsection{Computer experiment design}
The full event-by-event model is to be evaluated on a set of $m$ training points $X = \{\mathbf x_1, \ldots, \mathbf x_m\}$, where each $\mathbf x_i$ is an $n$-dimensional vector of input parameters, so $X$ may be viewed as an $m \times n$ design matrix.
This subsection details the choice of input parameters and their distribution in parameter space.
For the present study, we choose a set of $n = 5$ input parameters
\begin{equation}
\mathbf x = (\text{Norm}, \text{I.C.\ param}, \tau_0, \eta/s, \tau_\pi)
\end{equation}
where
\begin{itemize}
\item Norm is the overall normalization factor, a multiplicative constant that determines how much entropy is deposited in the initial condition.
\item I.C.\ param is a parameter specific to each initial condition model.
For the Glauber model the parameter is $\alpha$, which controls how entropy is distributed to wounded nucleons and binary collisions;
for the KLN model it is $\lambda$, a dimensionless exponent in the saturation scale parametrization.
Both are related to the centrality dependence of multiplicity.
\item $\tau_0$ is the QGP thermalization time and the starting time for hydrodynamic evolution.
\item $\eta/s$ is the shear viscosity to entropy density ratio of the QGP, assumed to be fixed throughout the hydrodynamic evolution stage.
\item $\tau_\pi$ is the shear stress relaxation time, which dictates how quickly the hydro medium relaxes to the Navier-Stokes limit.
Since the relaxation time is a function of the shear viscosity and temperature and thus cannot be tuned explicitly, we use the coefficient $k_\pi$ in the relation $\tau_\pi = 6k_\pi\eta/(sT)$ as a tunable parameter.
\end{itemize}
We set intentionally large ranges for each parameter, summarized in Table~\ref{tab:design}.
In this work, we fix several auxiliary parameters to reasonable defaults:
nucleons are assumed to be disks with size determined by the inelastic nucleon-nucleon cross section $\sigma_\text{NN}$, and the hydro to micro switching temperature is set to 165 MeV, just below the equation of state transition temperature.
However, the method can handle arbitrary numbers of parameters provided the sample size is sufficiently large.
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{
\label{tab:design}
Input parameter ranges for the Glauber (Glb) and KLN initial condition models and for the hydrodynamic model.
}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{lll}
Parameter & Description & Range \\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
Glb Norm & Overall normalization & 20--60 \\
Glb $\alpha$ & Wounded nucleon / binary coll. & 0.05--0.30 \\
KLN Norm & Overall normalization & 5--15 \\
KLN $\lambda$ & Saturation scale exponent & 0.1--0.3 \\
$\tau_0$ & Thermalization time & 0.2--1.0 fm \\
$\eta/s$ & Specific shear viscosity & 0--0.3 \\
$k_\pi$ & Shear relaxation time coeff. & 0.2--1.1 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\end{table}
The training points $X = \{\mathbf x_1, \ldots, \mathbf x_m\}$ must be chosen to simultaneously optimize emulator accuracy and computation time.
Perhaps the most obvious design strategy is a uniform grid (factorial design), e.g.\ $k$ evenly-spaced points in each dimension.
Unfortunately, this leads to a total sample size $m = k^n$ which even for a modest $k = 10$ and $n = 5$ is intractably large.
A popular algorithm for generating efficient design points is maximin Latin hypercube sampling \cite{Morris:1995lh}.
This method produces space-filling randomized designs with several desirable properties:
\begin{itemize}
\item The \emph{minimum} distance between points is \emph{maximized}, thus avoiding large gaps and tight clusters.
\item Projections of the design into lower dimensions are uniformly distributed.
\end{itemize}
Figure~\ref{fig:design} illustrates these traits.
A Latin hypercube design with a relatively small sample size provides an efficient scaffolding of parameter space for interpolation by a GP emulator.
As a general rule of thumb, a sample size $m \sim 10n$ yields acceptable interpolation accuracy \cite{Loeppky:2009ss} and is a common choice for an initial experiment with limited computation time, however there is no harm in a larger sample.
We use a 256 point Latin hypercube design across the $n = 5$ input parameters; Fig.~\ref{fig:design} shows a two-dimensional projection.
At each design point, we have executed the event-by-event model \order 3 times in each of six centrality bins 0--5\%, 10--15\%, \ldots, 50-55\%, for both the Glauber and KLN models, yielding \order 7 events in total.
Two design points that were very near to the edge of the design space gave non-physical results and have been discarded, so the operational design has $m = 254$ points.
Figure~\ref{fig:prior_draws} shows the postprocessed observables $\avgN_\text{ch}$, $\vnk 2 2$, $\vnk 3 2$ as a function of centrality for each point in the design.
The results have a broad distribution which is a direct result of the wide ranges of input parameters.
There is some statistical error present in $\vnk 3 2$ due to insufficient quantities of events.
Note that these results constitute the training data for the GP emulator, not any kind of best-fit.
\colfig[t]{design}{
The Latin hypercube experiment design projected into the $(\eta/s, \tau_0)$ dimensions.
All other parameters also vary across the design, so the points that appear very close in the projection are not necessarily close in the full-dimensional space.
The edge histograms show the distributions flattened into one dimension; note that they are space-filling and approximately uniform.
}
\subsection{\label{sec:multiout}Multivariate output}
\widefig{prior_draws}{
Model calculations from Glauber (top, blue) and KLN (bottom, green) initial conditions.
Each plot has 254 lines corresponding to the 254 Latin hypercube design points.
From left to right:
average charged-particle multiplicity $\avgN_\text{ch}$,
elliptic flow two-particle cumulant $\vnk 2 2$,
and triangular flow two-particle cumulant $\vnk 3 2$.
Data points are experimental measurements from ALICE \cite{Abelev:2014mda}.
}
\colfig[b!]{pc_scatter}{
Principal component decomposition of the observables $\sqrt{\avgN_\text{ch}}$, $\vnk 2 2$ for the Glauber model in 20--25\% centrality.
Each data point represents a model calculation and the edge histograms show the approximate normal distribution of each observable.
Arrows represent the PC vectors with lengths proportional to the explained variance.
}
Gaussian processes are fundamentally scalar functions, but computer models often produce multivariate output.
In general, the model takes the $m \times n$ design matrix $X$ and computes an $m \times p$ output matrix $Y$.
The present event-by-event model has $p = 18$ outputs (three observables each in six centrality bins).
An obvious workaround is to use independent GP emulators for each of the $p$ outputs, however, this would neglect correlations and quickly become unwieldy for higher-dimensional output.
Instead, we decompose the outputs into orthogonal linear combinations called principal components (PCs) and emulate each transformed PC.
The PCs are uncorrelated by construction and can also be used to reduce the dimensionality of the output space.
Figure~\ref{fig:pc_scatter} shows an example PC decomposition.
To calculate the PCs, we first subtract the mean of the output data $Y$ so that each column has mean zero, then compute the eigendecomposition of the sample covariance matrix $Y^\intercal Y$:
\begin{equation}
Y^\intercal Y = U \Lambda U^\intercal,
\label{eq:cov}
\end{equation}
where $U$ is an orthogonal $p \times p$ matrix containing the eigenvectors of $Y^\intercal Y$ and $\Lambda$ is diagonal containing the eigenvalues $\lambda_1, \ldots, \lambda_p$ in non-increasing order.
$U$ now defines a linear transformation which ``rotates'' the output data $Y$ into PC space:
\begin{equation}
Z = \sqrt m \, YU,
\end{equation}
where $Z$ is an $m \times p$ matrix (same shape as $Y$) of the transformed PCs.
The eigenvalues $\lambda_i$ represent the variance explained by principal component $i$; since they are sorted in non-increasing order, the \emph{fraction} of the variance explained by the first $q \leq p$ PCs is
\begin{equation}
V(q) = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^q \lambda_i}{\sum_{i=1}^p \lambda_i}.
\end{equation}
Often, the first few PCs describe most of the variance, as demonstrated for the present data in Fig.~\ref{fig:pc_var}.
Hence we can construct a reduced-dimension transformation with minimal loss of precision by choosing $q < p$ so that $V(q)$ satisfies some threshold (e.g.~$V(q) \geq 0.99$) and taking only the first $q$ columns of $U$:
\begin{equation}
Z_q = \sqrt m \, YU_q,
\end{equation}
where $Z_q$ is now an $m \times q$ matrix.
We may now use $q$ independent GP emulators for each of the columns of $Z_q$.
GPs are conditioned on the design $X$ according to Eq.~\eqref{eq:cond} and predict the PCs $Z_*$ at arbitrary test points $X_*$ which are then transformed back to physical space as
\begin{equation}
Y_* = \frac{1}{\sqrt m} Z_* U^\intercal.
\end{equation}
There is an important caveat for principal components:
the original data $Y$ must have a multivariate normal distribution for the transformed PCs $Z$ to be uncorrelated.
There is no guarantee that a particular model will produce normally-distributed outputs so this must be verified on a case-by-case basis.
For the present event-by-event model we perform the following steps:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Assess the normality of each observable $\avgN_\text{ch}$, $\vnk 2 2$, $\vnk 3 2$.
While the flow cumulants are approximately normal without modification, we take the square root of multiplicity $\sqrt{\avgN_\text{ch}}$ to obtain a normal distribution, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:pc_scatter}.
\item Divide each observable by its corresponding experimental value from ALICE \cite{Abelev:2014mda}.
This converts everything to unitless quantities of order one.
\item Multiply each observable by a manually specified weight factor, ratios 1.2~:~1.0~:~0.6 for observables $\avgN_\text{ch}$~:~$\vnk 2 2$~:~$\vnk 3 2$.
These subjective weights encourage the model to fit more strongly to more fundamental observables, e.g.\ we prefer a model that describes $N_\text{ch}$ and $v_2$ at the expense of $v_3$ rather than fitting $v_3$ with incorrect $N_\text{ch}$.
The weights will be discussed further in the results, Sec.~\ref{sec:results}.
\item Concatenate the unitless, weighted data into a $254 \times 18$ matrix $Y$, where each row corresponds to a design point and each column to an observable and centrality bin.
\item Subtract the mean of each column and transform $Y$ into principal components $Z_q$ with $q = 5$ PCs, retaining over 99\% of the variance as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:pc_var}.
The PC transformation matrices $U_q$, shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:pc_matrix}, reflect the natural correlations among observables, for example all observables are correlated in the first PC (${\sim}$75\% of total variance), while $N_\text{ch}$ is anti-correlated with the $v_n$ in the second PC (${\sim}$20\% of total variance).
\end{enumerate}
We invert these steps to transform PCs back to physical space.
In practice, the covariance method for computing principal components is prone to numerical error, so a more robust algorithm using the singular value decomposition (SVD) is preferred.
The SVD of the data $Y$ is
\begin{equation}
Y = VDW^\intercal
\label{eq:svd}
\end{equation}
where $V$, $W$ are orthogonal matrices containing the so-called left- and right-singular vectors of $Y$ and $D$ is diagonal containing the singular values.
Inserting \eqref{eq:svd} into \eqref{eq:cov} yields
\begin{equation}
Y^\intercal Y = W D^2 W^\intercal = U \Lambda U^\intercal,
\end{equation}
hence the singular values $D$ are the square root of the eigenvalues $\Lambda$ and the right singular vectors $W$ are the eigenvectors $U$.
\colfig[t]{pc_var}{
Fraction of the variance $V(q)$ explained by the first $q$ principal components for Glauber (blue circles) and KLN (green triangles).
$q = 5$ explains approximately 99\% of the total variance, a significant reduction from the original 18 dimensions.
}
\colfig[t]{pc_matrix}{
Visualization of the principal component transformation matrices $U_q$ for Glauber (left) and KLN (right).
The numerical values of each matrix element are annotated and color-coded, where darker red indicates more positive values, darker blue indicates more negative, and grey indicates zero.
}
\subsection{Constructing and validating the emulator}
\widefig{validation}{
Validation of the Gaussian process emulator for the Glauber model.
Each plot shows emulator predictions against explicit calculations for the 64 validation design points in centrality bins 0--5\% (green circles), 20--25\% (orange triangles), and 40--45\% (purple squares).
The $x$-value of each data point is the emulator prediction with $2\sigma$ (95\%) horizontal error bars, the $y$-value is the explicit calculation with $2\sigma$ (95\%) vertical error bars, and the diagonal grey line represents $y = x$.
}
We emulate the model by conditioning independent Gaussian processes on each of the principal components $Z_q$ and the input design $X$ according to Eq.~\eqref{eq:cond}.
Model outputs inevitably include statistical noise, i.e.\ we cannot compute $y = f(\mathbf x)$ exactly, only $y = f(\mathbf x) + \epsilon$ where $\epsilon$ is Gaussian noise.
This is accounted for by adding a noise term to the diagonal of the covariance matrix:
\begin{equation*}
\sigma(\mathbf x, \mathbf x') \rightarrow \sigma(\mathbf x, \mathbf x') + \sigma^2_n\delta_{\mathbf x\x'},
\end{equation*}
where $\sigma^2_n$ is the variance of the noise and $\delta_{\mathbf x\x'}$ is a Kronecker delta.
Effectively, the noise term relaxes the requirement that the GP must pass exactly through each training point.
We use a squared-exponential covariance function with a noise term:
\begin{equation}
\sigma(\mathbf x, \mathbf x') = \sigma_\text{GP}^2 \exp\Biggl[ -\sum_{k=1}^n \frac{(x_k - x'_k)^2}{2\ell_k^2} \Biggr] + \sigma_n^2\delta_{\mathbf x\x'},
\label{eq:full_cov}
\end{equation}
where $\sigma_\text{GP}^2$ is the overall variance of the GP and $\ell_k$ is the characteristic length scale for dimension $k$.
These \emph{hyperparameters} $(\sigma_\text{GP}$, $\sigma_n$, $\ell_k)$ are not known a priori and must be estimated from the training data, however, in the present case predictions appear to be relatively insensitive to the precise choice of hyperparameters, as will be demonstrated promptly.
For details about the selection of hyperparameters see the \hyperref[app:train]{Appendix}.
As with any interpolation scheme, the GP emulator must be validated to ensure it faithfully predicts model output.
In other words, given an arbitrary test point $\mathbf x_*$, the GP prediction at $\mathbf x_*$ should agree (within its uncertainty) with an explicit computation at $\mathbf x_*$.
To this end, we have generated a separate 64-point Latin hypercube validation design $X_*$, evaluated the full event-by-event model at each validation point just as for the training design $X$, and predicted the model outputs at $X_*$ using the GP emulator.
Figure~\ref{fig:validation} validates that the emulator does indeed faithfully predict the model.
Recall that the emulator provides probability distributions of finite width, so it need not predict every validation point exactly---in fact, in the ideal case the residuals would have a normal distribution with mean zero.
Most of the uncertainty visible in Fig.~\ref{fig:validation} is actually due to the statistical noise in the flow cumulants, especially $\vnk 3 2$.
The emulator accurately accounts for the noise present in the underlying data.
\section{Calibration}
\newcommand{\mathbf z}{\mathbf z}
\newcommand{\x_\star}{\mathbf x_\star}
\newcommand{\z_\star}{\mathbf z_\star}
\newcommand{\y_\text{exp}}{\mathbf y_\text{exp}}
\newcommand{\z_\text{exp}}{\mathbf z_\text{exp}}
With the validated Gaussian process emulator in hand, it may be used as a fast surrogate to the full event-by-event model for calibration.
\emph{Calibration} means tuning the model input parameters so that the output optimally agrees with experimental data and in the process extracting probability distributions for each parameter.
Recall the input parameters are
\begin{equation*}
\mathbf x = (\text{Norm}, \text{I.C.\ param}, \tau_0, \eta/s, k_\pi).
\end{equation*}
Presumably there exists a \emph{true} set of parameters $\x_\star$; the task now is to find the probability distribution of $\x_\star$ given the training data $(X, Y)$ and experimental measurements $\y_\text{exp}$.
This distribution may be framed in terms of Bayes' theorem as
\begin{equation}
P(\x_\star|X,Y,\y_\text{exp}) \propto P(X,Y,\y_\text{exp}|\x_\star) P(\x_\star)
\end{equation}
where
\begin{itemize}
\item $P(\x_\star)$ is the \emph{prior} probability which embodies initial knowledge of $\x_\star$;
\item $P(X,Y,\y_\text{exp}|\x_\star)$ is the likelihood:
the probability of observing $(X, Y, \y_\text{exp})$ given a proposed value of $\x_\star$; and
\item $P(\x_\star|X,Y,\y_\text{exp})$ is the \emph{posterior} probability for $\x_\star$ given the observations $(X, Y, \y_\text{exp})$.
This is the probability distribution we wish to construct.
\end{itemize}
In general Bayes' theorem has a normalization constant which has been omitted since we are only concerned with relative probabilities.
The remainder of this section applies the methodology from \cite{OHagan:2006ba,Higdon:2008cmc,Higdon:2014tva} to calibrate the model and determine the posterior probability for $\x_\star$.
\subsection{MCMC}
\widefig{cal_post_glb}{
Posterior marginal and joint distributions of the calibration parameters for the Glauber model.
On the diagonal are histograms of MCMC samples for the respective parameters,
on the lower triangle are two-dimensional scatter histograms of MCMC samples showing the correlation between pairs of parameters,
and on the upper triangle are approximate contours for 68\%, 95\%, and 99\% confidence regions along with a dot indicating the median.
}
The workhorse of any Bayesian calibration is Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC), a powerful and flexible method for directly sampling the posterior probability.
Perhaps the most common version is the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm, which generates a random walk through parameter space by accepting or rejecting steps based on the posterior probability.
For a large number of steps the samples of the random walk equilibrate to the posterior distribution.
We use the affine-invariant ensemble sampler for MCMC \cite{Goodman:2010en,FM:2013mc}, an alternative algorithm that uses a large ensemble of interdependent walkers.
Ensemble sampling notably has a much shorter autocorrelation time than Metropolis-Hastings sampling and hence converges more quickly to the equilibrium distribution.
\widefig{cal_post_kln}{
Same as Fig.~\ref{fig:cal_post_glb} for the KLN model.
}
The MCMC algorithm samples proposal points $\x_\star$ and calculates the posterior probability at each point via Bayes' theorem.
We place a non-informative flat prior on $\x_\star$, that is, the prior probability is constant within the design range (Table~\ref{tab:design}) and zero outside.
We evaluate the likelihood in principal component space:
\begin{equation}
P(\z_\text{exp}|\x_\star) \propto \exp\biggl\{ -\frac{1}{2} (\z_\star - \z_\text{exp})^\intercal \Sigma_z^{-1} (\z_\star - \z_\text{exp}) \biggr\},
\label{eq:likelihood}
\end{equation}
where $\z_\text{exp}$ is the PC transform of the experimental data, $\z_\star$ is the emulator prediction of the PCs at $\x_\star$, and $\Sigma_z$ is the covariance (uncertainty) matrix on the PCs assuming normally-distributed errors.
Given the flat prior, the posterior $P(\x_\star|\z_\text{exp})$ is equal to the likelihood within the design range and zero outside.
There are a number of sources of uncertainty including experimental statistical and systematic error, model statistical and systematic error, and emulator uncertainty.
In the present study, we do not attempt to precisely account for each contribution, for this would inevitably require dubious assumptions about systematic error correlations and the unknown error of the model.
We assume a simple fractional error on the principal components, i.e.\ the covariance matrix is
\begin{equation}
\Sigma_z = \text{diag}(\sigma^2_z\,\z_\text{exp}),
\end{equation}
where $\sigma^2_z$ is a manually set constant, $\sigma_z = 0.06$ for the present study, to account for the typical experimental error of 3--5\% \cite{Abelev:2014mda} plus some additional uncertainty.
While this is itself a rough assumption, it is perhaps no worse than the alternative, since experimental systematic errors are typically estimated percentages themselves and the principal component transformation automatically includes natural correlations among observables.
The primary goal of this study is to develop and test a model-to-data comparison framework; details such as the precise treatment of uncertainties can be improved later.
\widefig{post_draws}{
Random realizations of the calibrated posterior for Glauber (top, blue) and KLN (bottom, green) initial conditions.
Similar to Fig.~\ref{fig:prior_draws} except the lines are posterior emulator predictions instead of explicit prior calculations.
}
We run \order 6 MCMC steps to allow the chain to equilibrate, discard these ``burn-in'' samples, then run \order 7 steps to generate the posterior distribution.
\vfill
\subsection{\label{sec:results}Results}
The primary MCMC calibration results are presented in Figs.~\ref{fig:cal_post_glb} and \ref{fig:cal_post_kln} for the Glauber and KLN models, respectively.
These are visualizations of the posterior probability distributions of the true parameters $\x_\star$, including the distribution of each individual parameter and all correlations.
The diagonal histograms show the marginal distributions for each parameter (all other parameters integrated out);
the lower-triangle plots are two-dimensional scatter histograms of joint distributions between pairs of parameters, where darker color denotes higher probability density;
and the upper triangle has contour plots of the same joint distributions, where the contour lines enclose the 68\%, 95\%, and 99\% confidence regions.
A wealth of information may be gained from these posterior visualizations; the following highlights some important features.
Focusing on the Glauber results in Fig.~\ref{fig:cal_post_glb}, we see the shear viscosity $\eta/s$ (fourth diagonal plot) has a narrow approximately normal distribution located near the commonly quoted value 0.08.
As expected, $\eta/s$ is tightly constrained by experimental flow data.
Going across the fourth row, we observe nontrivial correlations among $\eta/s$ and other parameters, for example, $\eta/s$ and the hydrodynamic thermalization time $\tau_0$ are negatively correlated (fourth row, third column).
As $\tau_0$ increases, the medium expands as a fluid for less time, so less flow develops, and viscosity must decrease to compensate.
Both $\tau_0$ and normalization (third and first diagonals) have broad distributions without strong peaks, and they are strongly-correlated (third row, first column).
This is because the hydrodynamic model is boost-invariant and lacks any pre-equilibrium dynamics, so $\tau_0$ is effectively an inverse normalization factor.
The joint distribution shows a narrow acceptable band whose shape is governed by the inverse relationship.
The wounded nucleon / binary collision parameter $\alpha$ (second diagonal) has a roughly-normal distribution located near the typical value 0.12.
It is mainly related to the slope of multiplicity vs.\ centrality and hence has a nontrivial correlation with normalization and $\tau_0$, e.g.\ we can decrease the normalization to the lower end of its distribution provided we also increase $\alpha$ to compensate.
Meanwhile, the shear stress relaxation time coefficient $k_\pi$ (fifth diagonal) has an almost flat distribution and its joint distributions show no correlations.
Evidently, this parameter does not influence flow coefficients or multiplicity.
The KLN results in Fig.~\ref{fig:cal_post_kln} generally exhibit wider, less normal distributions than Glauber.
This suggests that KLN is somewhat less flexible than Glauber, so its overall behavior is relatively insensitive to the specific values of input parameters.
The shear viscosity $\eta/s$ has a narrow, irregular distribution covering the common value 0.20.
As with Glauber, $\eta/s$ has a negative correlation with $\tau_0$, there is a strong inverse relationship between normalization and $\tau_0$, and $k_\pi$ has no effect.
The KLN parameter $\lambda$ has a flat marginal distribution, but there are strongly excluded regions in the joint distributions with normalization and $\tau_0$.
This appears to be the same effect as observed with Glauber $\alpha$, except the dependence on $\lambda$ is significantly weaker.
The posteriors may be validated by drawing samples from the calibrated distributions and visualizing the corresponding emulator predictions:
if the model is correct and properly calibrated, the posterior samples will be close to experimental measurements.
Figure~\ref{fig:post_draws} confirms---for the most part---that the posteriors are indeed tightly clustered around the data points.
Visualizations such as this will always have some uncertainty since samples are drawn from the full posterior, however, Fig.~\ref{fig:post_draws} has markedly narrower clusters than Fig.~\ref{fig:prior_draws}, in which the input parameters varied across their full ranges and were not tuned to match experiment.
\begin{table*}
\caption{
\label{tab:posterior}
Quantitative summary of posterior distributions.
For each parameter, the previous estimate \cite{Shen:2011zc,Heinz:2011kt,Shen:2013pc}, mean, median, and confidence intervals are given.
}
\input{tables/posterior}
\end{table*}
\colfig[b]{post_compare}{
Comparison of posterior distributions of $\eta/s$ for Glauber (blue) and KLN (green).
These are the same histograms as in Figs.~\ref{fig:cal_post_glb} and \ref{fig:cal_post_kln}, expanded and placed on the same axis.
The vertical grey lines indicate the common values 0.08 for Glauber and 0.20 for KLN \cite{Shen:2011zc,Heinz:2011kt}.
}
As shown in the top row of Fig.~\ref{fig:post_draws}, the Glauber model nearly fits the centrality dependence of all the present observables ($\avgN_\text{ch}$, $\vnk 2 2$, $\vnk 3 2$).
The $v_3$ samples have a somewhat larger variance than the others, in part due to the underlying noise in the model calculations and also because $v_3$ is explicitly given a lower weight (recall that $\avgN_\text{ch}$~:~$\vnk 2 2$~:~$\vnk 2 3$ are weighted 1.2~:~1.0~:~0.6).
The KLN results in the bottom row tell a somewhat different story, as they cannot fit all observables simultaneously.
While the fit to $\avgN_\text{ch}$ is excellent, the ratio of $v_2$ to $v_3$ is simply too large and the model has no choice but to compromise between the two, similar to previous KLN results \cite{Qiu:2011hf}.
The posterior biases more towards $v_2$ than $v_3$ due to the explicit higher weight on $v_2$.
Figure~\ref{fig:post_compare} shows an expanded view of the $\eta/s$ marginal distributions for Glauber and KLN.
The Glauber distribution is approximately normal with mean ${\sim}$0.06 and 95\% confidence interval ${\sim}$0.02--0.10, consistent with but mostly below 0.08.
This is unsurprising and easily within the uncertainty of existing results.
KLN has a wider plateau-like distribution with mean ${\sim}$0.16 and 95\% confidence interval ${\sim}$0.12--0.21.
While the common estimate 0.20 was derived primarily from comparisons to $v_2$, the additional constraint from $v_3$ shifts the distribution to somewhat smaller values and causes the plateau shape:
rather than a strong peak, there is a range of values which all fit the data roughly equally.
Table~\ref{tab:posterior} quantitatively summarizes the posterior distributions for each parameter including basic statistics, confidence intervals, and comparisons to previous estimates from earlier work with the same models \cite{Shen:2011zc,Heinz:2011kt,Shen:2013pc}.
All previous estimates fall within 95\% confidence intervals, and most within 68\%.
\section{Conclusion}
We have applied modern Bayesian methodology to systematically compare an event-by-event heavy-ion collision model to experimental data.
We chose a set of salient model parameters including the shear viscosity $\eta/s$, evaluated the model over wide ranges of each parameter, and interpolated the results with a Gaussian process emulator.
Then, we used the emulator to calibrate the model to optimally reproduce experimental data and thereby extracted probability distributions for the true values of all model parameters simultaneously, including all correlations.
When properly calibrated, the Monte Carlo Glauber model provides a good simultaneous fit to experimental multiplicity and flow data, while the Monte Carlo KLN model fails to simultaneously fit elliptic and triangular flow.
The $\eta/s$ distributions for the Glauber and KLN models are consistent with the commonly quoted values 0.08 and 0.20, respectively, and in general the calibrated distributions reinforce and expand upon existing knowledge of these models.
This study represents a significant step forward in state-of-the-art model-to-data comparison and establishes a framework for future analysis.
Since the method does not reduce each parameter to a ``best-fit'' value but instead furnishes full probability distributions, it may be used to rigorously quantify uncertainties, examine correlations among parameters, and evaluate the efficacy of physical models, among other possibilities.
It is easily extensible to arbitrary numbers of parameters and physical observables and to different models.
Indeed, we plan to apply the methodology to a variety of other models, including the new initial condition model T\raisebox{-.5ex}{R}ENTo---a flexible effective model which is ideal for this type of analysis \cite{Moreland:2014oya}---and a 3+1D viscous hydrodynamics model with finite baryon chemical potential combined with recent data from the RHIC beam energy scan.
By considering data from multiple beam energies, we can probe the temperature dependence of $\eta/s$.
We will include additional physical properties such as the size and shape of nucleons in the initial state, the hydrodynamic equation of state, and the switching temperature from hydrodynamics to microscopic transport; and compare to more observables, e.g.\ identified particle spectra and differential flow.
Finally, we anticipate upgrades to the methodology itself, notably more rigorous treatment of uncertainties and quantification of input-output correlations (analysis of variance).
\begin{acknowledgments}
We would like to thank Scott Pratt, Ulrich Heinz, Chun Shen, and Paul Sorensen for helpful discussions and valuable feedback.
This work would not have been possible without the foundations laid by the MADAI collaboration, funded through NSF grant no.~PHY-0941373, and the Statistical and Applied Mathematical Sciences Institute (SAMSI) program on massive datasets, funded through NSF grant no.~DMS-1127914.
SAB is supported by the U.S.\ Department of Energy grant no.~DE-FG02-05ER41367;
JEB by NSF grant no.~PHY-0941373 and DOE grant no.~DE-FG02-05ER41367;
RLW by NSF grant no.~DMS-1228317 and NASA AISR grant no.~NNX09AK60G.
This research was completed using over five million CPU hours provided by the Open Science Grid \cite{Pordes:2007zzb,Sfiligoi:2010zz}, which is supported by the National Science Foundation and the U.S.\ Department of Energy's Office of Science.
All code used in this project is publicly available \cite{Bernhard:2015mtd}.
Several third-party software packages were invaluable:
the Python MCMC toolkit \texttt{emcee} \cite{FM:2013mc} and Gaussian process library \texttt{george} \cite{Ambikasaran:2014gp}, and the general-purpose tool \texttt{GNU Parallel} \cite{Tange:2011pa}.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
In 1980s, NIR spectra of several SNRs were obtained
\citep{seward1983, graham1987, burton1988, oliva1989, graham1990, oliva1990}.
A surprising result was that the forbidden lines from Fe II are much
stronger than hydrogen recombination lines in contrast to HII regions.
Also, it was found that NIR ro-vibrational H$_2$ lines
are bright in some SNRs, which might be interacting with
molecular clouds \citep{burton1989, burton1993}.
These early studies showed
that [Fe II] and H$_2$ lines are sensitive probes
of shocked gas in SNRs.
More recently, it was found that the NIR spectra of
young SNRs are interesting,
sometimes showing many
ionic lines from supernova (SN) ejecta material
\citep{gerardy2001, koo2007, moon2009, lee2013, koo2013}.
In the Milky Way, there are about 300 SNRs,
and 20--30 of them are younger than several thousand years.
These young SNRs still have the imprints
of explosion. So NIR spectroscopy can probe the explosion dynamics,
SN nucleosynthesis, and the late-stage evolution of progenitor star.
Among young SNRs, G11.2$-$0.3, RCW 103, W49B, and Cas A are known to be
bright in [Fe II] lines, and
they are all small core-collapse SNRs that might be interacting with dense CSM
\citep{koo2014}.
We have recently completed a survey of the Galactic plane in [Fe II]
1.644 $\mu$m emission line, called UWIFE
(UKIRT Widefield Infrared survey for Fe$^+$) survey \citep[][see also the paper
by Lee, J.-J. in this volume]{leejj2014}, where
we detected [Fe II] emission in 17 SNRs out of 80 SNRs in the survey area
($\ell=7^\circ$ to $65^\circ$ and $|b|\le 1.3^\circ$). Therefore, the SNR samples
with [Fe II] emission will increase in near future.
In this paper, we will first briefly summarize the characteristics and applications of
NIR [Fe II] lines and then introduce our recent NIR spectroscopic
study of Cas A where we detected strong [P II] lines.
\section{NIR [Fe II] emission from SNRs}
[Fe II] line images of young SNRs show that [Fe II] line emitting regions are
filamentary and spatially confined in contrast to radio or X-rays
\citep[see Fig. 4 of][]{koo2014}.
This is because they originate from different environments.
Figure 1 is a schematic diagram showing the structure of young SNRs.
The SNR is bounded by
SN blast wave or forward shock.
The shocked ambient medium is confined between SN blast wave and contact discontinuity.
In the innermost region,
there is freely expanding SN ejecta, which is heated when it encounters the reverse shock.
And radio and X-rays are emitted from these shocked SN ejecta and shocked ambient medium,
which is mostly circumstellar medium (CSM)
in the case of young SNRs. In contrast, the NIR emission is emitted when
the shocks encounter either dense ambient medium or dense SN ejecta and becomes
radiative.
In shocks propagating into a medium of normal abundance, an
extended temperature plateau region at $T_e\sim 10^4$~K
develops in postshock cooling region, and
this is where [Fe II] lines are emitted \citep{koo2014}.
In shocks propagating into SN ejecta, the temperature and
emissivity profiles are very different
because of strong cooling \citep{koo2013}.
Fe II has 16 levels near the ground state
that can be easily excited in the cooling region, and can emit strong NIR lines.
In the NIR band, two strongest lines are 1.257 and 1.644 $\mu$m lines,
and 10--20 lines are seen \citep[][and references therein]{koo2014}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=80mm]{aprim-f1.png}
\caption{Schematic diagram showing the structure of young SNRs and
where emissions of different wavebands originate. \label{fig:pkasfig1}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=80mm]{aprim-f2.png}
\caption{
[Fe II] 1.257/[Fe II] 1.644 line intensity ratios reported in literature. The dotted lines mark
the differences in $A_V$ when the [Fe II] 1.257/1.644 ratio different from
1.36 is adopted.
Referenecs: Nussbaumer \& Storey (1980), Nussbaumer \& Storey (1988),
Quinet et al. (1996) (SST/HFR),
Bautista \& Pradhan (1998) (observed, based on Everett \& Bautista 1996 private comm.),
Smith \& Hartigan (2006), Deb \& Hibbert (2011), Giannini et al. (2014) \label{fig:pkasfig2}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=80mm]{aprim-f3.eps}
\caption{
[Fe II] 1.257/H Pa-$\beta$ versus
[Fe II] 1.257/[Fe II] 1.644 line intensity ratio of SNRs.
Note that [Fe II] 1.257/[Fe II] 1.644 ratio is an indicator
of extinction to the source. The ratios of Orion region are marked for comparison.
Referenecs: Cas A \citep{gerardy2001, koo2013, lee2014},
G11.2-0.3 \citep{koo2007, moon2009}, RCW 103 \citep{oliva1989, oliva1990},
MSH 15-52 \citep{seward1983}, IC 443 \citep{graham1987},
LMC SNRs \citep{oliva2001}, Crab \citep{graham1990},
Orion \citep{walmsley2000}.
\label{fig:pkasfig3}}
\end{figure}
There are two direct applications of [Fe II] lines:
(1) The extinction to the source can be accurately measured from the lines originating
from the same
upper levels, and (2) electron density of the emitting region can be derived
using lines with comparable
excitation energies. A major uncertainty in these applications is from atomic constants.
For example, Figure 2 shows
[Fe II] 1.257/[Fe II] 1.644 line intensity ratios, which is a good
indicator of extinction,
predicted by theoretical calculations and also the ratios derived from observations.
There is still some scatter and, depending on the adopted atomic constants,
$A_V$ could be off by a few magnitudes.
As pointed out earlier, the ratio of [Fe II] lines to H-recombination lines
are much higher than those of HII regions,
so that the ratio can be used to discriminate the
shock-ionized gas from photoionized gas.
Figure 3 shows that
[Fe II] 1.257/H Pa-$\beta$ line intensity ratio of SNRs is greater than 0.1 while it
is 0.01--0.03 in the Orion HII region.
The high ratio is partly
due to the extended line-emitting
region in the shock and probably also partly due to the increase of the gas-phase Fe abundance
caused by the destruction of dust grains.
For SNRs, one can derive the shock speed by
comparing the ratio with shock models.
But the predicted ratios could be different among models, sometimes by a large factor,
so that one should be careful in doing such analysis.
\section{NIR [Fe II] and [P II] Emission from Cas A}
\subsection{NIR spectroscopy of Cas A}
Cas A is a 330-yr old young SNR.
It is one of the few SNRs whose SN types are confirmed
from the spectrum of light echo.
It is SN IIb with a progenitor mass between 15 and 25 {$M_\odot$}.
Recently, IR space missions detected a significant amount of dust in this remnant,
which amplified the interests on this object.
From optical studies, it has been well known that there are two types of dense knots,
namely FMKs which are SN ejecta knots moving at several
thousand km s$^{-1}$\ and QSFs which are dense
CS knots moving at a few hundred km s$^{-1}$.
A few people carried out NIR spectroscopy to study the extinction to the remnant and also
the density of knots \citep{gerardy2001, eriksen2009}.
In particular, Gerardy \& Fesen showed that NIR spectral features of
FMKs and QSFs are quite different.
We also obtained JHK long-slit spectra along the bright shell and
identified 63 clumps \citep{koo2013, lee2014}.
NIR spectra of the knots could be classified into three distinct groups:
He-rich knots with strong He lines, S-rich knots with strong S
and other intermediate mass element lines,
and Fe-rich knots where essentially only Fe lines appear.
These spectroscopically-distinct knots also demonstrate
different kinematic properties. He-rich knots are moving slowly,
while S-rich and Fe-rich knots are moving at velocities as high as 2000 km s$^{-1}$.
These spectroscopic and kinematic properties imply that He-rich knots are CS knots
corresponding to QSFs while S-rich knots are SN ejecta knots corresponding to FMKs.
Fe-rich knots are most likely SN ejecta material from the innermost core.
\subsection{[P II] lines in Cas A and SN Nucleosynthesis}
Among the NIR lines, an interesting line was 1.189 $\mu$m line from
Phosphorus (P). It was detected mainly in S-rich knots and the line intensities
were as strong as those of [Fe II] lines.
This is surprising because P is not an abundant element.
Its cosmic abundance is $X({\rm P/H})=2.8\times 10^{-7}$
and its relative abundance to Fe by number is only 1/110.
[P II] 1.189 $\mu$m line
originates from a level whose excitation energy is almost identical to that of
[Fe II] 1.257 $\mu$m line, and therefore the two lines originate
from almost the same region in shocked gas. And one can derive the relative abundance of
the two elements directly from the line intensity ratios without a detailed
analysis using a shock code.
For the range of electron densities of Cas A knots, i.e.,
$n_e=3\times 10^3$ to $2\times 10^5$~cm$^{-3}$,
$F_{\rm [P II]1.189}/F_{\rm [Fe II]1.257}= (3-7) X({\rm P/Fe})$
\citep[][see also Oliva et al. 2001]{koo2013}.
The derived $X({\rm P/H})$ of He-rich knots were close to the solar abundance
while the abundance of S-rich knots were as much as 100 times higher than
the cosmic abundance. This confirmed the in situ production of P.
And the observed abundance ratios nicely fit into the theoretical range of
15 {$M_\odot$}\ SN. However, the ratios were higher that the ratio for a complete mixing of core
below He-rich layer, which implied that these dense knots largely retained
their original abundances. This was the first result confirming the
nucleosynthesis of P in SN.
\subsection{[P II] lines for the ISM Study}
[P II] 1.189/[Fe II] 1.257 intensity ratio can be used for the study of shock processing of dust
in the ISM because P is not depleted while Fe is mostly locked in dust grains.
In the general ISM, therefore,
[P II] 1.189/[Fe II] 1.257 intensity ratio is high. But in fast shocks,
dust grains are destroyed,
so that the gas phase Fe abundance increases and
therefore [P II]/[Fe II] ratio decreases.
These properties have been used for the study of dust processing in HH objects
and the origin of [Fe II] emission in external galaxies
\citep[e.g.,][]{garcia2010, oliva2001}.
Figure 4 shows ${F_{\rm [P II]1.189}/F_{\rm [Fe II]1.644}}$
versus ${F_{\rm [FeII]1.257}/F_{{\rm H Pa}-\beta}}$ of
SNRs, HII regions, HH objects, and the galaxy NGC 1068. Note that both ratios are shock indicators,
so that SNRs and HII regions are well separated in this diagram. NGC 1068,
however, has [P II] 1.189/[Fe II] 1.257 intensity ratio close to HII region, but
[Fe II] 1.257/H Pa-$\beta$ intensity ratio between those of HII region and SNRs.
\section{Summary}
The following is a brief summary:
\noindent
(1) NIR spectra of SNRs are dominated by [Fe II] and H$_2$ emission lines
unless the emission is from SN ejecta material.
[Fe II] lines can be used to derive $A_V$, $n_e$, and shock parameters.
But there is an uncertainty associated with atomic parameters and shock codes.
[Fe II] lines can be used to infer the environment of SNRs, e.g.,
the SNRs which are interacting with dense CSM are bright in [Fe II] lines.
\noindent
(2) NIR spectroscopy of Cas A shows that CS and SN ejecta knots are clearly
distinguished in their NIR spectra. [P II] lines are strong in S-rich SN ejecta
material, and the derived X[P/Fe] is compatible with the local nucleosynthetic SN model.
[P II] line provides an accurate X(P/Fe), which can be used to study the shock
destruction of dust grains and the origin of [Fe II] emission lines.
\acknowledgments
This research was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National
Research Foundation of Korea(NRF) funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT and
future Planning (2014R1A2A2A01002811).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=80mm]{aprim-f4.eps}
\caption{
[P II] 1.189/[Fe II] 1.257 versus [Fe II] 1.257/H Pa-$\beta$ line intensity ratios of
various types of astronomical sources.
Referenecs: Cas A \cite{koo2013, lee2014}, G11.2-0.3 (Moon, D.-S. personal communication),
RCW 103 \citep{oliva1989, oliva1990}, LMC SNRs \citep{oliva2001},
HH46-47 \citep{garcia2010}, Orion \citep{walmsley2000}, and NGC 1068 \citep{oliva2001}.
\label{fig:pkasfig4}}
\end{figure}
|
\section{The ALICE Collaboration}
\begingroup
\small
\begin{flushleft}
J.~Adam\Irefn{org40}\And
D.~Adamov\'{a}\Irefn{org83}\And
M.M.~Aggarwal\Irefn{org87}\And
G.~Aglieri Rinella\Irefn{org36}\And
M.~Agnello\Irefn{org111}\And
N.~Agrawal\Irefn{org48}\And
Z.~Ahammed\Irefn{org131}\And
I.~Ahmed\Irefn{org16}\And
S.U.~Ahn\Irefn{org68}\And
I.~Aimo\Irefn{org94}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org111}\And
S.~Aiola\Irefn{org136}\And
M.~Ajaz\Irefn{org16}\And
A.~Akindinov\Irefn{org58}\And
S.N.~Alam\Irefn{org131}\And
D.~Aleksandrov\Irefn{org100}\And
B.~Alessandro\Irefn{org111}\And
D.~Alexandre\Irefn{org102}\And
R.~Alfaro Molina\Irefn{org64}\And
A.~Alici\Irefn{org105}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org12}\And
A.~Alkin\Irefn{org3}\And
J.~Alme\Irefn{org38}\And
T.~Alt\Irefn{org43}\And
S.~Altinpinar\Irefn{org18}\And
I.~Altsybeev\Irefn{org130}\And
C.~Alves Garcia Prado\Irefn{org119}\And
C.~Andrei\Irefn{org78}\And
A.~Andronic\Irefn{org97}\And
V.~Anguelov\Irefn{org93}\And
J.~Anielski\Irefn{org54}\And
T.~Anti\v{c}i\'{c}\Irefn{org98}\And
F.~Antinori\Irefn{org108}\And
P.~Antonioli\Irefn{org105}\And
L.~Aphecetche\Irefn{org113}\And
H.~Appelsh\"{a}user\Irefn{org53}\And
S.~Arcelli\Irefn{org28}\And
N.~Armesto\Irefn{org17}\And
R.~Arnaldi\Irefn{org111}\And
T.~Aronsson\Irefn{org136}\And
I.C.~Arsene\Irefn{org22}\And
M.~Arslandok\Irefn{org53}\And
A.~Augustinus\Irefn{org36}\And
R.~Averbeck\Irefn{org97}\And
M.D.~Azmi\Irefn{org19}\And
M.~Bach\Irefn{org43}\And
A.~Badal\`{a}\Irefn{org107}\And
Y.W.~Baek\Irefn{org44}\And
S.~Bagnasco\Irefn{org111}\And
R.~Bailhache\Irefn{org53}\And
R.~Bala\Irefn{org90}\And
A.~Baldisseri\Irefn{org15}\And
M.~Ball\Irefn{org92}\And
F.~Baltasar Dos Santos Pedrosa\Irefn{org36}\And
R.C.~Baral\Irefn{org61}\And
A.M.~Barbano\Irefn{org111}\And
R.~Barbera\Irefn{org29}\And
F.~Barile\Irefn{org33}\And
G.G.~Barnaf\"{o}ldi\Irefn{org135}\And
L.S.~Barnby\Irefn{org102}\And
V.~Barret\Irefn{org70}\And
P.~Bartalini\Irefn{org7}\And
J.~Bartke\Irefn{org116}\And
E.~Bartsch\Irefn{org53}\And
M.~Basile\Irefn{org28}\And
N.~Bastid\Irefn{org70}\And
S.~Basu\Irefn{org131}\And
B.~Bathen\Irefn{org54}\And
G.~Batigne\Irefn{org113}\And
A.~Batista Camejo\Irefn{org70}\And
B.~Batyunya\Irefn{org66}\And
P.C.~Batzing\Irefn{org22}\And
I.G.~Bearden\Irefn{org80}\And
H.~Beck\Irefn{org53}\And
C.~Bedda\Irefn{org111}\And
N.K.~Behera\Irefn{org48}\And
I.~Belikov\Irefn{org55}\And
F.~Bellini\Irefn{org28}\And
H.~Bello Martinez\Irefn{org2}\And
R.~Bellwied\Irefn{org121}\And
R.~Belmont\Irefn{org134}\And
E.~Belmont-Moreno\Irefn{org64}\And
V.~Belyaev\Irefn{org76}\And
G.~Bencedi\Irefn{org135}\And
S.~Beole\Irefn{org27}\And
I.~Berceanu\Irefn{org78}\And
A.~Bercuci\Irefn{org78}\And
Y.~Berdnikov\Irefn{org85}\And
D.~Berenyi\Irefn{org135}\And
R.A.~Bertens\Irefn{org57}\And
D.~Berzano\Irefn{org36}\And
L.~Betev\Irefn{org36}\And
A.~Bhasin\Irefn{org90}\And
I.R.~Bhat\Irefn{org90}\And
A.K.~Bhati\Irefn{org87}\And
B.~Bhattacharjee\Irefn{org45}\And
J.~Bhom\Irefn{org127}\And
L.~Bianchi\Irefn{org27}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org121}\And
N.~Bianchi\Irefn{org72}\And
C.~Bianchin\Irefn{org57}\And
J.~Biel\v{c}\'{\i}k\Irefn{org40}\And
J.~Biel\v{c}\'{\i}kov\'{a}\Irefn{org83}\And
A.~Bilandzic\Irefn{org80}\And
S.~Biswas\Irefn{org79}\And
S.~Bjelogrlic\Irefn{org57}\And
F.~Blanco\Irefn{org10}\And
D.~Blau\Irefn{org100}\And
C.~Blume\Irefn{org53}\And
F.~Bock\Irefn{org74}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org93}\And
A.~Bogdanov\Irefn{org76}\And
H.~B{\o}ggild\Irefn{org80}\And
L.~Boldizs\'{a}r\Irefn{org135}\And
M.~Bombara\Irefn{org41}\And
J.~Book\Irefn{org53}\And
H.~Borel\Irefn{org15}\And
A.~Borissov\Irefn{org96}\And
M.~Borri\Irefn{org82}\And
F.~Boss\'u\Irefn{org65}\And
M.~Botje\Irefn{org81}\And
E.~Botta\Irefn{org27}\And
S.~B\"{o}ttger\Irefn{org52}\And
P.~Braun-Munzinger\Irefn{org97}\And
M.~Bregant\Irefn{org119}\And
T.~Breitner\Irefn{org52}\And
T.A.~Broker\Irefn{org53}\And
T.A.~Browning\Irefn{org95}\And
M.~Broz\Irefn{org40}\And
E.J.~Brucken\Irefn{org46}\And
E.~Bruna\Irefn{org111}\And
G.E.~Bruno\Irefn{org33}\And
D.~Budnikov\Irefn{org99}\And
H.~Buesching\Irefn{org53}\And
S.~Bufalino\Irefn{org36}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org111}\And
P.~Buncic\Irefn{org36}\And
O.~Busch\Irefn{org93}\And
Z.~Buthelezi\Irefn{org65}\And
J.T.~Buxton\Irefn{org20}\And
D.~Caffarri\Irefn{org30}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org36}\And
X.~Cai\Irefn{org7}\And
H.~Caines\Irefn{org136}\And
L.~Calero Diaz\Irefn{org72}\And
A.~Caliva\Irefn{org57}\And
E.~Calvo Villar\Irefn{org103}\And
P.~Camerini\Irefn{org26}\And
F.~Carena\Irefn{org36}\And
W.~Carena\Irefn{org36}\And
J.~Castillo Castellanos\Irefn{org15}\And
A.J.~Castro\Irefn{org124}\And
E.A.R.~Casula\Irefn{org25}\And
C.~Cavicchioli\Irefn{org36}\And
C.~Ceballos Sanchez\Irefn{org9}\And
J.~Cepila\Irefn{org40}\And
P.~Cerello\Irefn{org111}\And
B.~Chang\Irefn{org122}\And
S.~Chapeland\Irefn{org36}\And
M.~Chartier\Irefn{org123}\And
J.L.~Charvet\Irefn{org15}\And
S.~Chattopadhyay\Irefn{org131}\And
S.~Chattopadhyay\Irefn{org101}\And
V.~Chelnokov\Irefn{org3}\And
M.~Cherney\Irefn{org86}\And
C.~Cheshkov\Irefn{org129}\And
B.~Cheynis\Irefn{org129}\And
V.~Chibante Barroso\Irefn{org36}\And
D.D.~Chinellato\Irefn{org120}\And
P.~Chochula\Irefn{org36}\And
K.~Choi\Irefn{org96}\And
M.~Chojnacki\Irefn{org80}\And
S.~Choudhury\Irefn{org131}\And
P.~Christakoglou\Irefn{org81}\And
C.H.~Christensen\Irefn{org80}\And
P.~Christiansen\Irefn{org34}\And
T.~Chujo\Irefn{org127}\And
S.U.~Chung\Irefn{org96}\And
C.~Cicalo\Irefn{org106}\And
L.~Cifarelli\Irefn{org12}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org28}\And
F.~Cindolo\Irefn{org105}\And
J.~Cleymans\Irefn{org89}\And
F.~Colamaria\Irefn{org33}\And
D.~Colella\Irefn{org33}\And
A.~Collu\Irefn{org25}\And
M.~Colocci\Irefn{org28}\And
G.~Conesa Balbastre\Irefn{org71}\And
Z.~Conesa del Valle\Irefn{org51}\And
M.E.~Connors\Irefn{org136}\And
J.G.~Contreras\Irefn{org11}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org40}\And
T.M.~Cormier\Irefn{org84}\And
Y.~Corrales Morales\Irefn{org27}\And
I.~Cort\'{e}s Maldonado\Irefn{org2}\And
P.~Cortese\Irefn{org32}\And
M.R.~Cosentino\Irefn{org119}\And
F.~Costa\Irefn{org36}\And
P.~Crochet\Irefn{org70}\And
R.~Cruz Albino\Irefn{org11}\And
E.~Cuautle\Irefn{org63}\And
L.~Cunqueiro\Irefn{org36}\And
T.~Dahms\Irefn{org92}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org37}\And
A.~Dainese\Irefn{org108}\And
A.~Danu\Irefn{org62}\And
D.~Das\Irefn{org101}\And
I.~Das\Irefn{org51}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org101}\And
S.~Das\Irefn{org4}\And
A.~Dash\Irefn{org120}\And
S.~Dash\Irefn{org48}\And
S.~De\Irefn{org131}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org119}\And
A.~De Caro\Irefn{org31}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org12}\And
G.~de Cataldo\Irefn{org104}\And
J.~de Cuveland\Irefn{org43}\And
A.~De Falco\Irefn{org25}\And
D.~De Gruttola\Irefn{org12}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org31}\And
N.~De Marco\Irefn{org111}\And
S.~De Pasquale\Irefn{org31}\And
A.~Deloff\Irefn{org77}\And
E.~D\'{e}nes\Irefn{org135}\And
G.~D'Erasmo\Irefn{org33}\And
D.~Di Bari\Irefn{org33}\And
A.~Di Mauro\Irefn{org36}\And
P.~Di Nezza\Irefn{org72}\And
M.A.~Diaz Corchero\Irefn{org10}\And
T.~Dietel\Irefn{org89}\And
P.~Dillenseger\Irefn{org53}\And
R.~Divi\`{a}\Irefn{org36}\And
{\O}.~Djuvsland\Irefn{org18}\And
A.~Dobrin\Irefn{org57}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org81}\And
T.~Dobrowolski\Irefn{org77}\Aref{0}\And
D.~Domenicis Gimenez\Irefn{org119}\And
B.~D\"{o}nigus\Irefn{org53}\And
O.~Dordic\Irefn{org22}\And
A.K.~Dubey\Irefn{org131}\And
A.~Dubla\Irefn{org57}\And
L.~Ducroux\Irefn{org129}\And
P.~Dupieux\Irefn{org70}\And
R.J.~Ehlers\Irefn{org136}\And
D.~Elia\Irefn{org104}\And
H.~Engel\Irefn{org52}\And
B.~Erazmus\Irefn{org113}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org36}\And
H.A.~Erdal\Irefn{org38}\And
D.~Eschweiler\Irefn{org43}\And
B.~Espagnon\Irefn{org51}\And
M.~Esposito\Irefn{org36}\And
M.~Estienne\Irefn{org113}\And
S.~Esumi\Irefn{org127}\And
D.~Evans\Irefn{org102}\And
S.~Evdokimov\Irefn{org112}\And
G.~Eyyubova\Irefn{org40}\And
L.~Fabbietti\Irefn{org37}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org92}\And
D.~Fabris\Irefn{org108}\And
J.~Faivre\Irefn{org71}\And
A.~Fantoni\Irefn{org72}\And
M.~Fasel\Irefn{org74}\And
L.~Feldkamp\Irefn{org54}\And
D.~Felea\Irefn{org62}\And
A.~Feliciello\Irefn{org111}\And
G.~Feofilov\Irefn{org130}\And
J.~Ferencei\Irefn{org83}\And
A.~Fern\'{a}ndez T\'{e}llez\Irefn{org2}\And
E.G.~Ferreiro\Irefn{org17}\And
A.~Ferretti\Irefn{org27}\And
A.~Festanti\Irefn{org30}\And
J.~Figiel\Irefn{org116}\And
M.A.S.~Figueredo\Irefn{org123}\And
S.~Filchagin\Irefn{org99}\And
D.~Finogeev\Irefn{org56}\And
F.M.~Fionda\Irefn{org104}\And
E.M.~Fiore\Irefn{org33}\And
M.G.~Fleck\Irefn{org93}\And
M.~Floris\Irefn{org36}\And
S.~Foertsch\Irefn{org65}\And
P.~Foka\Irefn{org97}\And
S.~Fokin\Irefn{org100}\And
E.~Fragiacomo\Irefn{org110}\And
A.~Francescon\Irefn{org36}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org30}\And
U.~Frankenfeld\Irefn{org97}\And
U.~Fuchs\Irefn{org36}\And
C.~Furget\Irefn{org71}\And
A.~Furs\Irefn{org56}\And
M.~Fusco Girard\Irefn{org31}\And
J.J.~Gaardh{\o}je\Irefn{org80}\And
M.~Gagliardi\Irefn{org27}\And
A.M.~Gago\Irefn{org103}\And
M.~Gallio\Irefn{org27}\And
D.R.~Gangadharan\Irefn{org74}\And
P.~Ganoti\Irefn{org88}\And
C.~Gao\Irefn{org7}\And
C.~Garabatos\Irefn{org97}\And
E.~Garcia-Solis\Irefn{org13}\And
C.~Gargiulo\Irefn{org36}\And
P.~Gasik\Irefn{org37}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org92}\And
M.~Germain\Irefn{org113}\And
A.~Gheata\Irefn{org36}\And
M.~Gheata\Irefn{org62}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org36}\And
B.~Ghidini\Irefn{org33}\And
P.~Ghosh\Irefn{org131}\And
S.K.~Ghosh\Irefn{org4}\And
P.~Gianotti\Irefn{org72}\And
P.~Giubellino\Irefn{org36}\And
P.~Giubilato\Irefn{org30}\And
E.~Gladysz-Dziadus\Irefn{org116}\And
P.~Gl\"{a}ssel\Irefn{org93}\And
A.~Gomez Ramirez\Irefn{org52}\And
P.~Gonz\'{a}lez-Zamora\Irefn{org10}\And
S.~Gorbunov\Irefn{org43}\And
L.~G\"{o}rlich\Irefn{org116}\And
S.~Gotovac\Irefn{org115}\And
V.~Grabski\Irefn{org64}\And
L.K.~Graczykowski\Irefn{org133}\And
A.~Grelli\Irefn{org57}\And
A.~Grigoras\Irefn{org36}\And
C.~Grigoras\Irefn{org36}\And
V.~Grigoriev\Irefn{org76}\And
A.~Grigoryan\Irefn{org1}\And
S.~Grigoryan\Irefn{org66}\And
B.~Grinyov\Irefn{org3}\And
N.~Grion\Irefn{org110}\And
J.F.~Grosse-Oetringhaus\Irefn{org36}\And
J.-Y.~Grossiord\Irefn{org129}\And
R.~Grosso\Irefn{org36}\And
F.~Guber\Irefn{org56}\And
R.~Guernane\Irefn{org71}\And
B.~Guerzoni\Irefn{org28}\And
K.~Gulbrandsen\Irefn{org80}\And
H.~Gulkanyan\Irefn{org1}\And
T.~Gunji\Irefn{org126}\And
A.~Gupta\Irefn{org90}\And
R.~Gupta\Irefn{org90}\And
R.~Haake\Irefn{org54}\And
{\O}.~Haaland\Irefn{org18}\And
C.~Hadjidakis\Irefn{org51}\And
M.~Haiduc\Irefn{org62}\And
H.~Hamagaki\Irefn{org126}\And
G.~Hamar\Irefn{org135}\And
L.D.~Hanratty\Irefn{org102}\And
A.~Hansen\Irefn{org80}\And
J.W.~Harris\Irefn{org136}\And
H.~Hartmann\Irefn{org43}\And
A.~Harton\Irefn{org13}\And
D.~Hatzifotiadou\Irefn{org105}\And
S.~Hayashi\Irefn{org126}\And
S.T.~Heckel\Irefn{org53}\And
M.~Heide\Irefn{org54}\And
H.~Helstrup\Irefn{org38}\And
A.~Herghelegiu\Irefn{org78}\And
G.~Herrera Corral\Irefn{org11}\And
B.A.~Hess\Irefn{org35}\And
K.F.~Hetland\Irefn{org38}\And
T.E.~Hilden\Irefn{org46}\And
H.~Hillemanns\Irefn{org36}\And
B.~Hippolyte\Irefn{org55}\And
P.~Hristov\Irefn{org36}\And
M.~Huang\Irefn{org18}\And
T.J.~Humanic\Irefn{org20}\And
N.~Hussain\Irefn{org45}\And
T.~Hussain\Irefn{org19}\And
D.~Hutter\Irefn{org43}\And
D.S.~Hwang\Irefn{org21}\And
R.~Ilkaev\Irefn{org99}\And
I.~Ilkiv\Irefn{org77}\And
M.~Inaba\Irefn{org127}\And
C.~Ionita\Irefn{org36}\And
M.~Ippolitov\Irefn{org76}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org100}\And
M.~Irfan\Irefn{org19}\And
M.~Ivanov\Irefn{org97}\And
V.~Ivanov\Irefn{org85}\And
A.~Jacho{\l}kowski\Irefn{org29}\And
P.M.~Jacobs\Irefn{org74}\And
C.~Jahnke\Irefn{org119}\And
H.J.~Jang\Irefn{org68}\And
M.A.~Janik\Irefn{org133}\And
P.H.S.Y.~Jayarathna\Irefn{org121}\And
C.~Jena\Irefn{org30}\And
S.~Jena\Irefn{org121}\And
R.T.~Jimenez Bustamante\Irefn{org63}\And
P.G.~Jones\Irefn{org102}\And
H.~Jung\Irefn{org44}\And
A.~Jusko\Irefn{org102}\And
P.~Kalinak\Irefn{org59}\And
A.~Kalweit\Irefn{org36}\And
J.~Kamin\Irefn{org53}\And
J.H.~Kang\Irefn{org137}\And
V.~Kaplin\Irefn{org76}\And
S.~Kar\Irefn{org131}\And
A.~Karasu Uysal\Irefn{org69}\And
O.~Karavichev\Irefn{org56}\And
T.~Karavicheva\Irefn{org56}\And
E.~Karpechev\Irefn{org56}\And
U.~Kebschull\Irefn{org52}\And
R.~Keidel\Irefn{org138}\And
D.L.D.~Keijdener\Irefn{org57}\And
M.~Keil\Irefn{org36}\And
K.H.~Khan\Irefn{org16}\And
M.M.~Khan\Irefn{org19}\And
P.~Khan\Irefn{org101}\And
S.A.~Khan\Irefn{org131}\And
A.~Khanzadeev\Irefn{org85}\And
Y.~Kharlov\Irefn{org112}\And
B.~Kileng\Irefn{org38}\And
B.~Kim\Irefn{org137}\And
D.W.~Kim\Irefn{org68}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org44}\And
D.J.~Kim\Irefn{org122}\And
H.~Kim\Irefn{org137}\And
J.S.~Kim\Irefn{org44}\And
M.~Kim\Irefn{org44}\And
M.~Kim\Irefn{org137}\And
S.~Kim\Irefn{org21}\And
T.~Kim\Irefn{org137}\And
S.~Kirsch\Irefn{org43}\And
I.~Kisel\Irefn{org43}\And
S.~Kiselev\Irefn{org58}\And
A.~Kisiel\Irefn{org133}\And
G.~Kiss\Irefn{org135}\And
J.L.~Klay\Irefn{org6}\And
C.~Klein\Irefn{org53}\And
J.~Klein\Irefn{org93}\And
C.~Klein-B\"{o}sing\Irefn{org54}\And
A.~Kluge\Irefn{org36}\And
M.L.~Knichel\Irefn{org93}\And
A.G.~Knospe\Irefn{org117}\And
T.~Kobayashi\Irefn{org127}\And
C.~Kobdaj\Irefn{org114}\And
M.~Kofarago\Irefn{org36}\And
M.K.~K\"{o}hler\Irefn{org97}\And
T.~Kollegger\Irefn{org43}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org97}\And
A.~Kolojvari\Irefn{org130}\And
V.~Kondratiev\Irefn{org130}\And
N.~Kondratyeva\Irefn{org76}\And
E.~Kondratyuk\Irefn{org112}\And
A.~Konevskikh\Irefn{org56}\And
V.~Kovalenko\Irefn{org130}\And
M.~Kowalski\Irefn{org36}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org116}\And
S.~Kox\Irefn{org71}\And
G.~Koyithatta Meethaleveedu\Irefn{org48}\And
J.~Kral\Irefn{org122}\And
I.~Kr\'{a}lik\Irefn{org59}\And
A.~Krav\v{c}\'{a}kov\'{a}\Irefn{org41}\And
M.~Krelina\Irefn{org40}\And
M.~Kretz\Irefn{org43}\And
M.~Krivda\Irefn{org59}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org102}\And
F.~Krizek\Irefn{org83}\And
E.~Kryshen\Irefn{org36}\And
M.~Krzewicki\Irefn{org43}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org97}\And
A.M.~Kubera\Irefn{org20}\And
V.~Ku\v{c}era\Irefn{org83}\And
Y.~Kucheriaev\Irefn{org100}\Aref{0}\And
T.~Kugathasan\Irefn{org36}\And
C.~Kuhn\Irefn{org55}\And
P.G.~Kuijer\Irefn{org81}\And
I.~Kulakov\Irefn{org43}\And
J.~Kumar\Irefn{org48}\And
L.~Kumar\Irefn{org87}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org79}\And
P.~Kurashvili\Irefn{org77}\And
A.~Kurepin\Irefn{org56}\And
A.B.~Kurepin\Irefn{org56}\And
A.~Kuryakin\Irefn{org99}\And
S.~Kushpil\Irefn{org83}\And
M.J.~Kweon\Irefn{org50}\And
Y.~Kwon\Irefn{org137}\And
S.L.~La Pointe\Irefn{org111}\And
P.~La Rocca\Irefn{org29}\And
C.~Lagana Fernandes\Irefn{org119}\And
I.~Lakomov\Irefn{org51}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org36}\And
R.~Langoy\Irefn{org42}\And
C.~Lara\Irefn{org52}\And
A.~Lardeux\Irefn{org15}\And
A.~Lattuca\Irefn{org27}\And
E.~Laudi\Irefn{org36}\And
R.~Lea\Irefn{org26}\And
L.~Leardini\Irefn{org93}\And
G.R.~Lee\Irefn{org102}\And
I.~Legrand\Irefn{org36}\And
J.~Lehnert\Irefn{org53}\And
R.C.~Lemmon\Irefn{org82}\And
V.~Lenti\Irefn{org104}\And
E.~Leogrande\Irefn{org57}\And
I.~Le\'{o}n Monz\'{o}n\Irefn{org118}\And
M.~Leoncino\Irefn{org27}\And
P.~L\'{e}vai\Irefn{org135}\And
S.~Li\Irefn{org7}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org70}\And
X.~Li\Irefn{org14}\And
J.~Lien\Irefn{org42}\And
R.~Lietava\Irefn{org102}\And
S.~Lindal\Irefn{org22}\And
V.~Lindenstruth\Irefn{org43}\And
C.~Lippmann\Irefn{org97}\And
M.A.~Lisa\Irefn{org20}\And
H.M.~Ljunggren\Irefn{org34}\And
D.F.~Lodato\Irefn{org57}\And
P.I.~Loenne\Irefn{org18}\And
V.R.~Loggins\Irefn{org134}\And
V.~Loginov\Irefn{org76}\And
C.~Loizides\Irefn{org74}\And
X.~Lopez\Irefn{org70}\And
E.~L\'{o}pez Torres\Irefn{org9}\And
A.~Lowe\Irefn{org135}\And
X.-G.~Lu\Irefn{org93}\And
P.~Luettig\Irefn{org53}\And
M.~Lunardon\Irefn{org30}\And
G.~Luparello\Irefn{org26}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org57}\And
A.~Maevskaya\Irefn{org56}\And
M.~Mager\Irefn{org36}\And
S.~Mahajan\Irefn{org90}\And
S.M.~Mahmood\Irefn{org22}\And
A.~Maire\Irefn{org55}\And
R.D.~Majka\Irefn{org136}\And
M.~Malaev\Irefn{org85}\And
I.~Maldonado Cervantes\Irefn{org63}\And
L.~Malinina\Irefn{org66}\And
D.~Mal'Kevich\Irefn{org58}\And
P.~Malzacher\Irefn{org97}\And
A.~Mamonov\Irefn{org99}\And
L.~Manceau\Irefn{org111}\And
V.~Manko\Irefn{org100}\And
F.~Manso\Irefn{org70}\And
V.~Manzari\Irefn{org104}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org36}\And
M.~Marchisone\Irefn{org27}\And
J.~Mare\v{s}\Irefn{org60}\And
G.V.~Margagliotti\Irefn{org26}\And
A.~Margotti\Irefn{org105}\And
J.~Margutti\Irefn{org57}\And
A.~Mar\'{\i}n\Irefn{org97}\And
C.~Markert\Irefn{org117}\And
M.~Marquard\Irefn{org53}\And
I.~Martashvili\Irefn{org124}\And
N.A.~Martin\Irefn{org97}\And
J.~Martin Blanco\Irefn{org113}\And
P.~Martinengo\Irefn{org36}\And
M.I.~Mart\'{\i}nez\Irefn{org2}\And
G.~Mart\'{\i}nez Garc\'{\i}a\Irefn{org113}\And
Y.~Martynov\Irefn{org3}\And
A.~Mas\Irefn{org119}\And
S.~Masciocchi\Irefn{org97}\And
M.~Masera\Irefn{org27}\And
A.~Masoni\Irefn{org106}\And
L.~Massacrier\Irefn{org113}\And
A.~Mastroserio\Irefn{org33}\And
A.~Matyja\Irefn{org116}\And
C.~Mayer\Irefn{org116}\And
J.~Mazer\Irefn{org124}\And
M.A.~Mazzoni\Irefn{org109}\And
D.~Mcdonald\Irefn{org121}\And
F.~Meddi\Irefn{org24}\And
A.~Menchaca-Rocha\Irefn{org64}\And
E.~Meninno\Irefn{org31}\And
J.~Mercado P\'erez\Irefn{org93}\And
M.~Meres\Irefn{org39}\And
Y.~Miake\Irefn{org127}\And
M.M.~Mieskolainen\Irefn{org46}\And
K.~Mikhaylov\Irefn{org58}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org66}\And
L.~Milano\Irefn{org36}\And
J.~Milosevic\Irefn{org22}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org132}\And
L.M.~Minervini\Irefn{org104}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org23}\And
A.~Mischke\Irefn{org57}\And
A.N.~Mishra\Irefn{org49}\And
D.~Mi\'{s}kowiec\Irefn{org97}\And
J.~Mitra\Irefn{org131}\And
C.M.~Mitu\Irefn{org62}\And
N.~Mohammadi\Irefn{org57}\And
B.~Mohanty\Irefn{org131}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org79}\And
L.~Molnar\Irefn{org55}\And
L.~Monta\~{n}o Zetina\Irefn{org11}\And
E.~Montes\Irefn{org10}\And
M.~Morando\Irefn{org30}\And
D.A.~Moreira De Godoy\Irefn{org113}\And
S.~Moretto\Irefn{org30}\And
A.~Morreale\Irefn{org113}\And
A.~Morsch\Irefn{org36}\And
V.~Muccifora\Irefn{org72}\And
E.~Mudnic\Irefn{org115}\And
D.~M{\"u}hlheim\Irefn{org54}\And
S.~Muhuri\Irefn{org131}\And
M.~Mukherjee\Irefn{org131}\And
H.~M\"{u}ller\Irefn{org36}\And
J.D.~Mulligan\Irefn{org136}\And
M.G.~Munhoz\Irefn{org119}\And
S.~Murray\Irefn{org65}\And
L.~Musa\Irefn{org36}\And
J.~Musinsky\Irefn{org59}\And
B.K.~Nandi\Irefn{org48}\And
R.~Nania\Irefn{org105}\And
E.~Nappi\Irefn{org104}\And
M.U.~Naru\Irefn{org16}\And
C.~Nattrass\Irefn{org124}\And
K.~Nayak\Irefn{org79}\And
T.K.~Nayak\Irefn{org131}\And
S.~Nazarenko\Irefn{org99}\And
A.~Nedosekin\Irefn{org58}\And
L.~Nellen\Irefn{org63}\And
F.~Ng\Irefn{org121}\And
M.~Nicassio\Irefn{org97}\And
M.~Niculescu\Irefn{org36}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org62}\And
J.~Niedziela\Irefn{org36}\And
B.S.~Nielsen\Irefn{org80}\And
S.~Nikolaev\Irefn{org100}\And
S.~Nikulin\Irefn{org100}\And
V.~Nikulin\Irefn{org85}\And
B.S.~Nilsen\Irefn{org86}\And
F.~Noferini\Irefn{org105}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org12}\And
P.~Nomokonov\Irefn{org66}\And
G.~Nooren\Irefn{org57}\And
J.~Norman\Irefn{org123}\And
A.~Nyanin\Irefn{org100}\And
J.~Nystrand\Irefn{org18}\And
H.~Oeschler\Irefn{org93}\And
S.~Oh\Irefn{org136}\And
S.K.~Oh\Irefn{org67}\And
A.~Ohlson\Irefn{org36}\And
A.~Okatan\Irefn{org69}\And
T.~Okubo\Irefn{org47}\And
L.~Olah\Irefn{org135}\And
J.~Oleniacz\Irefn{org133}\And
A.C.~Oliveira Da Silva\Irefn{org119}\And
J.~Onderwaater\Irefn{org97}\And
C.~Oppedisano\Irefn{org111}\And
A.~Ortiz Velasquez\Irefn{org63}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org34}\And
A.~Oskarsson\Irefn{org34}\And
J.~Otwinowski\Irefn{org97}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org116}\And
K.~Oyama\Irefn{org93}\And
M.~Ozdemir\Irefn{org53}\And
Y.~Pachmayer\Irefn{org93}\And
P.~Pagano\Irefn{org31}\And
G.~Pai\'{c}\Irefn{org63}\And
C.~Pajares\Irefn{org17}\And
S.K.~Pal\Irefn{org131}\And
J.~Pan\Irefn{org134}\And
A.K.~Pandey\Irefn{org48}\And
D.~Pant\Irefn{org48}\And
V.~Papikyan\Irefn{org1}\And
G.S.~Pappalardo\Irefn{org107}\And
P.~Pareek\Irefn{org49}\And
W.J.~Park\Irefn{org97}\And
S.~Parmar\Irefn{org87}\And
A.~Passfeld\Irefn{org54}\And
D.I.~Patalakha\Irefn{org112}\And
V.~Paticchio\Irefn{org104}\And
B.~Paul\Irefn{org101}\And
T.~Pawlak\Irefn{org133}\And
T.~Peitzmann\Irefn{org57}\And
H.~Pereira Da Costa\Irefn{org15}\And
E.~Pereira De Oliveira Filho\Irefn{org119}\And
D.~Peresunko\Irefn{org76}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org100}\And
C.E.~P\'erez Lara\Irefn{org81}\And
V.~Peskov\Irefn{org53}\And
Y.~Pestov\Irefn{org5}\And
V.~Petr\'{a}\v{c}ek\Irefn{org40}\And
V.~Petrov\Irefn{org112}\And
M.~Petrovici\Irefn{org78}\And
C.~Petta\Irefn{org29}\And
S.~Piano\Irefn{org110}\And
M.~Pikna\Irefn{org39}\And
P.~Pillot\Irefn{org113}\And
O.~Pinazza\Irefn{org105}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org36}\And
L.~Pinsky\Irefn{org121}\And
D.B.~Piyarathna\Irefn{org121}\And
M.~P\l osko\'{n}\Irefn{org74}\And
M.~Planinic\Irefn{org128}\And
J.~Pluta\Irefn{org133}\And
S.~Pochybova\Irefn{org135}\And
P.L.M.~Podesta-Lerma\Irefn{org118}\And
M.G.~Poghosyan\Irefn{org86}\And
B.~Polichtchouk\Irefn{org112}\And
N.~Poljak\Irefn{org128}\And
W.~Poonsawat\Irefn{org114}\And
A.~Pop\Irefn{org78}\And
S.~Porteboeuf-Houssais\Irefn{org70}\And
J.~Porter\Irefn{org74}\And
J.~Pospisil\Irefn{org83}\And
S.K.~Prasad\Irefn{org4}\And
R.~Preghenella\Irefn{org36}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org105}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org12}\And
F.~Prino\Irefn{org111}\And
C.A.~Pruneau\Irefn{org134}\And
I.~Pshenichnov\Irefn{org56}\And
M.~Puccio\Irefn{org111}\And
G.~Puddu\Irefn{org25}\And
P.~Pujahari\Irefn{org134}\And
V.~Punin\Irefn{org99}\And
J.~Putschke\Irefn{org134}\And
H.~Qvigstad\Irefn{org22}\And
A.~Rachevski\Irefn{org110}\And
S.~Raha\Irefn{org4}\And
S.~Rajput\Irefn{org90}\And
J.~Rak\Irefn{org122}\And
A.~Rakotozafindrabe\Irefn{org15}\And
L.~Ramello\Irefn{org32}\And
R.~Raniwala\Irefn{org91}\And
S.~Raniwala\Irefn{org91}\And
S.S.~R\"{a}s\"{a}nen\Irefn{org46}\And
B.T.~Rascanu\Irefn{org53}\And
D.~Rathee\Irefn{org87}\And
A.W.~Rauf\Irefn{org16}\And
V.~Razazi\Irefn{org25}\And
K.F.~Read\Irefn{org124}\And
J.S.~Real\Irefn{org71}\And
K.~Redlich\Irefn{org77}\And
R.J.~Reed\Irefn{org136}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org134}\And
A.~Rehman\Irefn{org18}\And
P.~Reichelt\Irefn{org53}\And
M.~Reicher\Irefn{org57}\And
F.~Reidt\Irefn{org93}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org36}\And
R.~Renfordt\Irefn{org53}\And
A.R.~Reolon\Irefn{org72}\And
A.~Reshetin\Irefn{org56}\And
F.~Rettig\Irefn{org43}\And
J.-P.~Revol\Irefn{org12}\And
K.~Reygers\Irefn{org93}\And
V.~Riabov\Irefn{org85}\And
R.A.~Ricci\Irefn{org73}\And
T.~Richert\Irefn{org34}\And
M.~Richter\Irefn{org22}\And
P.~Riedler\Irefn{org36}\And
W.~Riegler\Irefn{org36}\And
F.~Riggi\Irefn{org29}\And
C.~Ristea\Irefn{org62}\And
A.~Rivetti\Irefn{org111}\And
E.~Rocco\Irefn{org57}\And
M.~Rodr\'{i}guez Cahuantzi\Irefn{org11}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org2}\And
A.~Rodriguez Manso\Irefn{org81}\And
K.~R{\o}ed\Irefn{org22}\And
E.~Rogochaya\Irefn{org66}\And
D.~Rohr\Irefn{org43}\And
D.~R\"ohrich\Irefn{org18}\And
R.~Romita\Irefn{org123}\And
F.~Ronchetti\Irefn{org72}\And
L.~Ronflette\Irefn{org113}\And
P.~Rosnet\Irefn{org70}\And
A.~Rossi\Irefn{org36}\And
F.~Roukoutakis\Irefn{org88}\And
A.~Roy\Irefn{org49}\And
C.~Roy\Irefn{org55}\And
P.~Roy\Irefn{org101}\And
A.J.~Rubio Montero\Irefn{org10}\And
R.~Rui\Irefn{org26}\And
R.~Russo\Irefn{org27}\And
E.~Ryabinkin\Irefn{org100}\And
Y.~Ryabov\Irefn{org85}\And
A.~Rybicki\Irefn{org116}\And
S.~Sadovsky\Irefn{org112}\And
K.~\v{S}afa\v{r}\'{\i}k\Irefn{org36}\And
B.~Sahlmuller\Irefn{org53}\And
P.~Sahoo\Irefn{org49}\And
R.~Sahoo\Irefn{org49}\And
S.~Sahoo\Irefn{org61}\And
P.K.~Sahu\Irefn{org61}\And
J.~Saini\Irefn{org131}\And
S.~Sakai\Irefn{org72}\And
M.A.~Saleh\Irefn{org134}\And
C.A.~Salgado\Irefn{org17}\And
J.~Salzwedel\Irefn{org20}\And
S.~Sambyal\Irefn{org90}\And
V.~Samsonov\Irefn{org85}\And
X.~Sanchez Castro\Irefn{org55}\And
L.~\v{S}\'{a}ndor\Irefn{org59}\And
A.~Sandoval\Irefn{org64}\And
M.~Sano\Irefn{org127}\And
G.~Santagati\Irefn{org29}\And
D.~Sarkar\Irefn{org131}\And
E.~Scapparone\Irefn{org105}\And
F.~Scarlassara\Irefn{org30}\And
R.P.~Scharenberg\Irefn{org95}\And
C.~Schiaua\Irefn{org78}\And
R.~Schicker\Irefn{org93}\And
C.~Schmidt\Irefn{org97}\And
H.R.~Schmidt\Irefn{org35}\And
S.~Schuchmann\Irefn{org53}\And
J.~Schukraft\Irefn{org36}\And
M.~Schulc\Irefn{org40}\And
T.~Schuster\Irefn{org136}\And
Y.~Schutz\Irefn{org113}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org36}\And
K.~Schwarz\Irefn{org97}\And
K.~Schweda\Irefn{org97}\And
G.~Scioli\Irefn{org28}\And
E.~Scomparin\Irefn{org111}\And
R.~Scott\Irefn{org124}\And
K.S.~Seeder\Irefn{org119}\And
G.~Segato\Irefn{org30}\And
J.E.~Seger\Irefn{org86}\And
Y.~Sekiguchi\Irefn{org126}\And
I.~Selyuzhenkov\Irefn{org97}\And
K.~Senosi\Irefn{org65}\And
J.~Seo\Irefn{org67}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org96}\And
E.~Serradilla\Irefn{org64}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org10}\And
A.~Sevcenco\Irefn{org62}\And
A.~Shabanov\Irefn{org56}\And
A.~Shabetai\Irefn{org113}\And
O.~Shadura\Irefn{org3}\And
R.~Shahoyan\Irefn{org36}\And
A.~Shangaraev\Irefn{org112}\And
A.~Sharma\Irefn{org90}\And
N.~Sharma\Irefn{org61}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org124}\And
K.~Shigaki\Irefn{org47}\And
K.~Shtejer\Irefn{org27}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org9}\And
Y.~Sibiriak\Irefn{org100}\And
S.~Siddhanta\Irefn{org106}\And
K.M.~Sielewicz\Irefn{org36}\And
T.~Siemiarczuk\Irefn{org77}\And
D.~Silvermyr\Irefn{org84}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org34}\And
C.~Silvestre\Irefn{org71}\And
G.~Simatovic\Irefn{org128}\And
R.~Singaraju\Irefn{org131}\And
R.~Singh\Irefn{org90}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org79}\And
S.~Singha\Irefn{org79}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org131}\And
V.~Singhal\Irefn{org131}\And
B.C.~Sinha\Irefn{org131}\And
T.~Sinha\Irefn{org101}\And
B.~Sitar\Irefn{org39}\And
M.~Sitta\Irefn{org32}\And
T.B.~Skaali\Irefn{org22}\And
K.~Skjerdal\Irefn{org18}\And
M.~Slupecki\Irefn{org122}\And
N.~Smirnov\Irefn{org136}\And
R.J.M.~Snellings\Irefn{org57}\And
T.W.~Snellman\Irefn{org122}\And
C.~S{\o}gaard\Irefn{org34}\And
R.~Soltz\Irefn{org75}\And
J.~Song\Irefn{org96}\And
M.~Song\Irefn{org137}\And
Z.~Song\Irefn{org7}\And
F.~Soramel\Irefn{org30}\And
S.~Sorensen\Irefn{org124}\And
M.~Spacek\Irefn{org40}\And
E.~Spiriti\Irefn{org72}\And
I.~Sputowska\Irefn{org116}\And
M.~Spyropoulou-Stassinaki\Irefn{org88}\And
B.K.~Srivastava\Irefn{org95}\And
J.~Stachel\Irefn{org93}\And
I.~Stan\Irefn{org62}\And
G.~Stefanek\Irefn{org77}\And
M.~Steinpreis\Irefn{org20}\And
E.~Stenlund\Irefn{org34}\And
G.~Steyn\Irefn{org65}\And
J.H.~Stiller\Irefn{org93}\And
D.~Stocco\Irefn{org113}\And
P.~Strmen\Irefn{org39}\And
A.A.P.~Suaide\Irefn{org119}\And
T.~Sugitate\Irefn{org47}\And
C.~Suire\Irefn{org51}\And
M.~Suleymanov\Irefn{org16}\And
R.~Sultanov\Irefn{org58}\And
M.~\v{S}umbera\Irefn{org83}\And
T.J.M.~Symons\Irefn{org74}\And
A.~Szabo\Irefn{org39}\And
A.~Szanto de Toledo\Irefn{org119}\Aref{0}\And
I.~Szarka\Irefn{org39}\And
A.~Szczepankiewicz\Irefn{org36}\And
M.~Szymanski\Irefn{org133}\And
J.~Takahashi\Irefn{org120}\And
N.~Tanaka\Irefn{org127}\And
M.A.~Tangaro\Irefn{org33}\And
J.D.~Tapia Takaki\Aref{idp5870448}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org51}\And
A.~Tarantola Peloni\Irefn{org53}\And
M.~Tariq\Irefn{org19}\And
M.G.~Tarzila\Irefn{org78}\And
A.~Tauro\Irefn{org36}\And
G.~Tejeda Mu\~{n}oz\Irefn{org2}\And
A.~Telesca\Irefn{org36}\And
K.~Terasaki\Irefn{org126}\And
C.~Terrevoli\Irefn{org30}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org25}\And
B.~Teyssier\Irefn{org129}\And
J.~Th\"{a}der\Irefn{org97}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org74}\And
D.~Thomas\Irefn{org57}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org117}\And
R.~Tieulent\Irefn{org129}\And
A.R.~Timmins\Irefn{org121}\And
A.~Toia\Irefn{org53}\And
S.~Trogolo\Irefn{org111}\And
V.~Trubnikov\Irefn{org3}\And
W.H.~Trzaska\Irefn{org122}\And
T.~Tsuji\Irefn{org126}\And
A.~Tumkin\Irefn{org99}\And
R.~Turrisi\Irefn{org108}\And
T.S.~Tveter\Irefn{org22}\And
K.~Ullaland\Irefn{org18}\And
A.~Uras\Irefn{org129}\And
G.L.~Usai\Irefn{org25}\And
A.~Utrobicic\Irefn{org128}\And
M.~Vajzer\Irefn{org83}\And
M.~Vala\Irefn{org59}\And
L.~Valencia Palomo\Irefn{org70}\And
S.~Vallero\Irefn{org27}\And
J.~Van Der Maarel\Irefn{org57}\And
J.W.~Van Hoorne\Irefn{org36}\And
M.~van Leeuwen\Irefn{org57}\And
T.~Vanat\Irefn{org83}\And
P.~Vande Vyvre\Irefn{org36}\And
D.~Varga\Irefn{org135}\And
A.~Vargas\Irefn{org2}\And
M.~Vargyas\Irefn{org122}\And
R.~Varma\Irefn{org48}\And
M.~Vasileiou\Irefn{org88}\And
A.~Vasiliev\Irefn{org100}\And
A.~Vauthier\Irefn{org71}\And
V.~Vechernin\Irefn{org130}\And
A.M.~Veen\Irefn{org57}\And
M.~Veldhoen\Irefn{org57}\And
A.~Velure\Irefn{org18}\And
M.~Venaruzzo\Irefn{org73}\And
E.~Vercellin\Irefn{org27}\And
S.~Vergara Lim\'on\Irefn{org2}\And
R.~Vernet\Irefn{org8}\And
M.~Verweij\Irefn{org134}\And
L.~Vickovic\Irefn{org115}\And
G.~Viesti\Irefn{org30}\Aref{0}\And
J.~Viinikainen\Irefn{org122}\And
Z.~Vilakazi\Irefn{org125}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org65}\And
O.~Villalobos Baillie\Irefn{org102}\And
A.~Vinogradov\Irefn{org100}\And
L.~Vinogradov\Irefn{org130}\And
Y.~Vinogradov\Irefn{org99}\And
T.~Virgili\Irefn{org31}\And
V.~Vislavicius\Irefn{org34}\And
Y.P.~Viyogi\Irefn{org131}\And
A.~Vodopyanov\Irefn{org66}\And
M.A.~V\"{o}lkl\Irefn{org93}\And
K.~Voloshin\Irefn{org58}\And
S.A.~Voloshin\Irefn{org134}\And
G.~Volpe\Irefn{org36}\And
B.~von Haller\Irefn{org36}\And
I.~Vorobyev\Irefn{org92}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org37}\And
D.~Vranic\Irefn{org97}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org36}\And
J.~Vrl\'{a}kov\'{a}\Irefn{org41}\And
B.~Vulpescu\Irefn{org70}\And
A.~Vyushin\Irefn{org99}\And
B.~Wagner\Irefn{org18}\And
J.~Wagner\Irefn{org97}\And
H.~Wang\Irefn{org57}\And
M.~Wang\Irefn{org7}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org113}\And
Y.~Wang\Irefn{org93}\And
D.~Watanabe\Irefn{org127}\And
M.~Weber\Irefn{org36}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org121}\And
S.G.~Weber\Irefn{org97}\And
J.P.~Wessels\Irefn{org54}\And
U.~Westerhoff\Irefn{org54}\And
J.~Wiechula\Irefn{org35}\And
J.~Wikne\Irefn{org22}\And
M.~Wilde\Irefn{org54}\And
G.~Wilk\Irefn{org77}\And
J.~Wilkinson\Irefn{org93}\And
M.C.S.~Williams\Irefn{org105}\And
B.~Windelband\Irefn{org93}\And
M.~Winn\Irefn{org93}\And
C.G.~Yaldo\Irefn{org134}\And
Y.~Yamaguchi\Irefn{org126}\And
H.~Yang\Irefn{org57}\And
P.~Yang\Irefn{org7}\And
S.~Yano\Irefn{org47}\And
S.~Yasnopolskiy\Irefn{org100}\And
Z.~Yin\Irefn{org7}\And
H.~Yokoyama\Irefn{org127}\And
I.-K.~Yoo\Irefn{org96}\And
V.~Yurchenko\Irefn{org3}\And
I.~Yushmanov\Irefn{org100}\And
A.~Zaborowska\Irefn{org133}\And
V.~Zaccolo\Irefn{org80}\And
A.~Zaman\Irefn{org16}\And
C.~Zampolli\Irefn{org105}\And
H.J.C.~Zanoli\Irefn{org119}\And
S.~Zaporozhets\Irefn{org66}\And
A.~Zarochentsev\Irefn{org130}\And
P.~Z\'{a}vada\Irefn{org60}\And
N.~Zaviyalov\Irefn{org99}\And
H.~Zbroszczyk\Irefn{org133}\And
I.S.~Zgura\Irefn{org62}\And
M.~Zhalov\Irefn{org85}\And
H.~Zhang\Irefn{org7}\And
X.~Zhang\Irefn{org74}\And
Y.~Zhang\Irefn{org7}\And
C.~Zhao\Irefn{org22}\And
N.~Zhigareva\Irefn{org58}\And
D.~Zhou\Irefn{org7}\And
Y.~Zhou\Irefn{org57}\And
Z.~Zhou\Irefn{org18}\And
H.~Zhu\Irefn{org7}\And
J.~Zhu\Irefn{org7}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org113}\And
X.~Zhu\Irefn{org7}\And
A.~Zichichi\Irefn{org12}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org28}\And
A.~Zimmermann\Irefn{org93}\And
M.B.~Zimmermann\Irefn{org54}\textsuperscript{,}\Irefn{org36}\And
G.~Zinovjev\Irefn{org3}\And
M.~Zyzak\Irefn{org43}
\renewcommand\labelenumi{\textsuperscript{\theenumi}~}
\section*{Affiliation notes}
\renewcommand\theenumi{\roman{enumi}}
\begin{Authlist}
\item \Adef{0}Deceased
\item \Adef{idp5870448}{Also at: University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, United States}
\end{Authlist}
\section*{Collaboration Institutes}
\renewcommand\theenumi{\arabic{enumi}~}
\begin{Authlist}
\item \Idef{org1}A.I. Alikhanyan National Science Laboratory (Yerevan Physics Institute) Foundation, Yerevan, Armenia
\item \Idef{org2}Benem\'{e}rita Universidad Aut\'{o}noma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico
\item \Idef{org3}Bogolyubov Institute for Theoretical Physics, Kiev, Ukraine
\item \Idef{org4}Bose Institute, Department of Physics and Centre for Astroparticle Physics and Space Science (CAPSS), Kolkata, India
\item \Idef{org5}Budker Institute for Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia
\item \Idef{org6}California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California, United States
\item \Idef{org7}Central China Normal University, Wuhan, China
\item \Idef{org8}Centre de Calcul de l'IN2P3, Villeurbanne, France
\item \Idef{org9}Centro de Aplicaciones Tecnol\'{o}gicas y Desarrollo Nuclear (CEADEN), Havana, Cuba
\item \Idef{org10}Centro de Investigaciones Energ\'{e}ticas Medioambientales y Tecnol\'{o}gicas (CIEMAT), Madrid, Spain
\item \Idef{org11}Centro de Investigaci\'{o}n y de Estudios Avanzados (CINVESTAV), Mexico City and M\'{e}rida, Mexico
\item \Idef{org12}Centro Fermi - Museo Storico della Fisica e Centro Studi e Ricerche ``Enrico Fermi'', Rome, Italy
\item \Idef{org13}Chicago State University, Chicago, Illinois, USA
\item \Idef{org14}China Institute of Atomic Energy, Beijing, China
\item \Idef{org15}Commissariat \`{a} l'Energie Atomique, IRFU, Saclay, France
\item \Idef{org16}COMSATS Institute of Information Technology (CIIT), Islamabad, Pakistan
\item \Idef{org17}Departamento de F\'{\i}sica de Part\'{\i}culas and IGFAE, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
\item \Idef{org18}Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
\item \Idef{org19}Department of Physics, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India
\item \Idef{org20}Department of Physics, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States
\item \Idef{org21}Department of Physics, Sejong University, Seoul, South Korea
\item \Idef{org22}Department of Physics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
\item \Idef{org23}Dipartimento di Elettrotecnica ed Elettronica del Politecnico, Bari, Italy
\item \Idef{org24}Dipartimento di Fisica dell'Universit\`{a} 'La Sapienza' and Sezione INFN Rome, Italy
\item \Idef{org25}Dipartimento di Fisica dell'Universit\`{a} and Sezione INFN, Cagliari, Italy
\item \Idef{org26}Dipartimento di Fisica dell'Universit\`{a} and Sezione INFN, Trieste, Italy
\item \Idef{org27}Dipartimento di Fisica dell'Universit\`{a} and Sezione INFN, Turin, Italy
\item \Idef{org28}Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell'Universit\`{a} and Sezione INFN, Bologna, Italy
\item \Idef{org29}Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell'Universit\`{a} and Sezione INFN, Catania, Italy
\item \Idef{org30}Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell'Universit\`{a} and Sezione INFN, Padova, Italy
\item \Idef{org31}Dipartimento di Fisica `E.R.~Caianiello' dell'Universit\`{a} and Gruppo Collegato INFN, Salerno, Italy
\item \Idef{org32}Dipartimento di Scienze e Innovazione Tecnologica dell'Universit\`{a} del Piemonte Orientale and Gruppo Collegato INFN, Alessandria, Italy
\item \Idef{org33}Dipartimento Interateneo di Fisica `M.~Merlin' and Sezione INFN, Bari, Italy
\item \Idef{org34}Division of Experimental High Energy Physics, University of Lund, Lund, Sweden
\item \Idef{org35}Eberhard Karls Universit\"{a}t T\"{u}bingen, T\"{u}bingen, Germany
\item \Idef{org36}European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
\item \Idef{org37}Excellence Cluster Universe, Technische Universit\"{a}t M\"{u}nchen, Munich, Germany
\item \Idef{org38}Faculty of Engineering, Bergen University College, Bergen, Norway
\item \Idef{org39}Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics, Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovakia
\item \Idef{org40}Faculty of Nuclear Sciences and Physical Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
\item \Idef{org41}Faculty of Science, P.J.~\v{S}af\'{a}rik University, Ko\v{s}ice, Slovakia
\item \Idef{org42}Faculty of Technology, Buskerud and Vestfold University College, Vestfold, Norway
\item \Idef{org43}Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universit\"{a}t Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
\item \Idef{org44}Gangneung-Wonju National University, Gangneung, South Korea
\item \Idef{org45}Gauhati University, Department of Physics, Guwahati, India
\item \Idef{org46}Helsinki Institute of Physics (HIP), Helsinki, Finland
\item \Idef{org47}Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan
\item \Idef{org48}Indian Institute of Technology Bombay (IIT), Mumbai, India
\item \Idef{org49}Indian Institute of Technology Indore, Indore (IITI), India
\item \Idef{org50}Inha University, Incheon, South Korea
\item \Idef{org51}Institut de Physique Nucl\'eaire d'Orsay (IPNO), Universit\'e Paris-Sud, CNRS-IN2P3, Orsay, France
\item \Idef{org52}Institut f\"{u}r Informatik, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universit\"{a}t Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
\item \Idef{org53}Institut f\"{u}r Kernphysik, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universit\"{a}t Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
\item \Idef{org54}Institut f\"{u}r Kernphysik, Westf\"{a}lische Wilhelms-Universit\"{a}t M\"{u}nster, M\"{u}nster, Germany
\item \Idef{org55}Institut Pluridisciplinaire Hubert Curien (IPHC), Universit\'{e} de Strasbourg, CNRS-IN2P3, Strasbourg, France
\item \Idef{org56}Institute for Nuclear Research, Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
\item \Idef{org57}Institute for Subatomic Physics of Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
\item \Idef{org58}Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia
\item \Idef{org59}Institute of Experimental Physics, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Ko\v{s}ice, Slovakia
\item \Idef{org60}Institute of Physics, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Prague, Czech Republic
\item \Idef{org61}Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar, India
\item \Idef{org62}Institute of Space Science (ISS), Bucharest, Romania
\item \Idef{org63}Instituto de Ciencias Nucleares, Universidad Nacional Aut\'{o}noma de M\'{e}xico, Mexico City, Mexico
\item \Idef{org64}Instituto de F\'{\i}sica, Universidad Nacional Aut\'{o}noma de M\'{e}xico, Mexico City, Mexico
\item \Idef{org65}iThemba LABS, National Research Foundation, Somerset West, South Africa
\item \Idef{org66}Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR), Dubna, Russia
\item \Idef{org67}Konkuk University, Seoul, South Korea
\item \Idef{org68}Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information, Daejeon, South Korea
\item \Idef{org69}KTO Karatay University, Konya, Turkey
\item \Idef{org70}Laboratoire de Physique Corpusculaire (LPC), Clermont Universit\'{e}, Universit\'{e} Blaise Pascal, CNRS--IN2P3, Clermont-Ferrand, France
\item \Idef{org71}Laboratoire de Physique Subatomique et de Cosmologie, Universit\'{e} Grenoble-Alpes, CNRS-IN2P3, Grenoble, France
\item \Idef{org72}Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, INFN, Frascati, Italy
\item \Idef{org73}Laboratori Nazionali di Legnaro, INFN, Legnaro, Italy
\item \Idef{org74}Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California, United States
\item \Idef{org75}Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California, United States
\item \Idef{org76}Moscow Engineering Physics Institute, Moscow, Russia
\item \Idef{org77}National Centre for Nuclear Studies, Warsaw, Poland
\item \Idef{org78}National Institute for Physics and Nuclear Engineering, Bucharest, Romania
\item \Idef{org79}National Institute of Science Education and Research, Bhubaneswar, India
\item \Idef{org80}Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
\item \Idef{org81}Nikhef, National Institute for Subatomic Physics, Amsterdam, Netherlands
\item \Idef{org82}Nuclear Physics Group, STFC Daresbury Laboratory, Daresbury, United Kingdom
\item \Idef{org83}Nuclear Physics Institute, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, \v{R}e\v{z} u Prahy, Czech Republic
\item \Idef{org84}Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, United States
\item \Idef{org85}Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina, Russia
\item \Idef{org86}Physics Department, Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska, United States
\item \Idef{org87}Physics Department, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India
\item \Idef{org88}Physics Department, University of Athens, Athens, Greece
\item \Idef{org89}Physics Department, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
\item \Idef{org90}Physics Department, University of Jammu, Jammu, India
\item \Idef{org91}Physics Department, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur, India
\item \Idef{org92}Physik Department, Technische Universit\"{a}t M\"{u}nchen, Munich, Germany
\item \Idef{org93}Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universit\"{a}t Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
\item \Idef{org94}Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy
\item \Idef{org95}Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, United States
\item \Idef{org96}Pusan National University, Pusan, South Korea
\item \Idef{org97}Research Division and ExtreMe Matter Institute EMMI, GSI Helmholtzzentrum f\"ur Schwerionenforschung, Darmstadt, Germany
\item \Idef{org98}Rudjer Bo\v{s}kovi\'{c} Institute, Zagreb, Croatia
\item \Idef{org99}Russian Federal Nuclear Center (VNIIEF), Sarov, Russia
\item \Idef{org100}Russian Research Centre Kurchatov Institute, Moscow, Russia
\item \Idef{org101}Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, Kolkata, India
\item \Idef{org102}School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
\item \Idef{org103}Secci\'{o}n F\'{\i}sica, Departamento de Ciencias, Pontificia Universidad Cat\'{o}lica del Per\'{u}, Lima, Peru
\item \Idef{org104}Sezione INFN, Bari, Italy
\item \Idef{org105}Sezione INFN, Bologna, Italy
\item \Idef{org106}Sezione INFN, Cagliari, Italy
\item \Idef{org107}Sezione INFN, Catania, Italy
\item \Idef{org108}Sezione INFN, Padova, Italy
\item \Idef{org109}Sezione INFN, Rome, Italy
\item \Idef{org110}Sezione INFN, Trieste, Italy
\item \Idef{org111}Sezione INFN, Turin, Italy
\item \Idef{org112}SSC IHEP of NRC Kurchatov institute, Protvino, Russia
\item \Idef{org113}SUBATECH, Ecole des Mines de Nantes, Universit\'{e} de Nantes, CNRS-IN2P3, Nantes, France
\item \Idef{org114}Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand
\item \Idef{org115}Technical University of Split FESB, Split, Croatia
\item \Idef{org116}The Henryk Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Cracow, Poland
\item \Idef{org117}The University of Texas at Austin, Physics Department, Austin, Texas, USA
\item \Idef{org118}Universidad Aut\'{o}noma de Sinaloa, Culiac\'{a}n, Mexico
\item \Idef{org119}Universidade de S\~{a}o Paulo (USP), S\~{a}o Paulo, Brazil
\item \Idef{org120}Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil
\item \Idef{org121}University of Houston, Houston, Texas, United States
\item \Idef{org122}University of Jyv\"{a}skyl\"{a}, Jyv\"{a}skyl\"{a}, Finland
\item \Idef{org123}University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom
\item \Idef{org124}University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, United States
\item \Idef{org125}University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
\item \Idef{org126}University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
\item \Idef{org127}University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan
\item \Idef{org128}University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia
\item \Idef{org129}Universit\'{e} de Lyon, Universit\'{e} Lyon 1, CNRS/IN2P3, IPN-Lyon, Villeurbanne, France
\item \Idef{org130}V.~Fock Institute for Physics, St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, Russia
\item \Idef{org131}Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre, Kolkata, India
\item \Idef{org132}Vin\v{c}a Institute of Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia
\item \Idef{org133}Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, Poland
\item \Idef{org134}Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, United States
\item \Idef{org135}Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, Hungary
\item \Idef{org136}Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States
\item \Idef{org137}Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea
\item \Idef{org138}Zentrum f\"{u}r Technologietransfer und Telekommunikation (ZTT), Fachhochschule Worms, Worms, Germany
\end{Authlist}
\endgroup
\section{A model with random uniform distribution of produced particles in pseudorapidity}
\label{app:formulae}
\def{n_{\rm F}^{}}{{n^{}_{\rm F}}}
\def{n_{\rm B}^{}}{{n^{}_{\rm B}}}
\def{\sigma^2_N}{{\sigma^2_{\rm N}}}
In a simple model with event-by-event multiplicity fluctuations and random uniform distribution of produced
particles in pseudorapidity the probability to observe ${n_{\rm F}^{}}$ particles in some subinterval $\delta\eta$
from the total number of $N$ charged particles produced in the whole pseudorapidity interval $Y$ is given by
the binomial distribution:
\begin{equation}\label{binomial}
P_N({n_{\rm F}^{}})=C_N^{n_{\rm F}^{}} p^{n_{\rm F}^{}} (1-p)^{N-{n_{\rm F}^{}}} \ ,
\end{equation}
with $\av{{n_{\rm F}^{}}}^{}_N=pN$ and $\av{n_F^2}^{}_N=p(1-p)N+p^2 N^2$,
where $p\equiv{\delta\eta}/Y$. (We consider the case of symmetric windows ${\delta\eta}_{\rm F}={\delta\eta}_{B}={\delta\eta}$.)
Averaging then over events with different values of $N$,
\begin{equation}\label{PnF}
P({n_{\rm F}^{}})=\sum_N P(N) P_N({n_{\rm F}^{}}) \ ,
\end{equation}
we have
\begin{equation}
\label{avr_nF}
\av{{n_{\rm F}^{}}}=\sum_{n_{\rm F}^{}} P({n_{\rm F}^{}}) {n_{\rm F}^{}} =\sum_{n_{\rm F}^{}} \sum_N P(N) P_N({n_{\rm F}^{}}) {n_{\rm F}^{}} = \sum_N P(N) pN=p\,\av{N}
\end{equation}
and hence
\begin{equation}\label{avr}
p=\frac{\av{{n_{\rm F}^{}}}}{\av{N}}=\frac{\av{{n_{\rm B}^{}}}}{\av{N}}=\frac{{\delta\eta}}{Y} \ .
\end{equation}
In the same way we find
\begin{equation}\label{31}
\av{n^2_{\rm F}}=\av{n^2_{\rm B}}=p(1-p)\av N + p^2 \av {N^2} \ ,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{31a}
\av{({n_{\rm F}^{}}+{n_{\rm B}^{}})^2}=2p(1-2p)\av N + (2p)^2 \av {N^2} \ .
\end{equation}
One can rewrite (\ref{avr})--(\ref{31a}) also as
\begin{equation}\label{rob}
\frac{{\sigma^2_{\nF+\nB}}-\av{{n_{\rm F}^{}}+{n_{\rm B}^{}}}}{\av{{n_{\rm F}^{}}+{n_{\rm B}^{}}}^2}=\frac{{\sigma^2_{\nF}}-\av{{n_{\rm F}^{}}}}{\av{{n_{\rm F}^{}}}^2}=\frac{{\sigma^2_N}-\av{N}}{\av{N}^2}\equiv R_{\rm N}
\ ,
\end{equation}
since the so-called robust variance $R_{\rm N}$ is the same
for any subinterval of $Y$ in the case of the independent homogeneous distribution
of the particles along $Y$ \cite{Voloshin02}.
Using the presentation for the covariance
\begin{equation}\label{corr}
\av{{n_{\rm F}^{}}{n_{\rm B}^{}}} -\av{{n_{\rm F}^{}}}\av{{n_{\rm B}^{}}}\equiv\frac{1}{2}( {\sigma^2_{\nF+\nB}}-{\sigma^2_{\nF}}-{\sigma^2_{\nB}}) \ ,
\end{equation}
we can write for the correlation coefficient in a model-independent way:
\begin{equation}\label{bcorr1}
b_{\rm corr}=\frac{ {\sigma^2_{\nF+\nB}}-{\sigma^2_{\nF}}-{\sigma^2_{\nB}}}{2{\sigma^2_{\nF}}} \ .
\end{equation}
Then combining (\ref{rob}) and (\ref{bcorr1})
we find
\begin{equation}\label{bcorrR}
b^{\rm mod}_{\rm corr}=\frac{\av{{n_{\rm F}^{}}}R_{\rm N}}{1+\av{{n_{\rm F}^{}}}R_{\rm N}} \ .
\end{equation}
Using (\ref{avr}) we can write (\ref{bcorrR}) also as
\begin{equation}\label{bcorrDyApp}
b^{\rm mod}_{\rm corr}=\frac{\alpha{\delta\eta}/Y}{1+\alpha{\delta\eta}/Y} \ ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{aApp}
\alpha=\av{N}R_{\rm N}=\frac{{\sigma^2_N}}{\av{N}}-1
\ .
\end{equation}
Substituting the expression
\begin{equation}\label{rob1}
R_{\rm N}=\frac{{\sigma^2_{\nF}}-\av{{n_{\rm F}^{}}}}{\av{{n_{\rm F}^{}}}^2}
\end{equation}
from (\ref{rob}) into (\ref{bcorrR}) one finds another presentation for $b^{\rm mod}_{\rm corr}$\,:
\begin{equation}\label{bcorrRaApp}
b^{\rm mod}_{\rm corr}=1-\frac{\av{{n_{\rm F}^{}}}}{{\sigma^2_{\nF}}} \ .
\end{equation}
\section*{Acknowledgements}
\input{acknowledgements_jan2015.tex}
\end{acknowledgement}
\bibliographystyle{utphys}
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}
The strengths of forward-backward (FB) multiplicity correlations have been measured
in minimum bias pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=0.9$, 2.76 and 7~TeV using multiplicities
determined in two separated pseudorapidity windows
separated by a variable gap, ${\eta^{}_{\rm gap}}$, of up to 1.2 units.
The dependences of the correlation coefficient $b_{\rm corr}$
on the collision energy, the width and the position
of pseudorapidity windows have been investigated.
For the first time, the analysis has been also applied for various configurations of the azimuthal sectors selected within these pseudorapidity windows in events at $\sqrt{s}=0.9$ and 7~TeV.
A considerable increase of the FB correlation strength
with the growth of the collision energy from $\sqrt{s}=0.9$ to 7 TeV is observed.
It is shown that this cannot be explained by the increase of the mean multiplicity alone.
The correlation strength
grows with the width of pseudorapidity windows, while
it decreases slightly
with increasing pseudorapidity gap between the windows.
It is shown that
there is a strong non-linear dependence of the correlation strength on the width of the pseudorapidity windows and hence on the
mean multiplicity value.
Measurements of the correlation strength
for various configurations of azimuthal sectors enable the distinction
of two contributions: short-range (SR) and long-range (LR) correlations.
A weak dependence on the collision energy is observed for the SR component while the LR component
has a strong dependence.
For $\eta$-gaps larger than
one unit of pseudorapidity and $\pi$/2 in azimuth the LR contribution dominates.
This contribution forms a pedestal value
(the common constant component)
of $b_{\rm corr}$ increasing with collision energy.
Moreover, pseudorapidity and pseudorapidity-azimuthal distributions of $b_{\rm corr}$ have been obtained
in pp events at $\sqrt{s}=7$~TeV for various particle transverse momentum intervals.
It is found that the FB correlation strength increases with the transverse momentum if $p_{\rm{T}}$-intervals with the same mean multiplicity are chosen.
The measurements have been compared to calculations using the PYTHIA and PHOJET MC event generators.
These generators are able to describe the general trends of $b_{\rm corr}$ as a function of
${\delta \eta}$, ${\eta^{}_{\rm gap}}$ and ${\varphi^{}_{\rm sep}}$
and its dependence on the collision energy.
In $p_{\rm{T}}$-dependent analysis of $b_{\rm corr}$, PYTHIA
describes data reasonably well, while PHOJET fails to describe
$b_{\rm corr}$ in azimuthal sectors.
The observed dependences of $b_{\rm corr}$ add new constraints on phenomenological models. In particular the transition between soft and hard processes in pp collisions can be investigated in detail using the $p_{\rm{T}}$ dependence of azimuthal and pseudorapidity distributions of forward-backward multiplicity correlation strength $b_{\rm corr}$.
\section{Dependence of FB multiplicity correlation strength on the choice of $p_{\rm{T}}$ intervals}
\label{sec:ptBinsStudy}
The behaviour of FB multiplicity correlation strength was also studied as a function of
$p_{\rm{T}}$ of registered particles.
These studies were motivated by a recent paper
by the ATLAS collaboration \cite{atlas-lrc},
which reported a decrease in the multiplicity correlation strength
with increasing $p_{\rm T}^{\rm min}$.
However, as we have observed
in Section~\ref{sec:depOnWindowWidth},
there is a strong non-linear dependence of $b_{\rm corr}$ on the size of pseudorapidity windows
and, hence, on the mean multiplicity $\av{n_{\rm ch}}$ in the window
(see Eq.\ \ref{p}, \ref{bcorrDy}, and Fig.\,\ref{fig:bCorrFromEtaWindowsWidth}).
In order to demonstrate that the strong $p_{\rm T}^{\rm min}$ dependence is not a trivial multiplicity dependence,
in our analysis we use $p_{\rm{T}}$ intervals with the same $\av{n_{\rm ch}}$.
To this end, the correlation strength $b_{\rm corr}$ is studied for
five $p_{\rm{T}}$ intervals within $0.3<p_{\rm{T}}<6$~GeV/$c$
at $\sqrt{s}=7$\,TeV:
0.3--0.4,
0.4--0.52,
0.52--0.7,
0.7--1.03 and
1.03--6.0 (GeV/c).
In each $p_{\rm{T}}$ interval, the corrected mean multiplicity
$\av{{n_{\rm F}^{}}}=0.157$ with a systematic uncertainty about 2\%.
Correlations are studied in $\eta$ and $\eta$-$\varphi$ FB-windows configurations.
Note that in case of windows chosen symmetrically with respect to $\eta = 0$
the definition of $b_{\rm corr}$ given by \eqref{b-alt} coincides
with the correlation coefficient $\rho^n_{\rm FB}$ used in the ATLAS analysis.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{overpic}[width=0.53\textwidth]{fig/ptBins_FROM_PT_fullPhi_2gaps.eps}
\end{overpic}
\end{center}
\caption{
Correlation strength $b_{\rm corr}$ at $\sqrt{s}=7$~TeV for separated pseudorapidity window pairs,
measured in $p_{\rm{T}}$ intervals with same $\av{n_{\rm ch}}$,
as a function of $p_{\rm T}^{\rm min}$ for each interval.
Values are shown for ${\eta^{}_{\rm gap}}$=0, 1.2
with $\delta\eta$=0.2.
}
\label{fig:ptBins_FROM_PT_fullPhi}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
$\begin{array}{ccc}
\begin{overpic}[width=0.46\textwidth]{fig/ptBins_MC_P2011_withCorrelator_fullPhi.eps}
\end{overpic}
\label{fig:ptBins_MC_Pythia_fullPhi}
&
\begin{overpic}[width=0.46\textwidth]{fig/ptBins_MC_Phojet_fullPhi.eps}
\end{overpic}
\end{array}$
\caption{
Correlation strength $b_{\rm corr}$ at $\sqrt{s}=7$~TeV for separated pseudorapidity window pairs,
measured in $p_{\rm{T}}$ intervals with same $\av{n_{\rm ch}}$
as a function of ${\eta^{}_{\rm gap}}$. Windows of width $\delta\eta$=0.2.
Left and right panels contain same data points, lines correspond to PYTHIA6 Perugia 2011 (left) and
to PHOJET (right).
}
\label{fig:ptBins_MCall_fullPhi}
\end{figure*}
Fig.\,\ref{fig:ptBins_FROM_PT_fullPhi} shows $b_{\rm corr}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}^{\rm min}$
for ${\eta^{}_{\rm gap}}$ = 0 and 1.2.
Systematic uncertainties are shown as rectangles, statistical uncertainties are negligible.
We find that $b_{\rm corr}$ increases with $p_{\rm T}^{\rm min}$ for both values of $\eta_{\rm gap}$, in contrast to the results reported in \cite{atlas-lrc}.
This result can be understood if one takes into account
that the multiplicity fluctuations in a given window
are closely connected with the two-particle correlation strength \cite{CapellaKrzywicki,Voloshin02}.
In the simple model with the event-by-event multiplicity fluctuations
and random distribution of produced particles in pseudorapidity,
discussed in Section \ref{sec:depOnWindowWidth},
Eq.\ \ref{bcorrnF} allows us to discuss the observed dependence of the correlation coefficient $b_{\rm corr}$
on the $p_{\rm{T}}$-binnings for the case of $\eta_{\rm gap} = 0$ (Fig.\,\ref{fig:ptBins_FROM_PT_fullPhi}).
One sees that the imposed condition $\av{{n_{\rm F}^{}}}$=$const$
eliminates the dependence of $b_{\rm corr}$ on the multiplicity.
The ratio $1/\sigma^2_{n_{\rm F}^{}}$ decreases and $b^{\rm mod}_{\rm corr}$ increases with increasing $p_{\rm T}^{\rm min}$.
As mentioned above, in the approach used in \cite{atlas-lrc}
the dependence of the correlation strength on the $p_{\rm T}^{\rm min}$
of charged particles was studied without cuts on $p_{\rm T}^{\rm max}$, which
leads to a decrease of the correlation $b_{\rm corr}$ with increasing $p_{\rm T}^{\rm min}$.
This result can also be illustrated with the help of Eq.\ \ref{bcorrnF}.
In this case
$\av{{n_{\rm F}^{}}}$ decreases with increasing $p_{\rm T}^{\rm min}$ and $\av{{n_{\rm F}^{}}}/\sigma^2_{n_{\rm F}^{}}$ increases
(approaching the Poisson limit $\sigma^2_{n_{\rm F}^{}}=\av{{n_{\rm F}^{}}}$)
leading to the decrease of $b^{\rm mod}_{\rm corr}$.
Thus, the difference of the results in these two approaches
can be qualitatively understood using Eq.\ \ref{bcorrnF}.
Fig. \ref{fig:ptBins_MCall_fullPhi}
shows $b_{\rm corr}$ as function of ${\eta^{}_{\rm gap}}$ for different $p_{\rm{T}}$ intervals.
Fig.\,\ref{fig:ptBins_MCall_fullPhi}~(a) compares data to
PYTHIA6 tune Perugia 2011.
The general trend of $b_{\rm corr}$ increasing with higher $p_{\rm T}^{\rm min}$ for all ${\eta^{}_{\rm gap}}$ is reproduced by this tune,
with small quantitative deviations.
Fig.\,\ref{fig:ptBins_MCall_fullPhi}~(b) shows the same data in comparison to PHOJET.
This generator does not describe the data well:
PHOJET results are almost
independent of $p_{\rm T}^{\rm min}$ and only grow significantly
for the $p_{\rm{T}}$ range 1.03--6.00 (GeV/$c$).
Since experimental data was used to determine the $p_{\rm{T}}$ intervals with the same mean multiplicity,
the values of mean multiplicities may vary slightly in case of the MC
samples for the same $p_{\rm{T}}$ intervals.
Deviations from the mean value are within 4\% for PYTHIA6 Perugia 0 and 12\% for PHOJET.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
{
\begin{overpic}[width=0.99\textwidth, clip=true, angle=0,trim=0.0cm 0cm 0cm 0.0cm]
{fig/etaPhiPtP11.eps}
\end{overpic}
\label{fig:ptBins_pads_MC_pythia}
}
\\
\vspace{0.3cm}
{
\begin{overpic}[width=0.99\textwidth, clip=true, angle=0,trim=0.0cm 0cm 0cm 0.0cm]
{fig/etaPhiPtPhojet.eps}
\end{overpic}
\label{fig:ptBins_pads_MC_phojet}
}
\caption{Correlation strength $b_{\rm corr}$ at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV
for separated $\eta$-$\varphi$ windows in different $p_{\rm{T}}$ intervals with same $\av{n_{\rm ch}}$.
Five ${\varphi^{}_{\rm sep}}$ values are shown as a function of ${\eta^{}_{\rm sep}}$.
Windows of $\delta\eta$=0.2
and ${\delta \varphi}$=$\pi$/4.
Top and bottom panels and contain the same experimental data,
lines correspond to PYTHIA6 Perugia~2011~(top) and
to PHOJET~(bottom).
}
\label{fig:ptBins_pads_MC_all}
\end{figure*}
The analysis of $b_{\rm corr}$ is also performed in
$\eta$-$\varphi$ separated windows in different $p_{\rm{T}}$ intervals with the same mean multiplicity
(for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$~TeV)
in 8$\times$8 $\eta$-$\varphi$ windows.
Results are shown in Fig.\,\ref{fig:ptBins_pads_MC_all} and compared to PYTHIA6 and PHOJET calculations.
In addition to the conclusions that were drawn above from the correlations between $\eta$-separated windows,
some new details are revealed.
In particular, one observes that the PHOJET discrepancy
with the data is especially dramatic at ${\varphi^{}_{\rm sep}}$=$\pi$/2,
where PHOJET shows no dependence of $b_{\rm corr}$ on the $p_{\rm{T}}$ range.
It was shown already in \cite{ALICE:2011ac} that PHOJET has difficulties in description of
underlying event measurements.
Fig.\,\ref{fig:ptBins_pads_MC_all} shows
that for higher $p_{\rm{T}}$ intervals a near-side peak appears
(see panels for $\varphi_{\rm sep}=0$ and $\pi/4$),
at the same time the $b_{\rm corr}$ in the flat region at $\eta_{sep}> 1$ increases with $p_{\rm{T}}$ for all $\varphi_{\rm sep}$ values
(compare panels for $\varphi_{\rm sep}=\pi/2$, $3\pi/4$ and $\pi$).
It should be emphasized that the value of the pedestal (the common constant component in all panels)
increases with $p_{\rm{T}}$.
In near- and away-side azimuthal regions the increase of $b_{\rm corr}$ with $p_{\rm T}^{\rm min}$ can be explained by
an enhanced number of back-to-back decays and jets. The general rise of $b_{\rm corr}$ can be related to the increase of the variance
${\sigma^2_N}$ in Eq.\ \ref{a},
discussed in the framework of the simple model in Section~\ref{sec:depOnWindowWidth}.
\subsection{Definition of counting windows}
\label{sec:etaPhiWindows}
Two intervals separated symmetrically around $\eta = 0$ with variable width ${\delta \eta}$ ranging from
0.2 to 0.8 are defined as ``forward'' (F, $\eta>0$)
and ``backward'' (B, $\eta<0$) .
Correlations between multiplicities of charged particles ($n$)
are studied as a function of the gap
between the windows (denoted as \textbf{${\eta^{}_{\rm gap}}$}).
Another convenient variable is ${\eta^{}_{\rm sep}}$ which is the separation in pseudorapidity between centres of the windows.
These variables are illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:etaWindowsVarDefinitions},
and all configurations of window pairs chosen for the analysis are drawn in Fig.~\ref{fig:etaWindowsView}.
The analysis is extended to correlations between separated regions in the $\eta$-$\varphi$ plane (sectors).
The $\varphi$-angle space is split into 8 sectors with the width ${\delta \varphi}$=$\pi$/4 as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:windowsPhiSectors}.
This selection is motivated by a compromise between granularity
and statistical uncertainty.
The definitions and equations, described in Section \ref{sec:introduction},
remain the same for the $\eta$-$\varphi$ windows.
The acceptance of the windows is determined by their widths ${\delta \eta}$ and ${\delta \varphi}$
as the ALICE acceptance is approximately uniform in the selected ranges of $\eta$ and $\varphi$.
\section{Multiplicity correlations in windows separated in pseudorapidity}
\label{sec:correlationsInEtaWithFullPhi}
\begin{figure}[b]
\centering
\resizebox{1.00\textwidth}{!}{%
\begin{overpic} [trim=0.cm 0cm 0.3cm 0.2cm, clip=true]{fig/Figure5.eps}
\end{overpic}
}
\caption{Forward-backward correlation strength $b_{\rm corr}$ as function of ${\eta^{}_{\rm gap}}$
and for different windows widths $\delta\eta$=0.2, 0.4, 0.6 and 0.8 in pp collisions
at $\sqrt{s}=0.9$, 2.76 and 7~TeV.
}
\label{fig:fullPhiAllWindows}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\resizebox{1.00\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{overpic}[trim=0.0cm 0.0cm 0.0cm 0.cm, clip=true]{fig/Figure6.eps}
\end{overpic}
}
\caption{ Correlation strength $b_{\rm corr}$ as a function of $\delta\eta$ for ${\eta^{}_{\rm gap}}=0$ in pp collisions
for $\sqrt{s}=0.9$, 2.76 and 7~TeV.
The MC results from PYTHIA6 Perugia 0 (solid line), Perugia 2011 (dotted line) and PHOJET
(dashed line),
calculated at generator level,
are shown for comparison. The bottom panels show the ratio of $b_{\rm corr}$ between data and MC.
The red dashed curves correspond to the model of independent particle emission from a fluctuating source (see text).
}
\label{fig:bCorrFromEtaWindowsWidth}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Dependence on the gap between windows}
Fig.\,\ref{fig:fullPhiAllWindows} shows the FB multiplicity correlation coefficient $b_{\rm corr}$
as a function of ${\eta^{}_{\rm gap}}$ and
for different widths of the $\eta$ windows ($\delta\eta$)
in pp collisions at the three collision energies.
For each $\sqrt{s}$, $b_{\rm corr}$
is found to decrease slowly with increasing ${\eta^{}_{\rm gap}}$,
while maintaining a substantial pedestal value throughout the full ${\eta^{}_{\rm gap}}$ range.
\subsection{Dependence on the width of windows}
\label{sec:depOnWindowWidth}
The $\delta\eta$-dependence for adjacent (${\eta^{}_{\rm gap}} = 0$), symmetrical windows with respect to $\eta=0$
is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:bCorrFromEtaWindowsWidth}.
For all collision energies, the correlation coefficient increases non-linearly with ${\delta \eta}$.
This trend is quite well described by PYTHIA6 and PHOJET, although the agreement worsens
with increasing $\sqrt{s}$.
This $\delta\eta$-dependence can be
understood, along with other approaches
\cite{CapellaKrzywicki,BKPV04, VV10},
in a simple model with event-by-event multiplicity fluctuations
and random distribution of produced particles in pseudorapidity.
In this model, the multiplicity in an $\eta$ interval containing the fraction $p$
of the mean multiplicity $\av{N}$ in the full
$\eta$-acceptance is binomially distributed and its mean square is given by
\begin{equation}\label{N2}
\av{n_{\rm F}^2} = \av{n_{\rm B}^2}= p(1-p) \av{N} + p^2 \av{N^2} \ ,
\end{equation}
where $N$ is the charged particle multiplicity measured in the pseudorapidity interval $Y$ and
\begin{equation}\label{p}
p=\frac{\av{{n_{\rm F}^{}}}}{\av{N}}=\frac{\av{{n_{\rm B}^{}}}}{\av{N}}=\frac{\delta\eta}{Y}
\ .
\end{equation}
One can connect the multiplicity fluctuations
in the full $\eta$-acceptance considered in this analysis
($Y=1.6$) with the correlation strength $b_{\rm corr}$ (see Appendix \ref{app:formulae}):
\begin{equation}\label{bcorrDy}
b^{\rm mod}_{\rm corr}=\frac{\alpha{\delta\eta}/Y}{1+\alpha{\delta\eta}/Y} \ ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{a}
\alpha=\frac{{\sigma^2_N}}{\av{N}}-1 \ .
\end{equation}
Note that using Eq.\ \ref{N2} and Eq.\ \ref{p} one can write the Eq.\ \ref{bcorrDy} also in the following form:
\begin{equation}\label{bcorrnF}
b^{\rm mod}_{\rm corr}=1-\frac{\av{{n_{\rm F}^{}}}}{\sigma^2_{n_{\rm F}^{}}} \ .
\end{equation}
From the measured ratio of the multiplicity variance ${\sigma^2_N}\equiv\av{N^2}-\av{N}^2$
in $Y=1.6$
to the mean value $\av{N}$
we obtain the value of $\alpha$
at $\sqrt{s}=0.9$, 2.76 and 7~TeV
to be 2.03, 3.25
and 4.42, respectively, with a systematic uncertainty of about 5\%.
The $b^{\rm mod}_{\rm corr}(\delta\eta)$-dependences calculated by Eq.\ \ref{bcorrDy}
are shown in Fig.\,\ref{fig:bCorrFromEtaWindowsWidth} as red dashed lines.
At ${\eta^{}_{\rm gap}} = 0$ the $b_{\rm corr}$($\delta\eta$) dependence
is well described by this simple model.
However, this model is not able to describe the dependence of $b_{\rm corr}$ on ${\eta^{}_{\rm gap}}$
in Fig.\,\ref{fig:fullPhiAllWindows} because it does not take into account the SRC contribution mentioned above.
\subsection{Dependence on the collision energy}
Figure \ref{fig:fullPhiAllWindows} shows that the pedestal value of $b_{\rm corr}$ increases
with $\sqrt{s}$,
while the slope of the $b_{\rm corr}({\eta^{}_{\rm gap}})$ dependence stays approximately constant.
This indicates that the contribution of the short-range correlations has a very weak $\sqrt{s}$-dependence, while the long-range multiplicity correlations play a dominant role in pp collisions
and their strength increases significantly with $\sqrt{s}$.
Note that this increase cannot be explained
by the increase of the mean multiplicity alone. If, at different energies, we choose window sizes such that the mean multiplicity stays constant
the increase is still observed (see Table~\ref{tab:energyDep}).
In the framework of the simple model described by Eq.\ \ref{bcorrDy} and \ref{a} the increase of the correlation coefficient corresponds to the increase of the event-by-event multiplicity fluctuations with $\sqrt{s}$ characterized by the ratio $\sigma^2_N/\av{N}$.
A strong energy dependence and rather large $b_{\rm corr}$ values were previously reported by the UA5 collaboration~\cite{ua5} and
recently by the ATLAS Collaboration \cite{atlas-lrc}.
However, as we see in Fig.\,\ref{fig:bCorrFromEtaWindowsWidth}, the correlation coefficient depends in a non-linear way on the width of the pseudorapidity window.
One has to take this fact into account when comparing
the correlation strengths obtained
under different experimental conditions.
In particular, it explains the small values of $b_{\rm corr}$ observed by the STAR collaboration at RHIC (pp, $\sqrt{s}= 200$~GeV) \cite{STAR-FBC},
where narrow FB windows ($\delta \eta = 0.2$) were considered, while in previous pp and $\rm p\overline{\rm p}$
experiments wider windows of a few units of pseudorapidity were used.
\begin{table}[t!f]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c}
\hline
$\sqrt{s}$ (TeV) & window width $\delta\eta$ & $\av{n_F}$ & $b_{\rm corr}$ (${\eta^{}_{\rm gap}}$=0) & $b_{\rm corr}$ (max. ${\eta^{}_{\rm gap}}$)\\ \hline
$0.9$ & 0.54 & 1.17 & $0.39 \pm 0.01$ & $0.35 \pm 0.01$ \\ \hline
$2.76$ & 0.4 & 1.17 & $0.44 \pm 0.02$ & $0.38 \pm 0.02$ \\ \hline
$7$ & 0.33 & 1.17 & $0.48 \pm 0.01$ & $0.43 \pm 0.01$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{ Correlation strength $b_{\rm corr}$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=0.9$, 2.76 and 7~TeV in windows with equal mean multiplicity $\av{n_{\rm F}}$
and the corresponding values of ${\delta \eta}$.
Values are shown for
adjacent windows (${\eta^{}_{\rm gap}}$=0) and for windows with maximal ${\eta^{}_{\rm gap}}$
within $|\eta| < 0.8$.
The uncertainty on $\av{n_F}$ is about 0.001.}
\label{tab:energyDep}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[t!b]
\resizebox{1.00\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{overpic}[scale=1.0, clip=true, angle=0,trim=0.0cm 0cm 0.0cm 0.0cm]{fig/pp_900GeV_pads_8by8_5pads.eps}
\end{overpic}
}
\caption{
Correlation strength
$b_{\rm corr}$ for separated $\eta$-$\varphi$ window pairs at
$\sqrt{s}=0.9$ TeV as a function of $\eta$
separation, with fixed window width $\delta\eta$=0.2 and $\delta\varphi$=$\pi$/4.
The panels are for different separation distances
between the two azimuthal sectors:
$\varphi_{\rm sep}=0$, $\pi/4$, $\pi/2$, $(3/4)\pi$ and $\pi$.
MC results from PYTHIA6 Perugia 0 (blue lines), Perugia 2011 (orange dashed lines) and PHOJET
(pink dashed lines)
and string model \cite{Vechernin:2012bz}
(thin green lines) are also shown.
The bottom panels
show the ratio $b_{\rm corr}$ between data and MC results. }
\label{fig:pp_900GeV_pads_8by8_5pads}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\resizebox{1.00\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{overpic}[scale=1.0, clip=true, angle=0,trim=0.0cm 0cm 0.0cm 0.0cm]{fig/pp_7TeV_pads_8by8_5pads.eps}
\end{overpic}
}
\caption{
Correlation strength $b_{\rm corr}$ for separated $\eta$-$\varphi$ window pairs at
$\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV as a function of $\eta$ separation. The legend is the same as for Fig.\,\ref{fig:pp_900GeV_pads_8by8_5pads}. }
\label{fig:pp_7TeV_pads_8by8_5pads}
\end{figure}
\section{Multiplicity correlations in windows separated in pseudorapidity and azimuth}
\label{sec:azimuthalExperimentalResults}
Multiplicity correlations are also studied in different configurations of forward and backward azimuthal sectors.
These sectors are chosen in separated forward and backward pseudorapidity windows of width ${\delta \eta}=0.2$ and
$\delta \varphi = \pi/4$ as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:windowsPhiSectors},
resulting in 5 pairs with different $\varphi$-separation.
Figs. \ref{fig:pp_900GeV_pads_8by8_5pads}
and \ref{fig:pp_7TeV_pads_8by8_5pads}
show the azimuthal dependence
of $b_{\rm corr}$ as a function of different ${\eta^{}_{\rm sep}}$, for 0.9 and 7~TeV, respectively.
Data are compared to PYTHIA6 (tunes Perugia 0 and Perugia 2011), PHOJET
and a parametric string model \cite{Vechernin:2012bz}.
The string model fitted to our data helps to understand in a simple way
the origins of the $b_{\rm corr}$ behaviour.
There are two contributions to $b_{\rm corr}$ in this model.
The short-range (SR) contribution
originating from the correlation between particles
produced from the decay of a single string
and the long-range (LR) contribution
arising from event-by-event fluctuations of the number of strings.
The energy dependence of the fitted parameters demonstrates that
SR parameters stay constant with $\sqrt{s}$ while the normalized variance of the number of strings,
the only LR parameter of the model, increases by a factor of three.
\begin{figure}[h]
\subfigure[Subfigure 1 list of figures text][]
{
\begin{overpic}[width=0.48\textwidth]{fig/pp_900GeV_3D_8by8.eps}
\end{overpic}
\label{fig:pp_900GeV_3D_8by8}
}
\hfill
\subfigure[Subfigure 2 list of figures text][]
{
\begin{overpic}[width=0.48\textwidth]{fig/pp_7TeV_3D_8by8.eps}
\end{overpic}
\label{fig:pp_7TeV_3D_8by8}
}
\caption{2D representation of $b_{\rm corr}$
at (a) $\sqrt{s}=0.9$~TeV
and
(b) at $\sqrt{s}=7$~TeV
for separated $\eta$-$\varphi$
window pairs with $\delta\eta$=0.2 and $\delta\varphi$=$\pi$/4.
To improve visibility, the point (${\eta^{}_{\rm sep}}$,${\varphi^{}_{\rm sep}}$)=(0,0) and thus $b_{\rm corr}$=1 is limited
to the level of the maximum value in adjacent bins.
}
\label{fig:pp_3DbothEnergies_8by8}
\end{figure}
The 2-dimensional distribution of $b_{\rm corr}$ as a function of
${\eta^{}_{\rm sep}}$ and ${\varphi^{}_{\rm sep}}$
is shown in Fig.\,\ref{fig:pp_3DbothEnergies_8by8}
for $\sqrt{s}=0.9$ and 7~TeV.
The qualitative behaviour of $b_{\rm corr}$
resembles the results obtained for two-particle angular correlations:
near-side peak and recoil away-side structure.
The connection between the FB correlation and two-particle correlation function
is discussed in detail in \cite{ Vechernin:2012bz, Vechernin:2013vpa,CapellaKrzywicki,Voloshin02}.
The shapes of the correlation functions clearly indicate
two contributions to the forward-backward
multiplicity correlation coefficient.
The SR contribution is concentrated within a rather limited region in the $\eta$-$\varphi$ plane
within one unit of pseudorapidity
and $\pi$/2 in azimuth,
while the LR contribution manifests itself as a common pedestal in the whole region of observation.
\section{Data Analysis}
\label{sec:experimentalSetup}
\subsection{Experimental setup, event and track selection}
The data presented in this paper were recorded with the ALICE detector~\cite{ALICE}
in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=0.9$, 2.76 and 7~TeV.
Charged primary particles are reconstructed
with the central barrel detectors combining information
from the Inner Tracking System (ITS) and the Time Projection Chamber (TPC).
Both detectors are located inside the 0.5~T solenoidal field.
The ITS is composed of 3 different types of coordinate-sensitive Si-detectors. It consists
of 2 silicon pixel innermost layers (SPD), 2 silicon drift (SDD) and 2 silicon strip (SSD) outer detector layers.
The design allows for two-particle separation
in events with multiplicity up to
100 charged particles per ${\rm cm}^2$.
The SPD detector covers the pseudorapidity ranges $|\eta|<2$ for inner
and $|\eta|<1.4$ for outer layers,
acceptances of SDD and SSD are $|\eta|<0.9$ and $|\eta|<1$, respectively.
All ITS elements have a radiation length
of about 1.1$\%$ $X_0$ per layer.
The ITS provides reliable charged particle tracking
down to transverse momenta of 0.1 GeV/$c$, ideal for the study of low-$p_{\rm{T}}$ (soft) phenomena.
The ALICE TPC is the main tracking detector of the central rapidity region.
The TPC, together with the ITS, provides charged particle momentum
measurement, particle identification and vertex
determination with good
momentum and ${\rm d}E/{\rm d}x$ resolution as well as two-track separation
of identified hadrons and leptons in the $p_{\rm{T}}$ region below 10 GeV/$c$.
The TPC has an acceptance of $|\eta| < 0.9$
for tracks which reach the outer radius of the TPC and up to
$|\eta| < 1.5$
for tracks that exit through the endcap of the TPC.
For the present analysis, minimum bias pp events are used.
The minimum-bias trigger required a hit in one of the
forward scintillator counters (VZERO) or in one of the two SPD layers.
The VZERO timing signal
was used to reject beam-gas and beam-halo collisions.
The primary vertex was reconstructed using
the combined track information from the TPC and ITS,
and only events with primary vertices
lying within $\pm 10$~cm from the centre of the apparatus
are selected.
In this way a uniform acceptance in the central
pseudorapidity region $|\eta| < 0.8$ is ensured.
The data samples for $\sqrt{s}=0.9$, 2.76 and 7~TeV comprise $2\times10^6$, $10\times10^6$, and $6.5\times10^6$ events, respectively.
Only runs with low probability to produce several separate events per one bunch crossing (so-called pile-up events)
were used in this analysis.
To obtain high
tracking efficiency and to reduce efficiency losses due to detector
boundaries, tracks are selected with
$p_{\rm{T}}>$ 0.3\,GeV/{\it c} in the pseudorapidity range $|\eta| < 0.8$.
Employing a Kalman filter technique, tracks are reconstructed using
space-time points measured by the TPC.
Tracks with at least 70 space-points associated and track fitting $\chi^2/n_{\rm dof}$ less than 2 are accepted.
Additionally, at least two hits in the ITS must be associated
with the track. Tracks are also rejected
if their distance of closest approach (DCA) to the reconstructed event vertex
is larger than 0.3~cm in either the transverse or the longitudinal plane.
For the chosen selection criteria,
the tracking efficiency for charged particles with $p_{\rm{T}}>0.3$~GeV/$c$
is about 80\%.
\input{section_EtaPhi_windows}
\subsection{Experimental procedures of the FB correlation coefficient measurement}
\label{sec:correlationMethods}
The present paper focuses on the study of FB correlation phenomena related to soft particle
production. Therefore we restrict $p_{\rm{T}}$
in $0.3<p_{\rm{T}}<1.5$~GeV/$c$,
except for the study of the $p_{\rm{T}}$ dependence
presented in Section~\ref{sec:ptBinsStudy}, where the $p_{\rm{T}}$ range is $0.3<p_{\rm{T}}<6$~GeV/$c$.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
$\begin{array}{ccc}
\begin{overpic}[width=0.46\textwidth]{fig/hist_NN_2D.eps}
\end{overpic}
&
\begin{overpic}[width=0.46\textwidth]{fig/hist_profileFit.eps}
\end{overpic}
\end{array}$
\caption{
Illustrative example of
forward versus backward raw multiplicity distribution for windows with ${\delta \eta}=0.6$ and ${\eta^{}_{\rm gap}}=0.4$ at $\sqrt{s}=7$~TeV (left) and corresponding correlation function (right).
The correlation strength $b_{\rm corr}$ is obtained from a linear fit
according to Eq.~\ref{linear}. Since most of the statistics is at low multiplicities,
the fit is mainly determined by the first points.
}
\label{fig:hist2D_and_profile}
\end{figure}
The correlation coefficients, $b_{\rm corr}$, for each window pair can be calculated using two methods \cite{bLinear, capella1994,ua5,Uhlig-78}.
In the first method
values of $\av{{n_{\rm B}^{}}{n_{\rm F}^{}}}$, $\av{{n_{\rm B}^{}}}$, $\av{{n_{\rm F}^{}}}$ and $\av{n_F^2}$
are accumulated event-by-event and then $b_{\rm corr}$ is determined
using Eq.\ \ref{b-alt}.
In the second method,
$b_{\rm corr}$ is calculated using linear regression.
The 2-dimensional distributions ($n_{\rm B}$,~$n_{\rm F}$) are
obtained integrating over all selected events, then the average backward multiplicity is calculated for each
fixed value of the forward multiplicity,
and $b_{\rm corr}$ is obtained from a linear fit to the correlation function
(see illustration in Fig.~\ref{fig:hist2D_and_profile}).
Deviations from linear behavior
may provide additional information, however, a detailed study of non-linearity in
the correlation function is beyond the scope of this paper.
It has been shown
that the results obtained with the two methods agree within statistical uncertainty.
In this work, results using the first method are presented.
\subsection{Corrections and systematic uncertainties }
\label{sec:correctionProcedures}
Acceptance and tracking efficiency corrections are extracted from Monte Carlo simulations using
PYTHIA6 \cite{pythia} (Perugia 0 tune) and PHOJET \cite{phojet,phojet2} as particle generators
followed by a full detector response simulation based on GEANT3 \cite{geant3}.
Corrections are done to primary charged particle correlations and multiplicities.
Correction factors obtained with these two generators
are found to agree within 1\% and the difference is neglected.
Three independent correction procedures are investigated.
In the first procedure, the correction factors for $b_{\rm corr}$ are obtained as the ratio of $b_{\rm corr}$
obtained at generator level (true value)
to $b_{\rm corr}$ after detector response simulation (measured value).
In the second procedure the correction factors are obtained for $\av{{n_{\rm B}^{}}{n_{\rm F}^{}}}$, $\av{{n_{\rm B}^{}}}$, $\av{{n_{\rm F}^{}}}$ and $\av{n_{\rm F}^2}$ separately
and $b_{\rm corr}$ is obtained from the corrected moments.
The third procedure takes into account approximately linear dependence of $b_{\rm corr}$ on $\av{{n_{\rm F}^{}}}$
when $\av{{n_{\rm F}^{}}}$ varies with cuts,
and each corrected value of $b_{\rm corr}$ is found by extrapolation to the corrected value of~$\av{{n_{\rm F}^{}}}$.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{r|c|c|c}
\hline %
Error source & $0.9$ TeV& $2.76$ TeV& $7$ TeV\\
\hline
Number of TPC space-points& 0.5--3.0 & 0--0.1& 0.2--0.7 $$ \\
Number of ITS space-points & 0.6--1.9& --&0.2--1.4$$ \\
DCA & 3.0--4.0 & 1.0--1.8 &0.1--1.0 $$ \\
Vertex position along the beam line
& 0.2--1.1 &0--1.0 &0--0.7 $$ \\
$b_{\rm corr}$ correction procedure & 2.5--4.0& 2.2--4.2 & 1.6--2.8 $$ \\
Event pile-up & $<$1& $<$1 & $<$1 $$ \\
\hline
Total ($\%$) & 3.4--4.5& 2.8--4.2 & 2.0--3.0 $$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Sources of systematic errors of $b_{\rm corr}$ measurements
in $\eta$-windows of width $\delta\eta=0.2$, and their contributions (in $\%$).
The minimal and maximal estimated values are indicated for each given source.
\label{tab:err}
\end{table}
It was found that results of all three procedures agree within 1.6-4.2\% (see Table~\ref{tab:err}),
thus proving the robustness of $b_{\rm corr}$ determination.
The second procedure was chosen
as the most direct and commonly used to produce the final corrected value of $b_{\rm corr}$.
Correction factors increase the values of $b_{\rm corr}$, obtained for standard cuts, by
6-10\,$\%$ for analysis in $\eta$-windows and
9-18\,$\%$ for analysis in $\eta$-$\phi$ windows and in $p_{\rm{T}}$ intervals.
By varying the selection cuts (vertex- , DCA- and track selection cuts), correction procedures,
and by comparison of the high and low pile-up runs,
the systematic uncertainties on $b_{\rm corr}$
have been estimated.
Adding all contributions in quadrature,
the total systematic uncertainties
are below 4.5\% (4.2\%, 3\%) at $\sqrt{s}=0.9$ (2.76, 7)~TeV
for the $b_{\rm corr}$ analysis in $\eta$-separated windows, and
6\% for analysis in $\eta$-$\phi$ separated windows at $\sqrt{s}=0.9$ and 7~TeV.
For the $b_{\rm corr}$ analysis in $p_{\rm{T}}$ intervals for 7~TeV, the systematic uncertainties are less than 8\%.
Statistical errors are small and within the symbol sizes for data points in the figures.
A summary of the contributions of systematic uncertainties for $b_{\rm corr}$ in $\eta$-separated windows
with the width $\delta\eta=0.2$ is presented in Table~\ref{tab:err}.
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}
We report a detailed study of correlations between multiplicities in pp collisions at 0.9, 2.76 and 7~TeV.
The correlations are obtained from event-by-event multiplicity measurements in pseudorapidity
($\eta$) and azimuth ($\varphi$) separated intervals.
The intervals are selected one in the forward and another in the backward hemispheres
in the center-of-mass system, therefore the correlations are referred to as forward-backward (FB) correlations.
The FB correlation strength is characterized by the correlation coefficient,
$b_{\rm corr}$, which is obtained from a linear regression analysis of the average multiplicity
measured in the backward rapidity hemisphere ($\avr{n_{\rm B}^{}}{n_{\rm F}^{}}$)
as a function of the event multiplicity in the forward hemisphere (${n_{\rm F}^{}}$):
\begin{equation}\label{linear}
\avr{n_{\rm B}^{}}{n_{\rm F}^{}} = a + b_{\rm corr}\cdot{n_{\rm F}^{}} \ .
\end{equation}
This linear relation
\eqref{linear}
has been observed experimentally
\cite{bLinear, capella1994,ua5,Uhlig-78}
and is discussed in \cite{LRC, Fowler-88, CapellaKrzywicki}.
Under the assumption of linear correlation between ${n_{\rm F}^{}}$ and ${n_{\rm B}^{}}$, the
Pearson correlation coefficient
\begin{equation}
\label{b-alt}
b_{\rm corr} = \frac{\av{{n_{\rm B}^{}}{n_{\rm F}^{}}}-\av{{n_{\rm B}^{}}}\av{{n_{\rm F}^{}}}} {\av{n_{\rm F}^2}-\av{{n_{\rm F}^{}}}^2_{}}
\end{equation}
can be used for the experimental determination of $b_{\rm corr}$ \cite{capella1994}.
Since the parameter $a$ is given by
$a = \av{{n_{\rm B}^{}}} - b_{\rm corr} \av{{n_{\rm F}^{}}} $,
it adds no additional information and usually is not considered \cite{LRC, Fowler-88, CapellaKrzywicki}.
Heretofore, FB multiplicity correlations were studied experimentally in a large number of collision systems
including
$e^{+}e^{-}$, $\mu^{+}{\rm p}$, pp, ${\rm p}\overline{\rm p}$ and A--A interactions
\cite{LRCee, LRCee2, LRCee3, LRCpp, Uhlig-78,
LRCpp4, ISR, ua5}.
No FB multiplicity correlations were observed in $e^{+}e^{-}$ annihilation at $\sqrt{s}=29$ GeV.
This was interpreted as the consequence of independent fragmentation of the forward and backward jets produced in this process
\cite{Derrick}.
In contrast, in pp collisions at the ISR \cite{ISR}
at $\sqrt{s}=52.6$~GeV \cite{Uhlig-78} and in ${\rm p}\overline{\rm p}$ interactions at the ${\rm S p \overline{\rm p} S}$ collider
\cite{Alpgard}
sizeable positive FB multiplicity correlations have been observed.
Their strength was found to increase strongly with collision energy \cite{ua5},
which was confirmed later
at much higher energies ($\sqrt{s}\gtrsim 1$ TeV)
in ${\rm p}\overline{\rm p}$ collisions by the E735 collaboration at the Tevatron \cite{LRCpp4}
and in pp collisions by the ATLAS experiment at the LHC ($\sqrt{s}=0.9$ and 7~TeV)
\cite{atlas-lrc}.
One of the observations reported by ATLAS is the decrease of $b_{\rm corr}$
with the increase of the minimum transverse momentum of charged particles.
The STAR collaboration at RHIC analysed the FB multiplicity correlations
in pp and Au--Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$~GeV \cite{STAR-FBC}.
Strong correlation was observed in case of Au--Au collisions,
while in pp collisions $b_{\rm corr}$ was found to be rather small ($\sim$0.1).
In the present paper we relate this to the use of
smaller pseudorapidity windows
as compared to previous pp and ${\rm p}\overline{\rm p}$ measurements.
Forward-backward multiplicity correlations in high energy pp and A--A collisions
also raise a considerable theoretical interest.
First attempts to explain this phenomenon
\cite{CapellaKrzywicki,AK,BPV00,BDM07} were made
in the framework of the Dual Parton Model (DPM) \cite{capella1994} and
the Quark Gluon String Model (QGSM) \cite{Kaid1, Kaid2}.
They provide a quantitative description of multiparticle production in soft processes.
In improved versions of the models, collectivity effects arising due to the interactions between strings,
which are particularly important in the case of A--A interactions,
were taken into account \cite{SRC-LRC-SFM,BP00,BKPV04,VK07}.
These effects are based on the String Fusion Model (SFM) proposed in \cite{BP1,B-P}.
It was shown that
these string interactions
lead to a considerable modification of the FB correlation strength, along with the reduction of multiplicities, the increase of mean particle $p_{\rm{T}}$,
and the enhancement of heavy flavour production
in central A--A collisions \cite{SRC-LRC-SFM, STRANGE, MC-SFM}.
FB correlations are usually divided
into short and long-range components \cite{CapellaKrzywicki,capella1994}.
In phenomenological models,
short-range correlations (SRC) are assumed to be localized over a small range
of $\eta$-differences, up to one unit. They are induced by various short-range effects
from single source fragmentation,
including particles produced from decays of clusters or resonances, jet and mini-jet induced correlations.
Long-range
correlations (LRC) extend over a wider range
in $\eta$.
They originate from fluctuations in the number and properties of particle emitting sources (clusters, cut pomerons, strings, mini-jets etc.)
\cite{CapellaKrzywicki, capella1994, BPV00,
SRC-LRC-SFM, BP00, BKPV04, VK07}.
The SFM predicts that the variance of the number
of particle-emitting sources (strings) should be damped by their fusion,
implying a reduction of multiplicity long-range correlations \cite{SRC-LRC-SFM,BKPV04,VK07}.
Contrary to this prediction, long-range correlations arising in the Color Glass Condensate model (CGC) \cite{CGC} have been shown to increase with the centrality of the collision \cite{nestor}.
Therefore, the investigation of correlations between various observables, measured in two different,
sufficiently separated $\eta$-intervals, is considered to be a powerful tool
for the exploration
of the initial conditions of hadronic interactions \cite{Dumitru}.
In the case of A--A collisions, these correlations induced across a wide range in $\eta$
are expected to reflect the earliest stages of the collisions, almost free from final state effects \cite{LRCCGC,nestor}.
The reference for the analysis of A--A collision dynamics can be obtained in pp collisions
by studying the dependence of FB correlations on collision energy, particle pseudorapidity, azimuth and transverse momenta.
This paper is organized as follows:
Section \ref{sec:experimentalSetup}
provides experimental details, including
the description of the procedures used for the event and track
selection, the efficiency corrections
and systematic uncertainties estimates.
Sections \ref{sec:correlationsInEtaWithFullPhi} and \ref{sec:azimuthalExperimentalResults}
discuss the results on FB
multiplicity correlation measurements in $\eta$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=0.9$, 2.76 and 7~TeV
and in $\eta$-$\phi$ windows
at $\sqrt{s}=0.9$ and 7~TeV.
In Section \ref{sec:correlationsInEtaWithFullPhi}, we present
dependences of the correlation coefficient on the gap between windows, their widths and the collision energy.
In Section \ref{sec:azimuthalExperimentalResults}, multiplicity correlations in windows separated in pseudorapidity and azimuth are studied,
and the comparison with Monte Carlo generators PYTHIA6 and PHOJET is discussed.
Results on multiplicity correlations in different $p_{\rm{T}}$ ranges in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$~TeV are presented
in Section~\ref{sec:ptBinsStudy}.
|
\section{Introduction} \label{sec:intro}
Compositional program analyses operate by decomposing a program into parts,
computing an abstract meaning of each part, and then composing the meanings.
Compositional analyses have a number of desirable properties, including
scalability, parallelizability, and applicability to incomplete programs.
However, compositionality comes with a price: since each program fragment is
analyzed independently of its context, the analysis cannot benefit from
contextual information. This paper presents a compositional method for
numerical invariant generation which, despite loss of contextual information,
compares favourably with leading (non-compositional) verification techniques.
The analysis proposed in this paper aims to compute a \emph{transition
relation} which over-approximates the behaviour of a given program. The use
of transition relations in compositional analysis (e.g.,
\cite{Muller-Olm2004,Popeea2006,Ammarguellat1990,Monniaux2009,Kroening2008,Biallas2012})
stems from the fact that they can be composed: for example, consider a program
$P = P_1;P_2$ which consists of two sub-programs $P_1$ and $P_2$ which are
executed in sequence. A transition invariant $\sem{P}$ for $P$ can be
computed by computing transition invariants $\sem{P_1}$ and $\sem{P_2}$ for
the subprograms and then taking $\sem{P}$ to be the relational composition:
$\sem{P} = \{ (s,s'') : \exists s'. (s,s') \in \sem{P_1} \land (s',s'') \in
\sem{P_2} \}.$
A crucial question is how to compute abstractions of loops (i.e., \emph{loop
summaries} \cite{Kroening2008}). Our analysis is based on a classical idea:
find recurrence relations for variables modified in the body of a loop, and
then use the closed forms for these recurrences as the abstraction of the loop.
The focus of research on recurrence analysis has mainly been on computing the
\emph{exact} behaviour of a (necessarily) limited class loops, e.g. loops
where the body is a sequence of affine assignments (see
Section~\ref{sec:relwork} for a discussion of related literature). We shift
the goal to computing \emph{over-approximate} behaviour of \emph{arbitrary}
loops. The main novelty of our approach is to
make synergistic use of recurrence analysis and compositionality: on one hand,
recurrence analysis can be used to compute accurate transition formulas for
loops; on the other hand, transition formulas for loop \emph{bodies} can be
mined for recurrence relations to enable recurrence analysis.
Compositionality enables using recurrence analysis for arbitrary loops in two ways.
First, the fact that the transition formula for a loop is computed from a transition formula for
its body makes the control structure of the loop irrelevant (e.g., whether it
is a sequence of assignments or contains branching or nested loops -- its
transition formula is just a formula). Second, having access to a loop body formula when computing a loop summary opens the door to using
Satisfiability Modulo Theories (SMT) solvers to extract a broad range
\emph{semantic} recurrences. In particular, our
analysis is able to exploit \emph{approximate recurrences} (inequations over
linear terms) to compute interesting loop invariants even for variables which
do not satisfy recurrence equations in the classical sense, thus extending
the applicability of recurrence-based invariant generation and overcoming a
major barrier in its practical use.
In summary, this paper presents a
compositional method for generating numerical invariants (polynomial
inequalities of unbounded degree among integer and rational variables) for
programs. The main technical contributions are as follows.
\begin{compactenum}
\item We give a method for computing abstractions of loops using summaries for
their bodies. This allows our analysis to apply to arbitrary code
(with nested loops, unstructured loops, and arbitrary branching). It also
makes it possible to use SMT solvers to extract \emph{semantic} recurrence
relations rather than syntactic recurrences obtained by pattern-matching source code.
\item We identify a class recurrence (in)equations that can be efficiently
extracted from loop bodies using SMT solving technology and solved using
simple linear algebra.
\item We give a \emph{linearization} algorithm which enables tractable (but
necessarily approximate) reasoning about non-linear formulas over rationals
and integers (Section~\ref{sec:discussion}).
\item We collect ideas from a diverse range of sources (including algebraic
program analysis \cite{Farzan2013}, recurrence analysis
\cite{Ammarguellat1990,Kovacs2008,Ancourt2010}, linearization
\cite{Mine2006}, and symbolic abstraction
\cite{Reps2004,Monniaux2010,Li2014}), and synthesize them into a cohesive
presentation which can be used as a foundation for futher research on
recurrence analysis.
\end{compactenum}
We implemented linear recurrence analysis and used it to verify assertions for
a suite of benchmarks. Linear
recurrence analysis is able to prove the correctness of more benchmarks in
this suite than any of the leading verification tools for integer programs.
\section{Overview} \label{sec:motivation}
We will adopt a simple intraprocedural model in which a program is represented
by a control flow automaton (CFA) where edges are labeled by program
statements. Figure~\ref{fig:example} depicts such a CFA for a program which
computes the quotient and remainder of division of a variable {\tt x} by a
variable {\tt y}. We use this model for the sake of simplicity and to help
keep the presentation of our analysis short and self-contained. We hope that
the basic idea behind the extension to procedures (implemented in the tool),
using the analysis to compute procedure summaries \cite{Sharir1981}, is clear without
formal explanation.
Our analysis, linear recurrence analysis (LRA), is presented in the algebraic
framework described in \cite{Farzan2013}.
Suppose that we wish to
prove that the assertion \texttt{assert(x = q*y + r)} always succeeds. We begin by computing the set of paths from $v^{\textsf{entry}}$ to $v_8$ (the location corresponding to the
{\tt assert} statement in the CFA). This set of paths is represented
by a \emph{path expression} for the vertex $v_8$, which is a regular expression over
an alphabet of control flow edges. In principle, this can be accomplished by Kleene's
well-known algorithm for converting a finite automaton into a regular
expression \cite{Kleene1956} (but more efficient algorithms exist
\cite{Tarjan1981}). For example, the following is a path
expression for $v_8$: {\small
\[\tuple{v^{\textsf{entry}},v_1}\!\cdot\!\tuple{v_1,v_2}\!\cdot\!\underbrace{\big(\tuple{v_2,v_3}\!\cdot\!\tuple{v_3,v_4}\!\cdot\!\overbrace{(\tuple{v_4,v_5}\!\cdot\!\tuple{v_5,v_6}\!\cdot\!\tuple{v_6,v_4})^*}^{\text{Inner loop}}\!\cdot \tuple{v_4,v_7}\!\cdot\!\tuple{v_7,v_2}\big)^*}_{\text{Outer loop}}\!\cdot\tuple{v_2,v_8}\]
}
\noindent Once we have a path expression representing the paths to $v_8$, we
compute an over-approximation of the executions to $v_8$ by {\em evaluating}
the path expression in some abstract domain. The main benefit of this
algebraic framework is that an analysis is defined simply by providing an
interpretation for each of the regular expression operators (sequencing,
choice, and iteration, corresponding to the control structures of structured
programs), and then we may rely on a path expression algorithm
(\cite{Kleene1956,Tarjan1981}) to efficiently ``lift'' the analysis to
programs with arbitrary control flow.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\subfigure[Program text]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{3.25cm}
\scriptsize
\texttt{r := x } \texttt{\color{red}// \textit{remainder}}\\
\texttt{q := 0 } \texttt{\color{red}// \textit{quotient}}\\
\texttt{while(r >= y):}\\
\hspace*{0.5cm}\texttt{\color{red}// \textit{subtract y from r}}\\
\hspace*{0.5cm}\texttt{t := y}\\
\hspace*{0.5cm}\texttt{while(t != 0)}\\
\hspace*{1cm}\texttt{r := r - 1}\\
\hspace*{1cm}\texttt{t := t - 1}\\\\
\hspace*{0.5cm}\texttt{q := q + 1}\\\\
\texttt{assert(x = q*y + r)}
\vspace*{0.25cm}
\end{minipage}
}
\subfigure[Flow graph]{
\begin{tikzpicture}[base,node distance=1.5cm]
\scriptsize
\node [rectangle,rounded corners,draw] (entry) {$v^{\textsf{entry}}$};
\node[rectangle,rounded corners,draw,right of=entry] (v1) {$v_1$};
\node[rectangle,rounded corners,draw,right of=v1] (v2) {$v_2$};
\node[rectangle,rounded corners,draw,below of=v2,xshift=-1.5cm] (v3) {$v_3$};
\node[rectangle,rounded corners,draw,right of=v3] (v4) {$v_4$};
\node[rectangle,rounded corners,draw,below of=v4,xshift=-1cm] (v5) {$v_5$};
\node[rectangle,rounded corners,draw,right of=v5,xshift=0.5cm] (v6) {$v_6$};
\node[rectangle,rounded corners,draw,right of=v4] (v7) {$v_7$};
\node[rectangle,rounded corners,draw,right of=v2] (v8) {$v_8$};
\node[rectangle,rounded corners,draw,right of=v8,xshift=1.25cm] (exit) {$v^{\textsf{exit}}$};
\path (entry) edge[->] node[above]{\texttt{r := x}} (v1);
\path (v1) edge[->] node[above]{\texttt{q := 0}} (v2);
\path (v2) edge[->] node[left]{\texttt{[r >= y]}} (v3);
\path (v3) edge[->] node[below]{\texttt{t := y}} (v4);
\path (v4) edge[->] node[below]{\texttt{[t = 0]}} (v7);
\path (v4) edge[->] node[left]{\texttt{[t != 0]}} (v5);
\path (v5) edge[->] node[below]{\texttt{r := r - 1}} (v6);
\path (v6) edge[->] node[right]{\texttt{t := t - 1}} (v4);
\path (v7) edge[->] node[right]{\texttt{q := q + 1}} (v2);
\path (v2) edge[->] node[above]{\texttt{[r < y]}} (v8);
\path (v8) edge[->] node[above]{\texttt{assert(x = q*y+r)}} (exit);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\end{center}
\caption{An integer division program, computing a quotient and
remainder. Statements of the form $[\psi]$ represent \emph{assumptions};
i.e., statements which block if $\psi$ does not hold.} \label{fig:example}
\end{figure}
Formally, a program analysis (in the framework
of \cite{Farzan2013}) is defined by an \emph{interpretation}, which consists
of a \emph{semantic algebra} and a \emph{semantic function}. A semantic
algebra consists of a \emph{universe} which defines the space of possible
program meanings, and \emph{sequencing}, \emph{choice}, and \emph{iteration}
operators, which define how to compose program meanings. A semantic function
is a mapping from control flow edges to elements of the universe which defines
the meaning of each control flow edge.
A path expression is \emph{evaluated} by interpreting the individual edges
using the semantic function, and interpreting the regular expression operators
using the corresponding operators of the semantic algebra (to compose
the interpretations of individual edges into interpretations of sets of program
paths).
Keeping this overall algorithm in mind, we proceed to describe the
interpretation which defines linear recurrence analysis.
\paragraph{\bfseries LRA Universe.}
The semantic universe of LRA (i.e., the space of program meanings) is the set
of (not necessarily linear) arithmetic \emph{transition formulas}. If we let $\textsf{Var}$ denote the set of
program variables and $\textsf{Var}'$ the set of ``primed'' copies of program
variables, then a transition formula is an arithmetic formula with free
variables in $\textsf{Var} \cup \textsf{Var}'$. Such a formula represents an input/output
relation between program states.
\paragraph{\bfseries LRA Semantic Function.}
The semantic function $\sem{\cdot}$ is a function that maps each edge of a
control flow automaton to its interpretation as a transition formula. For
example (again, considering Figure~\ref{fig:example}), we have
\begin{align*}
\sem{\tuple{v^{\textsf{entry}},v_1}} &= \formula{r' = x \land \mathit{stable}(\{q, t, x, y\})}\\
\sem{\tuple{v_1,v_2}} &= \formula{q' = 0 \land \mathit{stable}(\{r, t, x, y\})}\\
\sem{\tuple{v_2,v_3}} &= \formula{r > y \land \mathit{stable}(\{q, r, t, x, y\})}
\end{align*}
where for $X \subseteq \textsf{Var}$, we have $\mathit{stable}(X) \triangleq \formula{\bigwedge_{x
\in X} x' = x}$; we use this to factor out equalities from the formulas
and make them more legible. Boxes around formulas have no meaning, and are used only to make it easier to distinguish between equalities in formulas and the meta-language.
\paragraph{\bfseries LRA Operators.} The sequencing and choice operators of our analysis are defined as follows:
\begin{align*}
\varphi \odot \psi &= \exists x''. \varphi[x''/x'] \land \psi[x''/x] &
\text{Sequencing}\\ \varphi \oplus \psi &= \varphi \lor \psi & \text{Choice}
\end{align*}
(where $\varphi[x''/x']$ denotes $\varphi$ with each primed variable $x'$
replaced by its double-primed counterpart $x''$, and $\psi[x''/x]$ similarly
replaces unprimed variables with double-primed variables).
The semantic function, sequencing, and choice operators are sufficient to
analyze loop-free code. For example, we may consider how LRA
computes a transition invariant for the body of the inner loop of
Figure~\ref{fig:example}:
\begin{align*}
\sem{\tuple{v_4,v_5}\cdot \tuple{v_5,v_6}} &= \sem{\tuple{v_4,v_5}} \odot \sem{\tuple{v_5,v_6}}\\
&=\formula{t > 0 \land r'=r-1 \land \mathit{stable}(\{q, t, x, y\})}
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
\sem{\tuple{v_4,v_5} \cdot \tuple{v_5,v_6} \cdot \tuple{v_6,v_4}} &=
\sem{\tuple{v_4,v_5} \!\cdot\! \tuple{v_5,v_6}} \odot \sem{\tuple{v_6,v_4}}\\
&= \formula{t > 0 \land r'=r-1 \land t'=t-1 \land \mathit{stable}(\{q, x, y\})}
\end{align*}
The final step in describing our analysis is to provide a definition of the
iteration operator ($\star$) of LRA. The idea behind the definition of the
iteration operator is to use an SMT solver to extract recurrence relations
from the loop body, and then use the closed form of these recurrences for
the abstraction of the loop. We explain this in detail in Section~\ref{sec:lra}. Here, we illustrate how LRA works on the running example to provide some intuition
on the analysis.
\vspace*{-4pt}
\parpic[r]{
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|}
\hline
Recurrence & Closed form\\\hline
$r' = r - 1$ & $r^{(k)} = r^{(0)} - k$\\
$t' = t - 1$ & $t^{(k)} = t^{(0)} - k$\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
}
After computing a formula $\phi_{\textsf{inner}}$ representing the body of the
inner loop (as given above), we apply the iteration operator $\star$ to
compute a formula representing any number of executions of the inner loop.
The iteration operator begins by extracting the recurrence equations shown to
the right. It then computes closed forms for these recurrences, also shown to
the right (where $x^{(k)}$ denotes the value that the variable $x$ takes on
the $k$th iteration of the loop). Note that this table omits ``uninteresting''
recurrences (such as $q' = q + 0$) which indicate that a variable does not
change in a loop. These closed forms are used to abstract the loop as
follows:
\begin{align*}
\varphi_{\textsf{inner}}^\star &= \formula{\exists k. k \geq 0 \land r' = r - k \land t' = t - k \land \mathit{stable}(\{q, x, y\})}\\
&= \formula{r' = r + t' - t \land t' \leq t \land \mathit{stable}(\{q, x, y\})}
\end{align*}
We may use this summary $\varphi_{\textsf{inner}}^\star$ for the inner loop to
compute a transition formula representing the body of the outer loop:
\begin{align*}
\varphi_{\textsf{outer}} &= \sem{\tuple{v_2,v_3}} \odot \sem{\tuple{v_3,v_4}} \odot \varphi_{\textsf{inner}}^\star \odot \sem{\tuple{v_4,v_7}} \odot \sem{\tuple{v_7,v_2}}\\
&= \formula{q' = q + 1 \land r' = r + t' - y \land t' = 0 \land r \geq y \land \mathit{stable}(\{x, y\})}
\end{align*}
\parpic[r]{
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|}
\hline
Recurrence & Closed form\\\hline
$q' = q + 1$ & $q^{(k)} = q^{(0)} + k$\\
$r' = r - y$ & $r^{(k)} = r^{(0)} - y^{(0)}k$\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
}
We then apply the iteration operator to compute a transition formula for the
outer loop. The recurrences found for the outer loop and their closed forms
are shown to the right (again, with ``uninteresting'' recurrences omitted).
We note that our algorithm extracts these recurrences from
$\phi_{\textsf{outer}}$ using only semantic operations: the fact that
$\phi_{\textsf{outer}}$ is an abstraction of a looping computation is
completely transparent to the analysis. Using the closed forms of the
recurrences to the right, we compute the following transition formula for the
outer loop:
\begin{align*}
\varphi_{\textsf{outer}}^\star &= \formula{\exists k. k \geq 0 \land q' = q + k \land r' = r - ky \land \mathit{stable}(\{x, y\})}\\
&= \formula{q' \geq q \land r' = r - (q'-q)y \land \mathit{stable}(\{x, y\})}
\end{align*}
Finally, we compute a transition formula which approximates all executions
which end at $v_8$ as follows:
\begin{align*}
\varphi_P &= \sem{\tuple{v^{\textsf{entry}},v_1}\cdot\tuple{v_1,v_2}} \odot \varphi_{\textsf{outer}}^\star \odot \sem{\tuple{v_2,v_8}}\\
&= \formula{q' \geq 0 \land r' = x - q'y \land r \leq y \land \mathit{stable}(\{x, y\})}
\end{align*}
This formula is strong enough to imply that assertion $x' = q'*y'+r'$ holds at
$v_8$. This is particularly interesting because it requires proving a
\emph{non-linear} transition invariant for the loop, which is out of scope for
many state-of-the-art program analyzers.
\section{Abstracting Loops with Linear Recurrence Analysis} \label{sec:lra}
In this section, we describe the iteration operator of linear recurrence
analysis. Suppose that we have a formula $\phi_{\textsf{body}}$ which approximates the
behaviour of the body of a loop. Our goal is to compute a formula
$\phi_{\textsf{body}}^\star$ which represents the effect of zero or more executions of
the loop body. Our iteration operator works by extracting recurrence
relations from the formula $\phi_{\textsf{body}}$ and then computing closed forms for
these relations.
We present our iteration operator in three stages, based on the types of
recurrence relations being considered: \emph{simple recurrence equations},
\emph{stratified recurrence equations}, and \emph{linear recurrence
(in)equations}. Simple and stratified recurrences are classical classes of
recurrence equations. Linear recurrence (in)equations generalize the class of
inequations presented in \cite{Ancourt2010} by using stratified recurrences to
generate polynomial (rather than just linear) inequations. The main
conceptual contribution of this section is the idea to use SMT solvers to
extract recurrences (and other relevant information) from a loop body formula.
In the remainder of this section, we fix a formula $\phi_{\textsf{body}}$ representing
the body of a loop. We assume that $\phi_{\textsf{body}}$ is expressed in linear
(rational and integer) arithmetic; our strategy for dealing with non-linear
arithmetic is described in Section \ref{sec:discussion}. We also assume that $\phi_{\textsf{body}}$ is satisfiable (if it is not, then we can take $\phi_{\textsf{body}}^\star$ to be $\bigwedge_{x \in \textsf{Var}} x' = x$, which represents zero iterations of the loop).
\subsection{Simple recurrence equations}
We start by defining simple recurrences and induction variables.
\begin{definition}
A simple recurrence for a formula $\phi$ is an equation of the form $x' = x +
c$ (for a constant $c$) such that $\phi \models x' = x + c$. If $x' = x + c$
is a simple recurrence for $\phi$, we say that $x$ \emph{satisfies} the
recurrence $x' = x + c$, and if there is some $c$ such that $x$ satisfies the recurrence $x' = x + c$, we say that $x$ is an \emph{induction variable}.
\end{definition}
Simple recurrences can be detected by first querying an SMT solver for
a model $m$ of $\phi_{\textsf{body}}$, and then asking whether $\phi_{\textsf{body}}$ implies $x' =
x + \interp{x'-x}{m}$ (where $\interp{x'-x}{m}$ denotes the interpretation of
the term $x'-x$ in the model $m$). This implication holds iff $x$ is an
induction variable.
If $x$ is an induction variable that satisfies the recurrence $x' = x + c$,
then the closed form for $x$ is $x^{(k)} = x^{(0)} + kc$ (writing $x^{(k)}$ for
the value that $x$ obtains on the $k$th iteration of the loop). To provide
some early intuition on the iteration operator to be developed in the
remainder of this section, let us suppose that we are only interested in
simple recurrences. Then a possible definition for the iteration operator
is
\[ \phi_{\textsf{body}}^\star \triangleq \formula{\exists k \geq 0. \bigwedge \{ x' = x + kc : x' = x + c \in \textit{SR}(\phi_{\textsf{body}}) \}} \]
where $\textit{SR}(\phi_{\textsf{body}})$ is the set of simple recurrences satisfied by
$\phi_{\textsf{body}}$.
The iteration operator defined above is sound (it over-approximates the
behaviour of any number of iterations of the loop, since each variable is
either described exactly by a recurrence or is not constrained at all), but it
is imprecise. The remainder of this section discusses more general
recurrence equations which can be used to compute more precise transition
invariants for loops.
\subsection{Stratified recurrences equations} \label{sec:stratified}
\parpic[fr]{\begin{minipage}{3cm}
\noindent\textbf{while}\texttt{(x $\leq$ 10):}\\
\noindent\hspace*{0.5cm}\texttt{x := x + 1}\\
\noindent\hspace*{0.5cm}\texttt{y := y + x}\\
\noindent\hspace*{0.5cm}\texttt{z := 2 * x}
\vspace*{0.1cm}
\end{minipage}}
Consider the loop shown to the right. We can see that \texttt{x} satisfies a
simple recurrence equation $\texttt{x}' = \texttt{x} + 1$, and that \texttt{y}
satisfies a (non-simple) recurrence equation $\texttt{y}' = \texttt{y} +
\texttt{x} + 1$. A closed form for \texttt{y}'s recurrence is $y^{(k)} =
\texttt{y}^{(0)} + \sum_{i=0}^{k-1} (\texttt{x}^{(i)} + 1)$. Since \texttt{x}
satisfies a simple recurrence ($x' = x + 1$), we have a closed form for
$\texttt{x}^{(i)}$, so we may simplify this recurrence and remove the summation:
\[\texttt{y}^{(k)} =
\texttt{y}^{(0)} + \sum_{i=0}^{k-1} (\texttt{x}^{(0)} + i + 1) = \texttt{y}^{(0)} + k\texttt{x}^{(0)} + k + \sum_{i=0}^{k-1} i = \texttt{y}^{(0)} +
k\texttt{x}^{(0)} + \frac{k(k+1)}{2}.\]
\emph{Stratified recurrence equations} generalize this idea: starting from
simple recurrence equations, we solve more and more complicated recurrences
using the closed forms for simpler ones. As with the example above,
stratified recurrences have non-linear closed forms. Non-linear invariant
generation is not the main focus of our work, but it is sometimes a necessary
intermediate step for proving \emph{linear} invariants in a compositional
setting: since our analysis cannot take advantage of contextual information
when analyzing a loop, we generate a non-linear invariant and then, after the
analysis has examined more context, simplify it (using the linearization algorithm from
Section~\ref{sec:discussion}).
\begin{definition}
Let $\phi$ be a formula. The stratified recurrence equations (and
stratified induction variables) of $\phi$ are defined inductively as:
\begin{compactitem}
\item A simple recurrence equation which is satisfied by $\phi$ is a
stratified recurrence equation of $\phi$ (and a simple induction
variable is a stratified induction variable) at stratum 0.
\item Let $\vec{y}$ denote a vector of the stratified induction variables of
strata $\leq N$. A recurrence of the form $x' = x + \vec{c}\vec{y}$ (where
$\vec{c}$ is a vector of constants) is a stratified recurrence at stratum
$N+1$ (and if $x$ satisfies such a recurrence, it is a stratified induction
variable at stratum $N+1$).
\end{compactitem}
We use $\textsf{siv}(\phi)$ to denote the set of all stratified induction
variables of $\phi$.
\end{definition}
\begin{algorithm}
\small
\SetKwInOut{Input}{Input}\SetKwInOut{Output}{Output}
\SetKwComment{Comment}{/*}{*/}
\Input{Satisfiable formula $\phi_{\textsf{body}}$}
\Output{Affine hull of $\phi_{\textsf{body}}$}
$H \gets \bot$; $\psi \gets \phi_{\textsf{body}}$\;
\While{there exists a model $m$ of $\psi$}{
$H' \gets \bigwedge \{ x = \interp{x}{m} : x \in \textsf{Var} \cup \textsf{Var}' \}$\;
$H \gets H \sqcup^= H'$ \Comment*[r]{Join in the domain of linear equalities}
$\psi \gets \psi \land \lnot H$\;
}
\KwRet{$H$}
\caption{Affine hull. \label{alg:affine_hull}}
\end{algorithm}
Let us now discuss how stratified recurrences are detected from a loop body formula $\phi_{\textsf{body}}$. We begin by computing the affine hull
$\textit{aff}(\phi_{\textsf{body}})$ of $\phi_{\textsf{body}}$
(Algorithm~\ref{alg:affine_hull}).\footnote{This algorithm is a specialization
of the one in \cite{Reps2004} to the abstract domain of linear equalities.}
\begin{definition}
The \emph{affine hull} $\textit{aff}(\phi)$ of a formula $\phi$ is the
smallest affine set which contains $\phi$, represented as (the set of
solutions to) a system of equations $A\vec{x} = \vec{b}$, where
$\vec{x} = \begin{bmatrix*}x_1 & \dotsi & x_n & x_1' & \dotsi & x_n' \end{bmatrix*}$.
Logically, $\textit{aff}(\phi)$ is a system of equations which satisfies
the following three properties: (1) $\phi \models \textit{aff}(\phi)$, (2)
every linear equation over $\textsf{Var} \cup \textsf{Var}'$ which is implied by $\phi$
is also implied by $\textit{aff}(\phi)$, and (3) no equation in
$\textit{aff}(\phi)$ is implied by the others.
\end{definition}
\zak{I think I can shorten this bit. It would (possibly) make it a little less clear, but de-emphasize stratified recurrences. Worth it?}
Our strategy for detecting stratified recurrences is based on the following
lemma. Combined with property (2) of $\textit{aff}(\phi_{\textsf{body}})$ above, this lemma
implies that any equation implied by $\phi_{\textsf{body}}$ can be expressed as a
linear combination of the equations in $\textit{aff}(\phi_{\textsf{body}})$.
\begin{lemma}[\cite{Schrijver1986}, Corollary 3.1d]
Let $A$ be a matrix, $\vec{b}$ be a column vector, $\vec{c}$ be a row
vector, and $d$ be a constant. Assume that the system $A\vec{x} = b$ has a
solution. Then $A\vec{x} = \vec{b}$ implies $\vec{c}\vec{x} = d$ iff there
is a row vector $\vec{\lambda}$ such that $\vec{\lambda}A = \vec{c}$ and
$\vec{\lambda}\vec{b} = d$.
\end{lemma}
Let us write $\textit{aff}(\phi_{\textsf{body}})$ as $A\vec{x} = \vec{b}$.
Suppose that we have detected all recurrences of strata $< N$, and that we
want to determine whether a variable $x_i$ ($0 \leq i \leq n$) is an induction
variable at stratum $N$. Then we ask whether there exists $\vec{\lambda}$,
$\vec{c}$, and $d$ such that:
\begin{compactitem}
\item $\vec{\lambda} A = \vec{c}$ and $\vec{\lambda}\vec{b} = d$ (i.e,
$\vec{c}\vec{x} = d$ is implied by $\textit{aff}(\phi_{\textsf{body}})$ and thus by $\phi_{\textsf{body}}$)
\item $c_i = 1$ and $c_{i+n} = -1$ (the coefficients of $x_i$ and $x_i'$ are 1 and -1, respectively)
\item For all $j$ such that $j \neq i+n$ and $n \leq j \leq 2n$, $c_{j} = 0$
(except for $x_i'$, all coefficients of primed variables are 0).
\item For all $j$ such that $j \neq i$ such that $x_j$ is not an induction
variable of strata $< N$ and $n \leq j \leq 2n$, $c_{j} = 0$ (except for
$x_i$ and induction variables of strata $< N$, all coefficients for unprimed
variables are 0).
\end{compactitem}
Thus, after computing the affine hull of $\phi_{\textsf{body}}$, determining whether a
given variable satisfies a stratified recurrence is simply a matter of solving
a system of linear equations (e.g., using Gaussian elimination).
\subsubsection{Closed forms for stratified recurrences.} We first state a lemma:
\begin{lemma}
The closed form for a stratified induction variable of strata $N$ is of the
form \[x^{(k)} = p_0(k) + p_1(k)y_1^{(0)} + \dotsi + p_n(k)y_n^{(0)}\] where
each $y_i$ is a stratified induction variable of strata $<N$ and each
$p_i(k) \in \mathbb{Q}[k]$ is a polynomial of one variable with rational
coefficients.
\end{lemma}
Our algorithm for solving stratified recurrences is based on a constructive
proof for this lemma.
We proceed by induction on strata. The base case is trivial. Suppose that we
have a recurrence at strata $N$ (and all $y_1,...,y_n$ are of strata $<N$):
$x' = x + c_1y_1 + \dotsi + c_ny_n + b$. Then we may write
$x^{(k)} = x^{(0)} + \sum_{i=0}^{k-1} \big(c_1y_1^{(i)} + \dotsi + c_ny_n^{(i)} + b\big)$.
By our induction hypothesis, each $y_j^{(i)}$ can be written as a linear term
with coefficients from $\mathbb{Q}[k]$. It follows that there exists
$p_0,...,p_n \in \mathbb{Q}[k]$ so that
\[ c_1y_1^{(i)} + \dotsi + c_ny_n^{(i)} + b = p_0(i) + p_1(i)y_{1}^{(0)} + \dotsi + p_n(i)y_n^{(0)}\]
Thus we have
\begin{align*}
x^{(k)} &= x^{(0)} + \sum_{i=0}^{k-1} p_0(i) + p_1(i)y_{1}^{(0)} + \dotsi + p_n(i)y_n^{(0)}\\
&= x^{(0)} + \sum_{i=0}^{k-1} p_0(i) + y_{1}^{(0)}\sum_{i=0}^{k-1} p_1(i) + \dotsi + y_{n}^{(0)}\sum_{i=0}^{k-1} p_n(i)
\end{align*}
The closed form of a summation of a polynomial of degree $m$ is a polynomial
of degree $m+1$. We can find this polynomial via curve fitting (i.e., we
compute the first $m+1$ terms of the summation and then solve the
corresponding linear system of equations for the coefficients of the
polynomial).
\subsection{Linear recurrence (in)equations} \label{sec:lr_ineq}
\parpic[fr]{\begin{minipage}{4.5cm}
\vspace{3pt}
\noindent\hspace*{3pt}\textbf{while}\texttt{(x $\geq$ 0 $\land$ y $\geq$ 0):}\\
\noindent\hspace*{0.5cm}\textbf{if}\texttt{(*):} \texttt{x := x - 1}\\
\noindent\hspace*{0.5cm}\textbf{else}\texttt{:} \texttt{y := y - 1}
\vspace{3pt}
\end{minipage}}
Recurrence equations (such as the simple and stratified varieties) yield very
accurate approximations for \emph{some} variables, but what about variables
which do not satisfy \emph{any} recurrence equation? For example, consider that neither \texttt{x} nor \texttt{y} satisfy a recurrence equation in
the loop to the right. However, they \emph{do} satisfy recurrence
\emph{inequations}: $\texttt{x}-1 \leq \texttt{x}'$, $\texttt{x}' \leq
\texttt{x}$, $\texttt{y}-1 \leq \texttt{y}'$, and $\texttt{y}' \leq
\texttt{y}$. These inequations can be closed to yield $\texttt{x}^{(0)} - k
\leq \texttt{x}^{(k)}$ and $\texttt{x}^{(k)} \leq \texttt{x}^{(0)}$, $y^{(0)}
- k\leq y^{(k)}$, and $y^{(k)} \leq y^{(0)}$. In this section, we discuss
linear recurrence (in)equations, which allow us to compute good approximations
for loops that cannot be completely described by recurrence equations.
\begin{definition} \label{def:lri}
A \emph{linear recurrence (in)equation} of a formula $\phi$ is an
(in)equation which is implied by $\phi$ and which is of the form
\[ \vec{c}\vec{x}' \bowtie \vec{c}\vec{x} + \vec{b}\vec{y} + d \]
where $\mathop{\bowtie} \in \{ <, \leq, =\}$, $\vec{x}$ is any vector of
variables, $\vec{y}$ is a vector of stratified induction variables in
$\phi_{\textsf{body}}$, $\vec{c}$, $\vec{b}$ are constant vectors, and $d$ is a
constant.
\end{definition}
Linear recurrence (in)equations generalize recurrence equations in two ways:
first, they allow for \emph{inequalities} rather than equations. Second,
they allow recurrences for \emph{linear terms}, rather than just
variables. For example, the linear recurrence equation $(\texttt{x}' +
\texttt{y}') = (\texttt{x} + \texttt{y}) + 1$ is satisfied by the body of the
loop above, which can be closed to yield $(\texttt{x}^{(k)} +
\texttt{y}^{(k)}) = (\texttt{x}^{(0)} + \texttt{y}^{(0)}) + k$.
We now describe our method for detecting and solving linear recurrence
(in)equations. We begin by introducing a set of \emph{difference variables}
$\delta_x$, one for each variable $x \notin \textsf{siv}(\phi_{\textsf{body}})$ (variables which
do belong to $\textsf{siv}(\phi_{\textsf{body}})$ are already precisely described by recurrence
equations, so we need not approximate them). We then compute (via
Algorithm~\ref{alg:convex_hull}) the convex hull of the formula $\psi$ defined
as:
\[\psi \triangleq \exists X. \phi_{\textsf{body}} \land \bigwedge \{ \delta_x = x' - x : x \in \textsf{Var} \setminus \textsf{siv}(\phi_{\textsf{body}}) \} \]
where $X$ is $\textsf{Var}' \cup (\textsf{Var} \setminus \textsf{siv}(\phi_{\textsf{body}}))$.
\begin{algorithm}
\small
\SetKwInOut{Input}{Input}\SetKwInOut{Output}{Output}
\SetKwComment{Comment}{/*}{*/}
\Input{Satisfiable formula $\psi$, set of variables $X$}
\Output{Convex hull of $\exists X. \psi$}
$P \gets \bot$\;
\While{there exists a model $m$ of $\psi$}{
Let $Q$ be a cube of the DNF of $\psi$ s.t. $m \models Q$\;
$Q \gets \textit{project}(Q,X)$ \Comment*[r]{Polyhedral projection}
$P \gets P \sqcup Q$ \Comment*[r]{Polyhedral join}
$\psi \gets \psi \land \lnot P$\;
}
\KwRet{$P$}
\caption{Convex hull. \label{alg:convex_hull}}
\end{algorithm}
Geometrically, the convex hull $\textit{hull}(\phi_{\textsf{body}})$ is the smallest convex polyhedron
which contains $\phi_{\textsf{body}}$. Logically, it is a set of (in)equations such that
(1) every (in)equation in $\textit{hull}(\phi_{\textsf{body}})$ is implied by $\phi_{\textsf{body}}$, and (2) any
linear (in)equation (over $\textsf{Var} \cup \textsf{Var}'$) which is implied by $\phi_{\textsf{body}}$ is also implied
by $\textit{hull}(\phi_{\textsf{body}})$. For example, $\textit{hull}(\phi_{\textsf{body}})$ for the loop above is:
\[ 0 \leq \delta_x \land \delta_x \leq 1 \land 0 \leq \delta_y \land \delta_y \leq 1 \land \delta_x + \delta_y = 1 \]
We note that the only variables which appear in the (in)equations in
$\textit{hull}(\phi_{\textsf{body}})$ are (stratified) induction variables and difference variables.
Thus, we may write any (in)equation in $\textit{hull}(\phi_{\textsf{body}})$ as $\vec{c}\vec{\delta}
\bowtie \vec{b}\vec{y} + d$ (where $\vec{\delta}$ is the vector of difference
variables, $\vec{y}$ is the vector of stratified induction variables,
$\vec{c}$ and $\vec{b}$ are constant vectors, and $d$ is a constant).
Recalling the definition of the difference variables, we may rewrite such an
inequation as $\vec{c}\vec{(\vec{x}'-\vec{x})} \bowtie \vec{b}\vec{y} + d$ and
then rewrite again as $\vec{c}\vec{x}' \bowtie \vec{c}\vec{x} + \vec{b}\vec{y}
+ d$, which matches the definition of linear recurrence (in)equations given
in Definition~\ref{def:lri}.
We may close such a linear recurrence (in)equation as follows:
\[\vec{c}\vec{x}^{(k)} \bowtie \vec{c}\vec{x}^{(0)} + \sum_{i=0}^{k-1} \vec{b}\vec{y}^{(i)} + d\]
We can compute a closed form for the summation $\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}
\vec{b}\vec{y}^{(i)} + d$ as in the preceding section.
\subsection{Loop guards}
A loop body typically contains crucial information about the execution of the
loop that cannot be captured by recurrence relations. For example, consider
the loop in Section~\ref{sec:stratified}. Supposing that the loop executes
$n$ times, we must have that $\texttt{x}^{(k)} \leq 10$ for each $k < n$.
Further, consider that the variable \texttt{z} is a function of the simple induction
variable \texttt{x}, and so $\texttt{z}^{(k)}$ can be described precisely in
terms of the pre-state variables (even though it does not itself satisfy any
recurrence):
\[ \texttt{z}^{(k)} =
\begin{cases}
\texttt{z}^{(0)} & \text{if } k = 0\\
2(\texttt{x}^{(0)} + k + 1) & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases} \]
The question is: how can we recover this type of information from a loop body
formula?
We define the \emph{guard} of a transition formula $\phi$ as follows:
\[guard(\phi) \triangleq \formula{(\exists \textsf{Var}. \phi) \land (\exists \textsf{Var}'. \phi)}\]
If $\phi$ is a loop body formula, then $guard(\phi)$ is a formula which
over-approximates the effect of executing \emph{at least one} execution of the
loop. Intuitively, $(\exists \textsf{Var}. \phi)$ as a precondition that must hold
before every iteration of the loop and $(\exists \textsf{Var}'. \phi)$ as a
post-condition of the loop that must hold after each iteration.
Consider again the example loop in Section~\ref{sec:stratified}, we have the following loop body formula
\[ \phi_{\textsf{body}} = \formula{x \leq 10 \land x' = x + 1 \land y' = y + x' \land z' = 2x'} \]
We compute $guard(\phi_{\textsf{body}})$ as follows:
\begin{align*}
guard(\phi_{\textsf{body}}) &= \formula{(\exists \texttt{x},\texttt{y},\texttt{z}. \phi_{\textsf{body}}) \land (\exists \texttt{x'},\texttt{y'},\texttt{z'}. \phi_{\textsf{body}})} \\
&\equiv \formula{(\texttt{x} \leq 10) \land (\texttt{x'} \leq 11 \land \texttt{z} = 2\texttt{x'})}\ ,
\end{align*}
and thereby recover the desired information about \texttt{x} and \texttt{z}.
Since loop body formulas may be large, it may be adventageous in practice to
simplify the guard formula by eliminating the quantifiers (as we did above).
A second option, which is more efficient but less precise, is to
over-approximate quantifier elimination. Two possibilities are to use
Algorithm~\ref{alg:convex_hull} to compute the convex hull of
$guard(\phi_{\textsf{body}})$, or to use optimization modulo theories \cite{Li2014} to
compute intervals for each pre- and post-state variable in
$\phi_{\textsf{body}}$.
\subsection{Bringing it all together}
We close this section by describing how the pieces defined in this section fit
into the iteration operator of linear recurrence analysis. We let
$\textit{CR}(\phi_{\textsf{body}})$ denote the set of closed linear recurrence
(in)equations (including simple and stratified recurrence equations) satisfied
by $\phi_{\textsf{body}}$. Each such
(in)equation is of the form $\vec{c}\vec{x}^{(k)} \bowtie t$, where the free
variables of $t$ are drawn from $\{ x^{(0)} : x \in \textsf{Var} \}$ and a
distinguished variable $k \notin \textsf{Var}$ indicating the loop iteration. We
define
\[\phi_{\textsf{body}}^+ \triangleq \formula{\exists k. k \geq 1 \land \bigwedge \{ \vec{c}\vec{x'} \bowtie t[\vec{x}^{(0)} \mapsto \vec{x}] : \vec{c}\vec{x}' \bowtie t \in \textit{CR}(\phi_{\textsf{body}}) \}}\]
where $t[\vec{x}^{(0)} \mapsto \vec{x}]$ denotes the term $t$ with every
variable of the form $x^{(0)}$ is replaced by the corresponding variable $x$.
Finally, our iteration operator is defined as:
\[ \phi_{\textsf{body}}^\star \triangleq \formula{(\phi_{\textsf{body}}^+ \land \textit{guard}(\phi_{\textsf{body}})) \lor \bigwedge_{x \in \textsf{Var}} x' = x.}\]
\section{Linearization} \label{sec:discussion}
The iteration operator presented in the previous section relies heavily on
using an SMT solver to extract information from loop body formulas. This
strategy requires that loop body formulas are expressed in a decidable theory
which is supported by SMT solvers (in particular, linear arithmetic).
However, a program may contain non-linear instructions, and even if it does
not, our iteration operator may introduce non-linearity (consider
Example~\ref{fig:example}, where the transition formula for the outer loop
$\phi_{\textsf{outer}}^\star$ contains the non-linear proposition $r' =
x-q'y$). Our solution to this problem is to \emph{linearize} non-linear
formulas before passing them to the iteration operator.
Linearization is an operation that, given an (arbitrary) arithmetic formula
$\phi$, computes a formula $\textit{lin}(\phi)$ which over-approximates $\phi$
(i.e., $\phi \Rightarrow \textit{lin}(\phi)$), but which is expressed in
linear arithmetic. There is generally no best approximation of a non-linear
formula as a linear formula, so our method is (necessarily) a heuristic.
We explain our linearization algorithm informally using an example. Consider the
following non-linear formula (where $w,x,y,z$ are integers):
\[ \psi \triangleq 1 \leq w = x < y < 5 \land w * y \leq z \leq x * y \]
Our algorithm begins by normalizing $\psi$, separating it into a linear part
and a set of non-linear equations (introducing existentially quantified
temporary variables as necessary). For example, the result of normalizing
$\psi$ is:
\[ \big(1 \leq w = x < y < 5 \land \leq \gamma_0 \leq z \leq \gamma_1 \big) \land \big( \gamma_0 = w*y \land \gamma_1 = x*y \big) \]
The left conjunct is a linear over-approximation of $\psi$, but it is very
imprecise: semantically equal (but syntactically distinct) non-linear terms become semantically \emph{un}equal in the over-approximation, and all information about the magnitude of non-linear terms is lost.
To increase precision of this approximation, we use two
strengthening steps.
\begin{compactenum}
\item We replace the non-linear operations with uninterpreted function symbols
and then compute the affine hull of the resulting formula to infer
equalities between non-linear terms. For our example $\psi$, the we
discover that $\gamma_0 = \gamma_1$.
\item We compute concrete and symbolic intervals for non-linear terms.
Consider $\gamma_0 = x*y$ from our example $\psi$. We first compute
concrete ($x \in [1,3]$ and $y \in [2,4]$) and symbolic ($x \in [x,x]$ and
$y \in [y,y]$) intervals for the operands $x$ and $y$, using symbolic
optimization \cite{Li2014} to compute the concrete intervals. We obtain a
concrete interval for $x*y$ ($x*y \in [2,12]$) by multiplying the concrete
intervals of its operands. We obtain symbolic intervals for $x*y$ ($x*y \in
[y,3y]$ and $x*y \in [2x, 4x]$) by multiplying the concrete interval for $x$
by the symbolic interval for $y$ and vice-versa. As a result of interval
computation, we discover:
$2 \leq \gamma_1 \leq 12 \land y \leq \gamma_1 \leq 3y \land 2x \leq \gamma_1 \leq 4x$
\end{compactenum}
\vspace*{1pt}
\noindent Finally, we take $\textit{lin}(\psi)$ to be the initial coarse linear
approximation of $\psi$ conjoined with the facts discovered by the two
strengthening steps.
We expect linearization to have broad applications outside of the context
in which we presented it, particularly in program analysis, where
over-approximation can be tolerated but non-linear terms cannot. Finding
improved linearization heuristics is an interesting direction of future work.
\section{Experiments}\label{sec:experiments}
We wrote a tool which implements LRA and analyzes C code (using the CIL
\cite{cil} frontend).\footnote{The tool and benchmarks are available at \url{http://cs.toronto.edu/~zkincaid/lra}.}
We use Z3 \cite{z3} to resolve SMT queries that result
from applying the iteration operator and checking assertion violations.
Polyhedra operations are passed to the New Polka library implemented in Apron
\cite{apron}. The quantifier elimination algorithm from \cite{Monniaux2010}
is used to compute loop guards.
We tested two different configurations of LRA: one which is fully
compositional ({\sc LRA-Comp}) and does not take advantage of contextual
information, and one ({\sc LRA}) which uses an intraprocedural polyhedron
analysis \cite{Cousot1978} to gain \emph{some} contextual information, but
which is otherwise compositional. We compare LRA's performance against the
state-of-the-art invariant generation and verification tools
{\sc CPAChecker} (overall winner of the 2015 Software Verification Competition) and {\sc SeaHorn} (winner of the loops category among tools which are sound for verification).
To evaluate the precision of LRA we used it to verify the correctness of a
suite of 119 small loop benchmarks of varying difficulty. Our benchmark suite
was drawn from the \emph{loops} category of the 2015 Software Verification
Competition (SVComp-15), as well as a set of \emph{non-linear} benchmarks
(Non-linear), such as the one in Figure~\ref{fig:example}. The results for
the 81 safe, integer-only benchmarks from these suites are shown in
Table~\ref{tab:lra}. The suite also contains 38 \emph{unsafe} benchmarks: {\sc LRA} and {\sc LRA-Comp} have no false
negatives on these benchmarks; {\sc CPAChecker} has 3 and {\sc SeaHorn} has
2.
\begin{table}[!t]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|l|c||c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Benchmark suite & \# Bench & {\sc \scriptsize LRA} & {\sc\scriptsize LRA-Comp} & {\sc \scriptsize CPAChecker} & {\sc \scriptsize SeaHorn} \\ \hline \hline
SVComp-15 & 74 & 65 & 60 & 37 & 65 \\
Non-linear & 7 & 6 & 5 & 1 & 3 \\\hline
Total & 81 & 71 (88\%) & 65 (80\%) & 38 (47\%) & 68 (85\%) \\
\hline
\multicolumn{6}{c}{Running time across all benchmark suites}\\
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|l|}{Mean} & 5.4s & 3.0s & 42.4s & 37.7s\\
\multicolumn{2}{|l|}{Median} & 0.8s & 0.8s & 1.6s & 0.2s\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Experimental results.}
\label{tab:lra}
\end{table}
Our results demonstrate that LRA is an effective invariant generation
algorithm. Even the fully compositional variant of LRA ({\sc LRA-Comp}) is
able to prove safety for 80\% of the benchmarks we considered). We also note
that there are 8 benchmarks for which LRA can prove safety but which {\sc
CPAChecker} and {\sc SeaHorn} cannot.
\section{Related work} \label{sec:relwork}
There is a great deal of work on compositional invariant generation and
acceleration which is related to the technique described in this paper. In
this section, we compare our technique to a sampling of this work.
\noindent\emph{\textbf{Recurrence analysis.}} The idea of using closed forms
of recurrence relations to approximate loops has appeared in a number of other
papers. Generally speaking, our work differs from previous work in two
essential ways: first, we use an SMT solver to extract \emph{semantic}
recurrences, rather than \emph{syntactic} recurrences. Second, we consider
\emph{approximate recurrences} (inequations over linear terms) rather than
exact recurrences (equations over variables). A survey of some of this work
follows.
Ammarguellat and Harrison present a method for detecting induction variables
which is compositional in the sense that it uses closed forms for inner loops
in order to recognize nested recurrences \cite{Ammarguellat1990}. Maps from
variables to symbolic terms (effectively a symbolic constant propagation
domain) is used as the abstract domain. Kov\'{a}cs presents a technique for
discovering invariant polynomial equations based on solving recurrence
relations \cite{Kovacs2008}. The simple and stratified recurrence equations
considered in this paper are a strict subset of the recurrences considered in
\cite{Kovacs2008}, but our algorithm for solving recurrences is simpler.
Kroening et al. \cite{Kroening2013} presents a technique for computing
\emph{under}-approximations of loops which uses polynomial curve-fitting to
directly compute closed forms for recurrences rather than extracting
recurrences and then solving them in a separate step.
Ancourt et al. present a method for computing recurrence inequations for while
loops with affine bodies \cite{Ancourt2010}. Like the method we present on
Section~\ref{sec:lr_ineq}, their method is based on using difference variables
and polyhedral projections. Our method generalizes this work by (1) extending
it to arbitary control flow, with (possibly non-linear) formulas as bodies
rather than affine transformations, (2) integrating recurrence inequations
with stratified induction variables, thereby allowing enabling the computation
of invariant polynomial inequations. Ancourt et al. briefly discuss a
method for computing invariant polynomial inequations, but it is based on
higher-order differences rather than stratified recurrence inequations. For
example, in Figure~\ref{fig:example}, the analysis discussed in
\cite{Ancourt2010} would be able to prove that \texttt{r} is decremented by
a constant amount at every loop iteration, but could not prove that the
constant amount is exactly \texttt{y}.
\noindent\emph{\textbf{Acceleration}.} \emph{Acceleration} is a technique
closely related to recurrence analysis that was pioneered in infinite-state
model checking \cite{Boigelot1994,Finkel2002,Bardin2005}, and which has
recently found use in program analysis
\cite{Gonnord2006,Leroux2007,Jeannet2014}. Given a set of reachable states
and an affine transformation describing the body of a loop, acceleration
computes an \emph{exact} post-image which describes the set of reachable
states after executing any number of iterations of the loop (although there is
recent work on \emph{abstract acceleration} uses computes over-approximate
post-images \cite{Gonnord2006,Jeannet2014}). In contrast, our technique is
\emph{approximate} rather than exact, and computes loop summaries rather than
post-images. A result of these two features is that our analysis to be
applied to arbitrary loops, while acceleration is classically limited to
simple loops where the body consists of a sequence of assignment statements.
\noindent\emph{\textbf{Compositional program analysis.}} Compositional
program analysis has a long history. Particular examples are interprocedural
analyses based on summarization \cite{Sharir1981} and elimination-style
dataflow analyses (a good overview of which can be found in \cite{Ryder1986}).
The following surveys recent work on compositional analysis for numerical
invariants.
Kroening et al. \cite{Kroening2008} and Biallas et al. \cite{Biallas2012}
present compositional analysis techniques based on predicate abstraction.
In addition to predicate abstraction, there are a few papers which use numerical abstract domains for compositional
analysis. These include an algorithm for detecting affine
equalities between program variables \cite{Muller-Olm2004}, an
algorithm for detecting polynomial equalities between program variables
\cite{Colon2004}, a disjunctive polyhedra analysis which uses
widening to compute loop summaries \cite{Popeea2006}, and a method for
automatically synthesizing transfer functions for template abstract domains
using quantifier elimination \cite{Monniaux2009}. Our abstract domain is the
set of arbitrary arithmetic formula, which is more expressive than these
domains, but which (as usual) incurs a price in performance. It would be
interesting to apply abstractions to our formulas to improve the performance
of our analysis.
\noindent\emph{\textbf{Linearization.}} Our linearization algorithm was
inspired by Min\'{e}'s procedure for approximating non-linear abstract
transformers \cite{Mine2006}. Min\'{e}'s procedure abstracts non-linear terms
by linear terms with interval coefficients using the abstract value in the
pre-state to derive intervals for variables. Our algorithm abstracts
non-linear terms by sets of symbolic and concrete intervals, and applies to the more
general setting of approximating arbitrary formulas.
\section{Conclusion} \label{sec:conclusion}
This paper presents a fully compositional algorithm for generating numerical
invariants of imperative programs. Our method for abstracting loops makes
essential use of compositionality: we assume that we are given a formula which
approximates the body of a loop, and we use an SMT solver to extract
recurrence relations and then use the closed forms of these recurrences to
approximate the loop. We have demonstrated experimentally that our method is
competitive with leading invariant generation and verification tools.
|
\subsubsection{\@startsection{subsubsection}{3}{10pt}{-1.25ex plus -1ex minus -.1ex}{0ex plus 0ex}{\normalsize\bf}}
\def\paragraph{\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{10pt}{-1.25ex plus -1ex minus -.1ex}{0ex plus 0ex}{\normalsize\textit}}
\renewcommand\@biblabel[1]{#1}
\renewcommand\@makefntext[1
{\noindent\makebox[0pt][r]{\@thefnmark\,}#1}
\makeatother
\sectionfont{\large}
\subsectionfont{\normalsize}
\fancyfoot{}
\fancyfoot[LO,RE]{\vspace{-7pt}\includegraphics[height=8pt]{LF}}
\fancyfoot[CO]{\vspace{-7pt}\hspace{5.9cm}\includegraphics[height=7pt]{RF}}
\fancyfoot[CE]{\vspace{-6.6pt}\hspace{-7.2cm}\includegraphics[height=7pt]{RF}}
\fancyfoot[RO]{\scriptsize{\sffamily{1--\pageref{LastPage} ~\textbar \hspace{2pt}\thepage}}}
\fancyfoot[LE]{\scriptsize{\sffamily{\thepage~\textbar\hspace{3.3cm} 1--\pageref{LastPage}}}}
\fancyhead{}
\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{1pt}
\renewcommand{\footrulewidth}{1pt}
\setlength{\arrayrulewidth}{1pt}
\setlength{\columnsep}{6.5mm}
\setlength\bibsep{1pt}
\noindent\LARGE{\textbf{Cold condensation of dust in the ISM}}
\vspace{0.6cm}
\noindent\large{\textbf{Ga\"el Rouill\'e,$^{\ast}$\textit{$^{a}$} Cornelia J\"ager,\textit{$^{a}$} Serge A. Krasnokutski,\textit{$^{a}$} Melinda Krebsz,\textit{$^{b}$} and Thomas Henning\textit{$^{c}$}}}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\noindent\textit{\small{\textbf{Received Xth XXXXXXXXXX 201X, Accepted Xth XXXXXXXXX 201X\newline
First published on the web Xth XXXXXXXXXX 201X}}}
\noindent \textbf{\small{DOI: 10.1039/c000000x}}
\vspace{0.6cm}
\noindent \normalsize{The condensation of complex silicates with pyroxene and olivine composition at conditions prevailing in molecular clouds has been experimentally studied. For this purpose, molecular species comprising refractory elements were forced to accrete on cold substrates representing the cold surfaces of surviving dust grains in the interstellar medium. The efficient formation of amorphous and homogeneous magnesium iron silicates at temperatures of about 12~K has been monitored by IR spectroscopy. The gaseous precursors of such condensation processes in the interstellar medium are formed by erosion of dust grains in supernova shock waves. In the laboratory, we have evaporated glassy silicate dust analogs and embedded the released species in neon ice matrices that have been studied spectroscopically to identify the molecular precursors of the condensing solid silicates. A sound coincidence between the 10~$\mu$m band of the interstellar silicates and the 10~$\mu$m band of the low-temperature siliceous condensates can be noted.}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\footnotetext{\textit{$^{a}$~Laboratory Astrophysics Group of the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy at the Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Institute of Solid State Physics, Helmholtzweg 3, 07743 Jena, Germany. Fax: +49-3641-9-47308; Tel: +49-3641-9-47354; E-mail: <EMAIL>}}
\footnotetext{\textit{$^{b}$~Institute for Geological and Geochemical Research, Research Centre for Astronomy and Earth Sciences, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 45 Buda\"orsi street, 1112 Budapest, Hungary.}}
\footnotetext{\textit{$^{c}$~Max Planck Institute for Astronomy, K\"onigstuhl 17, 69117 Heidelberg, Germany.}}
\section{Introduction}
AGB stars and supernovae (SNs) are main cosmic dust factories. The formed stardust is finally distributed into the interstellar medium (ISM), and eventually becomes a part of cold and dense molecular clouds. Interstellar dust is exposed to destructive processes caused by supernova-induced shock waves. It was estimated that only a few percent of the total mass of stardust survive these destructive processes in the ISM.\cite{Zhukovska08,Draine09} However, observations of refractory elements in the ISM clearly show a depletion of these elements from the gas phase. Consequently, an efficient condensation process of dust grains in the ISM is required to balance the discrepancy between the stellar formation of dust grains and their interstellar destruction.\cite{Draine09} Recently, Jones \& Nuth\cite{Jones10} discussed a compatible injection and destruction time scale for silicate dust particles, an assumption based on inherent uncertainties in the determination of destruction efficiencies.
In the ISM, refractory and other atoms and molecules generated by the erosion of grains in supernova shocks slowly accrete onto surfaces of surviving grains at low temperatures. This process is discussed to occur in the very dense cores of molecular clouds (MCs) where the temperature of dust grains is between 10 and~20 K. However, such processes may already occur in the outer, less dense regions of molecular clouds. The accreted species can finally react among each other to form solid layers on the grains. In the very dense cores of MCs, other abundant gaseous species such as CO,
H$_2$O, and small carbon-rich molecules simultaneously accrete with refractory species and may prevent the formation of refractory silicate material. However, also fast desorption processes of carbon-based condensates may lead to a preferred formation of silicate condensates and to a separation of siliceous and carbonaceous dust in the ISM.
Very recently, the condensation of SiO molecules at low temperature using neon matrix and helium droplet isolation techniques has been studied.\cite{Krasnokutski14} SiO represents the major component of the interstellar silicates. Reactions between SiO molecules were found to be barrierless. The energy of SiO polymerization reactions has been determined experimentally using a calorimetric method and theoretically with calculations based on the coupled-cluster and density functional theories. The experiments have clearly revealed the efficient formation of SiO$_x$ condensates at temperatures of about 10~K.\cite{Krasnokutski14}
In the present work, we extend our recently performed experimental studies on the cold condensation process of SiO to more complex systems containing magnesium and iron. This step is necessary to obtain more insight into the low-temperature condensation process of realistic interstellar silicates. We apply laser vaporization to silicate samples in an attempt to produce the precursor species involved in the condensation of interstellar silicates. In a first stage, the vaporized species are deposited and isolated in a Ne matrix where they are cooled down to temperatures relevant to the ISM. This stage gives us the opportunity to identify the laser-vaporized species by absorption spectroscopy in the UV and mid-IR wavelength domains. The second stage consists in annealing and warming the matrix up to 13~K until the complete evaporation of the Ne atoms in order to cause the accretion of the laser-vaporized species at low temperature.
\section{Experimental}
Chunks of two amorphous silicates, synthesized in-house by melting and quenching,\cite{Dorschner95} were used as targets. The formula of one silicate was Mg$_2$SiO$_4$, corresponding to the stoichiometry of forsterite, the Mg endmember of the olivine group. The formula of the other silicate was Mg$_{0.4}$Fe$_{0.6}$SiO$_3$, i.e., the composition of a pyroxene.
Laser vaporization was carried out using a pulsed laser source (Continuum Minilite II) emitting photons with a wavelength of 532~nm. The laser was operated with a repetition rate of 10~pulses per second. Each pulse lasted 5~ns and carried an energy of 20 to 25~mJ. The laser beam was focused at the surface of the target and, during the experiments, it was shifted every minute to vaporize a fresh part of the target and also to avoid drilling through it. Holes 0.4 to 0.5~mm in diameter were created during the experiments. Assuming this diameter coincides with the diameter of the laser beam at the target position, a fluence of 2 to 4~GW cm$^{-2}$ is inferred.
Matrix isolation spectroscopy was performed with Ne (Linde, purity 99.995\%) as the matrix material. Each matrix was grown on a KBr substrate (Korth Kristalle GmbH). This material is transmitting photons in the mid-IR wavelength domain and also at useful UV wavelengths, with a lower limit of 205~nm. A compressed-He closed-cycle cryocooler (Advanced Research Systems Inc. DE-204SL) was employed to cool down the substrate and to maintain it at low temperature. In order to form a Ne matrix, the substrate was kept at $\sim$6~K and the Ne mass flow rate was set to 5~standard cubic centimeters per minute. The target for laser vaporization and the substrate were separated by a distance of $\sim$55~mm.
The cryocooler could be rotated while being operated, allowing the substrate to face three directions and the corresponding pairs of opposite ports that equipped the vacuum chamber. These ports allowed us, in turn, to deposit the Ne atoms and laser-vaporized species on the substrate, to measure IR spectra and UV spectra in transmission. A Fourier transform IR spectrometer (Bruker VERTEX 80v) and a UV spectrometer (JASCO V-670 EX) were optically coupled to the vacuum chamber. The IR beam of the FTIR spectrometer, guided along an evacuated optical path by means of gold-coated mirrors, passed through the vacuum chamber to reach an external detector. Optical fibers fitted with collimating optics were used to carry the photons from the UV spectrometer to the vacuum chamber and back.
The IR spectra were measured by averaging 64 scans carried out at a speed of 10~kHz with a resolution of 1~cm$^{-1}$. The UV spectra were measured with equal step and resolution of 0.2~nm at a rate of $\sim$11~nm min$^{-1}$.
\section{Results}
\subsection{Analysis of the evaporated species}
The isolation of the vaporized species in the Ne matrices gives us the opportunity to identify them using absorption spectroscopy, and also to verify the presence of contaminants. For instance, our spectra show bands due to the Ne matrix-isolated contaminants CO (2141~cm$^{-1}$),\cite{Dubost76} CO$_2$ (2348~cm$^{-1}$),\cite{Wan09} H$_2$O (line systems at 1631 and 3783~cm$^{-1}$),\cite{Forney93} and (H$_2$O)$_2$ (lines at 3590 and 3734~cm$^{-1}$).\cite{Forney93}
\subsubsection{Mg$_2$SiO$_4$ target.~~} Magnesium atoms are easily detected in the UV region. In Fig.~\ref{fig1}, the line of atomic Mg at 275~nm is very strong, indicating the efficient vaporization of this element. Allowing for a matrix-induced wavelength shift, this line corresponds to that measured at 285.30~nm in vacuum.~\cite{NIST_ASD} Despite the large amount of Mg atoms, dimers are not observed. They would give rise to a band at $\sim$257~nm corresponding to the $B ^1\Pi_u \leftarrow X ^1\Sigma^+_g$ transition.\cite{McCaffrey88,Healy12} A spectrum of Mg atoms deposited in a Ne matrix to serve as a reference supports the assignment.
Still at UV wavelengths, the peaks in a very weak, structured feature originating at 234~nm correspond to bands of the $A ^1\Pi \leftarrow X ^1\Sigma^+$ transition of the SiO molecule.\cite{Hormes83,Krasnokutski14} Thus only a very little amount of this species was deposited in the Ne matrix. Accordingly, features recently attributed to SiO oligomers, which are produced by barrierless reactions between the SiO molecules, are not found.\cite{Krasnokutski14}
In the 205 to 350~nm range, Si atoms in their ground state give medium to strong absorption lines at 220.87, 243.95, and 251.51~nm in vacuum.\cite{NIST_ASD} These lines are not seen in our spectrum, even considering matrix-induced wavelength shifts. In the same region, O I atoms have only one very weak transition.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=6cm]{fig1.eps}
\caption{Ultraviolet absorption features of species isolated in a Ne matrix at 6.3~K following laser vaporization of amorphous Mg$_2$SiO$_4$. The features are attributed to SiO and Mg. The absorption line of Mg is saturated after accumulating material for 20 minutes.}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
In the mid-IR domain, shown in Fig.~\ref{fig2}, weak absorption bands arise at 913, 1039, 1107, 1164, 1228, 1754, 2152, and 2192~cm$^{-1}$. We assign the absorption bands seen at 1039 and 1107~cm$^{-1}$ to the $\nu_3$ and $\nu_1$ mode of O$_3$, respectively.\cite{Brosset93} Another band due to O$_3$ is not seen at 2109~cm$^{-1}$ ($\nu_1$ + $\nu_3$),\cite{Brosset93} most likely because, being a combination band, it is too weak. The identification of O$_3$ could have been confirmed by the observation of the broad Hartley band in the UV spectrum, near 253~nm.\cite{Jaye98} This band, however, is not observed. The comparison between the absorption cross-sections of the UV and IR transitions would clarify our assignment. The peak at 1164~cm$^{-1}$ is attributed to O$_4^+$.\cite{Thompson89,Jacox94} Those at 913 and 2192~cm$^{-1}$ were recently reported and discussed by Jacox and Thompson.\cite{Jacox13} It was found that these absorptions may be caused by a single species, which would be a molecular complex involving H$_2$ and possibly H$_3$O$^+$ or H$_2$O$_5^+$.
The line found at 1228~cm$^{-1}$ is attributed to SiO.\cite{Khanna81,Rouille14} As expected from the analysis of the UV spectrum, the IR bands that characterize the oligomers Si$_2$O$_2$ and Si$_3$O$_3$ are not seen.\cite{Hastie69,Khanna81,Rouille14} Absorptions that would possibly reveal the presence of magnesium oxides lie at wavelengths longer than 10~$\mu$m, outside the range we have scanned.\cite{Andrews78}
Finally, a tight group of bands that arises at 2937, 2951, and 2966~cm$^{-1}$ resembles the bands of the $\nu_2$ mode of H$_2$O near 1620~cm$^{-1}$,\cite{Forney93} with a positive shift of 1337~cm$^{-1}$. The bands at 1754 and 2152~cm$^{-1}$ remain unassigned.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=6cm]{fig2.eps}
\caption{Infrared absorption features of species isolated in a Ne matrix at 6.3~K following laser vaporization of amorphous Mg$_2$SiO$_4$. Asterisks mark the features of interest. The material had been accumulated for 20 minutes.}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Mg$_{0.4}$Fe$_{0.6}$SiO$_3$ target.~~} In the UV region, shown in Fig.~\ref{fig3}, the lines of the Fe and Mg atoms are strong, demonstrating again the efficient vaporization of magnesium, as observed with the Mg$_2$SiO$_4$ target, and also that of iron. Only a weak contribution of SiO is possibly detected. The lines assigned to Fe I are favorably compared with the vacuum wavelengths.\cite{NIST_ASD} A spectrum of Fe atoms deposited in a Ne matrix was measured to serve as a reference. It supports the assignment. One can note that there is no evidence of the broad Hartley band of O$_3$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=6cm]{fig3.eps}
\caption{Ultraviolet absorption features of species isolated in a Ne matrix at 6.3~K following laser vaporization of amorphous Mg$_{0.4}$Fe$_{0.6}$SiO$_3$. The features are attributed to Fe and Mg atoms. The material had been accumulated for 20 minutes.}
\label{fig3}
\end{figure}
In the IR spectrum displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig4}), we find bands already observed when using the Mg$_2$SiO$_4$ target. Thus O$_3$ (1039~cm$^{-1}$), O$_4^+$ (1164~cm$^{-1}$), and SiO (1228~cm$^{-1}$) are present in the matrix. The band assigned above to the $\nu_1$ mode of O$_3$ is absent. On the other hand, new bands of O$_4^+$ isomers are detected at 1321 and 2808~cm$^{-1}$. \cite{Thompson89,Jacox94} The absorptions caused by a complex possibly involving H$_2$ and possibly H$_3$O$^+$ or H$_2$O$_5^+$ are also detected.\cite{Jacox13}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=6cm]{fig4.eps}
\caption{Infrared absorption features of species isolated in a Ne matrix at 6.3~K following laser vaporization of amorphous Mg$_{0.4}$Fe$_{0.6}$SiO$_3$. Asterisks mark the features. The material had been accumulated for 40 minutes.}
\label{fig4}
\end{figure}
There is no evidence again of the Si$_2$O$_2$ and Si$_3$O$_3$ oligomers. The unassigned peaks found at 1754 and 2152~cm$^{-1}$ in the experiment with the Mg$_2$SiO$_4$ target are absent, like the group of bands previously observed around 2950~cm$^{-1}$.
On the other hand, there are additional bands at the positions 870, 950, 958, 976, 1369, and 1424~cm$^{-1}$. After comparison with measurements on species isolated in Ar matrices, we tentatively assign the bands at 1369 and 1424~cm$^{-1}$ to SiO$_3$ (1363.5~cm$^{-1}$ in Ar matrix) and SiO$_2$ (1416~cm$^{-1}$ in Ar matrix), respectively \cite{Tremblay96}. Other tentative assignments would be to FeO (870~cm$^{-1}$ here, 873.08~cm$^{-1}$ in Ar matrix),\cite{Green79} and OFeO (950~cm$^{-1}$ here, 945.8~cm$^{-1}$ in Ar matrix).\cite{Chertihin96}
The absorption at 976~cm$^{-1}$ has not been assigned.
\subsection{Analysis of the low-temperature condensates}
The condensates were studied by IR spectroscopy, high-resolution transmission electron microscopy (HRTEM), and energy dispersive X-ray (EDX) spectroscopy.
Generally, IR spectroscopy is the best method to follow up the silicate condensation in situ that means in dependence of the temperature. The formation of the broad silicate bands at about 10 and 20 $\mu$m corresponding to the Si-O stretching and bending modes of amorphous silicates is a clear indicator for the first appearance of a solid layer. However, due to the experimental requirements (study of the gaseous precursors and the condensate at one sample in situ), the final layer thickness of the condensed silicate was rather small. Therefore, the typical silicate bands were weak and the measurement of the 20 $\mu$m band was not possible without having a very low signal to noise ratio.
In each experiment, after annealing and complete evaporation of the Ne atoms, the species constituting the background gas have deposited on the still cold substrate giving various features. Figure~\ref{fig5} shows spectra obtained with the Mg$_2$SiO$_4$ target after evaporation of the Ne atoms and cooling to 6.5~K. Beside the absorption bands due to CO, CO$_2$, and H$_2$O, a feature is seen near 1000~cm$^{-1}$, which we attribute to a solid condensate. The profile of this band is likely affected by the presence of the broad water ice feature that peaks near 780~cm$^{-1}$.\cite{Oeberg07} After warming to room temperature, the absorption band attributed to the condensate shows an asymmetric profile, which is steeper on the higher frequency side. The maximum of the band is located at $\sim$1020~cm$^{-1}$ (9.8~$\mu$m).
Working with the Mg$_{0.4}$Fe$_{0.6}$SiO$_3$ target, we did not observe immediately the expected IR absorption near 1000~cm$^{-1}$, neither at low nor at room temperature. Nonetheless, after the experiment, a solid deposit on the substrate has been detected that has been measured using a clean KBr substrate as reference. A distinct band was observed near 1000~cm$^{-1}$ clearly pointing to the formation of a silicate material. This finding is certainly caused by small problems with the reference measurements of pure KBr during the cooling and warming up phase. Previous temperature-dependent IR measurements of low-temperature SiO$_x$ condensates revealed the formation of the solid phase already at about 10 K.\citep{Rouille14} Similarly, the magnesium silicate condensate shown in Fig.~\ref{fig5} has either been formed at low temperature (13 K). Therefore, we act on the assumption that the solid condensate was already formed at low temperature.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=6cm]{fig5.eps}
\caption{Infrared spectra of the condensate obtained with the Mg$_2$SiO$_4$ target. (Top) Spectrum measured at 6.5~K after warming to 13~K. (Bottom) Spectrum measured at room temperature.}
\label{fig5}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig6} shows IR spectra of final condensates obtained by evaporation of a Mg$_2$SiO$_4$ and a Mg$_{0.4}$Fe$_{0.6}$SiO$_3$ target, respectively. Both spectra were taken at room temperature. A small shift of the 10 $\mu$m band is observed. The bands have their maximum at $\sim$990~cm$^{-1}$ (10.1~$\mu$m) and $\sim$1020~cm$^{-1}$ (9.8~$\mu$m), respectively. A lower polymerization degree in the condensate produced from a pyroxene-like target (Mg$_{0.4}$Fe$_{0.6}$SiO$_3$) should give a band that is shifted to smaller wavelengths compared to those produced from the olivine target (Mg$_2$SiO$_4$). The comparison of the bands show that both condensates have to have similar stoichiometry. This has been confirmed by EDX analysis (see Table\ref{tbl:comp}).
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=6cm]{fig6.eps}
\caption{Infrared spectra of the final condensates obtained by laser-vaporization of amorphous Mg$_{0.4}$Fe$_{0.6}$SiO$_3$ and Mg$_2$SiO$_4$ targets measured at room temperature. The third spectrum shows the normalized silicate absorption feature toward WR 98a representing the local ISM.\cite{Chiar06} The spectra are vertically shifted for clarity.}
\label{fig6}
\end{figure}
In addition, the final condensates were studied in the high-resolution transmission electron microscope (HRTEM). HRTEM micrographs of the magnesium iron silicate condensed at low temperatures show fluffy aggregates that are composed of nanometer-sized grains. The sizes of individual primary grains vary between 3 and 15~nm. The internal grain structure is found to be completely amorphous and the final condensate shows a clear homogeneity in structure and composition (see Fig.~\ref{fig7}). No hints at phase separations of the MgFe-silicate into individual oxides such as FeO, MgO, and/or SiO$_2$ can be observed. The morphology and structure of the grains is very similar to the low-temperature condensate produced from SiO molecules.\cite{Krasnokutski14} In addition, very similar results have been obtained for the pure magnesium silicate prepared by laser ablation from a target with the composition Mg$_2$SiO$_4$. The formed fluffy aggregates are composed of small primary particles with completely amorphous structure.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=6cm]{fig7.eps}
\caption{HRTEM image of the final condensate prepared from the evaporation and recondensation of a magnesium iron silicate at low temperatures. The left image shows an overview of a big cluster. The right image presents a direct view insight the amorphous grains. Please note the irregular structure of the interior of the grains.}
\label{fig7}
\end{figure}
The analytical characterization was complemented by the energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX). The method allows the determination of the final composition of the silicate material. The analysis revealed an iron-rich magnesium silicate for the condensate produced from the Mg$_{0.4}$Fe$_{0.6}$SiO$_3$ target. The composition is given in Table~\ref{tbl:comp}. Compared to the composition of the target, the material became poor in magnesium. This is probably due to a selective evaporation process. In an amorphous Mg$_{0.4}$Fe$_{0.6}$SiO$_3$ silicate, the MgO represents the most heat-resistant component of the silicate. The composition of the final condensate produced from the Mg$_2$SiO$_4$ target is also shown in Table~\ref{tbl:comp}. Compared to the target, the condensate is depleted in Mg and shows a pyroxene stoichiometry.
\begin{table}[h]
\small
\centering
\caption{~Composition of the condensed silicates by EDX analysis.}
\label{tbl:comp}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l}
\hline
Condensate & At\% Mg & At\% Fe & At\% Si & At\% O \\
\hline
MgFe-silicate & 4.9 & 15.8 & 17.3 & 62.0 \\
Mg-silicate & 20.8 & - & 20.9 & 58.3 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\section{Astrophysical Discussion}
In the ISM, gaseous species may accrete on cold surfaces of pre-existing small particles. The repeated erosion of silicate stardust in SN-induced shock waves is the source of these gaseous species in the ISM. To simulate such processes in the laboratory, we have evaporated silicate dust analogs that has been produced by melting and quenching. These materials have successfully been used to model spectral energy distributions of many astrophysical sources.\cite{Gielen11,Min07,Molster02} The applied material represents a realistic source for the release of astrophysically relevant gaseous species.
The isolation of the evaporated species in condensed rare gases cools them down before they can interact among each other. This step is necessary as laser-vaporized molecules are hot and their internal energy may affect the chemistry of accretion. The analytical characterization of the species released from silicates and finally embedded in the Ne matrix has shown that beside SiO mainly Mg, Fe, and small molecules such as O$_3$, O$_4^+$, SiO$_2$, SiO$_3$, FeO, and FeO$_2$ are precursors of the silicates. It is their accretion that resulted in the formation of silicate grains. While SiO and FeO have been discovered in the ISM,\cite{Wilson71,Walmsley02,Furuya03} the other molecules have not been reported. A model for the chemistry of silicon in dense interstellar clouds includes SiO$_2$ in its network.\cite{Herbst89} The production of SiO by interstellar shocks in molecular outflows predicts the presence of SiO$_2$.\cite{Schilke97}
The condensation of pure silicon monoxide and of more complex silicates with olivine and pyroxene composition by accretion of molecules and atoms on cold surfaces and subsequent reactions between them at temperatures between 10 and 20~K has been proven experimentally. The grains were formed by reactions of the embedded molecules during the annealing (10--12~K) and evaporation of the Ne matrix (13~K). The applied conditions are comparable to those prevailing in molecular clouds. The final condensates are fluffy aggregates consisting of small nanometer-sized primary grains. All low-temperature silicates possess amorphous structures and form fluffy aggregates.
The dust condensation at low temperature and low density in the ISM is a process that is discussed to be necessary to keep the balance between dust destruction and formation. So far, there is no exact description where the cold condensation process may take place. Turbulence in the ISM can quickly distribute the refractory elements such as Mg, Si, and other species produced in SN shocks into the surrounding medium. In SN ejecta synthesized materials are mixed by turbulence with the surrounding ISM on a time scale of 100~Myr.\cite{Oey03} One can assume a similar time scale for the mixing of elements liberated from destroyed grains. The process of cold condensation may already be active in diffuse clouds with low temperature and in low-density regions of molecular clouds. In molecular cloud environments with maximum density, where many non-refractory and refractory species and elements may accrete simultaneously on the grains, very complex ices should be formed. There are two competitive processes influencing the growth of the solid layer which is the desorption and the sticking. The desorption process is strongly determined by the bonding energy between the species and the surface. According to Draine,\cite{Draine09} for binding energies of 0.1~eV, the lifetime is about 5$\times$10$^5$~yr. Accreted species that may form strong bonds, which are typical for refractory solids, may grow very fast and remain on the surface for a long time. Diffusion and desorption processes on grain surfaces may finally trigger the formation of more stable siliceous and carbonaceous solids in addition to less stable complex ices. Furthermore, the interstellar UV field and UV photons from young stars inside the clouds, and cosmic rays can penetrate the interior of such MCs and trigger reactions between accreted molecules and clusters.
Selection processes that may lead to the formation of spatially separated interstellar dust components have to be addressed in upcoming experimental studies.
The condensation of species produced by laser vaporization of silicates has already been studied, albeit under different conditions. The vaporized species condensed in the gas phase in a quenching gas atmosphere at high temperatures.\cite{Stephens79,Stephens95,Brucato99,Brucato02,Jaeger08,Sabri14} The particles formed in this process were deposited on various substrates before being investigated. The structure and general morphology of the high-temperature and low-temperature siliceous condensates turned out to be remarkably similar. Both are characterized by amorphous structures. In addition, both types of condensates show very similar spectral properties well comparable to the 10 $\mu$m profile of the observed interstellar silicates. So far, distinct structural and spectral differences between high- and low-temperature condensates cannot be observed.
\section{Conclusions}
The condensation of complex silicates with pyroxene composition at temperatures between 10 and 20~K by accretion of molecules and atoms on cold surfaces and subsequent reactions between them has been proven experimentally. The experiments clearly demonstrate an efficient silicate formation at low temperatures. The final condensates are fluffy aggregates consisting of small nanometer-sized primary grains. All low-temperature silicates condense in amorphous form and they were found to be homogeneous in structure and composition. To study the gaseous precursors of such condensation processes that can be formed by erosion of dust grains in SN schock waves, we have evaporated glassy silicate materials with a pulsed Nd:YAG laser. The liberated gaseous species were embedded in solid neon matrices that has been studied by spectroscopy in the UV/VIS and IR range. The IR spectral properties of low-temperature siliceous condensates do not much differ from silicates produced in high-temperature condensation processes. A sound coincidence between the 10~$\mu$m band of the interstellar silicates measured by Chiar \& Tielens\cite{Chiar06} and the 10~$\mu$m band of the low-temperature siliceous condensate can be noted.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The authors acknowledge the support of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft through project No. He 1935/26-1 within the framework of the Priority Program 1573 "Physics of the Insterstellar Medium". M. K. is grateful for the award of an E\"otv\"os Scholarship of the Hungarian State.
\footnotesize{
\providecommand*{\mcitethebibliography}{\thebibliography}
\csname @ifundefined\endcsname{endmcitethebibliography}
{\let\endmcitethebibliography\endthebibliography}{}
\begin{mcitethebibliography}{41}
\providecommand*{\natexlab}[1]{#1}
\providecommand*{\mciteSetBstSublistMode}[1]{}
\providecommand*{\mciteSetBstMaxWidthForm}[2]{}
\providecommand*{\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue}
{\def\unskip.}{\unskip.}}
\providecommand*{\mciteBstWouldAddEndPunctfalse}
{\let\unskip.}\relax}
\providecommand*{\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct}[3]{}
\providecommand*{\mciteSetBstSublistLabelBeginEnd}[3]{}
\providecommand*{\unskip.}}{}
\mciteSetBstSublistMode{f}
\mciteSetBstMaxWidthForm{subitem}
{(\emph{\alph{mcitesubitemcount}})}
\mciteSetBstSublistLabelBeginEnd{\mcitemaxwidthsubitemform\space}
{\relax}{\relax}
\bibitem[{Zhukovska} \emph{et~al.}(2008){Zhukovska}, {Gail}, and
{Trieloff}]{Zhukovska08}
S.~{Zhukovska}, H.-P. {Gail} and M.~{Trieloff}, \emph{{A}stron. {A}strophys.},
2008, \textbf{479}, 453--480\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[{Draine}(2009)]{Draine09}
B.~T. {Draine}, Cosmic Dust - Near and Far, 2009, p. 453\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[{Jones} and {Nuth}(2011)]{Jones10}
A.~P. {Jones} and J.~A. {Nuth}, \emph{{A}stron. {A}strophys}, 2011,
\textbf{530}, A44\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Krasnokutski \emph{et~al.}(2014)Krasnokutski, Rouill\'e, J\"ager,
Huisken, Zhukovska, and Henning]{Krasnokutski14}
S.~A. Krasnokutski, G.~Rouill\'e, C.~J\"ager, F.~Huisken, S.~Zhukovska and
T.~Henning, \emph{{A}strophys. {J}.}, 2014, \textbf{782}, 15\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[{Dorschner} \emph{et~al.}(1995){Dorschner}, {Begemann}, {Henning},
{Jaeger}, and {Mutschke}]{Dorschner95}
J.~{Dorschner}, B.~{Begemann}, T.~{Henning}, C.~{Jaeger} and H.~{Mutschke},
\emph{{A}stron. {A}strophys.}, 1995, \textbf{300}, 503\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Dubost(1976)]{Dubost76}
H.~Dubost, \emph{{C}hem. {P}hys.}, 1976, \textbf{12}, 139--151\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Wan \emph{et~al.}(2009)Wan, Wu, Liu, and Hu]{Wan09}
L.~Wan, L.~Wu, A.-W. Liu and S.-M. Hu, \emph{{J}. {M}ol. {S}pectrosc.}, 2009,
\textbf{257}, 217--219\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Forney \emph{et~al.}(1993)Forney, Jacox, and Thompson]{Forney93}
D.~Forney, M.~E. Jacox and W.~E. Thompson, \emph{{J}. {M}ol. {S}pectrosc.},
1993, \textbf{157}, 479--493\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Kramida \emph{et~al.}(2013)Kramida, {Yu. Ralchenko}, Reader, and {NIST
ASD Team}]{NIST_ASD}
A.~Kramida, {Yu. Ralchenko}, J.~Reader and {NIST ASD Team}, {NIST Atomic
Spectra Database (ver. 5.1), [Online]. Available:
{\tt{http://physics.nist.gov/asd}} [2014, February 7]. National Institute of
Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.}, 2013\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[McCaffrey and Ozin(1988)]{McCaffrey88}
J.~G. McCaffrey and G.~A. Ozin, \emph{{J}. {C}hem. {P}hys.}, 1988, \textbf{88},
2962--2971\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Healy \emph{et~al.}(2012)Healy, Kerins, and McCaffrey]{Healy12}
B.~Healy, P.~Kerins and J.~G. McCaffrey, \emph{{L}ow {T}emp. {P}hys.}, 2012,
\textbf{38}, 679--687\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Hormes \emph{et~al.}(1983)Hormes, Sauer, and Scullman]{Hormes83}
J.~Hormes, M.~Sauer and R.~Scullman, \emph{{J}. {M}ol. {S}pectrosc.}, 1983,
\textbf{98}, 1--19\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Brosset \emph{et~al.}(1993)Brosset, Dahoo, Gauthier-Roy,
Abouaf-Marguin, and Lakhlifi]{Brosset93}
P.~Brosset, R.~Dahoo, B.~Gauthier-Roy, L.~Abouaf-Marguin and A.~Lakhlifi,
\emph{{C}hem. {P}hys.}, 1993, \textbf{172}, 315--324\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Jaye \emph{et~al.}(1998)Jaye, Laasch, and G\"utler]{Jaye98}
A.~Jaye, W.~Laasch and P.~G\"utler, {Investigations of the Hartley band of
ozone isolated in rare gas matrices, in DESY Photon Science HASYLAB Annual
Report, Part 1, Contribution 21-241}, 1998\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Thompson and Jacox(1989)]{Thompson89}
W.~E. Thompson and M.~E. Jacox, \emph{{J}. {C}hem. {P}hys.}, 1989, \textbf{91},
3826--3837\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Jacox and Thompson(1994)]{Jacox94}
M.~E. Jacox and W.~E. Thompson, \emph{{J}. {C}hem. {P}hys.}, 1994,
\textbf{100}, 750--751\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Jacox and Thompson(2013)]{Jacox13}
M.~E. Jacox and W.~E. Thompson, \emph{{J}. {C}hem. {P}ys. {A}}, 2013,
\textbf{117}, 9380--9390\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Khanna \emph{et~al.}(1981)Khanna, Stranz, and Donn]{Khanna81}
R.~K. Khanna, D.~D. Stranz and B.~Donn, \emph{{J}. {C}hem. {P}hys.}, 1981,
\textbf{74}, 2108--2115\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Rouill\'e \emph{et~al.}(2014)Rouill\'e, Krasnokutski, Krebsz, J\"ager,
Huisken, and Henning]{Rouille14}
G.~Rouill\'e, S.~A. Krasnokutski, M.~Krebsz, C.~J\"ager, F.~Huisken and
T.~Henning, submitted for publication in the proceedings of "The Life Cycle
of Dust in the Universe: Observations, Theory, and Laboratory Experiments",
Taipei, Taiwan, 2013., 2014\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Hastie \emph{et~al.}(1969)Hastie, Hauge, and Margrave]{Hastie69}
J.~W. Hastie, R.~H. Hauge and J.~L. Margrave, \emph{{I}norg. {C}him. {A}cta},
1969, \textbf{3}, 601--606\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Andrews \emph{et~al.}(1978)Andrews, Prochaska, and Ault]{Andrews78}
L.~Andrews, E.~S. Prochaska and B.~S. Ault, \emph{{J}. {C}hem. {P}hys.}, 1978,
\textbf{69}, 556--563\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Tremblay \emph{et~al.}(1996)Tremblay, Roy, Manceron, Alikhani, and
Roy]{Tremblay96}
B.~Tremblay, P.~Roy, L.~Manceron, M.~E. Alikhani and D.~Roy, \emph{{J}. {C}hem.
{P}hys.}, 1996, \textbf{104}, 2773--2781\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Green \emph{et~al.}(1979)Green, Reedy, and Kay]{Green79}
D.~W. Green, G.~T. Reedy and J.~G. Kay, \emph{{J}. {M}ol. {S}pectrosc.}, 1979,
\textbf{78}, 257--266\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Chertihin \emph{et~al.}(1996)Chertihin, Saffel, Yustein, Andrews,
Neurock, Ricca, and Bauschlicher]{Chertihin96}
G.~V. Chertihin, W.~Saffel, J.~T. Yustein, L.~Andrews, M.~Neurock, A.~Ricca and
C.~W. Bauschlicher, \emph{{J}. {P}hys. {C}hem.}, 1996, \textbf{100},
5261--5273\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[\"Oberg \emph{et~al.}(2007)\"Oberg, Fraser, Boogert, Bisschop, Fuchs,
van Dishoeck, and Linnartz]{Oeberg07}
K.~I. \"Oberg, H.~J. Fraser, A.~C.~A. Boogert, S.~E. Bisschop, G.~W. Fuchs,
E.~F. van Dishoeck and H.~Linnartz, \emph{{A}stron. {A}strophys.}, 2007,
\textbf{462}, 1187--1198\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[{Chiar} and {Tielens}(2006)]{Chiar06}
J.~E. {Chiar} and A.~G.~G.~M. {Tielens}, \emph{{A}strophys. {J}.}, 2006,
\textbf{637}, 774--785\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[{Gielen} \emph{et~al.}(2011){Gielen}, {Bouwman}, {van Winckel}, {Lloyd
Evans}, {Woods}, {Kemper}, {Marengo}, {Meixner}, {Sloan}, and
{Tielens}]{Gielen11}
C.~{Gielen}, J.~{Bouwman}, H.~{van Winckel}, T.~{Lloyd Evans}, P.~M. {Woods},
F.~{Kemper}, M.~{Marengo}, M.~{Meixner}, G.~C. {Sloan} and A.~G.~G.~M.
{Tielens}, \emph{{A}stron. {A}strophys.}, 2011, \textbf{533}, A99\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[{Min} \emph{et~al.}(2007){Min}, {Waters}, {de Koter}, {Hovenier},
{Keller}, and {Markwick-Kemper}]{Min07}
M.~{Min}, L.~B.~F.~M. {Waters}, A.~{de Koter}, J.~W. {Hovenier}, L.~P. {Keller}
and F.~{Markwick-Kemper}, \emph{{A}stron. {A}strophys.}, 2007, \textbf{462},
667--676\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[{Molster} \emph{et~al.}(2002){Molster}, {Waters}, and
{Tielens}]{Molster02}
F.~J. {Molster}, L.~B.~F.~M. {Waters} and A.~G.~G.~M. {Tielens},
\emph{{A}stron. {A}strophys.}, 2002, \textbf{382}, 222--240\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Wilson \emph{et~al.}(1971)Wilson, Penzias, Jefferts, Kutner, and
Thaddeus]{Wilson71}
R.~W. Wilson, A.~A. Penzias, K.~B. Jefferts, M.~Kutner and P.~Thaddeus,
\emph{{A}strophys. {J}.}, 1971, \textbf{167}, L97--L100\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Walmsley \emph{et~al.}(2002)Walmsley, Bachiller, des For{\^e}ts, and
Schilke]{Walmsley02}
C.~M. Walmsley, R.~Bachiller, G.~P. des For{\^e}ts and P.~Schilke,
\emph{{A}strophys. {J}.}, 2002, \textbf{556}, L109--L112\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Furuya \emph{et~al.}(2003)Furuya, Walmsley, Nakanishi, Schilke, and
Bachiller]{Furuya03}
R.~S. Furuya, C.~M. Walmsley, K.~Nakanishi, P.~Schilke and R.~Bachiller,
\emph{{A}stron. {A}strophys.}, 2003, \textbf{409}, L21--L24\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Herbst \emph{et~al.}(1989)Herbst, Millar, Wlodek, and Bohme]{Herbst89}
E.~Herbst, T.~J. Millar, S.~Wlodek and D.~K. Bohme, \emph{{A}stron.
{A}strophys.}, 1989, \textbf{222}, 205--210\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Schilke \emph{et~al.}(1997)Schilke, Walmsley, des For{\^e}ts, and
Flower]{Schilke97}
P.~Schilke, C.~M. Walmsley, G.~P. des For{\^e}ts and D.~R. Flower,
\emph{{A}stron. {A}strophys.}, 1997, \textbf{321}, 293--304\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[{Oey}(2003)]{Oey03}
M.~S. {Oey}, A Massive Star Odyssey: From Main Sequence to Supernova, 2003, p.
620\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Stephens and Russell(1979)]{Stephens79}
J.~R. Stephens and R.~W. Russell, \emph{{A}strophys. {J}.}, 1979, \textbf{228},
780--786\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Stephens \emph{et~al.}(1995)Stephens, Blanco, Bussoletti, Colangeli,
Fonti, Mennella, and Orofino]{Stephens95}
J.~R. Stephens, A.~Blanco, E.~Bussoletti, L.~Colangeli, S.~Fonti, V.~Mennella
and V.~Orofino, \emph{{P}lanet. {S}pace {S}ci.}, 1995, \textbf{43},
1241--1246\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Brucato \emph{et~al.}(1999)Brucato, Colangeli, Mennella, Palumbo, and
Bussoletti]{Brucato99}
J.~R. Brucato, L.~Colangeli, V.~Mennella, P.~Palumbo and E.~Bussoletti,
\emph{{A}stron. {A}strophys.}, 1999, \textbf{348}, 1012--1019\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Brucato \emph{et~al.}(2002)Brucato, Mennella, Colangeli, Rotundi, and
Palumbo]{Brucato02}
J.~R. Brucato, V.~Mennella, L.~Colangeli, A.~Rotundi and P.~Palumbo,
\emph{{P}lanet. {S}pace {S}ci.}, 2002, \textbf{50}, 829--837\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[{J{\"a}ger} \emph{et~al.}(2009){J{\"a}ger}, {Mutschke}, {Henning}, and
{Huisken}]{Jaeger08}
C.~{J{\"a}ger}, H.~{Mutschke}, T.~{Henning} and F.~{Huisken}, Cosmic Dust -
Near and Far, 2009, p. 319\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[{Sabri} \emph{et~al.}(2014){Sabri}, {Gavilan}, {J{\"a}ger}, {Lemaire},
{Vidali}, {Mutschke}, and {Henning}]{Sabri14}
T.~{Sabri}, L.~{Gavilan}, C.~{J{\"a}ger}, J.~L. {Lemaire}, G.~{Vidali},
H.~{Mutschke} and T.~{Henning}, \emph{{A}strophys. {J}.}, 2014, \textbf{780},
180\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\end{mcitethebibliography}
}
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}
Since the emergence of Quantum Mechanics (QM), much effort was put into finding relativistic wave equations that would govern the dynamics of mechanical systems. Schr\"odinger and then Klein and Gordon formulated a second-order wave equation, but at that time it seemed that the nature of the latter violated some fundamental properties of mechanical systems: the Klein-Gordon wave admitted a positive and a negative energy solution. British physicist Paul A.M. Dirac believed that the issue relied on the second-order nature of the differential equation. He therefore sought a first-order differential equation that respected the relativity principle. His theory was formulated in 1928 and the Dirac equation was later shown to describe relativistic spin $1/2$ particles: fermions. This was followed by the development of Quantum Electrodynamics (QED), the relativistic quantum theory of light and matter interactions which was then generalised into Yang-Mills (YM) theory, the theory of non-abelian $SU(n)$ gauge fields. This summarises the success of particle physics in the last century, success that culminated with the edification of the Standard Model (SM) of particle physics.
Yet something can be seen as puzzling. Indeed, one of Dirac's reasons to seek a first-order differential equation was the misinterpretation of the negative energy solutions. However immediately after the discovery of his equation, it became clear that Nature admitted particles and antiparticles (positive and negative energy solutions). Nonetheless, fermions remained the only dynamical system that only admitted a first-order description. Indeed, both General Relativity and Yang-Mills theory admit a first- and second-order formulation \cite{Deser:1987uk,Martellini:1997mu}. As for fermions, because their equation is derived from the relativity principle, it also satisfies the Klein-Gordon equation; its Lagrangian is, however, first order in derivatives. Hence, it is natural to ask whether a (fully) second-order formulation of fermions that contains all the information of the original one is possible.
\\
Let us make the last argument more precise. A Dirac spinor can be written as the sum of two unitary infinite dimensional representations of the Lorentz group $SO(3,1)$ (or its double cover $SL(2,\mathbb{C})$):
\begin{equation}
\Psi_D \in \left(1/2,0 \right) \oplus \left( 0,1/2 \right)
\end{equation}
which we call left-(unprimed) and right-handed (primed) respectively. The Dirac equation is then derived from the Dirac Lagrangian, here in $3+1$ dimensions with the metric $\eta_{\mu\nu}=(-,+,+,+)$:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_D= \bar\Psi_D \left(-i\slashed \partial - m\right)\Psi_D\label{dirac}
\end{equation}
with $\slashed \partial = \gamma^\mu \partial_\mu$ and we have the algebra of (Dirac) gamma matrices:
\begin{align}
\{ \gamma^\mu, \gamma^\nu \}= -2\eta^{\mu\nu}, \quad \left( \gamma^\mu\right)^\dagger=\gamma^0 \gamma^\mu \gamma^0, \quad \gamma_5 = i\gamma^0\gamma^1\gamma^2\gamma^3,\quad \left( \gamma_5\right)^\dagger=\gamma_5
\end{align}
This Lagrangian generalises in a straightforward way so as to include the interaction of fermions and photons. We see that the Dirac equation
\begin{equation}
\left(-i\slashed \partial - m\right)\Psi_D=0
\end{equation}
relates spinors of one chirality to the other through the off-diagonal entries of the Dirac matrices\footnote{In the case of Majorana fermions the spinor is linked to its hermitian conjugate through the Dirac equation.}. This is heuristically why a second order Lagrangian of the type
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_D ~\stackrel{?}{=} ~ \bar\Psi_D \left(-\square +m^2\right)\Psi_D
\end{equation}
does not work since the Klein-Gordon operator is diagonal and hence we lose information contained in the Dirac equation.
A lot of insight can be gained on the issue when one expresses all the quantities in terms of two-component spinors (see for example \cite{Dreiner:2008tw}). In this paper, we will construct the simplest second-order spinor field theories; those of a (Weyl-)Majorana and of a Dirac fermion. Then, we will apply the same construction to the Standard Model. Finally, we will shortly discuss Perturbation Theory and Unitarity in this framework.
\section{Second-order (Weyl-)Majorana and Dirac fermions}
We start by considering the much simpler setup of a single (Weyl-)Majorana spinor and then repeat the procedure for a Dirac spinor.
\subsection{First-order Lagrangian}
The Lagrangian for a single Majorana fermion reads:
\be\label{weyl-massless}
{\cal L}_{\text{Maj}}= -i\sqrt{2} \lambda^\dagger \partial \lambda- (m/2)\lambda\lambda - (m/2)\lambda^\dagger\lambda^\dagger
\ee
Here $\lambda_A$ is a two-component spinor, $\lambda_A^{\dagger}$ is its Hermitian conjugate and $\theta_\mu^{A'A}$ is the soldering form
\be
\theta^A_{\mu A'} \theta_{\nu A}{}^{A'} = \eta_{\mu\nu}
\ee
where $\eta_{\mu\nu}={\rm diag}(-1,1,1,1)$. We have also introduced the notation $\partial^{AA'} := \theta^{\mu\,AA'} \partial_\mu$ and written the Lagrangian in an index-free way. Our index-free convention is that the unprimed fermions are always contracted as $\lambda\chi\equiv \lambda^A \chi_A$, while the primed fermions are contracted in the opposite way $\lambda^\dagger \chi^\dagger\equiv (\lambda^\dagger)_{A'}(\chi^\dagger)^{A'}$.
\subsection{Equations of motion and second-order theory}
The (first-order) equations of motion for the unprimed spinor are:
\begin{align}
-i\sqrt{2}\partial \lambda -m \lambda^\dagger =0
\end{align}
The second-order formulation can then be obtained by carrying out the Berezin path integral over the primed spinors (which are treated as independent variables), which effectively amounts to substituting the above equation of motion in the Lagrangian. Then we have:
\begin{align}
\label{weyl-massless2}
{\cal L}_{\text{Maj}}= -\frac{1}{m} \partial \lambda\partial \lambda- (m/2)\lambda\lambda
\end{align}
which is equivalent, after an appropriate rescaling of the fields to:
\begin{align}
{\cal L}_{\text{Maj}}= -\partial \lambda\partial \lambda- (m^2/2)\lambda\lambda
\end{align}
The second-order Weyl theory is then simply obtained from the massless limit (after the path integral of the primed spinors has been solved):
\begin{align}
{\cal L}_{\text{Weyl}}= -\partial \lambda\partial \lambda
\end{align}
\subsection{Dirac fermions}
In order to describe Dirac fermions, we consider two massive Majorana fermions of equal mass. The system is then invariant under and internal ${\rm SO}(2)$ symmetry. Since ${\rm SO}(2)\sim {\rm U}(1)$, we can introduce a complex linear combination of the spinors and make the second symmetry explicit. It can then be made local by introducing a ${\rm U}(1)$ gauge field and by minimally coupling the fermions. Thus, we define
\be\label{cov-ders}
D \xi = (\partial - i e A)\xi, \qquad
D\chi = (\partial + i e A)\chi,
\ee
where $A^{AA'}= \theta^{\mu\,AA'}A_\mu$ is the electromagnetic potential and $e$ is the electron charge. The gauge transformation rules are: for the fermions $\xi\to e^{i\alpha} \xi, \chi\to e^{-i\alpha}\chi$, and for the electromagnetic potential $A_\mu\to A_\mu-(1/e) \partial_\mu \alpha$. The Lagrangian becomes
\be\label{dirac-a}
{\cal L}_{\text{Dirac}}=- i \sqrt{2} \xi^\dagger D \xi-i \sqrt{2} \chi^\dagger D \chi - m\chi\xi -m\xi^\dagger \chi^\dagger,
\ee
where as before $D:=\theta^\mu D_\mu$. In order to obtain the second-order Lagrangian, the same procedure is applied to both primed spinors, and we obtain
\be\label{eqs-dirac}
{\cal L}_{\text{Dirac}} = - 2 D \chi D \xi - m^2 \chi \xi,\quad \xi^\dagger = -\frac{i\sqrt{2}}{m} D \chi, \qquad \chi^\dagger = -\frac{i\sqrt{2}}{m} D \xi.
\ee
\section{Short review of the Standard-Model}
For simplicity, we only consider the quark sector of the SM, for the complete picture, we refer the reader to \cite{Espin:2013wia}.
\subsection{Standard Model quarks}
The SM quarks can be put together in the following table
\bigskip
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c}
$(1/2,0)$ reps & $SU(3)$ & $SU(2)$ & $Y$ & $T_3$ & $Q=T_3+Y$ \\
\hline
$Q_i = \left(\begin{array}{c} u_i \\ d_i \end{array} \right)$ & $\begin{array}{c} {\rm triplet} \\ {\rm triplet} \end{array}$ & doublet & $\begin{array}{c} 1/6 \\ 1/6\end{array}$ & $\begin{array}{c} 1/2 \\ -1/2\end{array}$ & $\begin{array}{c} 2/3 \\ -1/3\end{array}$ \\
$\bar{u}_i$ & triplet & singlet & $-2/3$ & 0 & $-2/3$ \\
$\bar{d}_i$ & triplet & singlet & $1/3$ & 0 & $1/3$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\bigskip
All quarks here are unprimed two-component spinors. Therefore, the Hermitian conjugate of $u_i$ is denoted by $u_i^\dagger$, and $\bar{u_i}$ is another independent unprimed spinor. Notice that each $SU(n)$ multiplet corresponds to a collection of unprimed spinors. Thus, $e.g.$ $u_i$, which is a color triplet, has two types of indices suppressed: the usual spinor index, as well as the strong ${ SU}(3)$ index. With the index structure made explicit, this field is denoted by $u_{i A}^\alpha$, where $A=1,2$ is the usual spinor index, and $\alpha=1,2,3$ is the index on which ${SU}(3)$ acts. Only the flavour index $i=1,2,3$ is left explicit in what follows.
\subsection{Higgs field}
This is the field that plays the central role in the the Standard Model. It is a complex scalar field of ${ U}(1)$ hypercharge charge $Y=1/2$. It is also a weak ${ SU}(2)$ doublet, $i.e.$ it can be written as a column
\bigskip
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c}
Higgs & $SU(3)$ & $SU(2)$ & $Y$ & $T_3$ & $Q=T_3+Y$ \\
\hline
$\phi = \left(\begin{array}{c} \phi^+ \\ \phi^0 \end{array} \right)$ & singlet & doublet & $\begin{array}{c} 1/2 \\ 1/2\end{array}$ & $\begin{array}{c} 1/2 \\ -1/2\end{array}$ & $\begin{array}{c} 1 \\ 0\end{array}$ \\
\end{tabular}
\bigskip
Note that being an ${SU}(2)$ doublet, it is really a collection of 2 complex scalar fields $\phi^+$ and $\phi^0$ (with $Q=0$). We shall denote the weak ${ SU}(2)$ index by $a, b, \ldots = 1,2$. Thus we can write the Higgs field as $\phi_a$, with $\phi_1=\phi^+$ and $\phi_2=\phi^0$.
\subsection{Quark sector of the Standard Model}
Using index-free notations, the Lagrangian for the quark sector of the Standard Model reads:
\begin{align}\begin{split}
\mathcal{L}_{quarks} = ~& -i\sqrt{2}Q^{\dagger i}{D} {Q_i} - i\sqrt{2}\bar u^{\dagger i}{D} \bar u_i- i\sqrt{2}\bar d^{\dagger i}{D} \bar d_i \\
&+ Y_u^{ij} \phi^T \varepsilon Q_i \bar u_j - Y_d^{ij} \phi^\dagger Q_i \bar d_j - (Y_u^\dagger)^{ij} \bar u_i^\dagger Q^\dagger_j\varepsilon \phi^* - (Y_d^\dagger)^{ij}\bar d_i ^\dagger Q_j ^\dagger\phi
\end{split}\label{Lferm}\end{align}
Here as before $D^{AA'} \equiv \theta^{\mu AA'}D_\mu$, where $D_\mu$ is the covariant derivative taht acts on each field according to its representation. The quantities $Y^{ij}$ are arbitrary complex $3\times 3$ Yukawa matrices. The quantity $\epsilon\equiv \epsilon_a{}^b$ is the matrix
\begin{align}
\epsilon_a{}^b=\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\-1 & 0 \end{array} \right).
\end{align}
which plays the role of a $SL(2,\mathbb{C})$ metric. Then the object $\phi^T \epsilon Q \equiv (\phi^T)^a \epsilon_a{}^b Q_a$ is invariant under the action of the latter via $Q\to gQ, \phi\to g\phi$ since $g^T \epsilon g=\epsilon$. In particular, $\phi^T \epsilon Q$ is ${SU}(2)$ invariant. It is then clear that all the interaction terms in (\ref{Lferm}) are ${SU}(2)$ invariant. The hypercharge invariance is easily checked using the charges tables.
\section{Second order formulation of the Standard Model}
\label{sec:SOL}
We now formalise the procedure of integrating out the primed two-component spinors from the significantly more involved quarks Lagrangian. The equations of motion for the unprimed spinors are:
\vspace{-25pt}
\begin{spacing}{2}
\begin{align}\begin{split}
\begin{array}{ccl}
Q_i^{\dagger}: & i\sqrt{2}D Q^i =& -\left( \epsilon\phi^*\right) \bar{u}^\dagger_j (Y_u^\dagger)^{ji}- \phi ~\bar{d}^\dagger_j (Y_d^\dagger)^{ji} \\
\bar u_i^{\dagger}: & i\sqrt{2}D\bar u^i =& - (Y_u^\dagger)^{ij}Q^\dagger_j\left( \epsilon\phi^*\right) \\
\bar{d} _i^\dagger: &i\sqrt{2} D\bar d^i =&- (Y_d^\dagger)^{ij}Q^\dagger_j~\phi \\
\end{array}\end{split}
\end{align}
\end{spacing}
Notice that some symmetry structure is making itself explicit in the equations of motion. Thus, let us combine the components of the Higgs field into the following $2\times 2$ matrix:
\begin{align}
\rho\Phi^\dagger \vcentcolon=\left( \epsilon\phi^*, \phi\right ) \equiv \left( \begin{array}{cc}
(\phi^0)^* & \phi^+ \\ - \phi^- & \phi^0\\
\end{array}\right).
\end{align}
Under the weak $SU(2)$ the matrix $\Phi^\dagger$ transforms as:
\begin{align}
\Phi^\dagger ~\mapsto~ \Omega\Phi^\dagger,
\end{align}
while the field $\rho$ remains invariant. It is clear that $\rho^2 \equiv |\phi |^2$ is just the modulus squared of the Higgs field.
In order to further simplify the equations of motion, a series of field redefinitions are needed, \cite{Espin:2013wia}. This leads to:
\vspace{-25pt}
\begin{spacing}{2}
\begin{align}\begin{split}
\begin{array}{ccl}
Q _i^\dagger: & i\sqrt{2}D Q_i =& -\rho~\Phi^\dagger \left( \bar{Q}^\dagger\Lambda\right)_i\\
\bar{Q} _i^\dagger: &i\sqrt{2} D\bar Q_i =&- \rho~ Q^\dagger_i \Phi^\dagger\\
\end{array}\end{split}
\end{align}
\end{spacing}
Here, the doublet $Q_i$ transforms under the weak ${SU}(2)$, and so does the Higgs matrix $\Phi^\dagger$, while $\bar{Q}_i$ does not transform. This suggests that we define new composite ${\rm SU}(2)$-invariant quark variables $\Phi Q_i$
\begin{align}\label{new-Q}
\Phi Q_i \vcentcolon= Q_i^{inv}.
\end{align}
This corresponds to a Higgs-field dependent ${ SU}(2)$ gauge transformation of the original quark doublet. As such, it can be pulled through the (gauge dependent) covariant derivative if one transforms the $SU(2)$ gauge fields accordingly. The new vector field so defined will be an ${ SU}(2)$-invariant object. Notice that the $SU(2)$ invariance does not disappear from the theory, it is simply ``frozen'' by the new set of variables that we chose as a convenient basis to work in. This change of variables for the gauge field is equivalent to working in the unitary gauge, but it should be stated that the second order formulation exists independently of the choice of variables. Keeping in mind this change in the derivative operator we can write the field equations as:
\vspace{-25pt}
\begin{spacing}{2}
\begin{align}\begin{split}
\begin{array}{|c|cl|}
\hline Q _i^\dagger: & i\sqrt{2}D Q_i =& -\rho~\left(\bar{Q}^\dagger \Lambda\right)_i \\
\bar{Q} _i^\dagger: &i\sqrt{2} D\bar Q_i =&- \rho~ Q^{\dagger}_i \\ \hline
\end{array}\end{split}\label{realquarks}
\end{align}
\end{spacing}
where from now on we drop the superscript $inv$ from the $Q_i$ as it is clear that we will be working with this set of variables exclusively. We see that the equations become much simpler than in terms of the original fields.
We now substitute the primed spinors obtained from the above field equations into the Lagrangian (\ref{Lferm}) and obtain the following second-order Lagrangian:
\begin{align}\label{L2-quarks}
\mathcal{L}_{quarks}= -\frac{2}{\rho}D\bar Q^i{D} {Q_i} - \rho \left( \Lambda \bar Q\right)^i Q_i ,
\end{align}
where it should be remembered that the covariant derivative acting on $Q_i$ in (\ref{L2-quarks}) takes into account the field redefinition (\ref{new-Q}).
Notice that this new second-order Lagrangian, even though it contains fewer terms that its first-order counterpart, is clearly non-polynomical in the (physical) Higgs scalar field $\rho$, because of the presence of $1/\rho$ in the kinetic term. In the case of Dirac theory (\ref{eqs-dirac}) a constant rescaling of the spinors was all that we needed to obtain a canonical kinetic term. The same procedure can be applied to (\ref{L2-quarks}). However, $\rho$ is now a dynamical field and thus, absorbing it into the fermion fields (again) changes the covariant derivative operators acting on both $\bar{Q}_i, Q_i$. Denoting the new covariant derivative by ${\mathcal D}$, we finally write:
\begin{align}\label{L2-quarks*}
\boxed{\mathcal{L}_{quarks} = -2\mathcal{D}\bar Q^i\mathcal{D} {Q_i} - \rho^2 \left(\Lambda \bar Q\right)^i Q_i }
\end{align}
where $1/\sqrt{\rho}$ was absorbed into each spinor field. The new covariant derivative $\mathcal{D}$ contains non-polynomial Higgs-quarks interactions as well as the physical $SU(2)$-frozen gauge fields when acting on the unbarred doublet. It is clear that interaction vertices with the Higgs can be of arbitrarily high valency (due to non-polynomiality in $\rho$).
The field equations (\ref{realquarks}) for the new fermionic fields of mass dimension one read
\be\label{quarks-RC}
i\sqrt{2}{\mathcal D} Q_i = -\rho~\left(\bar{Q}^\dagger \Lambda\right)_i , \qquad i\sqrt{2} {\mathcal D}\bar Q_i =- \rho~ Q^{\dagger}_i.
\ee
and are now interpreted as the reality conditions, whose linearised versions are to be imposed on the external lines.
\section{Perturbation theory and perturbative Unitarity}
We now discuss, in the framework of Dirac theory, how pertubation theory is modified but leads to the same results as in the first-order formalism, and also how Unitarity holds even though the Lagrangian is non-Hermitian. More details can be found in \cite{paperuni}.
\subsection{Feynman rules}
The propagator becomes very simple:
\begin{align}
\langle 0| T\{\chi_A(p)\xi_B(-p)\}|0 \rangle \equiv D(p)_{AB} = \frac{-i}{p^2+m^2}\epsilon_{AB}
\end{align}
It is nothing but a scalar-type propagator, the espilon tensor in the numerator being the identity over the space of unprimed spinors. The complexity of the Dirac propagator is now shifted to the vertices. We have two interaction vertices with Feynman rules (incoming momenta):
\begin{align}
2i e \left[k_C{}^{A'}\epsilon_{BA} + p_B{}^{A'}\epsilon_{CA} \right],\qquad -2ie^2 \epsilon^{A'B'}\epsilon_{AB}\epsilon_{CD}
\end{align}
Notice that the quartic vertex is simply the identity over both Minkowski spacetime and the space of unprimed spinors.
\vspace{-35pt}\begin{figure}[H]\begin{center}
\input{cubic.pdf_tex} \quad \input{quartic.pdf_tex}
\caption{Interaction vertices}
\end{center}\end{figure}
\subsection{Spin averaged probabilities}
When we sum (or average) over photon polarisation states, one can make use of the Ward identities to obtain:
\begin{align}
\sum_{\rm pol.}\epsilon_\mu\epsilon^*_\nu ~\rightarrow ~ \eta_{\mu\nu}
\end{align}
In our case, this will become:
\begin{align}
\sum_{\rm pol.}\epsilon_{AA'}\epsilon^*_{BB'} ~\rightarrow ~ -\epsilon_{AB}\epsilon_{A'B'}
\end{align}
As for the second-order fermions, we have:
\begin{align}
\epsilon_A^+\epsilon_{A'}^{*+}(k) + \epsilon_A^-\epsilon_{A'}^{*-}(k) = \sqrt{\frac{2}{m^2}}k_{AA'}
\end{align}
\subsection{$e^-\mu^- \rightarrow e^-\mu^-$ scattering}
Consider the simplest QED process: electron-muon scattering at tree level in the limit $m_e \ll m_\mu$, Fig.\ref{emuemu}.
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{emuemu.png}
\caption{$e^-\mu^- \rightarrow e^-\mu^-$}\label{emuemu}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Let us first compute the amputated amplitude $\mathcal{M}_{ABCD}$ for an incoming electron with momentum $k_1$ scattered off an incoming muon with momentum $p_1$. We have:
\begin{align}\begin{split}
\mathcal{M}_{ABCD}&= 4\frac{(ie)^2(-i)}{q^2}\left(k_{1A}{}^{E'}\epsilon_{DE}-k_{2D}{}^{E'}\epsilon_{AE}\right) \epsilon^{EF}\epsilon_{E'F'}\left(p_{1B}{}^{F'}\epsilon_{CF}-p_{2C}{}^{F'}\epsilon_{BF}\right)\\ &=- \frac{4ie^2}{q^2}\Big[\left(k_1\cdot p_1\right)_{AB}\epsilon_{CD} -\left(k_2\cdot p_1\right)_{DB}\epsilon_{AC} -\left(k_1\cdot p_2\right)_{AC}\epsilon_{BD} +\left(k_2\cdot p_2\right)_{CD}\epsilon_{AB} \Big]
\end{split}\end{align}
where we defined:
\begin{align}
(k\cdot p)_{AB} \vcentcolon= k_A{}^{C'}p_{BC'}
\end{align}
and $q^2=(k_1-k_2)^2=(p_1-p_2)^2 = t$. The complex conjugate amplitude is simply given by replacing every unprimed spinor by a primed one and every primed spinor by an unprimed one, so that:
\begin{align}
\mathcal{M}^*_{A'B'C'D'}=- \frac{4ie^2}{q^2}\Big[\left(k_1\cdot p_1\right)_{A'B'}\epsilon_{C'D'} -\left(k_2\cdot p_1\right)_{D'B'}\epsilon_{A'C'} -\left(k_1\cdot p_2\right)_{A'C'}\epsilon_{B'D'} +\left(k_2\cdot p_2\right)_{C'D'}\epsilon_{A'B'} \Big]\label{ampprime}
\end{align}
and we defined:
\begin{align}
(k\cdot p)_{A'B'} \vcentcolon= k_{A'C}p_{B}{}^{C}
\end{align}
The unpolarised cross-section is then obtained from:
\begin{align}\begin{split}
\overline{|\mathcal{M}|^2} &= \frac{1}{4}\sum_{\rm pol.} \mathcal{M}_{ABCD}\mathcal{M}^*_{A'B'C'D'}\epsilon^A\epsilon^{*A'}(k_1)\epsilon^B\epsilon^{*B'}(p_1)\epsilon^C\epsilon^{*C'}(p_2)\epsilon^D\epsilon^{*D'}(k_2) \\ &=\frac{1}{4} \mathcal{M}_{ABCD}\mathcal{M}^*_{A'B'C'D'}k_1^{AA'}p_1^{BB'}p_2^{CC'}k_2^{DD'}\frac{2}{m_e^2}\frac{2}{m_\mu^2}
\end{split}\end{align}
With a bit of algebra, it can be shown that the following equality holds:
\begin{align}
\mathcal{M}^*_{A'B'C'D'}k_1^{AA'}p_1^{BB'}p_2^{CC'}k_2^{DD'}\frac{2}{m_e^2}\frac{2}{m_\mu^2} = -\mathcal{M}^{ABCD}
\end{align}
So that:
\begin{align}\begin{split}
\overline{|\mathcal{M}|^2} &=- \frac{1}{4} \mathcal{M}_{ABCD}\mathcal{M}^{ABCD}
\end{split}\end{align}
In the above formula, we only need to compute three different expressions. Consider four momenta $k,~p,~q,~l$ describing massive particles. We have:
\begin{spacing}{1.5}
\begin{align}
(k\cdot p)_{AB}\epsilon_{CD} \left\lbrace \begin{array}{ll} (k\cdot p)^{AB}\epsilon^{CD} &= m_k^2 m_p^2 \\ (k\cdot q)^{AC}\epsilon^{BD} &= -\frac{1}{2}m_k^2 (p\cdot q) \\ (q\cdot l)^{CD}\epsilon^{AB} &= (k\cdot p)(q\cdot l) \end{array} \right.
\end{align}
\end{spacing}
where
\begin{align}
k\cdot p = k^{A}{}_{A'}p^{A'}{}_{A}= k_\mu p^\mu
\end{align}
Using this and neglecting terms proportional to the electron mass, we obtain:
\begin{align}
\overline{|\mathcal{M}|^2} &=\frac{8e^4}{q^4}\Big[(k_1\cdot p_1)(k_2\cdot p_2) + (k_1\cdot p_2)(k_2 \cdot p_1) + m_\mu^2 (k_1\cdot k_2) \Big]
\end{align}
which is the well know squared amplitude for the unpolarised process.
\subsection{One-loop charge renormalisation}
Let us now look at a simple one-loop example. Although there are half the number of fermions in our theory, fermions loops are equivalent in both formalisms. Indeed, let us look at the amplitude for the charge renormalisation in the second-order formalism:
\begin{align}\begin{split}
&i\Pi^{\rm 1-loop}(k)^{A'}{}_{A}{}^{B'}{}_{B} \\ &= (-1)4e^2 \int\frac{d^4 p}{(2\pi)^4}\frac{\left[ p^{A'}{}_{B}(p+k)^{B'}{}_{A} + (p+k)^{A'}{}_{B}p^{B'}{}_{A} - \frac{1}{2}\left( (p+k)^2+p^2\right) \epsilon^{A'B'}\epsilon_{AB} \right]}{\left[p^2+m^2 \right]\left[(p+k)^2+m^2 \right]}\\
&+ (-1)4e^2 \int\frac{d^4 p}{(2\pi)^4}\frac{\epsilon^{A'B'}\epsilon_{AB} }{\left[p^2+m^2 \right]}
\end{split}
\end{align}
where we left explicit the contributions from both diagrams.
\begin{figure}[H]\begin{center}
\input{charge_s4.pdf_tex}
\caption{One-loop photon two-point amplitude}\label{charge}
\end{center}\end{figure}
We can rearrange the latter to obtain:
\begin{align}\begin{split}
&i\Pi^{\rm 1-loop}(k)^{A'}{}_{A}{}^{B'}{}_{B}\\ &= (-1)4e^2 \int\frac{d^D p}{(2\pi)^D}\frac{\left[ p^{A'}{}_{B}(p+k)^{B'}{}_{A} + (p+k)^{A'}{}_{B}p^{B'}{}_{A} +m^2 \epsilon^{A'B'}\epsilon_{AB} \right]}{\left[p^2+m^2 \right]\left[(p+k)^2+m^2 \right]}
\end{split}
\end{align}
which is the usual tow-component version of the loop integral that has to be calculated in the first-order formalism.
\subsection{Remarks on perturbative Unitarity}
In quantum field theory, the S-matrix is generally written in the interaction picture:
\begin{align}
S= \mathcal{T}e^{i\int d^4x \mathcal{L}_{int}(x)}
\end{align}
where $\mathcal{T}$ denotes time-ordering. Taking matrix elements between physical states, Unitarity of the S-matrix reads:
\begin{align}
\langle f | i \rangle = \sum_{{\rm phys}~n} \langle f | S| n \rangle \langle n |S^\dagger | i \rangle = \sum_{{\rm phys}~n} \langle f | S^\dagger| n \rangle \langle n |S | i \rangle
\end{align}
where the sum runs only over physical intermediate states, which are eigenstates of the free Hamiltonian, $i.e.$ they correspond to on-shell particles. For perturbative computations, one splits the S-matrix into the identity plus a transition matrix $T$:
\begin{align}
S=1+iT
\end{align}
The Unitarity equation then reads:
\begin{align}
\langle f |(iT)| i \rangle +\langle f |(iT)^\dagger| i \rangle= -\sum_{{\rm phys}~n} \langle f | (iT)^\dagger| n \rangle \langle n |(iT)| i \rangle
\end{align}
This equation is generally proven in Perturbation Theory, order-by-order in the coupling constant appearing in the interactions, and diagram-by-diagram. Usually, this is shown to be true as a consequence of the Hermicity of the Lagrangian, however, in \cite{paperuni}, we show that this latter requirement is not necessary and we prove Unitarity of second-order QED at all orders. The proof relies on the existence of a non-trivial real-structure that involves a derivative operator: \be \dagger ~ \mapsto ~ \frac{i}{m} \mathcal{D}, \quad \left(\frac{i}{m} \mathcal{D}\right)^2 = I_V\ee
This is nothing but the first-order Dirac equation imposed on the physical states of the theory. Imposed linearly (without any coupling to the gauge fields) on the free theory, this leads to a positive definite Hamiltonian $H_0 \sim a^\dagger a$. While, imposed on the external states, they lead to a Unitary S-Matrix.
\section{Conclusion}
In this short note, we demonstrate that a second-order description of spinor fields is viable and that in many aspects, it is simpler than the usual first-order description. This new reformulation of the SM leads in particular to new insights on the available Unification patterns that could be allowed \cite{Espin:2013wia}. Furthermore, since the formalism involves only half the number of spinor fields and because the interaction vertices seen as matrices live in a much smaller space than their four-dimensional counterparts, the complexity of perturbative calculations is greatly decreased. It is also believed that for the purpose of lattice calculations, working with a scalar-type propagator could simplify the implementation of the theory.
Finally, it should be noted that the construction that is followed here intends to mimic the SM calculations, but it might be possible to take the second-order formulation as fundamental and try to implement modifications of the theory in the latter.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sect:introduction}
The internal kinematics of globular clusters hold the key to unlocking their mysteries. Different formation mechanisms and evolutionary paths leave unique imprints in their dynamical structures; using high-quality velocity data combined with detailed dynamical modelling, we can force clusters to yield up their secrets. Any such study hinges on the fact that stars trace the underlying potential in which they orbit and, so, are sensitive to mass both visible and invisible to our telescopes. From study of the motions of individual stars, we can piece together a coherent picture of the cluster as a whole.
Globular clusters are a common feature of massive galaxies, but they are also found associated with much smaller systems, such as dwarf galaxies. A number of clusters in the Milky Way \citep{bellazzini2003, martin2004, mackey2004, marinfranch2009} and nearby Andromeda \citep[M\,31,][]{mackey2010, mackey2013, huxor2014, veljanoski2014, mackey2014} are associated with tidal features, which suggests an extragalactic origin for those clusters, and it is likely that they formed in accreted dwarfs.
In fact, there is evidence that some globular clusters were not just formed in dwarf galaxies but are the stripped nuclei of dwarf galaxies that have been accreted by more massive hosts \citep[e.g.][]{freeman1993, meylan2001, bekki2003}. For example, globular cluster M\,54 (NGC\,6715) sits right at the heart of the Sagittarius (Sgr) dwarf spheroidal galaxy, though it shows clear kinematical differences from the coincident Sgr stars so it is believed to have formed in the halo of Sgr and sunk to the centre as a result of dynamical friction \citep{bellazzini2008, ibata2009}.
If this stripped-nucleus scenario is true, then theory predicts that globular clusters formed thus should still retain trace amounts of dark matter (although most will have been stripped away already), which would be readily detected in their kinematics. However, so far, dynamical studies suggest that globular-cluster dynamics can be entirely explained by accounting for the mass contained in stars \citep[e.g.][]{sollima2009, ibata2011}, and dark matter has yet to be definitively detected.
Some, though certainly not all, globular clusters are also suspected to harbour an intermediate-mass black hole (IMBH) at their centre, though results are conflicting. For example, \citet{noyola2008} and \citet{noyola2010} studied the centre of \wcen\ (NGC\,5139) using integral-field line-of-sight velocities and claimed to detect an IMBH of $\sim 4 \times 10^4$~\Msun; however \citet{vandermarel2010} performed a proper-motion study of the same region and ruled out such a massive black hole with high confidence. A more detailed study is ongoing (Watkins et al. in prep). Again, dynamical studies are key here as an IMBH will increase the velocity dispersion of nearby stars over what would be expected from the stars alone. However, it should be noted that mass segregation with no central IMBH will also increase the central velocity dispersion, as is likely the case for M15 \citep[e.g.][]{denbrok2014}. X-ray searches have so far been inconclusive; for example, \citet{haggard2013} failed to detect emission associated with an IMBH in \wcen, but this could imply either that there is no IMBH in \wcen\ or simply that accretion onto the IMBH is highly inefficient.
Stars in globular clusters undergo a series of two-body interactions; over time, the stars move towards a state of energy equipartition whereby all stars have the same kinetic energy. Recently, \citet{trenti2013} showed that clusters may never reach fully equipartition, but even partial equipartition will result in a system where the massive (bright) stars move more slowly than the less massive (faint) stars. Consequently, massive stars slowly sink towards the centre and less-massive stars tend to move outwards, a process known as mass segregation \citep{spitzer1969}. The resulting loss of kinetic energy from the core leads to gravothermal instability and, eventually, core collapse \citep[e.g.][]{lyndenbell1968}. A population of binaries (or even a single hard binary) near the cluster centre \citep{binney2008} or a central IMBH \citep{baumgardt2005} can halt core collapse as they act as an extra source of energy in the core.
Any kinematical analysis of a cluster will give us insight into its structure, formation and evolution, however proper motions have a number of advantages over line-of-sight velocities. Foremost, line-of-sight velocity measurements give us only one component of motion, so we are unable to determine velocity anisotropy. There is a well-known degeneracy between mass and velocity anisotropy, so dynamical studies using only line-of-sight velocities must make assumptions about the anisotropy in the system in order to make an estimate of the mass of the system. Proper motions, however, provide two components of motion, with which anisotropies on the plane of the sky can be determined. This provides critical information that can help to break the mass-anisotropy degeneracy and leads to more accurate results. Of course, the ideal case is to have both proper motions and line-of-sight velocities so that the full three-dimensional velocity distribution can be determined. Nevertheless, the information from proper motions alone offers an improvement over line-of-sight studies.
Another asset is that proper motions are measured by determining by how much stars have moved in images taken at different epochs, whereas line-of-sight velocities are determined from spectra, which are often possible to obtain for only the brightest stars. This difference in observing strategy means that proper-motion studies can typically go deeper than line-of-sight velocity observations; not only does this provide larger samples of stars, but also we can determine proper motions for stars of different mass. This is particularly important for studies of energy equipartition and mass segregation, and is a topic to which we will return in detail in future papers.
In \citet[][hereafter \citetalias{bellini2014}]{bellini2014}, we recently presented a set of \textit{Hubble Space Telescope} (\textit{HST}) proper-motion catalogues for 22 Milky Way globular clusters. These catalogues are the result of a search through archival \textit{HST} data to find fields in Galactic globular clusters that had been previously observed for other projects at multiple epochs, allowing us to measure proper motions. Thanks to both the stability and longevity of \textit{HST}, we were able to achieve exceptional precision over baselines of up to 12 years. The bright, well-measured stars have proper-motion measurements with median accuracy of 32~\muasyr and mean accuracy of 38~\muasyr. These values correspond to 1.2~\kms and 1.5~\kms at 8~kpc, a typical distance for the clusters in the sample.
Aside from the particular benefits of proper motions that we have already discussed, these catalogues have further value when considered as a population. With a sample of 22 clusters, we can look at statistics of the clusters as a whole and attempt to relate kinematic properties with photometric parameters.
Another advantage of our proper-motion catalogues is that the clusters are a very diverse set: they are found in different environments and are suspected to have very different structures and evolutionary histories. Some clusters are believed to be core-collapsed, while others are suspected to harbour intermediate-mass black holes whose presence would act to inhibit core-collapse (although, as previously discussed, the topic of IMBHs is still contentious and work is ongoing). NGC\,6715 (M\,54) lies right at the heart of the Sagittarius dwarf spheroidal and is clearly of extragalactic origin. Though with less direct evidence, some other clusters are also believed to have formed outside of our galaxy and been accreted, while others are thought to have been formed in situ. Some clusters in our sample are superimposed on dwarf galaxies in the Milky Way (namely, Sagittarius and the Small Magellanic Cloud), while others are relatively isolated. So there is a lot we can learn from both the similarities and the differences among the clusters.
Clearly, these catalogues have enormous potential for a wide range of very exciting science \citepalias[some of which we have barely touched on here, but see the introduction of][]{bellini2014}. We cannot hope to address all of the lingering questions surrounding globular clusters in one shot, but we can lay down a solid groundwork here, upon which we will build in future papers. We begin here with an analysis of the kinematical profiles and maps for each of the 22 clusters.
\autoref{sect:catalogues} introduces the catalogues and discusses the cleaning that we perform in order to select high-quality samples of bright stars free of contaminants. In \autoref{sect:kinematics}, we briefly outline our kinematic estimation methods and, in \autoref{sect:results}, we derive one-dimensional and two-dimensional kinematic profiles. In \autoref{sect:discussion}, we provide context for our results via comparison with previous studies, and look for correlations with other cluster parameters and at statistics for the sample as a whole. We conclude in \autoref{sect:conclusions}.
\section{Cluster catalogues}
\label{sect:catalogues}
For our analysis, we use the \textit{HST} proper-motion catalogues for 22 Galactic globular clusters described in \citetalias{bellini2014}, to which we refer for detailed explanations of the data reduction and processing. Due to a lack of sufficient background sources to use as a frame of reference, the proper motions provided in the catalogues are relative to the bulk motion of the cluster. As explained in \citetalias{bellini2014}, we noted inhomogeneities in the mean velocity across each of the clusters, which we attribute to uncorrected charge-transfer-efficiency and errors in the geometric-distortion correction. To counteract these fluctuations, the catalogues also provide a set of local corrections, which can be applied to the proper motions to smooth out the mean velocity field. There is one exception: NGC\,7099, as the dataset contains insufficient stars with which to calculate local corrections. For the analysis in this paper, we apply these local corrections to all clusters for which they are available. So, by design, the mean velocity of cluster stars in a small area of the sky should be zero.
As we are only able to measure relative proper motions, the catalogues cannot be used to calculate bulk motions of the clusters through the Milky Way and they cannot be used to study internal solid-body rotation. Applying the local corrections will also remove any possible differential rotation. However, most importantly for the present study, the removal of any rotation signatures does not affect the dispersions that we measure. The data are therefore ideal for most dynamical applications we might wish to consider. But future dynamical models based on the proper motion data will have to make some assumptions about either the nature or absence of cluster rotation.\footnote{The removal of any rotation signatures will affect the azimuthal velocity second moment $\overline{v_\phi^2} = \sigma_\phi^2 + v_{\rm rot}^2$ that appears in the equations of hydrostatic equilibrium; this can only be estimated if we know or assume the rotation velocity $v_{\rm rot}$ independently. However, as most globular clusters are near circular, we expect that $v_{\rm rot} << \sigma_\phi$ in most cases (see \autoref{table:basics}). The only exception to this may be for highly flattened clusters, such as \wcen\ (NGC\,5139), which we know exhibits a high degree of rotation \citep{vandeven2006}. Furthermore, rotation is usually found in the outer regions of clusters while our data covers the inner regions, so we would expect any rotation signal to be low.}
\begin{table*}
\caption{Characteristic quantities for our clusters.}
\label{table:basics}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cccccccccccc}
\hline
\hline
Cluster & Other names & $R_\mathrm{core}$ & $R_\mathrm{half}$ & $d$ & $\sigma_0$ & $\epsilon$ & $\log(t_\mathrm{core})$ & $\log(t_\mathrm{med})$ & $c$ & $\theta$ & $v_\mathrm{rot}$ \\
& & (arcsec) & (arcsec) & (kpc) & (\kms) & & & & & (deg) & (\kms) \\
\hline
NGC\,104 & 47\,Tuc & 21.6 & 190.2 & 4.5 & 11.0 $\pm$ 0.3 & 0.09 & 7.84 & 9.55 & 2.01 $\pm$ 0.03 & 33 & 4.4 $\pm$ 0.4 \\
NGC\,288 & \dots & 81.0 & 133.8 & 8.9 & 2.9 $\pm$ 0.3 & \dots & 8.99 & 9.32 & 0.99 $\pm$ 0.04 & \dots & 0.5 $\pm$ 0.3 \\
NGC\,362 & \dots & 10.8 & 49.2 & 8.6 & 6.4 $\pm$ 0.3 & 0.01 & 7.76 & 8.93 & 1.80 $\pm$ 0.03 & 25 & \dots \\
NGC\,1851 & \dots & 5.4 & 30.6 & 12.1 & 10.4 $\pm$ 0.5 & 0.05 & 7.43 & 8.82 & 1.86 $\pm$ 0.04 & 86 & 1.6 $\pm$ 0.5 \\
NGC\,2808 & \dots & 15.0 & 48.0 & 9.6 & 13.4 $\pm$ 1.2 & 0.12 & 8.24 & 9.15 & 1.56 $\pm$ 0.03 & 31 & 3.3 $\pm$ 0.5 \\
NGC\,5139 & \wcen & 142.2 & 300.0 & 5.2 & 16.8 $\pm$ 0.3 & 0.17 & 9.60 & 10.09 & 1.31 $\pm$ 0.04 & 96 & 6.0 $\pm$ 1.0 \\
NGC\,5904 & M\,5 & 26.4 & 106.2 & 7.5 & 5.5 $\pm$ 0.4 & 0.14 & 8.28 & 9.41 & 1.71 $\pm$ 0.03 & 124 & 2.6 $\pm$ 0.5 \\
NGC\,5927 & \dots & 25.2 & 66.0 & 7.7 & \dots & 0.04 & 8.39 & 8.94 & \dots & 63 & \dots \\
NGC\,6266 & M\,62 & 13.2 & 55.2 & 6.8 & 14.3 $\pm$ 0.4 & 0.01 & 7.90 & 8.98 & 1.71 $\pm$ 0.03 & 52 & \dots \\
NGC\,6341 & M\,92 & 15.6 & 61.2 & 8.3 & 6.0 $\pm$ 0.4 & 0.10 & 7.96 & 9.02 & 1.68 $\pm$ 0.03 & 141 & \dots \\
NGC\,6362 & \dots & 67.8 & 123.0 & 7.6 & 2.8 $\pm$ 0.4 & 0.07 & 8.80 & 9.20 & 1.09 $\pm$ 0.05 & 58 & \dots \\
NGC\,6388 & \dots & 7.2 & 31.2 & 9.9 & 18.9 $\pm$ 0.8 & 0.01 & 7.72 & 8.90 & 1.71 $\pm$ 0.03 & 56 & 3.9 $\pm$ 1.0 \\
NGC\,6397 & \dots & 3.0 & 174.0 & 2.3 & 4.5 $\pm$ 0.2 & 0.07 & 4.94 & 8.60 & 2.12 $\pm$ 0.04 & 2 & 0.2 $\pm$ 0.5 \\
NGC\,6441 & \dots & 7.8 & 34.2 & 11.6 & 18.0 $\pm$ 0.2 & 0.02 & 7.93 & 9.09 & 1.74 $\pm$ 0.03 & 74 & 12.9 $\pm$ 2.0 \\
NGC\,6535 & \dots & 21.6 & 51.0 & 6.8 & 2.4 $\pm$ 0.5 & 0.08 & 7.28 & 8.20 & 1.33 $\pm$ 0.16 & 105 & \dots \\
NGC\,6624 & \dots & 3.6 & 49.2 & 7.9 & 5.4 $\pm$ 0.5 & 0.06 & 6.61 & 8.71 & \dots & 89 & \dots \\
NGC\,6656 & M\,22 & 79.8 & 201.6 & 3.2 & 7.8 $\pm$ 0.3 & 0.14 & 8.53 & 9.23 & 1.38 $\pm$ 0.04 & 139 & 1.5 $\pm$ 0.4 \\
NGC\,6681 & M\,70 & 1.8 & 42.6 & 9.0 & 5.2 $\pm$ 0.5 & 0.01 & 5.82 & 8.65 & 2.01 $\pm$ 0.04 & 116 & \dots \\
NGC\,6715 & M\,54 & 5.4 & 49.2 & 26.5 & 10.5 $\pm$ 0.3 & 0.06 & 8.24 & 9.93 & 2.04 $\pm$ 0.03 & 78 & 2.0 $\pm$ 0.5 \\
NGC\,6752 & \dots & 10.2 & 114.6 & 4.0 & 4.9 $\pm$ 0.4 & 0.04 & 6.88 & 8.87 & 2.07 $\pm$ 0.03 & 147 & 0.0 $\pm$ 0.0 \\
NGC\,7078 & M\,15 & 8.4 & 60.0 & 10.4 & 13.5 $\pm$ 0.9 & 0.05 & 7.84 & 9.32 & 1.95 $\pm$ 0.03 & 125 & 3.8 $\pm$ 0.5 \\
NGC\,7099 & M\,30 & 3.6 & 61.8 & 8.1 & 5.5 $\pm$ 0.4 & 0.01 & 6.37 & 8.88 & 2.12 $\pm$ 0.03 & 33 & 0.0 $\pm$ 0.0 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\qquad
\textbf{Notes.} Columns: (1) cluster identification in the NGC catalogue; (2) alternate names by which the cluster is known; (3) core radius; (4) half-light radius; (5) heliocentric distance; (6) central dispersion estimate; (7) ellipticity; (8) core relaxation time; (9) half-mass relaxation time; (10) King concentration; (11) position angle; (12) rotation amplitude.
\textbf{References.} Columns: (3)-(9) \citetalias{harris1996}; (10) \citetalias{mclaughlin2005}; (11) \citet{white1987}; (12) \citet{bellazzini2012}.
\end{table*}
\autoref{table:basics} lists some basic statistics for our clusters, taken from \citet[][2010 edition, hereafter \citetalias{harris1996}]{harris1996}, \citet[][hereafter \citetalias{mclaughlin2005}]{mclaughlin2005} and \citet{white1987}. As well as giving a quick overview of the clusters for which we have proper-motion catalogues, we will use these quantities later to connect our kinematical analysis with previous photometric and kinematic studies.
In order to calculate accurate kinematics, it is vital that we have high-quality proper motions. Poorly-measured stars or those for which the uncertainties have been underestimated will bias our results, in particular, they will tend to increase the dispersions that we estimate. The datasets also contain contaminating stars from the Milky Way, and some contain further contamination from other nearby objects with which they are associated -- i.e. Sagittarius for NGC\,6624, NGC\,6681 and NGC\,6715, and the SMC for NGC\,104 and NGC\,362 -- which can further bias our results. To ensure that we have a reliable sample of proper motions and to remove outliers, we make a series of cuts on the datasets, as we now describe.
\begin{table*}
\caption{Summary of catalogue cleaning.}
\label{table:numbers}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{crrrrrccccc}
\hline
\hline
Cluster & $N_\mathrm{catalogue}$ & $N_\mathrm{bright}$ & $N_\mathrm{quality1}$ & $N_\mathrm{quality2}$ & $N_\mathrm{final}$ & $M_\mathrm{cut}$ & $R_\mathrm{lim}$ & $R_\mathrm{in}$ & $R_\mathrm{out}$ & $\xi_\mathrm{cut}$ \\
& & & & & & (mag) & (arcsec) & (arcsec) & (arcsec) & \\
(1) & (2) & (3) & (4) & (5) & (6) & (7) & (8) & (9) & (10) & (11) \\
\hline
NGC\,104 & 103638 & 28440 & 16199 & 16199 & 15999 & 18.5 & 40 & 0 & 20 & 100 \\
NGC\,288 & 14970 & 2982 & 2891 & 2891 & 1267 & 19.9 & 40 & 0 & 20 & 100 \\
NGC\,362 & 66766 & 16853 & 11237 & 10944 & 10469 & 19.8 & 40 & 0 & 20 & 98 \\
NGC\,1851 & 63227 & 14320 & 11434 & 9217 & 7007 & 20.5 & 40 & 0 & 20 & 90 \\
NGC\,2808 & 86420 & 38949 & 23957 & 17441 & 16829 & 20.6 & 40 & 0 & 20 & 80 \\
NGC\,5139 & 313286 & 59446 & 46308 & 45795 & 45481 & 19.0 & 40 & 0 & 20 & 99 \\
NGC\,5904 & 47627 & 10267 & 7293 & 6957 & 6886 & 19.4 & 40 & 0 & 20 & 95 \\
NGC\,5927 & 60222 & 18153 & 15483 & 15483 & 13444 & 21.0 & 40 & 0 & 20 & 100 \\
NGC\,6266 & 58272 & 28308 & 21400 & 17144 & 16558 & 20.0 & 40 & 0 & 20 & 88 \\
NGC\,6341 & 83218 & 11416 & 8249 & 7884 & 7270 & 19.5 & 40 & 0 & 20 & 97 \\
NGC\,6362 & 7951 & 3149 & 3007 & 3007 & 1387 & 19.7 & 40 & 0 & 20 & 100 \\
NGC\,6388 & 86671 & 60365 & 41595 & 28504 & 11153 & 21.6 & 60 & 20 & 40 & 82 \\
NGC\,6397 & 13593 & 2079 & 1932 & 1932 & 1812 & 17.4 & 40 & 0 & 20 & 100 \\
NGC\,6441 & 84508 & 60993 & 32552 & 20774 & 10560 & 22.3 & 60 & 20 & 40 & 77 \\
NGC\,6535 & 3348 & 885 & 821 & 821 & 147 & 20.1 & 40 & 0 & 30 & 100 \\
NGC\,6624 & 13948 & 8442 & 6626 & 5686 & 1855 & 20.5 & 40 & 0 & 10 & 89 \\
NGC\,6656 & 50622 & 8095 & 7232 & 7232 & 6984 & 18.5 & 40 & 0 & 20 & 100 \\
NGC\,6681 & 24248 & 5641 & 5014 & 5014 & 4445 & 20.1 & 40 & 0 & 10 & 100 \\
NGC\,6715 & 77190 & 49025 & 25494 & 21872 & 3887 & 22.6 & 40 & 0 & 10 & 94 \\
NGC\,6752 & 38013 & 7684 & 5328 & 5328 & 5266 & 18.3 & 40 & 0 & 20 & 100 \\
NGC\,7078 & 77837 & 18937 & 14479 & 8171 & 7822 & 20.2 & 60 & 10 & 30 & 69 \\
NGC\,7099 & 2360 & 802 & 600 & 490 & 123 & 19.6 & 0 & 0 & 10 & 84 \\
\hline
Total & 1377935 & 455231 & 309131 & 258786 & 196651 & & & & & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\qquad
\textbf{Notes.} Columns: (1) cluster identification in the NGC catalogue; (2) total number of stars in catalogue; (3) number of stars remaining after magnitude cut; (4) number of stars remaining after quality cut on $\Nused / \Nfound$ and $\chi^2$; (5) number of stars remaining after cut on $\texttt{QFIT}$ or rms; (6) number of stars remaining after velocity cleaning -- this is the final sample; (7) magnitude cut value; (8) radius limit for $\texttt{QFIT}$/rms baseline; (9) inner radius for $\texttt{QFIT}$/rms convergence test; (10) outer radius for $\texttt{QFIT}$/rms convergence test; (11) $\texttt{QFIT}$/rms percentile cut value.
\end{table*}
\subsection{Selection of bright stars}
\label{sect:select_bright}
As a result of two-body interactions, we expect that velocity dispersion will change with stellar mass, even if the cluster is not in full equipartition \citep[see e.g.][]{trenti2013}. Indeed, one of the huge advantages of the \textit{HST} PM catalogues that we have compiled is that we are able to get velocity measurements for stars on the main sequence; we are not limited to only the brightest (and most massive) stars, as is typically true from ground-based measurements. However, changes in dispersion with mass are beyond the scope of this paper. Here, we will restrict ourselves to studying the change of dispersion with spatial position in the cluster, so we need to trim our sample to include only stars inside a small range of mass. To do this, we select only the bright stars -- for this paper, we consider ``bright'' to be stars brighter than one magnitude below the main-sequence turnoff (MSTO).
To identify the MSTO, we bin all stars into magnitude bins of width 0.1 mag and then fit a Gaussian to the colour distribution in each bin to estimate the mean colour in the bin. Fitting a Gaussian is more robust in the presence of outliers than calculating a statistical mean. The bin with the bluest mean is considered to represent the turnoff\footnote{For some clusters, all parts of the colour-magnitude diagram (CMD) are well-populated and this simple algorithm can pick out the horizontal branch (HB) instead of following the trend of the main sequence (MS) or giant branch (GB) in a given magnitude bin. As the HB is bluewards of the MS and GB, this gives a false identification of the MSTO. To prevent such misidentification, we calculate the difference in mean colour between adjacent bins and check that the bins adjacent to the candidate MSTO have similar mean colours. If not, the bin with the next-bluest mean colour is considered. We find that this check is sufficient to ensure that we identify the correct MSTO.}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{f1.png}
\caption{CMD illustrating bright star selection for NGC\,2808. The blue line marks the MSTO we identify using the algorithm described in the text; the green line represents the magnitude limit (1 mag below the MSTO) at which we cut to select only bright stars. Red points are stars that pass the cut, black points are stars that fail the cut.}
\label{fig:select_bright}
\end{figure}
\autoref{fig:select_bright} shows a CMD illustrating the bright star selection for NGC\,2808. The blue line represents the identified MSTO magnitude and the green line marks the position of the bright-star selection cut at 1 mag below the MSTO. Red points show the stars we select for our bright sample and black points show the stars we discard. The cut magnitudes $M_\mathrm{cut}$ for each cluster are listed in \autoref{table:numbers}, along with the original number of stars $N_\mathrm{catalogue}$ in each catalogue and the number of stars $N_\mathrm{bright}$ that pass the magnitude selection.
\subsection{Data-quality selections}
\label{sect:quality_cuts}
Proper motions are estimated by determining the position of a star in a series of epochs and fitting a straight line to the positions as a function of time, thus the accuracy of the proper motions is dependent on the accuracy of the estimated positions. When a star suffers from blending -- that is, when the light from the star overlaps with a near neighbour -- those positions and, hence, the proper-motion estimate of the star may be subject to systematic errors.
To mitigate the effects of blending, we use several data-quality statistics reported in the cluster catalogues in order to select high-quality samples. Crowded fields suffer more acutely from blending, so distant clusters and clusters with high central concentration will be the most affected. As such, there is no one-size-fits-all algorithm that can be applied. Some of the data-quality selections we describe below must be done on a cluster-by-cluster basis. We aim to be as consistent as possible with the treatment of each cluster, but in some cases, it is necessary to adapt our methods, as we will describe.
To begin, we consider the number of points used to determine the proper-motion fit. The cluster catalogues list both the total number of data points found for each star $N_\mathrm{found}$ and the number of data points used for the final calculation of the proper motion $N_\mathrm{used}$. We assume that a star with $N_\mathrm{used} << N_\mathrm{found}$ had many poor-quality measurements and that the remaining measurements may not be reliable. We cut all stars with $\Nused / \Nfound < 0.8$.
The catalogues also provide $\chi^2_\mathrm{reduced}$ values separately for the $\mu_\mathrm{x}$ and $\mu_\mathrm{y}$ proper-motion fits. As these were straight-line fits, the number of degrees of freedom for each star is $D = N_\mathrm{used} - 2$. We calculate
\begin{equation}
\alpha = F_\mathrm{D} \left( D \chi^2_\mathrm{reduced} \right)
\end{equation}
separately for both of the proper-motion directions, where $F_\mathrm{D}$ is the cumulative distribution function for a $\chi^2$ distribution with $D$ degrees of freedom. We cut all stars with $\alpha_\mathrm{x} > 0.99$ or $\alpha_\mathrm{y} > 0.99$. The number of stars $N_\mathrm{quality1}$ that pass the $\Nused / \Nfound$ and $\chi^2$ selection process for each cluster are given in \autoref{table:numbers}.
Finally, we consider the quality of the point-spread function (PSF) fits to the stellar profiles. These are provided via quality-of-fit ($\texttt{QFIT}$) values \citep[defined in][]{anderson2008} in all cluster catalogues except that for \wcen, which instead lists the root mean square (rms) of the magnitudes; both the $\texttt{QFIT}$ and rms statistics behave similarly and may be treated in the same way.
We wish to excise all stars where the stellar profile has been poorly fit by the PSF model. In general, the quality of the PSF fit changes as a function of magnitude -- the stellar profiles of brighter stars are better approximated by a PSF than fainter stars -- so the cuts we make must also change with magnitude. As we have cut to select only bright stars, the changes with magnitude are small in most cases, but they must still be accounted for. PSF quality also changes with distance from the cluster centre as high crowding near the centre leads to poor PSF fits.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{f2a.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{f2b.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{f2c.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{f2d.png}
\caption{Illustration of of the $\texttt{QFIT}$-cleaning process for NGC~2808. Top left: $\texttt{QFIT}$ as a function of magnitude, here the stars are coloured according to their $\texttt{QFIT}$ percentile from red (100$^\mathrm{th}$ percentile) to blue (0$^\mathrm{th}$ percentile). Top right: a histogram of $\texttt{QFIT}$ percentiles. There is a sharp increase in the number of stars with percentiles of $\sim 85$ and higher. We use only stars outside of some limiting radius (40~arcsec, in this case) to calculate percentile values, so we attribute these high percentiles to poorly-fitted PSFs for stars near the centre. Bottom left: radial velocity-dispersion profiles for different $\texttt{QFIT}$ percentile $\xi$ cuts. In the outer parts, the dispersion does not change for different percentile cuts, however, in the centre, the cuts do affect the profile. Bottom right: dispersion within the central 20~arcsec as a function of $\xi$ cut value. The dispersion decreases with decreasing $\xi$ cut until $\xi \sim 80$ and then levels off, so we adopt a cut of $\xi = 80$ for this cluster.}
\label{fig:qfits}
\end{figure*}
For each star in the cluster, we identify the nearest 100 stars in magnitude that lie outside of some limiting distance $R_\mathrm{lim}$ from the centre and then calculate in which percentile $\xi$ the target star lies relative to its neighbours. We impose this radial distance limit in order to reduce the effects of crowding in the central regions; in this way we use predominantly isolated stars (with good PSF fits) as a baseline for comparison. For most clusters, we found that using an $R_\mathrm{lim}$ of 40~arcsec was sufficient, however, for the most crowded clusters in our sample (NGC 6388, NGC 6441, NGC 7078), we required an $R_\mathrm{lim}$ of 60~arcsec. For NGC 7099, which has the smallest field of view of all the clusters in our sample, we do not have enough stars to use any radial distance limit, so the $\texttt{QFIT}$ percentiles were calculated using all stars. The limiting distances used for each cluster are listed in \autoref{table:numbers}. We illustrate the results of this process for NGC\,2808 in \autoref{fig:qfits}. The top-left panel shows $\texttt{QFIT}$ versus magnitude with the stars coloured according to their $\xi$ values, from the $\xi = 0$ in blue to $\xi = 100$ in red. The top-right panel shows a histogram of the $\xi$ values.
To determine at which percentile we should cut to ensure that we are left with only reliably-measured stars, we need to look at the dispersion profiles of the stars using different cuts (after appropriate velocity cleaning, which we discuss further below). The bottom-left panel of \autoref{fig:qfits} shows dispersion as a function of radius for different $\xi$ cuts. We consider that a cut is sufficient when further cuts make no change to the dispersion profile.
In general, we find that the profiles in the outer regions converge more quickly than those in the inner regions, so it is the inner regions we need to consider most carefully when deciding where to cut. As such, we select stars within a radius range ($R_\mathrm{in}$ to $R_\mathrm{out}$) at or near the centre, and calculate the dispersion of those stars for different $\xi$ cuts (again after appropriate velocity cleaning). For most clusters, we use $R_\mathrm{in} = 0$~arcsec and $R_\mathrm{out} = 20$~arcsec. Given the large distance (26.5~kpc) of NGC\,6715 and the high central concentration of NGC\,6624, we find better results using $R_\mathrm{out} = 10$~arcsec for these clusters; we also use an $R_\mathrm{out}$ of 10 arcsec for NGC\,7099 due to its small sample size. Further, there are a few clusters for which there are no faint stars at the very centre; for these clusters, we find that the PSF fits tend to be better for bright stars at the centre than for faint stars just outside of the centre. As such, for these clusters, we shift the radial range outwards: for NGC\,7078, we use $R_\mathrm{in} = 10$~arcsec and $R_\mathrm{out} = 30$~arcsec, and for NGC\,6388 and NGC\,6441, we use $R_\mathrm{in} = 20$~arcsec and $R_\mathrm{out} = 40$~arcsec.
The bottom-right panel of \autoref{fig:qfits} shows the change in dispersion as a function of $\xi$ cut value. For this example, the dispersion decreases from $\xi = 100$ to $\xi = 82$ and then levels off, so we adopt a cut value of $\xi = 82$ for this cluster. The radial range used for the convergence tests and the cut values adopted for each cluster are given in \autoref{table:numbers}, along with the number of stars $N_\mathrm{quality2}$ that pass the $\texttt{QFIT}$/rms selection process.
\subsection{Velocity cleaning}
\label{sect:velocity_cleaning}
Outliers in a velocity distribution, largely due to contaminating populations, can bias dispersion estimates. While some modelling techniques can account for outliers directly \citep[e.g.][]{watkins2013}, here we will use simple models that require outliers to be excised. We need to take care with their removal, as cuts that are too harsh will remove cluster stars as well as outliers and this can also bias dispersion estimates.
Correct characterisation of velocity uncertainties is also important. Using a sample of ground-based proper motions for \wcen, \citet{vandeven2006} found that including stars with large uncertainties artificially increased their dispersion estimates and \citet{watkins2013} neatly showed how including these stars can return incorrect best-fit models. The problem with these stars was not so much that their uncertainties were large, as any reasonable dispersion estimator or modelling technique will take the size of uncertainties into account, but that the uncertainties had been underestimated, thus giving more weight to measurements than was warranted by their (poor) quality. That said, stars with uncertainties larger than approximately half of the cluster dispersion will contribute very little to our understanding of the cluster as the noise is larger than the signal. To ensure that we have a sample of stars with reliable uncertainties and reasonable signal-to-noise, we need to remove stars with large uncertainties.
In general, as we have already discussed, we expect velocity dispersion to change with stellar mass due to energy equipartition, but recall, we have already selected only bright stars in order to limit the mass range of our sample, so this effect may be ignored. However, we also expect that the velocity dispersion will be highest at the centre of a cluster and will decrease with radius, so if we make cuts that depend on the velocity dispersion, these cuts must be made as a function of radius.
To perform velocity cleaning, we bin stars in radius and then, in each bin, we 3-sigma clip to remove outliers and use the clipped sample to calculate a velocity dispersion. A third-order, flat-centre, monotonic, decreasing polynomial (see \autoref{sect:polyfit}) is then fitted to the binned dispersions and stars with errors larger than half of the fitted polynomial are removed. This method uses `bad' stars to estimate the dispersions, so we iterate three times to ensure the sample has been cleaned well.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{f3.png}
\caption{Illustration of the velocity error cuts for NGC\,2808. Black points show the 0.5 $\times$ the dispersion profile calculated from the data and the black line shows a third-order, flat-centre, monotonic, decreasing polynomial fit to the points. The red points are those stars below the line that pass the error cut and the blue points are the stars above the line that fail the error cut. We iterate this process three times where, in successive iterations, only stars passing the previous error cut are used to calculate the dispersion profile for determination of the new error cut. This graph shows the profile and cut status of the stars after the third iteration.}
\label{fig:clean_velocity}
\end{figure}
\autoref{fig:clean_velocity} shows the results of the velocity cleaning at the end of the third and final iteration; the small points show the proper motion error $\delta \mu$ for each star as a function of radial position in the cluster. Red points are stars that survive the error cut, blue points are stars that removed by the error cut. The large black points show 0.5$\sigma$ for each of the radial bins and the black line shows the fitted polynomial used to make the cut. The number of stars $N_\mathrm{final}$ remaining in the final cleaned dataset for each cluster, after the error cuts and sigma clipping, is given in \autoref{table:numbers}. Note that we typically use only $\sim$15$\%$ of the catalogue stars for our present analysis. This is conservative, and does not mean that the remaining stars could not also be used to shed new light on cluster kinematics.
\section{Kinematics}
\label{sect:kinematics}
\subsection{Velocity dispersion estimates}
\label{sect:maxlh}
Throughout this paper, we assume that velocity distributions are Gaussian with a mean velocity $\overline{v}$ and a velocity dispersion $\sigma$. We use a maximum-likelihood method to estimate the kinematic properties $\left( \overline{v}, \sigma \right)$ for a given set of stars.
Consider a sample of $N$ stars, where the $i$th star has an observed velocity $v_\mathrm{i}$ with uncertainty $\delta v_\mathrm{i}$. Then for some trial mean velocity $\overline{v}_\mathrm{trial}$ and dispersion $\sigma_\mathrm{trial}$, we ask what is the likelihood of observing the $i$th star:
\begin{equation}
p \left( v_\mathrm{i} \, \left| \overline{v}_\mathrm{trial}, \sigma_\mathrm{trial}, \delta v_\mathrm{i} \right. \right) =
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma'^2}}
\exp{\left[ \frac{- \left( v_\mathrm{i} - \overline{v}_\mathrm{trial} \right)^2}
{2 \sigma'^2} \right]}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\sigma' = \sqrt{\sigma_\mathrm{trial}^2 + \delta v_\mathrm{i}^2}
\end{equation}
Then the likelihood of observing the entire sample is the product of all likelihoods for the individual stars:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{trial} = \prod_{i=1}^{N} p \left( v_\mathrm{i} \, \left| \overline{v}_\mathrm{trial}, \sigma_\mathrm{trial}, \delta v_\mathrm{i} \right. \right).
\end{equation}
The best fitting $\left( \overline{v}, \sigma \right)$ are those $\left( \overline{v}_\mathrm{trial}, \sigma_\mathrm{trial} \right)$ that maximise this likelihood.
\citet{vandeven2006} showed in their Appendix A that, for datasets with no measurement uncertainties, maximum-likelihood estimators are biased and underestimate the true dispersion of the velocity distribution by a factor
\begin{equation}
b \left( N \right) = \sqrt{\frac{2}{N}}
\frac{\Gamma \left( \frac{N}{2} \right)}
{\Gamma \left( \frac{N-1}{2} \right)}
\end{equation}
where $\Gamma$ is the gamma function. When measurement uncertainties are present, there is no analytical correction, however they showed that an approximation to the correction can be written such that the corrected dispersion is
\begin{equation}
\sigma_\mathrm{corr} \simeq \frac{1}{b \left( N \right)}
\sqrt{ \sigma^2 + \left[ 1 - b^2 \left( N \right) \right]
\overline{\delta v^2} }
\end{equation}
where $\sigma$ is the dispersion estimate obtained from the maximum-likelihood evaluation and
\begin{equation}
\overline{\delta v^2} = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^{N} \delta v_\mathrm{i}^2
\end{equation}
is the mean of the squared measurement uncertainties. The difference between $\sigma_\mathrm{corr}$ and $\sigma$ is typically of order $0.1\%$ for the clusters in our sample.
Finally, we need to evaluate the uncertainties on our velocity and dispersion estimates. To do this we use a Monte-Carlo technique. Recall that for the purposes of this discussion, we are assuming a dataset of $N$ stars. We draw $M$ sets of $N$ samples from our best model $\left( \overline{v}, \sigma \right)$ and estimate the velocity mean and dispersion for each of the $M$ draws using the same maximum-likelihood method described above. The uncertainty on the mean is given by the dispersion of the Monte-Carlo means and the uncertainty on the dispersion is given by the dispersion of the Monte-Carlo dispersions. As the bias correction described above is only approximate, it is possible that the estimated dispersion and the uncertainty on the dispersion still have some bias; we estimate (and correct for) this remaining bias using the Monte-Carlo draws.
\subsection{Fitting a flat-centre, monotonic, decreasing polynomial}
\label{sect:polyfit}
For the velocity cleaning and for the analysis of our one-dimensional dispersion profiles, we wish to fit a third- or fourth-order polynomial to the binned cluster kinematics. We require that these polynomials: 1) be flat at the centre; 2) be monotonic; and 3) decrease with radius.
The first condition is easily satisfied by setting the coefficient of the $R^1$ term to zero so that the derivative of the fitted polynomial is zero at the centre. The second condition is satisfied by taking the derivative of the polynomial and requiring that there be no roots of the derivative in the region of interest. If the second condition holds true, then the third condition may be satisfied by insisting that the highest dispersion is found at the centre.
\section{Results}
\label{sect:results}
Now that we have datasets for each cluster that are of high photometric and astrometric quality and have laid out our kinematical analysis tools, we can study the kinematics of each cluster. We begin with a traditional one-dimensional analysis and investigate changes in velocity dispersion as a function of radius. Then we move on to a more advanced two-dimensional spatial analysis that highlights both the size and quality of these exquisite datasets.
\subsection{One-dimensional binning}
\label{sect:kin1d}
For one-dimensional spatial binning, we need to collapse two-dimensional spatial information into one dimension; that is, we go from x and y coordinates on the plane of the sky to radial distances from the cluster centre. Then we can use fixed-width bins, with variable area and population; fixed-area bins, with variable width and population; or bins of equal population, with variable width and area.
There are a number of competing effects we may wish to consider here. Most importantly, the spatial coverage of the original catalogues is inhomogenous; this is due to the observed fields available for our proper-motion analysis and is further compounded by the catalogue construction process and by the cleaning process we subsequently employ in \autoref{sect:catalogues}. We also note that the surface number density of stars in the cluster will decrease with radius. Overall, we find that we have fewer stars near the centre and towards the edges of the datasets than we do at intermediate radii. Furthermore, in order to get reliable estimates of velocity dispersion, we require a certain minimum number of stars per bin; we will address this point further below. Finally, we wish to have reasonable spatial resolution, particularly in the centre. With these considerations in mind, we adopt a combined approach: we require bins to be approximately equally populated (with some minimum required population $N_\mathrm{star}$) to account for the inhomogeneities, however, we enforce different requirements over different radial ranges in order to maximise spatial resolution.
Our one-dimensional binning proceeds as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Make a central bin using the innermost $N_\mathrm{star}$ stars.
\item Calculate the number of unbinned stars with $R \le 5$~arcsec. If there are more than $N_\mathrm{star}$ stars, make up to 3 equally populated bins containing at least $N_\mathrm{star}$ stars.
\item Calculate the number of unbinned stars with $R \le 10$~arcsec. If there are more than $N_\mathrm{star}$ stars, make up to 3 equally populated bins containing at least $N_\mathrm{star}$ stars.
\item Calculate the number of unbinned stars with $R \le 20$~arcsec. If there are more than $N_\mathrm{star}$ stars, make up to 3 equally populated bins containing at least $N_\mathrm{star}$ stars.
\item Calculate the number of unbinned stars remaining. If there are more than $N_\mathrm{star}$ stars, make up to 20 equally populated bins containing at least $N_\mathrm{star}$ stars.
\end{enumerate}
In each bin, we estimate the mean velocity $\overline{v}$ and velocity dispersion $\sigma$ of the combined radial and tangential proper-motion distributions, along with their uncertainties, using the maximum-likelihood technique described in \autoref{sect:maxlh}. We also calculate the radial ($\overline{v}_\mathrm{r}$ and $\sigma_\mathrm{r}$) and tangential ($\overline{v}_\mathrm{t}$ and $\sigma_\mathrm{t}$) kinematics separately, and then use $\sigma_\mathrm{t} / \sigma_\mathrm{r}$ as an indication of the anisotropy in the bin. We use the mean and standard deviation of the radial distances from the cluster centre to indicate the position of the bin and its uncertainty.
The number of stars we require per bin depends on the results we want to get out of the analysis and the particular science we want to do with those results. In this paper, our primary goal is simply to study the kinematical properties of the clusters; in-depth modelling of the underlying physics will be reserved for future papers. Further, we wish only to obtain first and second moments (mean and dispersion) of the velocity distribution for a set of stars, which requires fewer stars than would estimation of higher order moments. A fractional error on the dispersion of $\sim 10 \%$ will be sufficient for our purposes. Recall that fractional error $f$ on the dispersion is
\begin{equation}
f = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 N_\mathrm{v}}},
\end{equation}
where $N_\mathrm{v}$ is the number of velocity measurements used to calculate the dispersion. As we calculate dispersions using the combined radial and tangential proper motions, for a bin containing $N_\mathrm{star}$ stars, $N_\mathrm{v} = 2 N_\mathrm{star}$. Thus, if we require that $f = 0.1$, we find that $N_\mathrm{star} = 25$. This will imply a slightly higher maximum fractional error on the anisotropy estimates of $f = 0.14$, which is still acceptable for our purposes.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{f4a.png}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{f4b.png}
\caption{1D velocity profiles as a function of radius for NGC\,2808. The black points are the binned quantities that we estimate from the data. The green lines mark the core radius and the red and orange lines mark the half-light radius and 0.1 x the half-light radius respectively. Both the core radius and the half-light radius were taken from \citetalias{harris1996} and are given in \autoref{table:basics}. Top: Velocity dispersion profile. The blue lines are draws from an MCMC fit of a fourth-order, monotonic, decreasing polynomial that we force to be flat at the centre. Bottom: Velocity anisotropy profile. The blue lines are draws from an MCMC straight-line fit; the fits are made to be linear with radius and, hence, appear curved in the figure. The dotted line indicates isotropy at $\sigma_\mathrm{t} / \sigma_\mathrm{r} = 1$.}
\label{fig:kin1d}
\end{figure}
The upper panel of \autoref{fig:kin1d} shows the combined radial and tangential dispersion profile as function of radius for NGC\,2808. The black points are the binned dispersions that we estimate from the data. We see that the dispersion is highest at the centre and falls off with radius, as expected. We show the dispersion profiles for all other clusters in the left columns of Figures~\ref{fig:kin1}--\ref{fig:kin6}.
In general, scatter in the dispersion profiles increases towards the centre of the clusters due to the small number of stars per bin near the centres, as reflected by the increasing error bars. However, for NGC\,7078 (M\,15), we also see a clear dip in the dispersion profile at the centre of the cluster. We believe that this is not intrinsic to the cluster, but is merely an artefact due to magnitude-dependent incompleteness (in the most crowded central regions only the brightest stars survive our quality cuts, so that the dispersion measurement pertains to a brighter magnitude range than at larger radii). We note that the dispersion profile for this cluster using RGB and SGB stars presented in \citetalias{bellini2014} did not see the same central dip. In that case, no $\texttt{QFIT}$ cuts were made before the calculation of that profile, which may explain the difference. The results for NGC 7078 highlight that, for any detailed dynamical modelling of these datasets, it is important that both incompleteness and the magnitude dependence of the kinematics be taken into account. NGC 7078 is probably the cluster in our sample that is most affected by these issues, due to both its high central density, and its large distance. We do not generally see statistically significant dips in the central dispersion profiles for other clusters, so there is no reason to be suspicious of the reported dispersion profiles in general.
Another peculiar feature seen in the dispersion profiles of a few clusters is an upturn in the outer regions. In NGC\,288 and NGC\,362, we attribute this to edge effects, and, in NGC\,6535, to the small number of stars in the dataset. We must also bear in mind that some clusters are rather inhomogeneous in their spatial coverage, especially in the outer parts. This means that different datasets are used to derive proper motions at different radii. This has the potential to introduce small systematics, which may also explain other, more subtle bumps and wiggles observed in some of the profiles.
Near to the cluster tidal radii, we would also expect interesting tidal effects to manifest in the dispersion profiles. Tidal radii are notoriously difficult to estimate. \citetalias{harris1996} provides core radii and King concentration parameters from which tidal radii can, in principle, be estimated, but cautions that tidal radii calculated in this way are not reliable. Nevertheless, we can use the King profile estimates as approximate lower limits on the tidal radii as we know that King profiles will tend to underestimate tidal radii \citepalias[e.g.][]{mclaughlin2005}.\footnote{Even this is not entirely correct, as we know that the tidal radius of a cluster depends on the orbit of the cluster through the tidal field of the Milky Way and that the tidal field can affect clusters well within the tidal radius \citep[e.g.][]{webb2013, moreno2014, kennedy2014}. Nevertheless, we do believe that our data is sufficiently far in to be unaffected by the tidal field.} We find that these (lower bounds on the) tidal radii exceed the limits of our data for all clusters. For NGC\,288 and NGC\,362, the tidal radii are approximately a factor of 8 and a factor of 6 larger than the radii of the outermost bins respectively, so we do not believe that the upturns in the outer regions of the dispersion profiles for these clusters are attributable to tidal effects.
\begin{table*}
\centering
\caption{One-dimensional kinematic data results.}
\label{table:kin1d}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
\hline
\hline
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{at $R=0$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{at $R_\mathrm{core}$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{at $R_\mathrm{half}$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{at $0.1 R_\mathrm{half}$} \\
Cluster & $\sigma$ & $\sigma_\mathrm{t}/\sigma_\mathrm{r}$ & $\sigma$ & $\sigma_\mathrm{t}/\sigma_\mathrm{r}$ & $\sigma$ & $\sigma_\mathrm{t}/\sigma_\mathrm{r}$ & $\sigma$ & $\sigma_\mathrm{t}/\sigma_\mathrm{r}$ \\
& (\masyr) & & (\masyr) & & (\masyr) & & (\masyr) & \\
(1) & (2) & (3) & (4) & (5) & (6) & (7) & (8) & (9) \\
\hline
NGC\,104 & 0.573 $\pm$ 0.005 & 1.01 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.570 $\pm$ 0.004 & 1.00 $\pm$ 0.01 & \dots & \dots & 0.571 $\pm$ 0.004 & 1.00 $\pm$ 0.01 \\
NGC\,288 & 0.076 $\pm$ 0.003 & 1.00 $\pm$ 0.06 & 0.063 $\pm$ 0.001 & 0.95 $\pm$ 0.03 & \dots & \dots & 0.074 $\pm$ 0.002 & 0.99 $\pm$ 0.05 \\
NGC\,362 & 0.198 $\pm$ 0.002 & 1.03 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.195 $\pm$ 0.001 & 1.02 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.169 $\pm$ 0.001 & 0.99 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.197 $\pm$ 0.002 & 1.03 $\pm$ 0.01 \\
NGC\,1851 & 0.183 $\pm$ 0.002 & 1.02 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.182 $\pm$ 0.002 & 1.02 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.158 $\pm$ 0.001 & 0.99 $\pm$ 0.01 & \dots & \dots \\
NGC\,2808 & 0.301 $\pm$ 0.004 & 0.99 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.295 $\pm$ 0.003 & 0.97 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.257 $\pm$ 0.001 & 0.95 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.300 $\pm$ 0.003 & 0.98 $\pm$ 0.01 \\
NGC\,5139 & 0.767 $\pm$ 0.004 & 1.01 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.640 $\pm$ 0.002 & 0.93 $\pm$ 0.00 & 0.557 $\pm$ 0.031 & 0.83 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.754 $\pm$ 0.003 & 0.99 $\pm$ 0.01 \\
NGC\,5904 & 0.224 $\pm$ 0.002 & 1.01 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.217 $\pm$ 0.001 & 0.99 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.187 $\pm$ 0.003 & 0.94 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.223 $\pm$ 0.002 & 1.00 $\pm$ 0.02 \\
NGC\,5927 & 0.168 $\pm$ 0.001 & 0.99 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.163 $\pm$ 0.001 & 0.98 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.150 $\pm$ 0.001 & 0.98 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.168 $\pm$ 0.001 & 0.99 $\pm$ 0.01 \\
NGC\,6266 & 0.502 $\pm$ 0.004 & 0.99 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.493 $\pm$ 0.003 & 0.99 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.419 $\pm$ 0.002 & 0.98 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.500 $\pm$ 0.004 & 0.99 $\pm$ 0.01 \\
NGC\,6341 & 0.211 $\pm$ 0.003 & 1.01 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.206 $\pm$ 0.002 & 1.00 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.174 $\pm$ 0.001 & 0.98 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.210 $\pm$ 0.002 & 1.00 $\pm$ 0.02 \\
NGC\,6362 & 0.108 $\pm$ 0.003 & 1.05 $\pm$ 0.06 & 0.100 $\pm$ 0.001 & 0.95 $\pm$ 0.03 & \dots & \dots & 0.107 $\pm$ 0.003 & 1.03 $\pm$ 0.05 \\
NGC\,6388 & 0.307 $\pm$ 0.005 & 0.97 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.305 $\pm$ 0.005 & 0.97 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.282 $\pm$ 0.002 & 0.97 $\pm$ 0.01 & \dots & \dots \\
NGC\,6397 & 0.449 $\pm$ 0.009 & 0.98 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.448 $\pm$ 0.009 & 0.98 $\pm$ 0.03 & \dots & \dots & 0.443 $\pm$ 0.007 & 0.97 $\pm$ 0.03 \\
NGC\,6441 & 0.277 $\pm$ 0.004 & 0.95 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.276 $\pm$ 0.004 & 0.95 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.260 $\pm$ 0.002 & 0.94 $\pm$ 0.01 & \dots & \dots \\
NGC\,6535 & 0.100 $\pm$ 0.007 & 0.79 $\pm$ 0.12 & 0.095 $\pm$ 0.005 & 0.79 $\pm$ 0.08 & 0.086 $\pm$ 0.004 & 0.79 $\pm$ 0.06 & 0.099 $\pm$ 0.007 & 0.79 $\pm$ 0.11 \\
NGC\,6624 & 0.192 $\pm$ 0.004 & 0.97 $\pm$ 0.04 & 0.191 $\pm$ 0.004 & 0.97 $\pm$ 0.04 & 0.140 $\pm$ 0.002 & 1.01 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.190 $\pm$ 0.004 & 0.97 $\pm$ 0.04 \\
NGC\,6656 & 0.596 $\pm$ 0.008 & 1.00 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.542 $\pm$ 0.004 & 1.00 $\pm$ 0.01 & \dots & \dots & 0.586 $\pm$ 0.005 & 1.00 $\pm$ 0.01 \\
NGC\,6681 & 0.153 $\pm$ 0.002 & 1.03 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.152 $\pm$ 0.002 & 1.03 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.117 $\pm$ 0.001 & 0.99 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.152 $\pm$ 0.002 & 1.03 $\pm$ 0.02 \\
NGC\,6715 & 0.152 $\pm$ 0.003 & 1.00 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.150 $\pm$ 0.003 & 1.00 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.100 $\pm$ 0.001 & 0.99 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.151 $\pm$ 0.003 & 1.00 $\pm$ 0.03 \\
NGC\,6752 & 0.413 $\pm$ 0.005 & 0.97 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.411 $\pm$ 0.005 & 0.97 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.310 $\pm$ 0.004 & 0.97 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.410 $\pm$ 0.005 & 0.97 $\pm$ 0.02 \\
NGC\,7078 & 0.234 $\pm$ 0.003 & 1.04 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.232 $\pm$ 0.003 & 1.02 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.181 $\pm$ 0.001 & 0.90 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.233 $\pm$ 0.003 & 1.03 $\pm$ 0.02 \\
NGC\,7099 & 0.304 $\pm$ 0.041 & 0.86 $\pm$ 0.22 & 0.278 $\pm$ 0.028 & 0.92 $\pm$ 0.16 & \dots & \dots & 0.246 $\pm$ 0.015 & 0.96 $\pm$ 0.12 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\qquad
\textbf{Notes.} Columns: (1) cluster identification in the NGC catalogue; (2) central dispersion; (3) central anisotropy; (4) dispersion at core radius; (5) anisotropy at core radius; (6) dispersion at half-light radius; (7) anisotropy at half-light radius; (8) dispersion at 0.1x half-light radius; (9) anisotropy at 0.1x half-light radius. The core radii and half-light radii used are shown in \autoref{table:basics}.
\end{table*}
To each of the binned profiles, we fit a fourth-order, monotonic, decreasing polynomial, which we force to be flat at the centre\footnote{Globular-cluster dispersion profiles may not be flat near the centre (e.g. if there is an intermediate-mass black hole); we make this assumption here to conveniently describe the data over the radial range where it is available. The profiles should be extrapolated only with care.} (see \autoref{sect:polyfit}). To do this, we use the Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) package \textsc{emcee} developed by \citet{foremanmackey2013}, which is an implementation of the affine-invariant ensemble sampler by \citet{goodman2010}; this approach uses multiple trial points (walkers) at each step to efficiently explore the parameters space. We run our MCMC chain with 100 walkers for 1000 steps, and use the last 20 steps as the final (``post-burn'') sample. The polynomial fits from every second step of the final sample are shown as blue lines.
Finally, we use the core $R_\mathrm{core}$ and half-light $R_\mathrm{half}$ radii given in \autoref{table:basics} and use the MCMC post-burn sample to estimate the dispersions at $R_\mathrm{core}$, $R_\mathrm{half}$ and $0.1 R_\mathrm{half}$ (when each radius lies within the range covered by our datasets). These radii are marked as green ($R_\mathrm{core}$), red ($R_\mathrm{half}$) and orange ($0.1 R_\mathrm{half}$) lines. The dispersion estimates at each radius, along with the central dispersion, are given in \autoref{table:kin1d}.
The lower panel of \autoref{fig:kin1d} shows the tangential-over-radial anisotropy profile as function of radius for NGC\,2808. The black points are the binned anisotropies we estimate from the data. The black dotted lines indicate isotropy at $\sigma_\mathrm{t} / \sigma_\mathrm{r} = 1$. We see that the cluster velocities are isotropic ($\sigma_\mathrm{r} \sim \sigma_\mathrm{t}$) at the centre and become mildly radially anisotropic ($\sigma_\mathrm{r} > \sigma_\mathrm{t}$) with increasing radius. We observe this behaviour for most of the clusters in our sample; their anisotropy profiles are shown in the middle columns of Figures~\ref{fig:kin1}-\ref{fig:kin6}.
For the anisotropies, we fit each profile with a straight line using MCMC; we run the chain with 100 walkers for 500 steps, and again use the last 20 steps as the post-burn sample. The straight-line fits from every second step of the post-burn sample are shown as blue lines in the figures; note that the fits are linear with radius and so appear curved in the figure. As for the dispersions, we estimate the anisotropies at $R_\mathrm{core}$, $R_\mathrm{half}$ and $0.1 R_\mathrm{half}$ and mark these radii in each figure as green, red and orange lines respectively. These anisotropy estimates and the central anisotropy are given in \autoref{table:kin1d}.
The full binned dispersion and anisotropy profiles for all clusters are provided in \autoref{sect:kin1d_profiles}.
\subsection{Two-dimensional binning in spatial coordinates}
\label{sect:kin2d}
In most cases, our cleaned datasets are large enough that we are not limited to binning only in one dimension; we have sufficient numbers of stars to bin in two dimensions while retaining reasonable resolution. We begin with two-dimensional spatial binning, that is, binning in x' and y' coordinates on the plane of the sky\footnote{Here the primes on the coordinates denote alignment with the cluster major and minor axes, with the exception of NGC\,288 for which no position angle was available in \citet{white1987} so the major axis could not be identified.}.
To bin in two dimensions, we could proceed by using bins of fixed size -- say in radius and azimuth -- or we could bin the stars so that the bins are approximately equally populated. Due to heterogenous spatial coverage of the individual datasets, as we discussed in \autoref{sect:kin1d}, we opt for the latter binning scheme. To do this, we use the Voronoi-binning algorithm described in \citep{cappellari2003}.\footnote{\citep{cappellari2003} kindly provided \textsc{IDL} code of their Voronoi-binning algorithm. We have converted this into \textsc{Python}; it is available at \url{http://github.com/lauralwatkins/voronoi}. We note that there is now a Python version available from Michele Cappellari also, however it was not available at the time our code was written.} We first bin our stars into a $30 \times 30$ grid of equally-spaced pixels in the x'--y' plane. The Voronoi algorithm then bins these pixels into irregular bins such that they contain approximately equal numbers of stars. (In fact, the algorithm seeks to equalise the signal-to-noise ratio in each bin; as we have discrete datasets, our `signal' is the number of stars in the bin $N_\mathrm{star}$ and our `noise' is $\sqrt{N_\mathrm{star}}$.) Due to the nature of the binning algorithm, there is moderate scatter on the population of each bin; as such, we use a higher target population of $N_\mathrm{star} = 50$ for this analysis.
Due to the very small sample sizes of the NGC\,6535 and NGC\,7099 datasets, we are forced to make some adjustments to this procedure for these clusters: we use a much coarser $10 \times 10$ grid and use a target population of $N_\mathrm{star} = 10$. For completeness, we include their results, but advise that they be considered with caution.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f5a.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f5b.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f5c.png}
\caption{2D maps for NGC~2808 as a function of spatial coordinates. Stars were binned into equally-spaced pixels and the pixels were binned using a Voronoi algorithm \citep{cappellari2003} in order to achieve approximately equally populated bins. Each pixel is coloured according a particular quantity calculated using all stars in the bin to which the pixel belongs from red (high) to blue (low), as indicated by the colour bars. The dotted lines mark $x'=0$ and $y'=0$; their intersection marks the adopted cluster centre for this study. Left: Number of stars per bin. The spatial coverage of the sample is fairly homogeneous, with a slight underdensity at the centre. Middle: Velocity dispersion. Note that the dispersion is highest at the centre and falls off with radius. We do not see evidence of significant flattening of the velocity distribution. Right: Velocity anisotropy. Here the colour scale is symmetric such that $\sigma_\mathrm{t}/\sigma_\mathrm{r} = 1$ (isotropy) is shown in green. We observed a change in anisotropy with radius in the 1D profile for this cluster but we do not see it here; we believe that the effect is too small to be seen against pixel-to-pixel variations.}
\label{fig:kin2d_xy}
\end{figure*}
To illustrate the nature of the Voronoi binning, the left panel of \autoref{fig:kin2d_xy} shows a pixel map for NGC\,2808; each pixel is coloured according to the number of stars in the bin to which that pixel belongs, from red (high) to blue (low). In this case, the most populous bin contains 84 stars and the least populous bin contains 23 stars. The dotted lines mark $x'=0$ and $y'=0$ and their intersection marks the adopted centre of the cluster \citepalias[see Table 1 of][]{bellini2014}. Overall, the spatial coverage of the stars is fairly homogeneous, although we do note that there is a slight underdensity of stars at the centre due to selection effects.
Now we proceed as we did for the one-dimensional analysis. In each bin, we estimate the mean velocity $\overline{v}$ and velocity dispersion $\sigma$ of the combined radial and tangential proper-motion distributions, using the maximum-likelihood technique described in \autoref{sect:maxlh}. We also calculate the radial ($\overline{v}_\mathrm{r}$ and $\sigma_\mathrm{r}$) and tangential ($\overline{v}_\mathrm{t}$ and $\sigma_\mathrm{t}$) kinematics separately, and then use $\sigma_\mathrm{t} / \sigma_\mathrm{r}$ as an indication of the anisotropy in the bin.
The middle panel of \autoref{fig:kin2d_xy} shows the resulting velocity dispersion map for NGC\,2808. Each pixel is coloured according to the dispersion of the bin to which the pixel belongs from red (high) to blue (low). We can clearly see that the dispersion is highest at the centre of the cluster and falls off with radius, as expected. We also note that the dispersion profile is round, that is, it does not appear to fall off faster in any particular direction, so we see no evidence of significant flattening in this cluster. We show the 2D dispersion maps for the rest of our cluster sample in the right columns of Figures~\ref{fig:kin1}--\ref{fig:kin6}.
The right panel of \autoref{fig:kin2d_xy} shows the velocity anisotropy map for NGC\,2808. Each pixel is coloured according to the $\sigma_\mathrm{t}/\sigma_\mathrm{r}$ anisotropy in the bin to which the pixel belongs from red (high) to blue (low). Here the colour scale is symmetric so that $\sigma_\mathrm{t}/\sigma_\mathrm{r} = 1$ (isotropy) is shown in green. We are unable to discern any spatial patterns here. Recall that in the 1D anisotropy profiles, we saw that NGC\,2808 is nearly isotropic at the centre and becomes mildly radially anisotropic towards the outer parts of the cluster; however here, it seems that trend is washed out in the pixel-to-pixel noise. This is true for all clusters in our sample, so we do not include further 2D anisotropy profiles as we do not believe that any meaningful information can be taken from them.
\subsection{Two-dimensional binning in radius and magnitude}
\label{sect:kin2d_rmag}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f6a.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f6b.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f6c.png}
\caption{2D maps for NGC~2808 as a function of radius and magnitude. Stars were binned into equally-spaced pixels and the pixels were binned using a Voronoi algorithm \citep{cappellari2003} in order to achieve approximately equally populated bins. Each pixel is coloured according a particular quantity calculated using all stars in the bin to which the pixel belongs from red (high) to blue (low), as indicated by the colour bars. The dotted lines mark the position of the identified MSTO. Left: Number of stars per bin. Note that the inhomogeneous sample in the radius-magnitude plane, with very stars in the central 10~arcsec and an overabundance of faint stars at intermediate radii. Middle: Velocity dispersion. Dispersion clearly decreases with radius, however, also note that dispersion does decrease with increasing brightness (mass), albeit to a lesser extent, highlighting the importance of fully accounting for both stellar mass and position in the cluster in dynamical modelling studies. Right: Velocity anisotropy. Here the colour scale is symmetric such that $\sigma_\mathrm{t}/\sigma_\mathrm{r} = 1$ (isotropy) is shown in green. We observed a change in anisotropy with radius in the 1D profile for NGC\,2808 but we do not see it here; we believe that the effect is too small to be seen against pixel-to-pixel variations.}
\label{fig:kin2d_rmag}
\end{figure*}
In \autoref{sect:select_bright}, we imposed a brightness limit on our catalogues in order to minimise the mass range of the included stars. We did this because we expect that velocity dispersions will change with both stellar mass and the position of a star in the cluster, and we wish to address only the latter in this paper. In order to test the efficacy of the magnitude cut, we repeat our 2D analysis for NGC\,2808, but now we bin in radius and magnitude, which we use as a proxy for mass. As before, we split the radius-magnitude plane into a grid of $30 \times 30$ pixels and use the Voronoi algorithm with $N_\mathrm{star} = 50$ to bin the pixels, then we calculate the kinematics for each bin. We show the results in \autoref{fig:kin2d_rmag}.
In the left panel, the pixels are coloured according to the number of stars in the bin to which the pixel belongs from red (high) to blue (low). The distribution of stars in the radius-magnitude plane is highly inhomogeneous. We see that the majority of our stars are (comparatively) faint -- a natural consequence of the luminosity function -- and are found at intermediate radii. Conversely, we have very few faint stars within the central 10~arcsec, although we note that there are few bright stars in that region also. The reason for this paucity of stars is two-fold: first, the number of stars near the centre will be small as the area is small (despite the increase in number density we expect near the centre); and second, crowding will be most problematic near the centre so this region will have been heavily impacted by our photometric and kinematic quality cuts. As crowding is a more serious issue for faint stars than for bright stars, this second consideration also explains why we see fewer faint stars than bright stars near the centre.
In the middle panel of \autoref{fig:kin2d_rmag}, the pixels are coloured according to the velocity dispersion of the stars in the bin to which the pixel belongs from red (high) to blue (low). We see here that, for all magnitudes, the velocity dispersions are highest near the centre and fall off with radius, just as we observed in the 1D dispersion profile. We also note that there is a small change in dispersion with magnitude: at all radii, the dispersions are highest for the fainter stars and decrease with increasing brightness. The changes in dispersion with magnitude are much less significant than the changes with radius, however they are still present. So the magnitude cuts that we made in \autoref{sect:select_bright} have mitigated the effect of magnitude on dispersion but have not removed it completely.
For our current analysis, this is sufficient. We wish to look at general kinematic properties of the clusters and we are able to do so with the cuts that we have made. However, any modelling of the underlying physics must account for both the incompleteness of the sample that we noted when considering the number counts in each bin and the effects of magnitude on the kinematics that we have noted here.
Finally, in the right panel of \autoref{fig:kin2d_rmag}, the pixels are coloured according to the velocity anisotropy of the stars in the bin to which the pixel belongs from red (high) to blue (low), where the colour bar is symmetric so that green represents isotropy. As for the 2D spatial study, we do not discern any trends in anisotropy with either magnitude (mass) or radius. Again, we believe that the change from isotropy to mild radial anisotropy that we noticed in the 1D profile is lost in the pixel-to-pixel noise.
In future papers, where we will not limit ourselves to only bright stars of similar mass, we will investigate the effects of both mass and position on the kinematics in detail. The cursory analysis we have performed here demonstrates the potential of these beautiful datasets.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f7a.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f7b.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f7c.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f7d.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f7e.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f7f.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f7g.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f7h.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f7i.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f7j.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f7k.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f7l.png}
\caption{Kinematic results for NGC\,104, NGC\,288, NGC\,362 and NGC\,1851. Left: 1D velocity dispersion profiles, similar to the top panel of \autoref{fig:kin1d}. Middle: 1D velocity anisotropy profiles, similar to the bottom panel of \autoref{fig:kin1d}. Right: 2D velocity dispersion maps, similar to the middle panel of \autoref{fig:kin2d_xy}.}
\label{fig:kin1}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f8a.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f8b.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f8c.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f8d.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f8e.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f8f.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f8g.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f8h.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f8i.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f8j.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f8k.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f8l.png}
\caption{Similar to \autoref{fig:kin1} for NGC\,5139, NGC\,5904, NGC\,5927 and NGC\,6266.}
\label{fig:kin2}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f9a.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f9b.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f9c.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f9d.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f9e.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f9f.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f9g.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f9h.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f9i.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f9j.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f9k.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f9l.png}
\caption{Similar to \autoref{fig:kin1} for NGC\,6341, NGC\,6362, NGC\,6388 and NGC\,6397.}
\label{fig:kin3}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f10a.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f10b.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f10c.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f10d.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f10e.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f10f.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f10g.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f10h.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f10i.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f10j.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f10k.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f10l.png}
\caption{Similar to \autoref{fig:kin1} for NGC\,6441, NGC\,6535, NGC\,6624 and NGC\,6656.}
\label{fig:kin4}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f11a.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f11b.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f11c.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f11d.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f11e.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f11f.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f11g.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f11h.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f11i.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f11j.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f11k.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f11l.png}
\caption{Similar to \autoref{fig:kin1} for NGC\,6681, NGC\,6715, NGC\,6752 and NGC\,7078.}
\label{fig:kin5}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f12a.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f12b.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f12c.png}
\caption{Similar to \autoref{fig:kin1} for NGC\,7099.}
\label{fig:kin6}
\end{figure*}
\section{Discussion}
\label{sect:discussion}
We wish to compare our dispersion estimates against previous studies. A comprehensive comparison, from which we will derive dynamical distance estimates, will be the subject of a future paper. Here we make only a basic comparison. We also use the kinematic properties we have measured here to look for trends and correlations with other cluster properties, like those we listed earlier in \autoref{table:basics}.
\subsection{Comparison with literature dispersion estimates}
\label{sect:dispn_lit}
We begin by comparing the central dispersions estimated by our polynomial fits with the central dispersion estimates provided in the \citetalias{harris1996} catalogue\footnote{NGC\,5927 is not included in this comparison as no central dispersion estimate is available in \citetalias{harris1996}.}. In order to compare our dispersions in \masyr\ to the \citetalias{harris1996} estimates in \kms, we use the distances from \citetalias{harris1996} to make the appropriate conversions. Both the distances and dispersions are listed in our summary of cluster properties in \autoref{table:basics}.
The dispersion estimates from \citetalias{harris1996} come from different sources and, in some cases, extrapolation was required in order to estimate central dispersions or the dispersion quoted is that inside some central aperture. Furthermore, although we have limited our study here to only bright stars, it is still likely that our datasets probe subtly different stellar populations. Finally, we consider that the distances we have used to convert our proper motions into transverse velocities may also be subject to error. As such, we expect our results to be similar to the \citetalias{harris1996} values, but not identical.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{f13a.png}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{f13b.png}
\caption{Comparisons of our central dispersions with literature estimates. Top: central dispersion from \citetalias{harris1996} versus our central dispersion. The line for which the estimates are equal is marked as a dotted line. Bottom: central dispersion from \citetalias{mclaughlin2005} versus our dispersion.}
\label{fig:litcomp}
\end{figure}
We show the results of our comparison in the top panel of \autoref{fig:litcomp}; to guide the eye, a dotted line highlights where the two estimates are equal. In general, our central dispersions are in good agreement with the \citetalias{harris1996} estimates as most points fall along the 1:1 correspondence line with little scatter, though we note that we do tend to overestimate the central dispersions more than we underestimate. We believe this is due to the difference in the estimation process mentioned earlier. Our estimates are taken at $R = 0$, whereas the \citetalias{harris1996} estimates were often extrapolated from dispersions further out or were taken from papers that calculated the dispersion within some central aperture; as dispersion decreases with radius, these methods will tend to underestimate the central dispersion estimates. Further, although we imposed a brightness limit on each of the clusters in order to mitigate the effect of stellar mass on velocity dispersions, we still expect that stars 1 magnitude below the MSTO will have slightly higher dispersions than stars on the RGB; this may also serve to slightly increase our dispersions.
There are two obvious outliers for which we estimate markedly higher dispersions: NGC\,6715 and NGC\,7099. The former is by far the most distant cluster in our sample (at 26.5~kpc) and sits right at the centre of the Sagittarius dwarf spheroidal galaxy. The centre is, therefore, very crowded and cleaning this dataset of unreliable stars was particularly challenging. Including blended or poorly measured stars will tend to increase the dispersion estimates, so it is possible that our cleaning algorithms have not been sufficient and that our dispersion estimate is high as a result. However, although challenging, we are confident that this dataset has been cleaned satisfactorily. So we believe that the discrepancy here is due to the caveats mentioned previously.
NGC\,7099 has the smallest dataset of all 22 clusters in our study; we are left with only 123 stars after cleaning, from which we are able to make just four bins in our 1D analysis. The polynomial fit to this cluster is poorly constrained and with large scatter, as indicated by the large error bar in the figure. However, we do not believe that this is the source of the discrepancy. A central dispersion of 5.5~\kms for an object at a distance of 8.1~kpc \citepalias[both from][]{harris1996}, corresponds to 0.14~\masyr. This is markedly lower than the dispersion profile that we measure for NGC\,7099 (see \autoref{fig:kin6}). Recall that, for this cluster, it was not possible to calculate local corrections; we believe that local inhomogeneities have added extra scatter to the proper-motion measurements and artificially increased our dispersion estimates.
As a second test of our results, we compare our central dispersion predictions with those from \citetalias{mclaughlin2005}\footnote{NGC\,5927 and NGC\,6624 are not included in this comparison as they were not part of the \citetalias{mclaughlin2005} study.}. They fitted single-mass models to cluster surface-brightness profiles using mass-to-light ratios from population-synthesis models, and ages and metallicities from CMD studies, then used the fits to derive structural parameters and predict kinematic properties. They used three classes models -- King models, Wilson models and power-law models -- and we consider all three predictions here. It is worth noting that their results pertain to `average' and not `bright' stars, so we expect that their dispersions may be higher, on average.
We show the results of our comparisons in the bottom panel of \autoref{fig:litcomp}; the King-model predictions are shown as red points, the Wilson-model predictions as green points and the power-law-model predictions as blue points. The dotted line highlights where our central dispersion estimates and the \citetalias{mclaughlin2005} model predictions are equal. As before, we use the distance estimates from \citetalias{harris1996} to convert our dispersions estimate from \masyr\ to \kms. Once again, the dispersions are generally in good agreement, as most points fall along the 1:1 correspondence line with little scatter. However, we note that now we tend to underestimate the central dispersions more than we overestimate; as noted above, this is not unexpected given the details of the \citetalias{mclaughlin2005} modelling.
We consider briefly the two outliers from the \citetalias{harris1996} comparison. Unlike before, our estimate for NGC\,6715 is in very good agreement with the \citetalias{mclaughlin2005} predictions; this lends further weight to our assertion that our data cleaning and subsequent analysis were proficient and that the previous discrepancy is due to differences in the details of the central dispersion estimations. NGC\,7099, on the other hand, remains an outlier in this comparison; as previously discussed, we believe this is due to our inability to perform local corrections for this cluster.
There are two additional clusters that are outliers in this comparison: NGC\,6388 and NGC\,6441. These are two of the most crowded clusters in our sample; as previously discussed, crowding affects fainter (less massive) stars more significantly than brighter (more massive) stars. The crowding is so high in these clusters that no faint stars survive our quality selection cuts in the central regions. Although we made a magnitude cut to lessen the effect of stellar mass on the velocity dispersions we calculate, we are still left with a small range of masses. Due to energy equipartition, the brighter stars will have a lower velocity dispersion than the fainter stars; it follows then that, if we have removed all the faint stars from the centre, we will tend to underpredict the velocity dispersions there.
\subsection{Dispersion and concentration}
\label{sect:dispn_conc}
The central concentration of a cluster is typically described using the King concentration parameter $c = \log \left( R_\mathrm{tidal} / R_\mathrm{core} \right)$. We expect that a cluster with a dense core (i.e. a high $c$ value) will have a dispersion that falls off more quickly with radius. We test this prediction using a rather crude approximation of the dispersion slope: the dispersion at the core radius $\sigma_\mathrm{core} = \sigma (R_\mathrm{core})$ as a fraction of the dispersion at the half-light radius $\sigma_\mathrm{half} = \sigma (R_\mathrm{half})$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{f14.png}
\caption{The ratio of the dispersion measured at the core radius $\sigma_\mathrm{core}$ to that measured at the half-light radius $\sigma_\mathrm{half}$ as a function of cluster concentration, as listed in \citetalias{mclaughlin2005}. The red points are clusters believed to be core collapsed and the blue points are clusters not believed to be core collapsed. $\sigma_\mathrm{core}/\sigma_\mathrm{half}$ is a crude proxy for the slope of the dispersion profile. There is a clear correlation such that more concentrated clusters have steeper dispersion profiles. For comparison, the solid line shows the value of $\sigma_\mathrm{core}/\sigma_\mathrm{half}$ expected for an isotropic Plummer model and the dotted line that for a fully radial model \citep{dejonghe1987}.}
\label{fig:corehalf}
\end{figure}
\autoref{fig:corehalf} shows core-half dispersion ratio $\sigma_\mathrm{core}/\sigma_\mathrm{half}$ and concentration parameter $c$ (see \autoref{table:basics}) for our clusters. Clusters identified as core collapsed in \citetalias{mclaughlin2005} are shown in red \citep[we also include NGC\,362, which was identified as core collapsed by][]{dalessandro2013} and those not identified as core collapsed are shown in blue. As expected, we see a clear trend of dispersion ratio with concentration, indicating that the most centrally-concentrated clusters do indeed have steeper dispersion slopes than the looser clusters. The point with very high $\sigma_\mathrm{core}/\sigma_\mathrm{half} \sim 1.5$ is NGC\,6715; as previously discussed, this cluster sits right at the centre of the Sagittarius dwarf spheroidal, which may explain both its high central concentration and the sharp fall of its dispersion profile, even though it is not believed to be core collapsed.
By way of comparison, we show the value of $\sigma_\mathrm{core}/\sigma_\mathrm{half}$ expected for an isotropic Plummer model as a solid line. Radially-anisotropic Plummer models \citep{dejonghe1987} would have higher $\sigma_\mathrm{core}/\sigma_\mathrm{half}$ values; as an upper limit, we show the value expected for fully radial models as a dashed line. We see that the clusters with low or moderate central concentration are generally described well by this family of models, whereas the clusters with high central concentration are not well described as they have higher values of $\sigma_\mathrm{core}/\sigma_\mathrm{half}$ even than models with purely radial orbits.
\subsection{Anisotropy and ellipticity}
\label{sect:aniso_ellip}
In order to estimate anisotropy, we require two orthogonal components of velocity, so line-of-sight velocity studies alone cannot give us this information; we need proper motions. As so few globular clusters have been studied with proper motions before, it is not possible to make a comparison of our anisotropy measurements with previous estimates. However, we can use the anisotropies we have calculated and look for correlations with other cluster statistics. In what follows, we use only the clusters with over 1000 stars remaining in their cleaned samples, thus excluding NGC\,6535 and NGC\,7099, as we found that the noise overwhelmed the signal for the anisotropy profiles for these very small datasets.
First, we consider cluster ellipticity $\epsilon$ and minor-axis/major-axis anisotropy $\sigma_\mathrm{minor} / \sigma_\mathrm{major}$. Ellipticity describes the difference in the major- and minor-axis lengths for the cluster, where $\epsilon=0$ indicates a perfectly round cluster and increasing $\epsilon$ indicates increasingly flattened clusters. The minor-major anisotropy reflects the difference in the velocity dispersions along the major and minor axes, where $\sigma_\mathrm{minor} / \sigma_\mathrm{major} = 1$ indicates isotropy, $\sigma_\mathrm{minor} / \sigma_\mathrm{major} < 1$ indicates a preference for motion along the major axis and $\sigma_\mathrm{minor} / \sigma_\mathrm{major} > 1$ indicates a preference for motion along the minor axis.
To determine the major-axis and minor-axis directions, we use position angles from \citet{white1987}. We then calculate the one-dimensional major-axis dispersion $\sigma_\mathrm{major}$ and minor-axis dispersion $\sigma_\mathrm{minor}$ profiles in the same bins that were used for the analysis of the one-dimensional kinematics in \autoref{sect:kin1d}. Then the minor-major anisotropy is simply $\sigma_\mathrm{minor} / \sigma_\mathrm{major}$. In order to have a single, representative value (with uncertainty) against which to compare the ellipticities, we take the weighted mean (and error on the weighted mean) of the anisotropies from the binned profile, using the inverse square uncertainties as weights. The anisotropy $\sigma_\mathrm{minor} / \sigma_\mathrm{major}$ thus inferred represents an average over the entire radial range for which we have data.
We now wish to fit a straight line to the anisotropies as a function of ellipticity to identify any correlations and assess their significance. To begin, we do this using a simple least-squares method -- this assumes that the data have been drawn from the model (in this case a straight line) with the given error bars. If the uncertainties have been well estimated, then the $\chi^2$ calculated using the best-fitting model should be $\sim N$, where $N=19$ is the number of clusters for which we are able to carry out this analysis. However, we find that the best fit has $\chi^2 \gg N$. This implies that there are other sources of scatter in addition to random errors. To correct for this, we increase all error bars by a factor $\sqrt{\chi^2_\mathrm{best}/N}$ before re-fitting a straight line to the data points. Increasing the size of the error bars does not change the best-fit line, only the uncertainties on the fitted parameters.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{f15.png}
\caption{Minor-axis/major-axis anisotropy $\sigma_\mathrm{minor}/\sigma_\mathrm{major}$ versus ellipticity $\epsilon$. The points represent our clusters and the dotted line indicates isotropy where $\sigma_\mathrm{minor}/\sigma_\mathrm{major} = 1$. The red lines are draws from a straight-line fit to the data and highlights a mild correlation. Round clusters ($\epsilon = 0$) are isotropic and flattened clusters show mild major-axis anisotropy $\sigma_\mathrm{minor}/\sigma_\mathrm{major} < 1$, with the degree of anisotropy increasing with ellipticity. We note that the fit was not forced through (0,1).}
\label{fig:aniso_ellip}
\end{figure}
\autoref{fig:aniso_ellip} shows minor-major anisotropy and cluster ellipticity\footnote{NGC\,288 is not included in this comparison as it has neither an ellipticity listed in \citetalias{harris1996} nor a position angle listed in \citet{white1987}.}. The dotted line at $\sigma_\mathrm{minor}/\sigma_\mathrm{major} = 1$ represents isotropy. The red lines show draws from the straight-line fit; we also give the values of the fit parameters. Note that both slope and intercept are left completely free in the fit, we do not force any special behaviour. We see a mild correlation between ellipticity and minor-major anisotropy. Round clusters ($\epsilon = 0$) are isotropic, while flattened clusters show a small degree of major-axis anisotropy, that is, their velocity dispersions tend to be larger along the major-axis than along the minor-axis. So as clusters are elongated along the major axis, it seems that so too is their velocity distribution, although a full 3D velocity study, including rotation, would be necessary to characterise the shape and direction of the velocity ellipsoid.
\subsection{Anisotropy and relaxation time}
\label{sect:aniso_relax}
Violent relaxation during the early stages of cluster formation typically leads to systems that are isotropic at their centres and become radially anisotropic with increasing distance from the cluster centre \citep{lyndenbell1967}. This behaviour has been clearly demonstrated by N-body simulations of isolated galaxies and clusters \citep[e.g.][]{vanalbada1982, trenti2005} and also, recently, in clusters evolving in an external tidal field \citep{vesperini2014}. Isolated clusters simply become increasingly anisotropic with radius, however \citet{vesperini2014} noted that tidal effects cause the anisotropy profiles to turn over in the outer regions and become isotropic or even mildly tangential.
Violent relaxation is a collisionless process driven by fluctuations in the cluster potential during collapse. Thereafter, once the cluster has reached a steady state, the system undergoes collisional relaxation: over time, as stars experience two-body interactions that affect small changes to their orbits, their motions become more random, i.e. they move towards isotropy. In the inner regions, where the relaxation times are short, we would expect the velocity distributions to be approximately isotropic. However, in the intermediate and outer regions, where the relaxation times are longer, it is possible that clusters are not yet fully relaxed and so we would expect to still observe some radial anisotropy. Further, we expect that the degree of radial anisotropy observed, if any, will depend on the relaxation time.
We observe this general behaviour in the 1D anisotropy profiles in Figures~\ref{fig:kin1}-\ref{fig:kin6}: most clusters appear to be nearly isotropic (with $ \sigma_\mathrm{t}/\sigma_\mathrm{r} = 1$) at their centres and show some radial anisotropy ($\sigma_\mathrm{t}/\sigma_\mathrm{r} < 1$) further out. Our catalogues lack the spatial coverage to fully probe the behaviour of the anisotropy profiles in the outermost regions, but we are well able to study the inner and intermediate regions.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{f16.png}
\caption{Tangential/radial anisotropy $\sigma_\mathrm{t}/\sigma_\mathrm{r}$ versus relaxation time $t_\mathrm{relax}$. The dashed line represents isotropy where $\sigma_\mathrm{t}/\sigma_\mathrm{r}=1$. The red points show core relaxation times and anisotropies estimated at core radii; the blue points show half-mass relaxation times and anisotropies estimated at half-light radii. Regions with short relaxation times have had time to become fully relaxed and have isotropic velocity distributions, this is the case for most cluster cores. Regions with longer relaxations times are not yet fully relaxed and so show mild radial anisotropy, with the degree of anisotropy increasing with relaxation time. The black lines are draws from a functional fit to the points, as described in the text. The dotted line marks a critical relaxation time beyond which velocity distributions have not yet had time to become fully relaxed. The blue outlier in the top right of the figure is NGC\,6715 (M\,54), the most distant in our sample.}
\label{fig:trelax}
\end{figure}
So can we relate the anisotropies directly to the relaxation times of the clusters? \autoref{fig:trelax} shows $\sigma_\mathrm{t}/\sigma_\mathrm{r}$ anisotropy as a function of the relaxation time (see \autoref{table:basics}); once again, we exclude NGC\,6535 and NGC\,7099 as those have fewer than 1000 stars remaining after cleaning. The dotted line indicates isotropy. The red points show core relaxation times and anisotropies estimated at the core radius; the blue points show half-mass relaxation times and anisotropies estimated at the half-light radius. As expected, we see that short relaxation times result in isotropic distributions, whereas longer relaxation times lead to distributions that show mild radial anisotropy. Most clusters appear to have relaxed cores, but very few are relaxed out to their half-light radius.
We assume that for relaxation times shorter than some limiting time $t_\mathrm{break}$, the velocity distributions are isotropic, and that for relaxation times longer than $t_\mathrm{break}$, there is some radial anisotropy, which increases in strength for longer relaxation times. So, to the combined sample of core (red) and half-light (blue) estimates, we fit a function
\begin{equation}
f \left( t \right) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
C & \mbox{$t \le t_\mathrm{break}$} \\
C + S \left( \log{t} - \log{t_\mathrm{break}} \right) & \mbox{$t > t_\mathrm{break}$}
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
for constant $C$ and slope $S$. We expect that $C$ will be very close to 1, but we do leave it free in the fit. In \autoref{fig:trelax}, the solid lines show draws from the final fit distribution. We find $C \sim 0.992$, so very close to isotropy, as predicted; in this relaxed regime, the cluster-to-cluster rms is just 0.021, and so the error on $C$ is $\Delta C \approx 0.021/\sqrt{N} = 0.005$. The dashed line marks the best-fit value of $t_\mathrm{break} \sim 0.55$~Gyr; this implies that only regions of clusters with shorter relaxation times have had time to fully relax. This may serve as a useful indicator of relaxation in other, less-studied clusters.
\subsection{Kinematic Centres}
\label{sect:kincentres}
In \autoref{sect:kin2d}, we extracted two-dimensional velocity dispersion maps as a function of spatial coordinates. We now use those maps to make a rough estimation of the kinematic centres. The estimates we make here are crude, and are simply designed to serve as a test of our methodology.
Recall, to make the original dispersion maps, we binned the stars into a grid of $30 \times 30$ pixels, grouped the pixels into Voronoi bins and then calculated the velocity dispersion in each bin. Then each pixel was assigned a dispersion (and uncertainty) equal to the dispersion (and uncertainty) of all the stars in the bin to which that pixel belonged. To estimate the kinematic centre, we begin by re-pixelating the dispersion map into a $150 \times 150$ pixel grid. We assign a dispersion to each new pixel by drawing at random from the dispersion distribution of the nearest original pixel. As well as increasing the resolution of the pixel grid, this also fills in empty pixels from the original grid where there were no stars; this extrapolation is not ideal but is necessary to avoid boundary effects.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f17a.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f17b.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{f17c.png}
\caption{Smoothed 2D velocity dispersion maps for NGC\,2808, NGC\,362 and NGC\,6341 as a function of spatial coordinates. Each pixel is coloured according to the gaussian-smoothed dispersion from red (high) to blue (low), as indicated by the colour bars. The black dotted lines mark $x'=0$ and $y'=0$; their intersection marks the photometric cluster centre adopted for this study \citepalias[see Table 1 of][]{bellini2014}. The white dotted circles mark the central arcminute. The kinematic centre estimates are shown as black crosses and represent the peak of the smoothed dispersion profile inside of the central arcminute.}
\label{fig:kin2d_smooth}
\end{figure*}
We then apply a Gaussian-smoothing filter of width $N$ pixels to the new pixel grid. After some trial-and-error, we found that some clusters worked best with $N=12.5$ and others worked best with $N=25$, depending on the properties of the cluster. The smoothed dispersion map for NGC\,2808 is shown in the left panel of \autoref{fig:kin2d_smooth} as a function of spatial coordinates on the plane of the sky. The colour bar shows the magnitude of the smoothed dispersion from high (red) to low (blue). The black dotted lines highlight the photometric centre at $(0,0)$ \citepalias[see Table 1 of][]{bellini2014}.
We estimate the kinematic centre to be the pixel with the highest dispersion in the smoothed grid that lies within the central arcminute. In \autoref{fig:kin2d_smooth}, the cross marks the position of the estimated kinematic centre and the white dotted line delineates the central arcminute. We impose the radius limit because, for some clusters, we see high dispersions at the edges of our fields, which we attribute to edge effects. We also note that the outer pixels are less reliable than the inner pixels as coverage in the original grid was more sparse there, and in some cases the nearest original pixel used to assign a dispersion to a new pixel was actually not very nearby at all; again, the radius limit helps to mitigate this effect. There were four clusters for which we were not able to estimate a kinematic centre due to the poor quality of the smoothed dispersion map: NGC\,5904, NGC\,6362, NGC\,6397 and NGC\,6535.
To estimate the uncertainty on our centre estimates, we fit a half-gaussian to the smoothed dispersion as a function of distance from the estimated centre for all pixels within the central arcminute of the photometric centre. If the width of the fitted half-gaussian is $W$ then we estimate the uncertainty on the centre to be $W/\sqrt{N(R<W)}$, where $N(R<W)$ is the number of stars in our dataset within a radius of $W$. The uncertainty is shown in \autoref{fig:kin2d_smooth} but is too small to be distinguished on the scale of the plot. For NGC\,2808, we estimate the centre at $(x',y') = (1.9 \pm 0.9,-0.7 \pm 0.9)$~arcsec.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{f18.png}
\caption{Kinematic centres estimates for 18 of our clusters. The centres were estimated by gaussian-smoothing the dispersion maps and searching for the peak of the smoothed map within the central arcminute. The dotted lines mark $\left( x',y' \right) = \left( 0,0 \right)$, the position of the photometric centre for each cluster.}
\label{fig:kin2d_centres}
\end{figure}
NGC\,2808 is one of our cleanest dispersion maps so, in the middle and right panels of \autoref{fig:kin2d_smooth}, we show the smoothed maps for NGC\,362 and NGC\,6341. The former is an example where edge effects artificially increased the dispersion towards the bottom of the field. The latter is an example where the filling in of empty pixels to avoid boundary effects can cause a smearing of the dispersion map in the outer regions. Both highlight the need for the radius limit on the centre search.
\autoref{fig:kin2d_centres} shows the offsets of the centre estimates for our clusters, with dotted lines highlighting the adopted photometric centres at $x'=0$ and $y'=0$. The unweighted RMS of the centre offsets in the $x$ and $y$ directions are $4.60"$ and $3.79"$, respectively. The unweighted mean and error-in-the-mean of the centre offsets for the sample as a whole are $(\overline{\Delta x'},\overline{\Delta y'}) = (1.15" \pm 1.08", -0.35" \pm 0.89")$. Therefore, at 1$\sigma$ confidence in two dimensions, the photometric and kinematic centres of globular clusters agree on average to within $\sim 1"$.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sect:conclusions}
We have performed a kinematical analysis of 22 Milky Way globular clusters using the \textit{HST} proper-motion catalogues described in \citetalias{bellini2014}. Approximately half of our cluster sample have been previously studied using line-of-sight velocity data, and only a handful have been previously studied using proper motions. So for most clusters, this is the first proper-motion study undertaken and, for many, this is the first kinematical study of any kind.
We began with careful cleaning of our datasets. The quality of any kinematical analysis depends on the quality of the data used for the analysis: underestimated uncertainties, velocity uncertainties larger than the local signal, and the presence of contaminants can all lead to biases in the estimated velocity moments. We also selected only bright stars -- with a small range of masses -- in order to limit ourselves to the study of changes in kinematics with position. Changes in kinematics with mass and with both position and mass will be the subject of future papers.
Analogous to typical line-of-sight velocity studies, we determined binned velocity-dispersion profiles as a function of radius for all clusters. To these profiles, we fitted a polynomial and then used the fit to estimate the dispersions at the cluster centre, the core radius and the half-light radius. We compared the central dispersions to estimates in \citetalias{harris1996} and predictions from \citetalias{mclaughlin2005} and found our results to be in very good agreement. We then used the ratio of the core and half-light dispersion estimates as a proxy for dispersion slope and compared the slopes to cluster central concentrations. We found a mild correlation between dispersion slope and concentration, indicating that clusters with high central concentration have dispersion profiles that fall off more quickly with radius.
We went on to determine binned tangential/radial velocity anisotropy profiles as a function of radius for all clusters. Such an analysis requires two components of velocity information and so is not possible for studies using only line-of-sight velocities. This is the first time it has been possible to determine anisotropies for most of the clusters in our sample, which will be crucial for breaking mass-anisotropy degeneracy in future dynamical modelling studies. We found that most of the clusters studied here are isotropic in the centre and become mildly radially anisotropic in their outer regions. This is understandable if we consider that stellar orbits in clusters are preferentially radial at formation and move towards isotropic as the stars undergo two-body interactions and the cluster relaxes. Given sufficient time to become fully relaxed, the stellar velocity distributions in the inner regions will become fully isotropic. In the outer regions of clusters, where tidal effects become important, stars will move away from isotropy \citep{vesperini2014}; however, our catalogues are focused in the central regions of the clusters and lack the coverage to probe such effects.
Further, we examined our anisotropy estimates as a function of relaxation time and found that only regions of clusters with $t_\mathrm{relax} < 0.55$~Gyr -- primarily the cluster cores -- have had time to relax fully and reach isotropy. For relaxed regions, we find a mean anisotropy $\sigma_\mathrm{t}/\sigma_\mathrm{r} \sim 0.992$, with a cluster-to-cluster rms scatter of 0.021. We also investigated minor-axis/major-axis velocity anisotropy as a function of cluster ellipticity and found a clear correlation whereby round clusters are isotropic and flattened clusters have flattened velocity ellipsoids on the plane of the sky.
Finally, we determined two-dimensional spatially-binned dispersion maps for all clusters. Such an analysis is possible in theory for line-of-sight studies, but is often impossible in practice due to the limited sample sizes that naturally arise due to the small number of spectra that can be taken at any one time, even with the most advanced instruments. So, once again, this analysis is a first for most of the clusters in our sample. For NGC\,6535 and NGC\,7099, our datasets are too small to determine meaningful information; for the remaining 20 clusters, we were able to obtain beautiful dispersion maps that clearly show peaks of high velocity dispersion at their centres that fall of with radius. By Gaussian smoothing the dispersion maps, we were also able to identify kinematic centres for all but four of the clusters.
As we have already discussed, much of the kinematical analysis presented here has been the first of its kind for many of the clusters in our sample. And yet, we have still only scratched the surface of what is possible with the data we currently have and that we anticipate over the coming years \citep[see discussion in][]{bellini2014}. Future papers will perform detailed dynamical modelling to connect the observations to the underlying physics; this will provide greater insight into the dynamical structures of the clusters and truly unlock the potential of these remarkable datasets.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We would like to thank Paolo Bianchini for interesting discussions on the topic of data quality and cleaning. We are also grateful to Ivan King, Julio Chanam\'{e}, Rupali Chandar, Adrienne Cool, Francesco Ferraro, Holland Ford, Davide Massari and Giampaolo Piotto for collaboration on other aspects of this project. Finally, we would like to thank the anonymous referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for their useful comments.
This research made use of Astropy\footnote{\url{http://www.astropy.org}}, a community-developed core Python package for Astronomy \citep{astropy2013}.
\bibliographystyle{apj}
|
\section{ Introduction} Oscillating random waves are present in a myriad of situations in nature, displaying a large variety of scales and exhibiting
turbulent-like behavior, the so-called wave turbulence~\cite{ZakharovBook,NazarenkoBook,NewellRumpf}. Of particular interest are the oscillations over the surface of the sea, Rossby waves in atmospherical science, nonlinear optics, the plasma oscillations and the vibration of elastic bodies such as piano strings, timbals, or more complex singing
bowls, bells or gongs. Because of the intrinsic nonlinearity of the basic underlying physics of these problems, and because of the randomness of the phase of the
oscillations, only a statistical description seems reasonable. The weak turbulence theory provides such a statistical description for the asymptotic long time behavior of the spectral wave amplitude, in the case where nonlinearities are small. In particular, it describes the energy transfer among the different modes in agreement with the conservation of the total energy of the waves.
More precisely, this wave turbulence theory provides kinetic equations for the long-time evolution of the spectral amplitude for dispersive wave systems \cite{ZakharovBook,NazarenkoBook,NewellRumpf}. In the present context of small nonlinearities, we will use interchangeably wave turbulence theory and weak turbulence theory and refer to it as WTT. Remarkably, such kinetic equations exhibit stationary solutions corresponding to equipartition or constant flux cascades of the energy, namely the Rayleigh-Jeans solution and the Kolmogorov-Zakharov (KZ) spectrum respectively. The search of the KZ spectra has motivated exhaustive studies these last fifty years~\cite{NewellRumpf}, regaining recent interest, because of the parallel development of new theoretical and experimental findings. Among them, we mention the cases of surface capillary waves \cite{falcon,falconduring}, surface gravity waves \cite{Zak2004,lukashuk} and elastic waves of thin plates \cite{during,arezki,mordant08} for instance.
While such dynamics corresponds usually to a direct cascade of energy towards the small scales, the formation of large scale structure can
sometimes be observed.
This is the case in particular for Bose-Eintein condensation~\cite{lacaze,lowtemp,natalia,becnls} or in two dimensional hydrodynamic turbulence \cite{kraichnan},
where the self organization process is a consequence of an inverse cascade. This inverse cascade transfers some quantity (particles, enstrophy, wave action) from the small scales toward the large scales leading to the formation of coherent structures. The formation of an inverse cascade in different systems has always been related to the existence of a conserved quantity at least at the weakly non linear level.
For instance, when using the Gross-Pitaevskii or nonlinear Schr\"odinger equation to model the Bose-Einstein condensates, WTT predicts the existence of an inverse cascade of mass (a conserved quantity). Similarly, in the case of surface gravity waves, an inverse cascade of the conserved wave action is deduced and numerically observed \cite{shrira,korotkevich}. Finally, we want to emphasize that besides the description of the stationary solutions of the dynamics, the kinetic equations that are deduced by the WTT give a very good framework to investigate non stationary situations involved in wave
systems such as transitory or decaying regimes that often lead to self-similar dynamics~\cite{falko91,CNP03,Luc}.
The goal of this paper is to show, using the elastic vibrating plate, that the formation of an inverse cascade does not generally require a conserved quantity, opening up the possibility of self organization for a larger class of systems. In particular, nothing prevents the existence of a time dependent inverse cascade that would
transfer wave action from short scale to large scale.
The paper is organized as follows: Section \ref{sec:wtt}, introduces the dynamical version of the F\"oppl--von K\'arm\'an equations which provide the basic nonlinear equations for vibrating elastic plates, containing both bending and stretching. Then we summarize the main findings of the WTT of a vibrating plate, in particular the concept of the Kolmogorov-Zakharov spectra. Section \ref{sec:inverse} presents the numerical simulations of a vibrating plate which is forced only at very short wavelength, displaying a striking inverse cascade of wave action. Section \ref{sec:blowup} analyzes the numerical evidence of a self similar evolution which suggests a blows-up in finite time. Finally, we conclude with an overall discussion of the problem.
\section{ Wave turbulence theory of vibrating elastic plates}
\label{sec:wtt}
\subsection{The F\"oppl--von K\'arm\'an equations for elastic plates}
Vibrating elastic plates offer, perhaps, the most suitable weakly non linear wave system.
It is studied within the framework of the dynamical version of the F\"oppl--von K\'arm\'an equations
\cite{landau} which model the dynamics of the out of plane displacements of the plate. We shall use the same notations as in Ref. \cite{during}, but we write them in dimensionless units. We choose $ l={h}/{\sqrt{3(1- \sigma^2)}}$ as the unit of length, and $l \sqrt{\frac{\rho}{E}}$ as the unit of time. Here $h$ is the thickness of the elastic sheet, the material has a mass density $\rho$, a Young modulus $E$ and its Poisson ratio is $\sigma$.
In these units the equations read:
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\partial^2 \zeta}{\partial t^2} &=& -\frac{1}{4}\Delta^2\zeta +
\{\zeta,\chi\} ;
\label{foppl0}\\
\Delta^2\chi &=&- \frac{1}{2}\{\zeta,\zeta\}.
\label{foppl1}
\end{eqnarray}
The out of plane displacement of the plate in physical units is thus $l \zeta(x,y,t)$, and the Airy stress function is $E l^2 \chi(x,y,t)$. Equation (\ref{foppl1}) for the Airy stress function
$\chi(x,y,t)$ may be seen as the compatibility equation for the in--plane stress tensor which follows the dynamics at the lowest order \footnote{In the derivation we have omitted the inertia of the in-plane modes of oscillations, or in other words we assume that the in-plane displacements are negligible and the static equilibrium holds, so that, as said, equation (\ref{foppl1}) describes the dynamics.}.
The characteristic size of the plate is $L$, thus the dynamics of a free plate is governed by a single dimensionless parameter: $ \Lambda =\frac{ L}{l}=\sqrt{3(1- \sigma^2)} \frac{L}{h}$, which is typically of the order of $10^3$ up to $10^4$. $\Delta=\partial_{xx}+\partial_{yy}$ is the usual Laplacian and the bracket
$\{\cdot,\cdot\}$ is defined by $\{f,g\}\equiv f_{xx}g_{yy}+f_{yy}g_{xx}-2f_{xy}g_{xy},$ which is an exact divergence, so that equation (\ref{foppl0}) preserves the momentum of the center of mass, hence, $\partial_{tt} \int \zeta(x,y,t) \, dx\,dy=0$. Moreover, the total energy:
\begin{equation}
E = \int \left(\frac{1}{2}(\partial_t\zeta)^2+ \frac{1}{8} (\Delta \zeta )^2 - \frac{1}{2}(\Delta\chi)^2 - \frac{1}{2} \chi \{\zeta,\zeta\} \right)\,dx\,dy\, ,
\label{totalenergy}
\end{equation} is also conserved by the dynamics (\ref{foppl0},\ref{foppl1}).
Finally, small plane waves perturbations ($\zeta \sim e^{i( {\bm k}\cdot {\bm x} -\omega_k t)}$ with ${\bm x} =(x,y)$) of a plane plate are dispersive
with the usual ballistic behavior of bending waves, that is $\omega_{ k} = \frac{1}{2} |\bm k|^2$~\cite{landau}.
\subsection{Wave turbulence equations for the spectral densities}
As already discussed in Ref. \cite{during}, equations (\ref{foppl0},\ref{foppl1}) exhibit a Hamiltonian structure which is easy revealed in Fourier space, defined by $\zeta_{\bm k}(t)= \frac{1}{2\pi} \int \zeta({\bm x},t) e^{i {\bm k}\cdot {\bm x} } d^2{\bm x}$, with $\zeta_{\bm k}= \zeta_{-{\bm k}}^*$. The Hamiltonian structure allows one to performs a canonical transformation
\begin{equation} \zeta_{\bm k} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\omega_k}} ( A_{\bm k}+ A^*_{-{\bm k}} )\label{Canonical}
\end{equation}
which lead to a diagonalized form of the wave equation: \begin{equation}\frac{d A_{\bm k}}{d t}+i\omega_{ k} A_{\bm k}= i N_3( A_{\bm k}), \label{EqnForAs}
\end{equation}where $N_3(\cdot)$ abbreviates the cubic nonlinear interaction term given explicitly in Ref. \cite{during}.
The WTT describes the long time statistical behavior of weakly non linear random waves. The analysis is based on an infinite hierarchy of integro-differential equations for the cumulants of the canonical variables which maybe deduced directly from (\ref{EqnForAs}). In the weak wave amplitude limit,
a multiscale asymptotic expansion of these hierarchy of equations provides a rational scheme for solving every cumulants~\cite{ZakharovBook,NazarenkoBook,NewellRumpf}. As a result, the second order cumulant
\begin{equation}
\left< A_{ \bm k_1} A^{*}_{{\bm k}_2} \right> = n_{ {\bm k}_1} \delta^{(2)}(k_1+k_2),\label{spectrum}
\end{equation}
is shown to control the long-time dynamics of the wave system, where $n_{\bm k}$ is called the spectrum of the wave.
Other second order cumulants vanishes in the weak amplitude (long time) limit \cite{ZakharovBook,NazarenkoBook,NewellRumpf}, in particular
$$\left< A_{ \bm k_1} A_{{\bm k}_2} \right>\to 0 \quad \& \quad \left< A^*_{ \bm k_1} A^*_{{\bm k}_2} \right>\to 0. $$
The asymptotic perturbation scheme of this theory provides at first order a nonlinear frequency shift to the linear waves, leading to an effective oscillation frequency $\omega_k^{eff}=\omega_k + \omega_k^{(1)} +\dots$. This correction due to weak nonlinear effects is a function of the mean spectral density $n_{\bm k}(t)$ (\ref{spectrum}) and it reads (in the dimensionless units) \cite{during2}~:
\begin{equation}\omega^{(1)}_k= \frac{\pi}{ 2 } \left[ \int_0^k \frac{q^2}{k^2} n_q \, q d{q} + \int_k^\infty \frac{k^2}{q^2} n_q \, q d{q} \right] .
\label{OmegaRenorm}
\end{equation}
Notice that this frequency correction was also obtained by considering a limited number of nonlinear interactions~\cite{japs2}.
In addition, in the WWT this frequency shift (\ref{OmegaRenorm}) is useful to quantify the nonlinear effects, and by consequence the validity of the WTT. Indeed, the
ratio $\omega^{(1)}_k/\omega_k $ indicates the relative importance of the nonlinear term with respect to the linear behavior. The uniform validity of the WTT
requires that this ratio should satisfy $|\omega^{(1)}_k/\omega_k |\ll1$ for all the wave numbers. If this number is of the order of unity, wave turbulence is no longer
valid, at least for the concerned scales.
At the next order, WTT provides a kinetic equation that governs the mean spectral density evolution $n_{\bm k}(t)$, which reads \cite{during}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{d}{dt}n_{k}&=& {\mathcal C}[n_k] = 12\pi \int d{\bm{k}}_{1}d{\bm{k}}_{2}d{\bm{k}}_{3}\, \left|{ J_{-{\bm k}, {\bm k}_1;{\bm k}_2,{\bm k}_3} }\right|^2 \nonumber\\ & \times& \sum_{s_1s_2s_3} n_{{k}_1}n_{{k}_2}n_{{k}_3}n_{{k}}
\left(\frac{1}{n_{{k}}}-\frac{s_1}{n_{{k}_1}}-\frac{s_2}{n_{{k}_2}}-\frac{s_3}{n_{{k}_3}}\right)
\delta^{(2)} ({\bm k}-{\bm k}_1-{\bm k}_2-{\bm k}_3)
\delta( \omega_{{k}}-s_1\omega_{{k}_1}-s_2\omega_{{k}_2}-s_3\omega_{{k}_3}).
\label{KineticEqn}
\end{eqnarray}
The coefficient $ J_{-{\bm k}, {\bm k}_1;{\bm k}_2,{\bm k}_3} $, in Eq. (\ref{KineticEqn}), comes from the fourth order nonlinearities in the total energy (\ref{totalenergy}), and they are given explicitly in Ref. \cite{during}. The details of this scattering function $J$ is not needed here and we omit to write it for the sake of simplicity, but, for the purpose of this work, we only have to notice that it has
zero degree of homogeneity in $k$, that is
$$J_{-\lambda{\bm k} ,\lambda{\bm k}_1;\lambda{\bm k}_2,\lambda{\bm k}_3} = J_{-{\bm k}, {\bm k}_1;{\bm k}_2,{\bm k}_3}. $$
Finally, we mention that this function $J_{-{\bm k}, {\bm k}_1,{\bm k}_2,{\bm k}_3}$ vanishes as $\bm k\rightarrow 0$, so that the spectrum, does
not vary at $k=0$, in agreement with the original plate equations (\ref{foppl0}) and (\ref{foppl1}). If $n_{k=0}=0$ at $t=0$, then the spectrum vanishes
at $k=0$ for all time.
The spectral dynamic described by the kinetic equation (\ref{KineticEqn}) corresponds to four-waves resonances which enforce the energy and momentum
conservations in each interaction. However, in contrast with the case of diluted gases where each collision preserves the number of particles, the total number of
waves involved in the interaction is not formally conserved for vibrating plates. Moreover, it is interesting to notice that while the total energy (\ref{totalenergy}) is
conserved by the original F\"oppl--von K\'arm\'an equations (\ref{foppl0},\ref{foppl1}), the kinetic equation preserves only the quadratic part of the total energy,
namely, $E_2 = \int \left(\frac{1}{2}(\partial_t\zeta)^2+ \frac{1}{8} (\Delta \zeta )^2 \right)\,dx\,dy$.
The sum in (\ref{KineticEqn}) rules for $s_i = \pm 1$, that is, the kinetic equation (\ref{KineticEqn}) contains $8$ terms.
Among them, the one corresponding to all $s_i$ equal is not resonant and it thus vanishes. Three other terms (all identical by symmetries) correspond to
interactions of two waves coming-in and two waves going-out, so that the total number of waves is preserved by this interaction. We will refer to these terms further
on as the $2\leftrightarrow 2$ resonant case. Finally, there are four other interaction terms corresponding to one(three) wave(s) coming-in and three(one) waves going-out,
which are referred as the $3\leftrightarrow 1$ resonant case. In this later case, the total number of waves is not preserved formally by the four waves
interaction. We denote these two different interaction terms by $ {\mathcal C}_{22} $ and $ {\mathcal C}_{13}$, respectively, so that $ {\mathcal C}[n_k]= {\mathcal C}_{22}[n_k]+ {\mathcal C}_{13}[n_k]$.
This non wave action conservation represents a major difference with most of the known four-wave interaction systems such as surface gravity
waves~\cite{zakgrav66}, or nonlinear optics \cite{Dyachenko-92}. To our knowledge the only known physical systems that exhibit these two kind of
interactions ($2\leftrightarrow 2$ and $3\leftrightarrow 1$) are the symmetric capillary waves at the interface between two fluids \cite{falconduring} and the elastic
plates \cite{during}.
In conclusion, although the kinetic energy $ { \mathcal E} = \int { \omega_k } n_{\bm k}(t) d^2k,$ is preserved by the dynamics (\ref{KineticEqn}), the wave action, ${\mathcal N}= \int n_{\bm k}(t) d^2k,$ is not.
\subsection{Kolmogorov-Zakharov spectra}
Although the wave action is not preserved by the dynamics, local conservation equations can be deduced from the kinetic equation. Indeed,
the change in time of the energy spectral density $E(k)= 2\pi k \omega_k n_k $, can be written, after (\ref{KineticEqn}), as
\begin{equation}
\frac{d }{dt} E(k) = -\frac{d }{dk} P(k) \quad {\rm where}\quad P(k) = 2 \pi \int_k^\infty \omega_q {\mathcal C}[n_q]\, q\, dq
\label{fluxEdef}
\end{equation}
is the energy flux, which depends, in principle, explicitly on the wavenumber $k$ and $t$. Similarly, the wave action flux $Q(k)$ maybe defined via the wave action spectral density: $N(k)= 2\pi k n_k $, through:
\begin{equation}
\frac{d }{dt} N(k)= \frac{d }{dk} Q(k) \quad {\rm with}\quad Q(k) = 2 \pi \int_0^k {\mathcal C}[n_q]\, q\, dq.
\label{fluxNdef}
\end{equation}
As the energy flux, the wave action flux may depend on the wave number and time. Notice that the special writing of equations (\ref{fluxNdef}) may induce the wrong impression that $\int N(k) dk$ is conserved by the dynamics, but this is not so, because $Q(0) \neq Q(\infty)$. Wave turbulence theory predicts a class of exact power-law solutions of the kinetic equation (\ref{KineticEqn}), found by Zakharov \cite{ZakharovBook}, which keep the fluxes constant.
More precisely a (direct) energy cascade is found for which the energy flux $P$ is constant. Similarly, if the wave action is conserved by the dynamics, then, an (inverse) wave action cascade corresponding to a constant
wave action flux $Q$ can be exhibited. These solutions are named the Kolmogorov-Zakharov (KZ) spectra, because Zakharov's findings are in close relation with the Kolmogorov scaling arguments used in fluid turbulence.
Taking an arbitrary power law solution, $n_k = A\, k^{-2 x}$, introducing this into the collisional operator ${\mathcal C}[n_k]$ one readily gets:
$${\mathcal C}[A\, k^{-2 x}] = A^3 I(x) k^{2-6x}.$$
Here $I(x)$ is a pure function, which depends only on the exponent $x$, and whose expression has been explicitly written in Ref. \cite{during}.
Following (\ref{fluxEdef}) and (\ref{fluxNdef}), the fluxes are then given by:
\begin{equation} P = A^3 \frac{\pi I(x)}{6(x-1)} k^{6(1-x)} \quad {\rm and}\quad Q = A^3 \frac{\pi I(x)}{(2-3 x)} k^{4 - 6 x}.
\label{Fluxes}
\end{equation}
Constant energy or wave action fluxes are obtained if the exponents take the values $x=1$ or $x=2/3$ respectively. Such arguments guarantee only that
the scaling of the solution is consistent with the collisional operator. However, since the denominator vanish for those exponents, one needs in addition that the collisional operator vanishes in order to obtain stationary
solutions of the kinetic equation.
This condition is not satisfied for elastic plates, where the inverse cascade of wave action, $x=2/3$ is not a root of $I(x)$. Only the terms corresponding the $2\leftrightarrow 2$ resonances vanish for
$x=2/3$, while the terms due to $3\leftrightarrow 1$ resonances do not. Then, the flux $Q$ formally diverges and the KZ solution is not valid.
On the other hand, $I(x)$ has a double root for $x=1$ due to a special degeneracy ($I(x)$ vanishes quadratically near $x=1$, $I(x)\sim (1-x)^2$). It indicates that both the Rayleigh-Jeans and the KZ solutions exist for $x=1$. In practice, the resulting flux is zero, thus a logarithmic correction should be included on the final spectrum \cite{during}.
Therefore, the above considerations imply that only one cascade is guaranteed, namely a direct cascade of energy toward the small scales, which remarkably is not a simple power law. This KZ spectrum, predicted by~\cite{during}, reads (the numerical pre-factor is discussed in Ref. \cite{during2}):
\begin{equation}
n^{direct}_{ k} \sim P^{1/3 } \frac{\ln^{1/3}(k_*/k)}{k^2},
\label{KZ}
\end{equation}
where $P$ is the energy flux, and $k_*$ a cutoff scale. These solutions have been observed in numerical simulations performed with an ad-hoc dissipation concentrated at small scales only~\cite{during,japs,mordant13}.
However, experimental observations~\cite{arezki,mordant08,mordant09,mordant11} present a slightly different behavior for the direct energy cascade, which is understood as follows. In Ref. ~\cite{EPL}, it is shown that the dominant low frequency dissipation rate of the damping suppresses the existence of a window of transparency in the wave number range probed by the experiment. It turns out, that the stationary spectrum for a vibrating plate comes from the balance between the kinetic collision integral, the forcing and damping, displaying no simple KZ scaling spectrum, and exhibiting a strong dependence on the damping mechanisms \cite{EPL}.
We conclude this section with the following remark. If one neglects the $3\leftrightarrow 1$ resonances in the kinetic equation, that is if one imposes $\mathcal{C}_{13}[n_k]\approx 0$, then an inverse cascade of wave action with constant flux can exist in addition to the direct cascade of energy. This inverse cascade of wave action (from small scales to large
scales) reads:
\begin{equation}
n^{inverse}_{ k}\sim Q^{1/3 } \frac{1}{k^{4/3}},
\label{KZinverse}
\end{equation}
where $Q<\infty$ is identified as the (constant) wave action flux.
This inverse cascade transfers wave action between modes, a self-organization process which may lead to the formation of coherent structures and eventually
to the breakdown of the WTT~\cite{Dyachenko-92,becnls,becnls2}.
The goal of this paper is therefore to investigate the plate dynamics by forcing the vibrations at small scales only in order to observe the genuine transfer of wave
action towards large scales despite the presence of the $3\leftrightarrow 1$ interactions.
\section{Manifestation of an Inverse Cascade} \label{sec:inverse}
We solve numerically the coupled set of dynamical equations (\ref{foppl0}, \ref{foppl1}) using a pseudo-spectral method which takes advantage of the linear wave dynamics in Fourier space.
Formally, the equations (\ref{foppl0},\ref{foppl1}) read, in Fourier space:
\begin{equation}\ddot \zeta_{\bm k} = - \omega_k^2 \zeta_{\bm k} + NL_{\bm k} - D_{\bm k} \dot\zeta_{\bm k} + I_{\bm k},
\label{PlateEqnFourier}
\end{equation}
where $NL_k$ stands for the Fourier transform of the nonlinear term including equation (\ref{foppl1}), $D_k$ represents a linear damping and $I_k$ the forcing in
spectral space. Finally, the temporal integration is performed in the Fourier space using a second order Adams-Bashford scheme. Standard dealiaising technique
for cubic nonlinearity has been tested in previous works~\cite{during} with no qualitative changes in the results so that no dealiaising is used in the present
simulations.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\centerline{a) \includegraphics[width=5cm]{defo-552-c.eps} \quad b) \includegraphics[width=5cm]{defo-1252-c.eps} \quad c) \includegraphics[width=5cm]{defo-1554-c.eps} }
\centerline{d) \includegraphics[width=5cm]{defo-2054-c.eps} \quad e) \includegraphics[width=5cm]{defo-4056-c.eps} \quad f) \includegraphics[width=5cm]{defo-5058-c.eps} }
\caption{Snapshots the out of plate displacement $\zeta(x,y,t)$ obtained by the numerical simulation of the F\"oppl--von K\'arm\'an equations (\ref{foppl0},\ref{foppl1}) at six different times : a) $t=22\times 10^3$; b) $t=50\times 10^3$; c) $t=62\times 10^3$; d) $t=82\times 10^3$; e) $t=162\times 10^3$; and f) $t=202\times 10^3$. The injection is made at small scales, with $k_i=4.5$ and $\delta_i=0.5$. Numerical dissipation acts at smaller scale, starting at the end of the injection range ($k_d=5$). The amplitude of the injection is $A_i=0.0001$. The system size is $1024^2$ units with $2048^2$ modes and $k_c = 2 \pi$. Note that the vertical scales differ from one figure to the other, growing from a) to f). Despite this change of scale, the amplitude of the small spatial scales can always be observed. Notice the formation of a large scale structure as time increases.}
\label{snapshots}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In the present work we use periodic boundary conditions, which are the natural framework to investigate the features of the wave turbulence, the number of modes
ranging from $512^2$ up to $2048^2$, with a mesh size $dx=1/2$, leading to the spectral ultraviolet cut-off $k_c = \pi/dx= 2 \pi$. For numerical stability, the time
step used for the simulations is $dt=0.02$ unit time.
To observe the dynamics towards large scale, we force and dissipate the system at small scales only. The dissipation is given by $D_{\bm k}=-\eta (k^2-k_d^2) H(k-k_d)$ where $\eta$ is the amplitude of the damping, $H(\cdot)$ is the Heaviside function and $2\pi/k_d$ the characteristic scale below which the only dissipation acts. The forcing will be non zero only in the finite range $\left[k_i-\delta_i,k_i+\delta_i \right]$ where
$$I_{\bm k}=A_i
\frac{(k^2-(k_i-\delta_i)^2)((k_i+\delta_i)^2-k^2)}{k_i^4}e^{ i \theta_{\bm k}(t)}. $$ Here $k_i$ is the characteristic scale of the forcing, $\delta_i$ and $A_i$ its the width and amplitude respectively. The angular variable $\theta_k(t)$ is a random phase taken in the interval $[0,2\pi]$, which also changes randomly in time. Notice that this process injects both energy and wave action around $k_i$ since one cannot separate them formally.
To illustrate this inverse transfer mechanism, we take $k_d=k_i+\delta_i$ so that the inertial range for an energy cascade vanishes and the low frequency (large scale) inverse transparency window is the largest possible available. Finally, we have checked numerically that the results do not depend on the details
of the dissipation at small scales.
Although it is required to dissipate the energy at small scales (large $k$) to
reach numerically a stationary state, we have realized distinct numerical simulations with a sink and without it located near $k=0$, and we conclude that it is not
required to absorb nor dissipate the energy (nor the wave action) at the large scale (small $k$) to reach numerically a stationary state in the time scale of the
simulations. This can be explained firstly by the fact that energy is eventually dissipated at small scales leading to the general balance between the injected and
the dissipated energy. For the wave action, since this quantity is not conserved by the dynamics, everything works as if the wave action is formally absorbed by a sink at
$k=0$ (which is a neutral mode) so that there is no need to add such an absorption term near $k=0$ in the dynamics.
Fig. \ref{snapshots} shows the snapshots of the plate deformation at six distinct times of the evolution. Notice the apparent formation of a coherent structure
which at the end oscillates at the largest possible mode. This coherent structure appears as a consequence of the long time evolution which is
mostly characterized by the largest modes of oscillation of a plate
plus small fluctuations.
\vskip 1 cm
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\centerline{a)\, \includegraphics[width=8cm]{energyvstNoLabels.eps} \quad b)\, \includegraphics[width=8cm]{waveactionvstNoLabels.eps} }
\end{center}
\begin{picture}(0,0)(10,10)
\put(45,190) {{${\mathcal N}/L^2[\times 10^{-3}]$}}
\put(-215,190) {{${\mathcal E}/L^2[\times 10^{-3}]$}}
\put(-30,43) {{$t[\times 10^{3}]$}}
\put(225,43) {{$t[\times 10^{3}]$}}
\end{picture}
\caption{a) Evolution of the energy density ${\mathcal E}/L^2$; and, b) the wave action density ${\mathcal N}/L^2$ with time.
The parameters are the same than those of Fig. \ref{snapshots}. The time of the different snapshots of Fig. \ref{snapshots} are indicated on the curves.}
\label{dynam}
\end{figure}
Fig. \ref{dynam} shows the numerical evolution of the energy and the wave action with time for this numerical simulation. After a transitory regime where both quantities vary, we observe that a quasi-stationary regime is reached above $10^5$ unit time approximately.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\centerline{a)\, \includegraphics[width=8cm]{spectraloglog2048.eps}\quad b)\, \includegraphics[width=8cm]{WaveActionFlux.eps} }
\caption{ a) Angular average of the spectra, $n_k$, as a function of wavenumber $k$ in log-log scale, at different time steps starting at $t=35\times 10^3$. Subsequent spectra are labeled according to the snapshots of Fig. \ref{snapshots}. The straight line indicates a power law $k^{-4/3}$ as a reference guide. b) Under the same conditions log-log plot of the wave action flux $Q(k,t)$ as a function of wavenumber for the same times.}
\label{fig:spec-inv}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
This dynamics can also be inspected within the evolution of the wave spectrum which is defined following eq. (\ref{Canonical}) and (\ref{spectrum}) by:
$$n_{ k}(t) = \omega_k \langle |\zeta_{\bm k}|^2\rangle.$$
Fig. \ref{fig:spec-inv}-a shows the averaged value of the wave spectrum over the angle in the $k$-space.The forcing creates a wave action flux towards $k=0$ that ``fills'' the spectrum at large scale. This can be observed on Fig. \ref{fig:spec-inv}-b which present the wave action flux (\ref{fluxNdef}) at different time, computed explicitly as a sum over discrete modes $Q(k) = 2 \pi \sum_{q=0}^k k\, \partial_t n_k $. (Note that by definition $Q(0)=0$.)
For large time (again, above $10^5$ time units) the spectrum tends asymptotically to a stationary form that exhibits a power law with an exponent surprisingly close to the hypothetical $4/3$-inverse cascade exponent (\ref{KZinverse}) which is forbidden by the ${3\leftrightarrow1}$ interactions. Similarly, the wave action flux $Q$ converge to an almost constant value. Notice however, that the dynamics is not steady but only in a ``quasi"-stationary regime since the
large scale modes still exhibit a slow dynamics.
In the following, we will show that the evolution of this amplitude spectra can be decomposed in two distinct regimes in time, both being dominated by weakly random waves. The first regime displays a self-similar behavior corresponding to a non-constant wave action flux. On the other hand, the later regime displays a quasi-steady behavior consistent with an inverse cascade with a nearly $k^{-4/3}$ spectrum. This regime exhibits an almost constant flux of wave action towards the large scales (see \ref{fig:spec-inv}-b) except precisely near the largest scale of the system ($k\approx 0$).
\section{Signature of a finite-time singularity} \label{sec:blowup}
The first stage of the evolution appears as the formation in time of a spectrum characterized by a non uniform flux of wave action from the short to the long scales,
as shown in figure (\ref{fig:spec-inv}). This flux fills the spectrum from the large $k$ towards small $k$, tending to a
steady power-law spectrum with an almost constant flux of wave action $Q$ (Fig. \ref{fig:spec-inv}-b).
It is important to notice that this built in time spectrum is of finite capacity~\cite{newell}, that is $\int_0^k n_k d^2k < \infty$ (taking $n_k \propto k^{-\alpha}$ with $\alpha \sim 4/3$. Therefore one expects,
assuming a constant injection of wave action in the injecting domain around $k_i$, the formation of such spectrum in finite time. This situation is in fact similar to the self-similar formation of a condensate
of weakly classical nonlinear waves~\cite{becnls,becnls2,lacaze,lowtemp} and we shall characterize quantitatively this self-similar dynamics. To do that, we compute the characteristic length scale involved in the self-similar process, via the
negative moments (typically $n \leq -2$ later on) of the spectral distribution~\cite{ZakharovBook}:
\begin{eqnarray} \left< k^n\right> =
\left(\int k^n n_k (t) \, d^2k \right)/\left(\int n_k (t) \, d^2k \right). \label{moments}\end{eqnarray}
This allows to define characteristic wave numbers of the spectrum through $ \left< k^n\right>^{1/n}$. Fig. \ref{fig:moments} shows these characteristic wave number
to the power $2/3$ computed numerically for different moments from $n=-2$ to $n=-7$ at short times ($t<80000$ time units). We observe that the different curves
exhibit a linear decrease below a critical time $t_*$ suggesting the singular behavior for the critical wavenumber of the spectrum:
\begin{eqnarray}k_0(t) \sim (t_*-t)^{3/2}, \quad {\rm with}\quad t_*\approx 65000.\label{eqn:k0vst}\end{eqnarray}
It is the signature of a finite time singularity that would be present if the asymptotic spectrum would be filled with a constant wave action flux.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\centerline{ \includegraphics[width=8cm]{k0vst2048.eps} }
\caption{The evolution of the characteristic wave number $[k_0(t)]^{2/3}$ computed through the $n$-th moments of the distribution (\ref{moments}), for consecutive $n$ ranging from $n=-7 $ up to $n = -2$ (labeled explicitly on the figure). The simulation conditions are as for other figures. The straight lines correspond to a linear fit $K_n (t_* -t)$. Notice that almost all moments vanish near an unique critical time. The corresponding values for this time are: $t_* = 85971.8$ for $n=-7$, $t_* = 76926.9$ for $n=-6$, $t_* = 69154.8$ for $n=-5$, $t_* = 64971.5$ for $n=-4$, $t_* = 64173.4$ for $n=-3$, $t_* = 65376.9$ for $n=-2$. Despite the inaccuracy of the higher order moments (-7,-6) all other critical times are around $t_*\approx 65000$, indicating the independence of $t_*$ with order $n$ (Notice that the range of the temporal axis is different from the one of Figs. \ref{dynam} and \ref{fig:wNL}).}
\label{fig:moments}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
This singular behavior suggests a self-similar solution of the form~\cite{lacaze,lowtemp}:
\begin{equation}n_k (t)= \frac{1}{(t_*-t)^{\alpha}}\phi\left( \frac{k}{(t_*-t)^{\beta}} , \log(t_*-t) \right) .\label{selfeq}\end{equation}
From relation (\ref{eqn:k0vst}), we obtain $\beta =3/2$. The parameter $\alpha$ is settled assuming that wave turbulence theory is valid, so that the
self-similar solution (\ref{selfeq}) should obey the kinetic equation (\ref{KineticEqn}). $\alpha =2$ is then the only possible choice to balance the l.h.s. and the r.h.s terms in the kinetic equation (\ref{KineticEqn}). Finally, the function $\phi$ satisfies an autonomous equation, which reads:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial}{\partial\tau}\phi(s,\tau) = \left(2 \phi(s,\tau) +\frac{3}{2} s \frac{\partial}{\partial s}\phi(s,\tau) \right) -{\mathcal C}[\phi(s,\tau) ]
\label{SelfKineticEqn}
\end{equation}
where $s= k (t_*-t)^{-3/2}$ is the self similar variable, $\tau = \log(t_*-t) $, and $ {\mathcal C}$ is formally the same collisional operator of (\ref{KineticEqn}), but with the scaling variable $s$ instead of $k$.
Thus the self-similar function $\phi(s,\tau)$ follows an integro-differential equation (\ref{SelfKineticEqn}), with the boundary condition at the origin, $\phi(0,\tau) =0$, and with the asymptotic behavior
\begin{equation}
\phi(s,\tau) = \frac{1}{s^{2\nu} } e^{\lambda \tau}
\label{SelfKineticEqn2}
\end{equation}
for $s\to\infty$ and $\tau \to -\infty$ ($t\to t_*$). The condition $\lambda =2-3\nu$ ensures that, in this limit, the tail of the spectrum does not depend on time, as is observed in Fig. \ref{fig:initself-similare}. Notice that one can always re-scale $\phi$ of the nonlinear equation (\ref{SelfKineticEqn}) to settle the pre factor in (\ref{SelfKineticEqn2}) to unity.
Equation (\ref{SelfKineticEqn}) represents in fact a nonlinear eigenvalue problem for $\nu$, which indicates the power law of the spectrum at large wavenumber. Such problems are difficult
to solve analytically and even numerically since no systematic approaches exist \cite{lacaze,lowtemp}. Here we will develop an indirect method providing an approximate value only for $\nu$.
Using the relation between the theoretical values of $\alpha=2$ and $\beta=3/2$, we can rescale
the spectra at different times following the self-similar formula (\ref{selfeq}) by plotting $k_0(t)^{4/3}
n_k(t)$ as a function of $s= k/k_0(t)$ taking $k_0(t)= \left< k^{-2}\right>^{-1/2}$. A good collapse
of the spectra into a single universal curve is then observed in Fig. \ref{fig:initself-similare} particularly at large wavenumber $s$.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\centerline{ \includegraphics[width=8cm]{selfinit2048new.eps} }
\caption{Plot (log-log scale) of the rescaled spectra $k_0(t)^{4/3} n_k(t)$ as function of the rescaled variable $s= k/k_0(t)$, with $k_0(t) = \left< k^{-2}\right>^{-1/2}$. This choice shows a very good collapse of all curves in the large $k$ limit. The spectra plotted correspond to times ranging from $t=40000$ (colored in red) up to $t=60000$ (colored in violet) units. }
\label{fig:initself-similare}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In fact, the envelope of all the rescaled curves defines the function
$$\phi_\infty(s)= \lim_{\tau \rightarrow -\infty} \phi(s,\tau).$$
Averaging the curves near $t_*$ for the same simulations but with different system sizes $L=256$, $L=512$ and $L=1024$, we obtain a single curve with better resolution for
$\phi_\infty(s)$, as shown on Fig. \ref{universalphi})-a). Then, seeking the exponent $\nu$ such that $ s^{2\nu} \phi_\infty(s)\to 1$ for large $s$, the best fit gives
$\nu \approx 0.873$, which is significantly different (higher) than the theoretical value $\nu=2/3$ of the inverse cascade eq. (\ref{KZinverse}). Let us emphasize that it is in fact consistent with such unsteady regime which fills the spectrum from small to large scales.
The particular shape of the universal function $\phi_\infty(s)$ requires a few comments. Firstly, the spectrum decreases near $s=0$, in agreement with the boundary condition $\phi(0,\tau) =0$.
Second, as expected, in the self similar variables the forcing position in the spectrum tends to $s\to\infty$, as one approaches the singularity, therefore the forcing only acts as a boundary condition in the ultraviolet regime. Finally, the matching region between the inner and outer behavior corresponds to the maximum of the function.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\centerline{a)\, \includegraphics[width=8cm]{univphi.eps} \quad b)\, \includegraphics[width=8cm]{univphiloglog.eps} }
\end{center}
\begin{picture}(0,0)(10,10) \put(105,190) {\large{$ \phi_\infty(s)$}} \put(-215,190) {\large{$\phi_\infty(s)$}} \put(-10,40) {\large{$s$}} \put(250,80) {\large{$s$}} \end{picture}
\caption{a) Self-similar universal function $\phi_\infty(s)$ as a function of the self similar variable, $s$, in linear scale. The data comes from the same conditions as Fig. \ref{fig:spec-inv}, but for three distinct system sizes: $L= 256$, green dots; $L= 512$, blue dots; and $L= 1024$, red dots. b) The same self-similar universal function, but in log-log scale. Fitting the exponent $\nu$ such that $ s^{2\nu} \phi_\infty(s)\to 1$ for large $s$ provides $\nu \approx 0.873$ which is slightly larger than $2/3$. }
\label{universalphi}
\end{figure}
\section{Validity of wave turbulence and the late stage regime}
The self-similar behavior (\ref{selfeq}), discussed in the previous section, predicts that wave turbulence assumptions will not be valid near the finite singularity.
In general, wave turbulence theory is no longer valid either because high amplitudes of the spectrum are reached at large scale or because of the discrete dynamics of the modes corresponding to wave lengths close to the size of the computational domain.
The nonlinear transition due to high amplitude will appear at small $k$ when, for some wave numbers, the nonlinear time scale deduced from
equation (\ref{KineticEqn}) is of the same order as the period of the linear wave~\cite{newell}. In the present case of (\ref{selfeq}) one has that the nonlinear and the linear frequencies scale respectively as:
\begin{equation}
\omega_{NL}(k) \sim \frac{1}{n_k} \frac{d n_k}{dt} \sim \frac{1}{t_*-t}\quad {\rm and}\quad \omega_k \sim (t_*-t)^{3},\label{BreakdownCriteria}
\end{equation}
near $t_*$. Therefore one expects the nonlinearities to be large as $t\to t_*$ so that WWT cannot applied anymore.
In the following we compute numerically two distinct criteria to quantify the ratio between nonlinear and linear contributions.
First, we computed the ratio between the nonlinear energy, $E_4 = -\int \left( \frac{1}{2}(\Delta\chi)^2 + \frac{1}{2} \chi \{\zeta,\zeta\} \right)\,dx\,dy\, $, and the linear energy
$E_2 = \int \left(\frac{1}{2}(\partial_t\zeta)^2+ \frac{1}{8} (\Delta \zeta )^2 \right)\,dx\,dy\, $, already discussed in (\ref{totalenergy}). This is a global criteria which
depends only on time and indicates the relative importance of both energies in the dynamics. Fig. \ref{fig:wNL}a) shows this ratio as a function of time. It is
observed that $E_4/E_2$ is at most of the order of $6\times 10^{-3}$, indicating that the non-linear contributions (the stretching contributions) to the energy are really small.
Incidentally, the maximum of $E_4/E_2$ arises for $t\approx t_*$ confirming the existence of a precursor to a singularity. This can be understood by the following scaling
argument: near the
singularity, the quadratic energy would scale like $E_2 \sim \int \omega_k n_k \,d^2k \sim (t_*-t)^4$, while the fourth order energy (the stretching) would follow
$E_4 \sim \int n_{k} ^2 \, d^2k\sim 1/(t_*-t)$, hence $E_4/E_2\sim (t_*-t)^{-5}.$
Although this criterium suggests that the nonlinear behavior is globally weak, one cannot ensure
that the nonlinearities are uniformly weak and in particular that the nonlinearities are
effectively small for all scales. A local (in $k$) criteria can be used numerically via the ratio between the linear time scale and the first order nonlinear correction to the frequency (\ref{OmegaRenorm}), as stated in eq. (\ref{BreakdownCriteria}).
Fig. \ref{fig:wNL}b) plots the ratio ${\omega^{(1)}(k)}/{\omega_k}$, from (\ref{OmegaRenorm}), as a function of the wave number at different times. One notices that the infra-red behavior of the quotient ${\omega^{(1)}(k)}/{\omega_k}$ increases significantly when approaching the singularity. Nevertheless, it is always less than $10^{-2}$, which implies that the weak amplitude expansion is presumably uniformly valid, even near the singularity signature.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\centerline{ a) \includegraphics[width=8cm]{H4surH2.eps} \quad b) \includegraphics[width=8cm]{wNL.eps} }
\caption{ a) The ratio $E_4/E_2$ vs. $t$, under the same conditions as in Fig. \ref{fig:spec-inv} but for three distinct system sizes $L=256,\, 512$ and $1024$ with $512^2$, $ 1024^2$ and $2048^2$ modes respectively. b) The ratio ${\omega^{(1)}(k)}/{\omega_k}$ as a function of the wave number $k$ for different times steps in log-log scale. The range of time plotted corresponds exactly to the one used in Fig. \ref{fig:initself-similare}, that is from $t = 40000$ time units (colored in red) up to $t = 60000$ (colored in violet). Both quantities show the weakness of the nonlinearities in all wave numbers and at all times, justifying the validity of the weak turbulence theory. }
\label{fig:wNL}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Though wave turbulence theory predicts breakdown of the theory (\ref{BreakdownCriteria}),
because $\omega_{NL}(k)/\omega_k\sim (t_*-t)^{-4}$, one observes that direct numerical
simulations on the F\"oppl--von K\'arm\'an equations (\ref{foppl0},\ref{foppl1}) do not allow the
nonlinearities to be of the order of unity. Nevertheless, in the case of a large forcing, such effects
have been seen in our numerics and it could be then a reason for the breakdown of wave turbulence.
In conclusion, in the limit of small forcing investigated here, the system does not create strong nonlinearities although the singular behavior is cured near $t_*$. This effect comes from the discrete properties of the system which becomes relevant at this stage, in particular, to the discrete dynamics of the first modes of the plate (the lowest in term of frequency) which have to be considered in a modified picture of wave turbulence theory~\cite{karta,shrira}.
\section{Discussion}
Our numerical study reveals that a wave action inverse cascade is built in time and eventually
reaches the infrared region in finite time through a clearly identifiable self similar process. In this
early time regime, the wave system is driven by the WWT kinetic equation (\ref{KineticEqn}),
and the
dynamics is characterized by a self similar evolution which should eventually blow-up in finite time.
However, near the singularity, the dynamics is smoothed and the kinetic equation is no longer
valid: in the small forcing cases, investigated here, the system is governed by the discrete
dynamics of the largest modes coupled with the continuous spectrum (a discrete breakdown). On the other hand, for larger forcing (not studied here), a regularization of the dynamics through the nonlinear breakdown of the
WWT is expected (nonlinear breakdown).
For other systems where the wave action is a conserved quantity (for instance for the nonlinear Schr\"odingier equation), a condensate at (or around) $k=0$ forms, changing the post blow-up dynamics~\cite{becnls,becnls2}. Such effects are not possible here since the wave action is not conserved by the dynamics. The mode $k=0$ is neutral and remains null with time. Nevertheless, as it has been shown for the non-linear Schr\"{o}dinger equation~\cite{falko13}, the first modes of the systems can exhibit an autonomous dynamics. Figure \ref{fig:condensate}-a) shows precisely the evolution with time of the amplitude for the lowest mode of the plates: after the blow-up time $t^*$, the amplitude of this mode grows more or less linearly in time, but exhibiting also important oscillations. Finally, for these large times, a stationary regime is eventually reached where the spectrum behaves approximatively like $n_k \sim 1/k^{4/3}$ for the low wave numbers ($k<0.2$ in Fig. \ref{fig:condensate}-b) and $n_k \sim 1/k^{2\times 0.873 }$ for the smaller wavelength ($0.5< k< k_d$ in Fig. \ref{fig:condensate}-b). This stationary regime is not surprising, since we expect that the long time behavior does not change the power law built by the self similar evolution (Section \ref{sec:inverse}), and long wave modulations transfer wave action toward $k=0$ with precisely the Kolmogorov-Zakharov spectrum, $n_k \sim 1/k^{4/3}$, which corresponds to the constant
wave action flux solution found for ${\mathcal C}_{22}[n_k]$. However, notice that this regime is not formally steady for the smallest wave numbers, where the
dynamics appears rather more like a relaxation towards a full stationary dynamics.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\centerline{ a) \, \includegraphics[width=8cm]{Condensate.eps}\quad b)\, \includegraphics[width=8cm]{evol2048long.eps} }
\caption{ a) Evolution of the fraction of the first mode. This plot corresponds exactly to the numerical simulation of Fig. \ref{snapshots} and the times of the different snapshots are indicated. b) The long-time evolution of the spectra. The time considered are from $t=80000$ units (colored by red) up to $t=240000$ (colored by violet). The spectra only vary for the small wavenumbers where it relaxes towards the stationary power law spectrum $n_k \propto k^{-2 \nu}$ with $\nu \sim 2/3$. The line ({\it i}) correspond to a 4/3-power law, while the line ({\it ii}) corresponds to a $2\times 0.873$ power law which represents better the behavior in the large $k$ limit.}
\label{fig:condensate}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In conclusion, although an elastic vibrating plate does not formally posses a wave action conservation law, an undoubtedly inverse cascade of wave action is observed, exhibiting a complex time dependent dynamics. The process of formation of such an inverse cascade is ruled by a self similar evolution of the spectra which transfers wave action from short wavelength scales up to long wave length scales. Formally the observed self similar solution blows-up leading to a singular behavior which is cured in the original system, probably, because of the finite size of the system and the role played by the discreteness of the modes. The late evolution of the system is also governed by wave turbulence theory, although the discrete nature of the lowest modes modifies the overall picture. This scenario is consistent with the formation of a coherent structure which is characterized by the largest modes of oscillation (see Fig. \ref{fig:wNL}a) plus small fluctuations. Remarkably, the nonlinear fraction of the energy indicates that this coherent structure makes the stretching very small.
The authors would like to thank Peter Mason for numerous comments and fruitful discussions. G.D. acknowledges support from CONICYT PAI/Apoyo al Retorno 82130057, C.J. and S.R. acknowledge the FONDECYT grant N 1130709 (Chile). SR. is on leave from Institut Non Lin\'aire de Nice, UMR 6618 CNRS-UNSA, 1361 Route des Lucioles, 06560 Valbonne, France, EU.
|
\section{Introduction}
The radio--far infrared (FIR) correlation is one of the tightest observed
correlations in astrophysics that connects several independent physical
parameters in the interstellar medium (ISM). The radio luminosity and the FIR
luminosity of star-forming galaxies are observed to be correlated over five
orders of magnitude for the global scale \citep{helou85, condo92, yun01,
apple04, sarge10} with dispersion less than a factor of 2. The radio
luminosity is typically measured at 1.4 GHz and the FIR luminosity can be both
monochromatic (at 24, 60 or 70$\mu$m) or bolometric (between 40 and 120$\mu$m
or between 8 and 1000$\mu$m).
The radio--FIR correlation is well studied for galaxies in the local universe
for several classes of galaxy morphology like spirals, ellipticals, dwarf
irregulars, etc. It is known to hold good at global \citep{condo92, yun01,
price92, wunde87} as well as at local scales (few 100 pc to few kpc) within
galaxies \citep{basu12b, dumas11, hughe06, hoern98}. At the brightest end of
FIR luminosity, the relationship is observed to hold for (ultra) luminous
infrared galaxies [(U)LIRG] and star-burst galaxies. At the faintest end it
holds in dwarf galaxies \citep{chyzy11, roych12}.
It is believed that star-formation connects the two regimes of emission.
Synchrotron (also referred to as non-thermal) emission in the radio band is
caused by acceleration of cosmic ray electrons (CREs) in the galactic magnetic
field produced by supernova explosions of massive stars. In the FIR, the
emission originates due to dust re-radiation, heated by ultraviolet (UV)
photons from massive ($\gtrsim10~\rm M_\odot$), short lived ($\sim10^6$ yrs)
stars. However, the tightness seen in the correlation needs to be explained, as
a number of independent physical quantities are responsible for the emission in
each regime like, the magnetic field, number density of CREs, energy losses of
CREs, star formation history, dust/gas density, dust absorption efficiency,
etc. Several models have been proposed to explain the tightness seen in the
radio--FIR correlation \citep[see e.g.;][]{volk89, helou93, nikla97b}. More
recent models by \citet{lacki10} and \citet{bell03} have shown that the above
mentioned factors conspire to maintain the tightness observed for the global
radio--FIR correlation.
Observationally, it is important to assess the form of the radio--FIR
correlation at high redshifts as it might depend on the evolution of ISM
parameters with redshift ($z$) like synchrotron and inverse-Compton losses,
dust content, star formation rate, magnetic field strength and overall SED
\citep[see e.g.;][]{murph09, lacki10, schle13}. Recently, \citet{schle13}
predicted a modification of the form of the radio--FIR correlation, based on
the observed relationship between magnetic field strength and star formation
rate caused due to turbulent amplification of the magnetic field. A breakdown
in the correlation is expected depending on the dominant energy loss mechanism
of the CREs in the radio domain, i.e., synchrotron, inverse-Compton,
bremsstrahlung and/or ionization losses.
Typical (1$\sigma$) sensitivity of most of the existing deep radio surveys are
limited only to few tens of $\mu$Jy (see e.g., \citealt{bondi03} [VLA-VVDS];
\citealt{schinn10} [VLA-COSMOS]; \citealt{hodge11} [EVLA-Stripe82], etc.).
However, a few deeper surveys exists reaching 1$\sigma$ sensitivity
$<10~\mu$Jy (see e.g., \citealt{mille13} [E-CDFS]; \citealt{morri10}
[GOODS-N]). These observations can detect normal galaxies ($L_{\rm 1.4GHz}
\sim 10^{22}~\rm W~Hz^{-1}$) up to redshift of $\sim0.2$ at 1.4 GHz with
$\gtrsim5\sigma$ sensitivity, making it difficult to study the radio--FIR
correlation for such galaxies at higher redshifts. The correlation has been
studied for (U)LIRGs with higher luminosity ($L_{\rm 1.4GHz} \gtrsim
10^{23}~\rm W~Hz^{-1}$) up to redshifts of $\sim3$ \citep{apple04, mao11,
delmo13}. Such galaxies can have significant contamination due to AGNs and
compact nuclear starbursts. Even in the case of relatively low optical depth,
starburst related free--free absorption can give rise to substantial
obscuration \citep{condo91b} that can affect the form of the correlation. It
is therefore imperative to study the radio--FIR correlation for less extreme
star-forming galaxies at {\it high redshifts} where the bulk of the radio and
FIR emission originates from star formation.
In this paper, we study the properties of the radio--FIR correlation, both the
slope and the traditionally defined `$q$' parameter, for a flux limited and
color selected sample in the XMM-LSS field. We explore the correlation for
blue star-forming galaxies up to $z\sim1.2$ employing the technique of image
stacking. Due to the inherent flux limitation of the parent sample, we detect
normal star-forming galaxies up to $z\sim0.9$ and more luminous galaxies above
that. For comparison, we study the correlation for luminous galaxies
that are directly detected in this field up to $z\sim$ 0.95.
The paper is organized as follows: In Section 2, we describe our sample
selection and data. We discuss the technique of image stacking at 0.325 GHz
and 1.4 GHz in the radio and at 24, 70, 160, 250, 350 and 500 $\mu$m in the FIR
and the $k-$correction method in Section 3. We present our results in Section
4 and discuss them in Section 5. Throughout this paper, we assume a flat
$\Lambda-$CDM model with $H_0 = 70\rm~km~s^{-1}$, $\Omega_{\rm M}=0.27$ and
$\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.73$.
\begin{table*}
\begin{centering}
\caption{Multi waveband surveys of the XMM-LSS field.}
\begin{tabular}{@{}lcccccc@{}}
\hline
Survey & Total Area & Resolution & 5$\sigma$ sensitivity & $N_{\rm tot}$ & $N_{\rm PRIMUS}$ & $N_{\rm match}$\\
& (deg$^{2}$) & ($\arcsec \times \arcsec$) & (mJy) & & & \\
\hline
GMRT 0.325 GHz & 12 & $9.4\times7.4$ & 0.75 & 3929 & 894 & 111 \\
VLA 1.4 GHz$^1$ & 1.3 & $5\times4$ & 0.10 & 505 & 478 & 109 \\
SWIRE 24$\mu$m$^2$ & 10.6 & $5.6\times5.6$ & 0.45 & 24799 & 9231& 1812\\
SWIRE 70$\mu$m$^2$ & 10.4 & $16.7\times16.7$ & 2.75 & 802 & 301 & 76\\
SWIRE 160$\mu$m$^2$ & 10.3 & $35.2\times35.2$ & 17.5 & 286 & 106 & 28\\
HerMES 250$\mu$m$^3$ & 18.87 & $18\times18$ & 25.8 & 37905 & 7331& 3004\\
HerMES 350$\mu$m$^3$ & 18.87 & $25\times25$ & 21.2 & 42398 & 8361& 3378\\
HerMES 500$\mu$m$^3$ & 18.87 & $37\times37$ & 30.8 & 36933 & 7293& 2856\\
\hline
\end{tabular}\\
\end{centering}
$N_{\rm tot}$: Total number of catalog sources -- $^1$\citet{simps06}; $^2$Surace et al.\footnote{http://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/data/SPITZER/SWIRE/docs/delivery\_doc\_r2\_v2.pdf}; $^3$\citet{smith12, roseb10}\\
$N_{\rm PRIMUS}$: Number of sources within the PRIMUS footprint\\
$N_{\rm match}$: Number of sources having a PRIMUS counterpart\\
\label{sourcecounts}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
{\mbox{\includegraphics[width=16cm, angle=0]{gmrt_xmmlss_new1.eps}}}
\end{center}
\caption{Footprints of the various surveys of the XMM-LSS field used in
this work overlaid on the 0.325 GHz GMRT mosaic in units of Jy beam$^{-1}$. We
have saturated the image at 5 mJy beam$^{-1}$ for better representation. The
grids have a separation of 1 degree in each axis. The thick black box outlines
the 12 deg$^2$ region having smooth rms noise of $\sim150~\mu$Jy beam$^{-1}$.
The red area shows the VLA 1.4 GHz coverage of 1.3 deg$^2$ from
\citet{simps06}. The inner blue area shows the 2.88 deg$^2$ coverage of the PRIMUS
and the outer blue area shows the coverage of CFHTLS.
The yellow area outlines the SWIRE coverage of $\sim9$ deg$^2$ and the orange
area shows the HerMES coverage of the XMM-LSS field covering $\sim15$ deg$^2$.}
\label{gmrt-xmmlss}
\end{figure*}
\section{Sample selection and data}
To study the radio--FIR correlation at high redshift, one requires robust
identification of galaxies along with accurate spectroscopic redshifts. The
radio emission in galaxies mainly originates from non-thermal emission and
thermal bremsstrahlung emission. The thermal emission can affect the form of
the radio--FIR correlation \citep{hoern98, hughe06}. However, owing to the
steep spectrum, more than 95 percent of the total emission at low radio
frequencies ($\sim0.325$ GHz) is non-thermal in origin \citep{basu12a}. Thus,
to ensure that the bulk of the radio emission is non-thermal in origin, a deep
radio survey at low frequencies, like 0.325 GHz, is necessary. Finally, a deep
survey in the FIR regime at longer wavelengths ($\lambda \gtrsim 20~\mu$m) is
important to avoid contamination from polyaromatic hydrocarbon features in the
$5-10~\mu$m regime up to $z=1$.
Here, we combine our Giant Metrewave Radio Telescope (GMRT) observations at
0.325 GHz with archival mid-infrared, far-infrared and 1.4 GHz radio data in
the XMM-LSS field (centered at RA=2h 21m 00s, Dec=$-4^\circ$ 30$^\prime$
00$^{\prime\prime}$ J2000). In Table~\ref{sourcecounts} we present the salient
features of the various multiwavelength surveys used in this paper and
Figure~\ref{gmrt-xmmlss} shows the footprints of these surveys overlaid on the
0.325 GHz GMRT mosaic image.
\subsection{PRIMUS galaxy sample}
\subsubsection{Salient features of the PRIMUS survey}
Our parent galaxy sample is drawn from the PRIsm MUlti-object Survey
\citep[PRIMUS;][]{coil11}. PRIMUS is a spectroscopic faint galaxy redshift
survey to $z \sim 1$ using the Inamori Magellan Areal Camera and Spectrograph
camera on the Magellan I Baade 6.5 m telescope at the Las Campanas Observatory.
PRIMUS observed $\sim2500$ objects at once over a 0.18 deg$^2$ field of view
employing a low-dispersion prism and slitmasks. PRIMUS has covered a total of
9.1 deg$^2$ of sky to a depth of $i_{AB} \sim 23.5$ in seven well studied
fields, one of which is the XMM-LSS field. It is in this field that the highest
number of PRIMUS spectroscopic redshifts have been obtained. The redshift
distribution of PRIMUS sample galaxies peaks at $z \sim 0.6$ and extends to $z
= 1.2$ for normal galaxies (the galaxies of interest in this paper) and $z = 5$
for broad-line active galactic nuclei. In the XMM-LSS field, PRIMUS
observations cover $\sim2.88$ deg$^2$ sky area and detected a total of 102218
objects. Due to the usual limitations of a prism based spectrograph, not all
redshifts are equally robust. The PRIMUS team assigned a redshift confidence
flag $Q$ for every galaxy in their sample. They consider a redshift measurement
to be robust if $Q$ = 3 or 4. With this criterion, robust redshifts were
obtained for a total of 44451 normal galaxies and AGN in the XMM-LSS field. We
only use the galaxies with robust redshift measurements in our analysis. Note
that in the XMM-LSS field there are also PRIMUS calibration observations of
some sources in the VVDS field \citep{lefev05}. This was done to verify the
quality of prism spectroscopy in PRIMUS by comparing it to higher resolution
spectroscopy done with other telescopes. Since these calibration sources are
mostly a mix of galaxies from different spectroscopic campaigns, it is
difficult to perform any kind of statistical analysis on them. We have
therefore excluded all sources in the calibration fields in the XMM-LSS area
from our sample.
\subsubsection{Removal of AGN}
The PRIMUS color selection is designed to select normal (non-AGN) galaxies with
$0 < z < 1.2$. Separately, a variety of targeting criteria were used to target
candidate AGN \citep[see][]{coil11}. The PRIMUS team carefully identified the
AGNs in their sample by fitting AGN spectral templates \citep[see][]{cool13}.
These are indicated by the CLASS keyword in the PRIMUS catalog. We have removed
the objects which have CLASS=AGN in our analysis.
\subsubsection{Removal of red galaxies}
A second, more serious, complication is that the PRIMUS sample contains
both ``blue cloud'' and ``red sequence'' galaxies.
These correspond to different galaxy populations with large differences in
physical parameters such as the current star-formation rate, star formation
history, stellar mass, dust content and to a large extent, galaxy morphology
\citep{tojei13}. Broadly, the ``blue cloud'' galaxies represent active
star-forming, disk galaxies \citep{kauff03, wyder07} while the ``red sequence''
galaxies are passive and/or dust-obscured active star-forming galaxies
\citep{baldr06, taylo15}. The significant and systematic differences in star
formation properties of these two populations are likely to impact their radio
and FIR properties as well. It is therefore important to remove the
``red'' galaxies from our sample.
Since the radio--FIR correlation is believed to be driven by star
formation, we focus our attention on studying the ``blue cloud'' galaxies
(henceforth referred as blue galaxies). Blue galaxies are widely distributed
across redshifts \citep[see e.g.,][]{labbe07, bramm11}, actively forming stars
and are supposed to dominate the cosmic star formation rate density
\citep{magne09}. Further, they are sufficient in number to produce better
signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) for stacking analysis. The number of red galaxies
in the PRIMUS sample are insufficient for a robust analysis and are
therefore not studied here. We find a total of 36,776 blue galaxies in PRIMUS
at whose positions we perform image stacking in various infrared and radio
bands.
A color-magnitude diagram is used to separate ``blue'' and ``red'' galaxies.
For the PRIMUS sample, \citet{skibb14} proposed a color-magnitude diagram based
separation using the $u-g$ color and the $g-$band absolute magnitude ($M_g$).
The dividing line in the color-magnitude plot is defined as \citep{skibb14},
$$(u-g)_{\rm cut} = -0.031 M_g - 0.065z + 0.695.$$ Here, $z$ is the redshift of
the galaxy. The redshift dependence accounts for the change in the positions of
the two populations with redshift. Using this dividing line, we separate the
PRIMUS galaxies into ``blue cloud'' and ``red sequence'' galaxies. Overall
$\sim$80 percent of the PRIMUS galaxies are blue, however, this fraction
changes slightly with redshift.
A small fraction of dusty star-forming galaxies may appear red due to reddening
and thus can be classified as red galaxies owing to the color selection. Our
sample misses star-forming galaxies where the blue light is significantly
absorbed or scattered by dust. For PRIMUS galaxies, \citet{zhu11} showed that,
at $L\sim L_\star$, obscured star-forming galaxies comprise $\sim15$
percent of the red sequence population over all redshifts. They find, at
lower luminosities (up to 0.2$L_\star$), the fraction of obscured star-forming
galaxies in the red sequence population are up to $\sim30$ percent. In
the PRIMUS sample, due to the inherent flux limitation, such galaxies reside
mostly in the lower redshift bins. At higher redshifts the low luminosity
galaxies are missed by the PRIMUS itself and therefore it is difficult to study
the overall fraction of obscured star-forming galaxies. However, in our sample
of PRIMUS galaxies we find $\sim20$ percent to be red, in the redshift range
0--1.2. Thus, up to $\sim6$ percent of the entire PRIMUS sample studied here
could be dusty star-forming galaxies which are missed in our sample of blue
galaxies.
\subsubsection{Malmquist bias}
PRIMUS is a flux limited survey. It samples 100 percent of target galaxies to
$i_{AB}=22.5$ and samples galaxies sparsely up to 0.5 magnitudes fainter with
well defined a priori sampling rates. Like all flux limited surveys, it is
subject to the well known Malmquist bias. At progressively higher redshifts,
galaxies with higher intrinsic luminosities form the luminosity cutoff in the
sample. This bias could be corrected by employing a luminosity cutoff that is
sufficiently high. Unfortunately, given our requirement for large sample size
while stacking, such an approach would not work for us. For a fixed flux limit,
and with no $k-$correction, the ratio of the minimum luminosity in the highest
redshift bin to that in the lowest one is about 125, for our chosen
cosmological parameters. The lowest redshift bin samples galaxies that are
more than $\sim0.2$ times as luminous as the Milky Way while the highest bin
samples galaxies that are more than $\sim25$ times brighter than the Milky Way.
This implies that a true comparison of similar type of object (e.g. at a fixed
$k-$corrected luminosity or at fixed stellar mass) across redshifts is not
possible for our sample.
Further, PRIMUS is forced to exclude regions around bright stars, so there are
gaps in the spectroscopic coverage where such stars are present. Also, the
spectrograph places limits on the minimum separation between slits. This
implies that the highly clustered component of the sample is incompletely
sampled.
Despite these limitations and biases, we chose to work with the PRIMUS since it
provides the largest sample of flux-limited, high-density, non-AGN galaxies
with spectroscopic redshifts over a relatively wide area to $z \sim 1.2$ that
is currently available.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
{\mbox{\includegraphics[width=9cm]{gmrt_primus_zoom.eps}}}
\end{center}
\caption{A small portion of our 0.325 GHz image is shown with the blue PRIMUS
galaxies overplotted as red circles. It is apparent that the surface density of
PRIMUS sources far exceeds the density of radio sources. Overall, 99.7 percent
of the PRIMUS galaxies do not have detected 0.325 GHz radio counterparts above
5$\sigma$ level.}
\label{gmrt-primus}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Data}
\subsubsection{Radio data at 0.325 GHz and 1.4 GHz}
The XMM-LSS field is observed at 0.325 GHz using the GMRT for 40 hours divided
into four 10 hour observation runs. The field is covered by a 16-pointing
mosaic with a phase center to phase center separation of 1.0 degree. Scans are
carried out in semi-snapshot mode of 6-17 min each to optimize the {\it
uv-}coverage. This resulted in approximately uniform sensitivity within the
central region. The final map covers the central $\sim12$ deg$^2$ having an
average 1$\sigma$ rms noise of $\sim150~\mu$Jy beam$^{-1}$ (shown as the thick
black region in Figure~\ref{gmrt-xmmlss}). Additional area covered has higher
$rms$ noise. A detailed description of the observations and data reduction will
be presented in a forth-coming paper (Sirothia et al., in prep).
In our 0.325 GHz observations, we detected 3929 sources with signal-to-noise
ratio higher than 5$\sigma$ local rms noise within the central region of which
894 sources lie within the PRIMUS footprint. There are only 111 sources having
a PRIMUS counterpart (see Table~\ref{sourcecounts}) and 85 of them are
identified as blue galaxies. Thus, more than 99.7 percent of the PRIMUS
galaxies are not directly detected at 0.325 GHz. The large number of
non-detections in the radio, makes this sample ideal for stacking
analysis. Figure~\ref{gmrt-primus} shows the positions of the PRIMUS blue
galaxies (red circles) overlaid on a small part of the 0.325 GHz radio image.
The image clearly shows that bulk of the radio sky is blank at the position of
the PRIMUS blue galaxies.
To estimate the spectral index for $k-$correcting the 0.325 GHz luminosities to
respective rest frequency at higher redshift we used the Very Large Array 1.4
GHz image from \citet{simps06} (shown as the red area in
Figure~\ref{gmrt-xmmlss}). They observed $\sim1.3$ deg$^2$ of the Subaru/{\it
XMM-Newton} Deep Field and produced a catalog of 505 sources covering the
central 0.8 deg$^2$ with peak flux density limit of $100~\mu$Jy at 5$\sigma$.
There are 478 sources lying within the PRIMUS coverage of which 109 have a
PRIMUS counterpart.
\subsubsection{FIR data between $24 - 500~\mu$m}
The Level 6 Herschel Multi-tiered Extragalactic Survey\footnote{The HerMES
project (http://hermes.sussex.ac.uk/) is a Herschel Key Programme utilizing
Guaranteed Time from the SPIRE instrument team, ESAC scientists and a mission
scientist. The HerMES data was accessed through the Herschel Database in
Marseille (HeDaM - http://hedam.lam.fr) operated by CeSAM and hosted by the
Laboratoire d'Astrophysique de Marseille.} (HerMES) in the XMM-LSS field
cover $\sim19~\rm deg^2$ having 5$\sigma$ sensitivity of about 25.8, 21.2 and
30.8 mJy at 250, 350 and $500~\mu$m, respectively using the SPIRE instrument
\citep{olive12}. The footprint of the HerMES is shown in orange in
Figure~\ref{gmrt-xmmlss}. HerMES provides images having angular resolution
$\sim18$, 25 and 37 arcsec at 250, 350 and 500 $\mu$m, respectively. The DR2
catalog \citep{smith12, roseb10} contains 44120 sources in the XMM-LSS field
that have been detected in at least one of the SPIRE bands of which 31676
sources have been detected in all three bands. Table~\ref{sourcecounts} lists
the number of sources detected in each of the HerMES bands along with the
number of sources within the PRIMUS coverage. Only 2445 of the PRIMUS galaxies,
i.e., about 5.5 percent, are detected in all the three bands of the HerMES.
This field is also covered by the {\it Spitzer space telescope} as a part of
Spitzer Wide-area InfraRed Extragalactic (SWIRE) survey\footnote{The Spitzer
Space Telescope is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California
Institute of Technology, under contract with NASA. SWIRE was supported by NASA
through the Spitzer Legacy Program under contract 1407 with the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory.} \citep{lonsd03} using IRAC 3.6, 4.5, 5.8 and 8 $\mu$m bands and
MIPS 24, 70 and 160 $\mu$m bands over $\sim10~\rm deg^2$ (see
Figure~\ref{gmrt-xmmlss}). For modeling the re-processed dust emission in the
infrared bands, we combined imaging from the SWIRE\footnote{Downloaded from:
http://swire.ipac.caltech.edu/swire/astronomers/ data\_access.html} at
$\lambda= 24$, 70 and 160 $\mu$m with the HerMES DR2 at 250, 350 and 500
$\mu$m.
\section{Analysis}
\subsection{Image stacking}
Most radio images are overwhelmingly dominated by ``blank sky'' because radio
source densities on the sky are very low, at the sensitivity we can achieve
with current technology. Even in our relatively deep 0.325 GHz image we only
detect about 500 radio sources per square degree above $\sim500~\mu$Jy
($>3\sigma$). In contrast, the dense sampling in PRIMUS yields $\sim2500$
galaxies per 0.18 deg$^2$, corresponding to a source density of $\sim 14000$
deg$^{-2}$. In such a situation, stacking on the radio image at the positions
of the PRIMUS galaxies allows us to extract signals from the noise
\citep{white07}. The stacking process is straightforward -- it involves making
a cutout centered at the position of each sample galaxy and then obtaining a
mean stack image by averaging over all cutouts on a pixel-by-pixel basis.
We note that some authors have chosen to do a median stack instead of a mean
(average) stack \citep[e.g.][]{white07}. The median has the advantage of not
being biased by a few outliers anywhere in the image. However, the
interpretation of the median value for low S/N data typically involved in image
stacking is complicated. For such data, simulations carried out by
\citet{white07} show that the computed median value is shifted from the true
median towards the ``local mean'' value. Here, the ``local mean'' is defined as
the mean of the values within approximately one rms of the median.
Unfortunately, the degree of the shift depends on the noise level; as the noise
increases, the recovered value approaches the local mean. Due to this effect,
the recovered median value is a function of both the intrinsic distribution of
the parameter being measured (in our case, radio flux) and the noise level.
\citet{white07} note this limitation but choose to go with the median stack
since their sample -- a large number of quasars drawn from the Sloan digital
sky survey -- has quite a few extreme outliers in the form of radio-loud
quasars. Our sample is free of extremely bright radio counterparts; in fact,
more than 99 percent of our sample galaxies have no detectable radio
counterpart at 0.325 GHz even with our deep radio imaging. For this reason, we
chose to perform mean stacks since the statistical properties of the mean are
very well understood, even in low S/N situations.
We stacked the images at 0.325 and 1.4 GHz in the radio and at 24, 70, 160,
250, 350 and $500~\mu$m in the infrared at the positions of the blue galaxies.
We divided the sample into redshift bins of 0.1 between redshifts 0 to 1.2.
Table~\ref{stacks} lists the number of galaxies in each redshift bin for each
of the datasets used in this work. Stacking was performed separately in each
redshift bin. The PRIMUS sample has large number of galaxies in each redshift
bin with a minimum of 1100 galaxies in the bin 1.1 to 1.2 and a maximum of
$\sim5300$ galaxies in the bin 0.6 to 0.7. The large number of galaxies in
each bin allows us to detect signal from extremely faint galaxies in the
stacked images with high signal-to-noise ratio ($\gtrsim 4$). Due to smaller
sky coverage at 1.4 GHz, the number of PRIMUS blue galaxies available for
stacking on the 1.4 GHz image in each redshift bin, are lower than those at
other wavebands.
Before stacking, a $61\times61$ pixel-image centered at the position of each
galaxy within the redshift range of the corresponding bin was cutout from the
images of the surveys mentioned in Section 2. The flux density image of each
cutout was converted into a luminosity image using the respective redshift
before doing a mean stack. We used the peak luminosity in the stacked image
at the position of the PRIMUS sources (typically the center pixel) to estimate
the mean luminosity at that redshift bin \citep[see e.g.][]{white07}. For
unresolved point sources, the peak emission is the same as the total emission
integrated within the resolution beam. However, this may differ if the sources
being stacked are extended w.r.t the beam \citep{karim11}. In our study, the
PRIMUS galaxies are point sources for $\sim9$ arcsec beam at 0.325 GHz. Hence,
the peak-pixel value of the stacked imaged can be used as the integrated
luminosity of the sample.
We carried out stacking of the flux density images also. The peak value of the
luminosity or flux density in stacked images should be computed w.r.t zero mean
background. However, due to the contribution of emission from other sources,
the background level in the stacks is not zero mean and is slightly offset
towards positive values. We have therefore subtracted this offset value from
all pixels in the stacked images at each redshift bin. The mean flux density,
the stacked image rms noise and the mean luminosity for each redshift bin are
tabulated in Table~\ref{stacks}.
We note that the luminosity derived from the stacked fluxes and mean redshifts
differ from the stacked luminosities especially in the low redshift bins
(see Table~\ref{stacks}). We list the luminosities obtained from stacking in
luminosity space (column 7) and from stacked fluxes and mean redshift (column
8). In the lower redshift bins ($z<0.3$) they differ significantly by up to
$\sim$30 percent. However, at higher redshifts ($z>0.3$) the two methods yield
similar values within 5 percent. This is mainly because the luminosity at the
edges of the lowest $z$ bin ($0.1<z\leq0.2$) varies by a factor of 4.5 as
compared to a factor of 1.6 for a higher $z$ bin ($1<z\leq1.1$). The stacked
fluxes in a redshift bin do not account for this variation and therefore we
chose to perform stacking in luminosity space.
For robust error estimation of stacked luminosities and fluxes, we performed
standard bootstrap analysis \citep{efron94} on the cutout images in each
redshift bin. At each redshift bin, a cutout was randomly selected $N_{\rm
obj}$ times (allowing repetitions) and were stacked. Here, $N_{\rm obj}$ is the
number of objects in a given redshift bin (see Table \ref{stacks}). We
performed 20 bootstrap iterations and computed the mean luminosity and the flux
density for each. The standard deviation for these 20 iterations is considered
as the error on the stacked quantities at a given redshift bin.
Determination of the luminosity of the stacked images could be affected if the
sources in the primary sample are clustered \citep{bethe10}. \citet{skibb14}
found evidence of clustering of the PRIMUS galaxies, especially for the red
galaxies, which can affect the estimated stacked luminosity for images with
coarse resolution, like that of the HerMES bands. \citet{bethe12} showed that
the contribution due to clustering can be estimated by modeling the radial
profile of the stacked image as a {\it point spread function} ({\it psf}) and
convolution of the {\it psf} and two-point angular correlation function of the
parent sample. In our case, at all the wavebands, the radial profile can be
fitted by a single component Gaussian profile within 7 percent, that represents
the {\it psf}, even at 500$\mu$m where the resolution is poorest. This
indicates that the correction due to clustering of the PRIMUS blue galaxies is
less than 10 percent and is within the errors estimated using the bootstrap
method, and hence does not significantly affect our results. Thus,
working with blue galaxies has the advantage of being significantly less
clustered and such corrections are small enough to be ignored.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{spectral_index_bootstrap_errors.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Radio spectral index between 0.325 GHz and 1.4 GHz with redshift
calculated using the mean stacked luminosities. The dashed line shows the
typical spectral index of 0.8 observed for nearby normal galaxies. The errors
are at 1$\sigma$.}
\label{alpha}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Spectral energy distribution and $k-$correction}
We obtain rest-frame emission by applying $k-$correction to the observed
luminosities in radio and FIR bands. In this study, we explore the radio--FIR
correlation between rest-frame radio emission at 1.4 GHz and FIR emission both
monochromatic at 70$\mu$m and bolometric between 8--1000$\mu$m. These specific
radio and FIR bands are chosen to enable direct comparison with the literature
\citep[see e.g.,][]{apple04, mao11, iviso10a, iviso10b, bourn11, magne14}.
In the radio, estimating the luminosity at a given rest frequency, in our case
1.4 GHz, is relatively easier owing to power law nature of the spectrum.
Figure~\ref{alpha} shows the variation of the spectral index, $\alpha_{\rm
nt}$, defined as $S_\nu \propto \nu^{-\alpha_{\rm nt}}$, determined using the
mean stacked luminosity at each redshift bin between 0.325 GHz and 1.4 GHz. The
spectral index in each redshift bin is consistent within $1\sigma$ errors with
typical spectral index of $\sim0.8$ (shown as dashed line in
Figure~\ref{alpha}) observed for nearby normal star-forming galaxies
\citep{nikla97a, basu12a}. We therefore estimated the rest frame 1.4 GHz
luminosity ($L_{\rm 1.4GHz, rest}$) by extrapolating the observed frame
luminosity at 0.325 GHz ($L_{\rm 0.325GHz, obs}$) assuming the typical
non-thermal spectral index of 0.8 for normal galaxies. Thus, $L_{\rm 1.4GHz,
rest} = L_{\rm 0.325GHz, obs} \left[0.325(1+z)/1.4\right]^{0.8}$, where $z$ is
the redshift.
At FIR wavebands, due to the complex nature of the spectral energy distribution
(SED), robust modeling is necessary for accurate estimation of the
monochromatic and bolometric FIR luminosities. \citet{casey12} pointed out that
fitting a simple modified blackbody spectrum (henceforth referred to as
greybody) to the FIR spectrum is inadequate in fitting the mid-IR observation,
whereas fitting a multi temperature greybody spectrum introduces several free
parameters. Further, they demonstrated that a model consisting of single
temperature greybody + mid-IR power law fits the FIR spectrum well.
Following \citet{casey12} we modelled the FIR spectrum, $S(\lambda)$, as,
\begin{equation}
S(\lambda) = A_{\rm GB} \frac{(1 - e^{-\tau_\lambda})\lambda^{-3}}{\left(e^{hc/\lambda kT} - 1\right)} + A_{\rm PL} \left(\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_{\rm c}} \right)^\alpha e^{-(\lambda/\lambda_{\rm c})^2}
\end{equation}
Here, $A_{\rm GB}$ and $A_{\rm PL}$ are the greybody and mid-IR power law
amplitude normalization respectively, $\lambda_{\rm c}$ is the mid-IR turnover
wavelength, $\alpha$ is the mid-IR power law index, $\tau_\lambda =
(\lambda_0/\lambda)^\beta$ is the optical depth and is unity at $\lambda_0$
(assumed to be 200 $\mu$m), $\beta$ is the dust emissivity index, $T$ is the
greybody temperature and $h, c, k$ are the Planck constant, speed of light and
Boltzmann constant, respectively. Characteristic dust temperature $(T_{\rm
dust})$ is given by Wien's displacement law, $T_{\rm dust} = b/\lambda_{\rm
peak}(\rm \mu m)$, where, $b=2.898\times10^3\rm \mu m~K$ and $\lambda_{\rm
peak}$ is the peak wavelength of the fitted SED.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c}
{\mbox{\includegraphics[height=7.5cm]{fir_sed_casey_fits.eps}}}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{The fitted SED of the stacked sources in infrared bands at various
redshift bins shown in colors. The SEDs are fitted jointly with a mid-IR power
law and a single temperature greybody.}
\label{stack-sed}
\end{figure}
Although there are six fitting parameters, namely, $A_{\rm GB}$, $A_{\rm PL}$,
$\alpha$, $\beta$, $T$ and $\lambda_{\rm c}$, the parameters $A_{\rm PL}$ and
$\lambda_{\rm c}$ are coupled to the rest, thereby reducing the number of free
parameters to four \citep[see][]{casey12}. Thus, for a robust fitting of the
FIR SED, at least 5 data points are necessary. We have therefore stacked, in
luminosity space, 6 wavelength bands in the FIR, i.e., three MIPS bands (24, 70
and $160~\mu$m) from SWIRE and three SPIRE bands (250, 350 and $500~\mu$m) from
HerMES at the position of the PRIMUS galaxies to constrain the SED. However, to
constrain the mid-IR power law index, $\alpha$, at least 3 photometric points
in the mid-IR (between $\sim10-50~\mu$m, rest-wavelength) are required, which
are not available in our case. We have therefore fixed $\alpha=2$
\citep{casey12}. Similarly, we fixed $\beta=1.5$ \citep[following][]{magne14,
casey12}.
Separate fits were done for the stacked SEDs in luminosity space, in each of
the 12 redshift bins shown in Figure~\ref{stack-sed}. Each fit is color coded
for the redshift bin. In Figure~\ref{stack-sed-comp} we show the two
components, greybody (red dashed curve) and mid-IR power law (blue dash-dot
curve) at each redshift bin along with reduced chi square ($\chi^2_{\rm
red}$) and errors in the fitted parameters. The two components together give
an excellent fit to the data with one exception. The SED fit for the first
redshift bin is poor having large $\chi^2_{\rm red}$ and more than 50 percent
error in the derived FIR luminosity. We have excluded this bin from all our
further analysis.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
{\mbox{\includegraphics[width=9cm]{frc_detection_stacks_q70.eps}}}&
{\mbox{\includegraphics[width=9cm]{frc_detection_stacks_qTIR.eps}}}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{{\it Left hand panel:} Luminosity at 1.4 GHz ($L_{\rm
1.4GHz}$) versus monochromatic luminosity at 70$\mu$m ($L_{\rm 70\mu m}$) at
rest-frames. The stacked sources are shown as stars and the sources detected in
the XMM-LSS field are shown as circles. The symbols are color coded based on
their redshift. The solid line shows the fit to the entire data, the dashed and
dashed-dot lines are for the stacked and detected sources respectively. The
slopes are listed in Table~2. Typical errors on the data are shown in the lower
right. {\it Right hand panel:} $L_{\rm 1.4 GHz}$ versus bolometric luminosity
($L_{\rm TIR}$). The symbols and the lines have the same meaning as in the
left hand panel.}
\label{frc}
\end{figure*}
To compare our results using stacking, and study its nature in perspective
of the large span in luminosity ($\sim5$ orders of magnitude), we also study the
radio--FIR correlation using detected sources along with the stacked sources.
For the sources that are detected at 0.325 GHz, we cross matched them with the
HerMES DR2 catalog \citep{roseb10}. There are 1805 sources that are
detected at 0.325 GHz and in all the three HerMES bands (250, 350 and
500$\mu$m). The HerMES bands are required for a better constraint on the ``cold
dust'' greybody spectrum. However, we note that for the above SED fitting
method to work best in estimating the 70$\mu$m monochromatic luminosity, one
needs mid-IR observation to constrain the power law component. We therefore,
additionally imposed the condition, that the sources be detected at 24 and
$70~\mu$m from the SWIRE survey. There are 231 sources detected in five
infrared bands from 24$\mu$m to $500\mu$m with 0.325 GHz counterparts. Only 26
of the 231 sources have spectroscopic redshift from the PRIMUS,
predominantly due to small areal coverage. Therefore, to
increase the sample size we used photometric redshifts ($z_{\rm phot}$) from
the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope Legacy Survey\footnote{The CFHTLS public
data release includes observations obtained with MegaPrime/MegaCam, a joint
project of CFHT and CEA/DAPNIA, at the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope (CFHT)
which is operated by the National Research Council (NRC) of Canada, the
Institut National des Science de l'Univers of the Centre National de la
Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) of France, and the University of Hawaii. The
data products are produced at TERAPIX and the Canadian Astronomy Data Centre, a
collaborative project of NRC and CNRS.} \citep[CFHTLS;][]{ilber06} available in
the XMM-LSS field that covers a larger area (see
Figure~\ref{gmrt-xmmlss}). CFHTLS provides accurate $z_{\rm phot}$ for
galaxies, with only $\sim4$ percent catastrophic failures, i.e., $\Delta
z/(1+z_{\rm spec}) > 0.15$ \citep{ilber06}. Of the 231 sources, 126 have
$z_{\rm phot}$ available. These 126 sources are an assortment of galaxies
comprising of 100 blue and 26 red galaxies spanning up to a redshift of 0.95.
Note that, 19 of these 100 blue galaxies lie in the PRIMUS coverage and have
also been included while stacking.
The choice of $\alpha$ plays a crucial role in determining the $A_{\rm PL}$ and
$\lambda_{\rm c}$ and, in turn the SED fit below $\sim100~\mu$m, leading to
deviant fits. We have therefore performed a grid search for the value of
$\alpha$ between 1.2 and 3.2 in steps of 0.05. We fixed $\alpha$ where the
$\chi^2$ to the fit was minimum. More than 90 percent of the objects could be
fitted with $\alpha$ in the range 1.8--2.3.
We would like to emphasize that, the three HerMES data points help in
constraining the ``cold dust'' greybody spectrum while for the mid-IR power law
part, more than one data point below $\sim100~\mu$m observed-frame wavelength
(in our case 24 and $70~\mu$m) is necessary for robust estimation of
$k-$corrected 70$\mu$m luminosity. Using only 24$\mu$m and three HerMES bands,
constrains the FIR greybody well, but the mid-IR SED is not well constrained
leading to increased dispersion in the radio--FIR correlation when studied at
70$\mu$m. Having the observed frame 70$\mu$m data point is crucial to our
analysis.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
{\mbox{\includegraphics[width=9cm]{detection_stacks_q70.eps}}}&
{\mbox{\includegraphics[width=9cm]{detection_stacks_qTIR.eps}}}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{{\it Left hand panel:} The variation of $q_{\rm 70\mu m}$ with
redshift ($1+z$). The stars and circles represent stacked and detected sources
respectively. The solid and the dashed lines shows the mean value of $q_{\rm
70\mu m}$ and 1$\sigma$ dispersion respectively from \citet{apple04}. {\it
Right hand panel:} The variation of $q_{\rm FIR}$ with redshift ($1+z$).
The red dashed line shows the fitted curve for the stacked
sources of the form $(2.53\pm0.04) (1+z)^{-0.16\pm0.03}$. The solid line shows
the mean value of $q_{\rm TIR}$ from \citet{bell03} observed for local
galaxies. The mean values of these quantities obtained in our study are
given in Table~2.}
\label{q}
\end{figure*}
\section{Results}
\label{results}
Image stacking technique allows us to estimate mean luminosities of our sample
galaxies in each redshift bin of 0.1 across $0 < z < 1.2$ (see Section~3). We
summarize our results of the stacked images at various wavebands in
Table~\ref{stacks}. Note that, we detect emission from faint galaxies that
have $L_{\rm 1.4GHz}$ of few times $\sim 10^{20}$ W~Hz$^{-1}$ and $L_{\rm 70\mu
m}$ of few times $10^{22}$ W~Hz$^{-1}$. Using stacking we probe radio--FIR
correlation for galaxies that are up to 2 order to magnitude fainter than the
samples used in previous studies based on direct detections in the similar
redshift range \citep[see e.g.][]{garre02,apple04, kovac06, mao11, delmo13}.
However, this increased depth is restricted to the lowest redshift bins, due to
the Malmquist bias present in the parent optical sample. The radio/FIR
stacking process does not introduce any additional biases, but it cannot
overcome the inherent bias in the parent optical sample.
The radio--FIR correlation is generally quantified by two parameters -- 1) the
slope in log-log space, $b$, given by, $L_{\rm radio} \propto L_{\rm IR}^b$ and
2) the parameter `$q$' defined as $q = \log_{10}(L_{\rm IR}/L_{\rm radio})$.
Here, $L_{\rm radio}$ is the luminosity at a radio frequency, in our case at
1.4 GHz rest-frequency. However, several definitions of $L_{\rm IR}$ are found
in the literature, such as rest-frame monochromatic luminosity at some
specified infrared wavelength \citep[see e.g.][]{apple04, mao11} or bolometric
luminosity integrated between $40-120~\mu$m \citep[defined by][]{helou85} or
between $8-1000~\mu$m \citep[see e.g][]{bell03, iviso10b, bourn11, magne14}.
Here we study the radio--FIR correlation using both rest-frame monochromatic
infrared luminosity at 70$\mu$m ($L_{\rm 70\mu m}$) as well as bolometric total
infrared luminosity integrated between $8-1000~\mu$m ($L_{\rm TIR}$). For the
monochromatic case, we define $q_{\rm 70\mu m}=\log_{10}(L_{\rm 70\mu m}/L_{\rm
1.4GHz})$ and for the bolometric case, we define,
\begin{equation}
q_{\rm TIR}=\log_{10}\left[\frac{L_{\rm TIR} ({\rm W})}{3.75\times 10^{12}}\right] - \log_{10}[L_{\rm 1.4GHz} ({\rm
W~Hz^{-1}})]
\label{def-q}
\end{equation}
following \citet{helou85}. Note that \citet{helou85} defined the
bolometric infrared luminosity integrated between $40-120~\mu$m.
\citet{bourn11} showed that the use of $8-1000~\mu$m luminosities increases the
absolute value of $q_{\rm TIR}$ by $\sim0.32$ compared to that originally
defined by \citet{helou85}. The rest-frame far-infrared monochromatic
luminosity at 70$\mu$m and the bolometric luminosity are computed using the
SED fits discussed in Section~3.2.
In Figure~\ref{frc} (left hand panel) we plot the radio luminosity at rest
frame 1.4 GHz ($L_{\rm 1.4GHz}$) vs. the FIR luminosity at 70$\mu$m ($L_{\rm
70\mu m}$) for the stacked galaxies (shown as stars) and the directly detected
galaxies (shown as circles). The symbols are color coded based on the
redshift. We note that the mean stacked luminosities in the higher redshift
bins are higher. This trend is expected due to the inherent Malmquist bias.
The radio and FIR luminosities are found to be strongly correlated with
Spearman's rank correlation, $r>0.99$. We fitted for the slope of the
correlation using ordinary least-square ``bisector method'' \citep{isobe90} in
log--log plane. The solid line shows the fit to all the data points and have a
slope 1.09$\pm$0.05. We also did separate fits for the stacked and detected
galaxies. The dashed line shows the fit for the stacked galaxies for which the
slope is found to be 1.04$\pm$0.03. The dash-dot line represents the fit for
detected galaxies and have a slope of 1.12$\pm$0.05. They all agree within
errors suggesting the radio--FIR correlation holds over the entire luminosity
range of five orders of magnitude, probing galaxies with different ISM
properties. The values of the slopes are tabulated in Table~2.
Figure~\ref{frc} (right hand panel) shows the radio--FIR correlation between
$L_{\rm 1.4GHz}$ and the total infrared luminosity ($L_{\rm TIR}$). We find
strong correlation between the two quantities. In this case, we find the slope
to be significantly steeper than unity. The slope of the radio--FIR correlation
is found to be $1.11\pm0.04$ when fitted for the stacked sources and detected
sources together (solid line). By separately fitting the stacked galaxies and
the detected sources we find the slopes to be $1.12\pm0.03$ and $1.13\pm0.04$,
respectively (see Table~2). Similar non-linear slope of $1.10\pm0.04$ was also
reported by \citet{bell03} for normal star-forming galaxies in the local
universe having $L_{\rm TIR}$ in the range $10^{8}$ to $10^{12}~L_\odot$.
In Figure~\ref{q}, we study the variation of $q_{\rm 70\mu m}$ (left hand
panel) and $q_{\rm TIR}$ (right hand panel) with redshift $(1+z)$. The mean
values of the parameter are tabulated in Table~2. We find the mean value of
$q_{\rm 70\mu m}$ to be 2.18 with 1$\sigma$ dispersion of 0.26. This is
consistent with $\langle q_{\rm 70\mu m}\rangle=2.15$ (shown as the solid line)
and 1$\sigma$ dispersion of 0.15 (shown as the dashed lines) observed by
\citet{apple04} over similar redshift range and by \citet{mao11} for redshifts
up to $\sim3$ for more luminous galaxies. However, for the stacked sources,
$q_{\rm 70\mu m}$ is found to be lower than that observed by \citet{apple04}
and have $\langle q_{\rm 70\mu m}\rangle$ of $2.0\pm0.2$. Within errors,
$q_{\rm 70\mu m}$ is observed to remain constant with redshift.
\begin{table*}
\begin{centering}
\caption{Results of the radio--FIR correlation.}
\begin{tabular}{@{}lcccccc@{}}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{l}{} &
\multicolumn{2}{c}{$70\mu m$} &
\multicolumn{2}{c}{TIR} &
\multicolumn{2}{c}{FIR} \\
& Slope & $\langle q_{\rm 70 \mu m}\rangle$ & Slope & $\langle q_{\rm TIR}\rangle$ & Slope & $\langle q_{\rm FIR}\rangle$\\
\hline
Stacks & 1.04$\pm$0.03 & 2.0$\pm$0.3 & 1.12$\pm$0.03 & 2.34$\pm$0.22 & 1.07$\pm$0.03 & 2.07$\pm$0.21 \\
Detections (blue) & 1.05$\pm$0.05 & 2.22$\pm$0.27 & 1.12$\pm$0.06 & 2.51$\pm$0.24 & 1.07$\pm$0.06 & 2.25$\pm$0.24\\
Detections (red) & 1.30$\pm$0.13 & 2.16$\pm$0.40 & 1.14$\pm$0.07 & 2.48$\pm$0.32 & 1.29$\pm$0.12 & 2.19$\pm$0.31\\
Detections (blue+red)& $1.12\pm0.05$ & $2.22\pm0.24$ & $1.13\pm0.04$ & $2.51\pm0.24$ & $1.13\pm0.05$ & $2.25\pm0.24$ \\
Stacks+detections & $1.09\pm0.05$ & $2.18\pm0.26$ & $1.11\pm0.04$ & $2.50\pm0.24$ & $1.10\pm0.04$ & $2.23\pm0.25$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}\\
The slopes are estimated by fitting a straight line in the log-log space
of the luminosity plots shown in Figure~\ref{frc}. \\ $\langle...\rangle$
represents the mean values of the quantity along with their measurement errors
from Figure~\ref{q}.
\end{centering}
\label{tab-frc}
\end{table*}
$q_{\rm TIR}$ shows a mean value of 2.50 with a $1\sigma$ dispersion of 0.24.
This is close to the value 2.64 observed for local galaxies \citep{bell03} with
similar dispersion. The mean value of $q_{\rm TIR}$ for the stacked sources are
found to be lower, $\langle q_{\rm TIR}\rangle = 2.34\pm0.22$, than that of the
detected sources, $\langle q_{\rm TIR}\rangle = 2.51\pm0.24$ (see Table~2). Our
estimated value of $\langle q_{\rm TIR} \rangle$ for stacked sources is close
to the value $2.40\pm0.29$ observed by \citet{iviso10a} for sub-mJy radio
emitting galaxies. Note that, the radio--FIR correlation is tighter when
studied for bolometric FIR luminosity than for monochromatic 70$\mu$m
luminosity. This is evident from the mean value of $q_{\rm TIR}$ showing
lesser spread around the mean (0.24 dex) as compared to $q_{\rm 70\mu m}$ (0.26
dex). In linear space this corresponds to $\sim16$ percent spread in $L_{\rm
1.4 GHz}$ vs. $L_{\rm TIR}$ as compared to $\sim28$ percent spread when
studied between $L_{\rm 1.4 GHz}$ vs. $L_{\rm 70\mu m}$.
For completeness with the various definitions of the parameter `$q$', we also
present the results of the radio--FIR correlation between rest-frame $L_{\rm
1.4 GHz}$ and $L_{\rm FIR}$ (listed in Table~2). Here, $L_{\rm FIR}$ is the
bolometric infrared luminosity integrated between $40-120~\mu$m. There is no
significant differences in the values of $q_{\rm FIR}$ and the slope when
compared with that of monochromatic 70$\mu$m. This is not surprising because,
as per the traditional definition of \citet{helou85}, the factor $3.75\times
10^{12}$ W (in Equation~\ref{def-q}) normalizes the integrated luminosity
between $40-120~\mu$m to the mean luminosity at $\sim80~\mu$m. This value is
close to 70$\mu$m.
\subsection{Detected red galaxies}
To assess the effect of including the 26 red galaxies on the radio--FIR
correlation, we have separately studied the red and blue galaxies that are
directly detected. The two populations are well mixed in the radio--FIR
correlation and there are no systematic difference between them. In Table~2 we
list the slope and the `$q$' parameter of the two classes estimated for
70$\mu$m, TIR and FIR. Both blue and red galaxies follow the correlation with
similar `$q$' parameters for all the three cases (i.e., $q_{\rm 70\mu m}$,
$q_{\rm TIR}$ and $q_{\rm FIR}$). However, the slope of the correlation is
found to be steeper in red galaxies as compared to the blue galaxies when
studied between $L_{\rm 1.4GHz}$ in the radio and $L_{\rm 70\mu m}$ and $L_{\rm
FIR}$ in the infrared (see Table~2). This difference is at less than $2\sigma$
significance and is perhaps caused due to relatively smaller sample size of the
red galaxies. We do not observe any difference in the slope for blue and red
galaxies when studied for $L_{\rm TIR}$. Overall, including the red galaxies
in the sample of detected galaxies does not bias our results.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
{\mbox{\includegraphics[height=9cm]{tdust_vs_LTIR_stacks_detected.eps}}}&
{\mbox{\includegraphics[height=9cm]{tdust_vs_redshift.eps}}}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{{\it Left-hand panel} Variation of dust temperature with the total
infrared luminosity ($L_{\rm TIR}$) computed by integrating the SEDs between
8--1000 $\mu$m. The blue stars represents stacked sources and circular points
are for detected sources. The red dashed line shows the second order
polynomial fit between $0.2 < z < 0.5$ from \citet{magne14}. {\it Right hand
panel:} Variation of the estimated dust temperature ($T_{\rm dust}$) with
$(1+z)$. The dashed line shows the linear best fit of the form $T_{\rm dust} =
(8.2\pm0.9)(1+z) + (11.5\pm1.5)$.}
\label{tdust-tir}
\end{figure*}
Note that in our stacking analysis we have not distinguished between the
objects that have been detected as a PRIMUS counterpart or not. This is crucial
in estimating the typical mean flux or luminosity of the sample in each
redshift bin and waveband. Since, we have less than 50 percent detections w.r.t
PRIMUS objects, the median stacking could be insensitive to the objects having
PRIMUS counterparts. In our analysis, we find that the mean quantities are at an
average 20 percent higher than that of the median quantities. Our method of
stacking is equivalent to the quantity measured in Equation 3 of
\citet{magne14}. The difference between mean and median stacking is well
captured in our estimated bootstrap errors. The use of median luminosities does
not significantly affect the slope of the radio--FIR correlation shown in
Figure~\ref{frc} (left hand panel). However, it can systematically increase
the value of $q_{\rm 70\mu m}$ and $q_{\rm TIR}$ of the stacks (the stars shown
on Figure~\ref{q}) by $\sim0.1$, i.e., $\sim5$ percent. This change in $q_{\rm
70\mu m}$ and $q_{\rm TIR}$ is well within the errors.
\section{Discussion}
We have studied the radio--FIR correlation of an optical flux-limited sample of
``blue cloud'' galaxies ($L_{\rm TIR}\sim 10^{9}-10^{11} L_\odot$) in the
redshift range $0.1-1.2$, using image stacking technique in luminosity space,
and for comparison, for luminous galaxies ($L_{\rm TIR}\gtrsim 10^{11} L_\odot$)
detected in the XMM-LSS field using deep GMRT observations at 0.325
GHz. \citet{bourn11}, using a coarser redshift bin-size of $>0.2$ for
stacking, probed a similar luminosity regime for stellar-mass-selected
galaxies. We measure the mean luminosity of blue galaxies to be at least 2
orders of magnitude fainter than the galaxies that are directly detected in
radio and infrared in the XMM-LSS field and about three orders of magnitude
fainter than that of the previous studies \citep[see e.g.,][]{garre02, apple04,
kovac06, mao11}. Our study probes a relatively poorly observed regime of the
radio--FIR correlation in luminosity and in redshift.
\subsection{Variation of dust temperature}
In Figure~\ref{tdust-tir} (left-hand panel), we show the variation of $T_{\rm
dust}$ with the total infrared luminosity ($L_{\rm TIR}$ in units of
$L_{\odot}$) for the stacked sources (shown as blue stars) and the detected
sources (shown as black points). Our result is consistent with the second
order polynomial fit (shown as red dashed line) for slightly more luminous
galaxies between $0.2<z<0.5$ from \citet{magne14}. Note that the
\citet{magne14} curve does not extend to the faintest data point in our sample.
In Figure~\ref{tdust-tir} (right-hand panel) we plot the variation of the
characteristic dust temperature, $T_{\rm dust}$ with redshift, $1+z$. We find
$T_{\rm dust}$ to vary between $18-28$ K with $T_{\rm dust}$ increasing
linearly with redshift as,
\begin{equation}
T_{\rm dust} = (8.2\pm0.9)(1+z) + (11.5\pm1.5)
\end{equation}
A similar linear variation of $T_{\rm dust}$ with redshift was reported by
\citet{kovac06} for distant sub-millimeter selected galaxies which are
$\gtrsim4$ orders of magnitude more luminous than our galaxies. However, such a
trend could be caused due to $T_{\rm dust}$ being correlated with $L_{\rm TIR}$
which in turn is correlated with redshift.
\subsection{Variation of `q'}
The mean value of $q_{\rm TIR}$ for the stacked sources is found to decrease
with redshift, and can be modeled as $q_{\rm TIR} \propto (1+z)^\gamma$
\citep[see, e.g.,][]{bourn11, iviso10a}, where $\gamma = -0.16\pm0.03$
(Figure~\ref{q} right-hand panel). The fitted value of $\gamma$ is similar to
$\gamma=-0.18\pm0.10$ found by \citet{bourn11} for galaxies with mass-limit
$\log(M_\star) > 10.5$ and $\gamma = -0.15\pm0.03$ by \citet{iviso10a} for
slightly luminous galaxies ($L_{\rm 1.4GHz}\sim10^{22}-10^{25}$ W Hz$^{-1}$).
This slight decrease in $q_{\rm TIR}$ with redshift, however, is not very
significant within the large errors. The correlation coefficient was estimated
taking into account the errors of $q_{\rm TIR}$, using a Monte Carlo method
wherein 1000 random samples of $q_{\rm TIR}$ were generated within the 1$\sigma$
error for each redshift bin. The values of $q_{\rm TIR}$ were then randomly
sampled from each redshift bin 1000 times to mimic different realizations and
the Spearman's rank correlation was estimated for each. We found the mean rank
correlation coefficient to be $\sim-0.13$.
We do not observe such a trend for $q_{\rm 70\mu m}$. This could be caused due
to the rest-frame luminosity at 70$\mu$m being dust temperature dependent.
Figure~\ref{tdust-tir} (right hand panel) shows an increase in dust temperature
with redshift resulting in increasing $L_{\rm 70\mu m}$, hence compensating for
any decrease in $q_{\rm 70\mu m}$. This trend is consistent with recent
observations of \citet{smith14}, where they find monochromatic $q$ near the
peak of the dust emission to remain constant with dust temperature.
\subsection{Is `$q$' an indicator of evolution of the correlation?}
In our study, we find the radio--FIR correlation to hold true within the
redshift range 0.1--1.2 for blue galaxies and also for much luminous galaxies
spanning about 5 orders of magnitude. The correlation can be fitted by a single
slope, $b = 1.09\pm0.05$, when studied with monochromatic FIR luminosity
($L_{\rm 70\mu m}$). For bolometric FIR luminosity ($L_{\rm TIR}$), we find,
$b=1.11\pm0.04$ (see Table~2). For our sample, we find that the slope of
the radio--FIR correlation is systematically steeper than unity with
1.8$\sigma$ significance for $L_{\rm 70\mu m}$ and 2.75$\sigma$ for
$L_{\rm TIR}$.
The non-linear slope of the radio--FIR correlation brings to light the
ambiguity in use of the quantity `$q$' (both $q_{\rm 70\mu m}$ and $q_{\rm
TIR}$) in quantifying the tightness of the correlation or in studying evolution
of the radio--FIR correlation. Note that, apart from the traditional
definition, $q$ can also be written as,
\begin{equation}
q = -\left(\frac{1}{b}\right)\log_{10}a + \left(\frac{1-b}{b}\right) \log_{10}L_{\rm 1.4GHz}
\label{qaltdef}
\end{equation}
Here, $a$ is the proportionality constant of the radio--FIR correlation, i.e.,
$L_{\rm 1.4GHz} = a L_{\rm IR}^b$. This relation holds for both monochromatic
$q_{\rm 70\mu m}$ and bolometric $q_{\rm TIR}$. Clearly, for non-unity slopes,
the absolute value of $q$ would depend on the slope and also on radio
luminosity and hence cannot be assumed to be a constant. Several other works in
the literature have indeed reported nonlinear slopes \citep[][]{price92,
nikla97b, bell03}. Moreover, $L_{\rm 1.4GHz}$ in the rest-frame depends on the
assumed value of the spectral index and thus can affect the value of $q$
further. It is, therefore, difficult to compare the value of the parameter $q$
in the literature and interpret any variation of $q$ as evolution of the
correlation. This non-linearity of the slope could also give rise to the
observed slight change in $q_{\rm TIR}$ (see Section~4 and Figure~\ref{q}). We
have modeled the variation as $q_{\rm TIR} = 2.53~(1+z)^{-0.16}$, which
results in $\Delta q_{\rm TIR} \approx -0.26$ between $z =$ 0 and 1. This
change has been observed in other studies, e.g., \citet{iviso10a, bourn11,
magne12}. Following Equation~\ref{qaltdef}, the expected change in $q_{\rm
TIR}$ is given by,
\begin{equation}
\Delta q_{\rm TIR} = \left(\frac{1-b}{b}\right)
\log_{10}\left(\frac{L_{\rm 1.4GHz}\mid_{z=1}}{L_{\rm 1.4 GHz}\mid_{z=0}}\right).
\end{equation}
Here, $L_{\rm 1.4 GHz}\mid_{z}$ is the rest-frame 1.4 GHz luminosity at a
redshift $z$. From Figure~\ref{frc} we find $L_{\rm 1.4GHz}$ to increase by a
factor $\sim 10^3$ between $z=$ 0 and 1 for the stacked galaxies. Thus,
$\Delta q_{\rm TIR}\approx -0.27$ for $b=1.1$ (see Table~2), similar to the
observed change. It is therefore difficult to interpret any change in the
parameter `$q$' as an evolution of the radio--FIR correlation for non-linear
slopes. Note that, although our results are based on a sample that
is flux limited and color selected, it is important to ascertain the
slope for a more representative sample to conclude any evolution based on
`$q$'.
The parameter `$q$', explicitly depends on the absolute values of the ISM
parameters, such as, density of dust ($\rm \rho_{\rm dust}$), $T_{\rm dust}$,
dust emissivity ($Q$), properties of dust grains, like size ($a$), CRE density
($n_{\rm CRe}$), magnetic field ($B$) and the non-thermal spectral index
($\alpha_{\rm nt}$). In terms of these quantities $q$ can be written as;
\begin{equation}
q \sim \frac{\rho_{\rm dust}Q(\lambda, a) B_\lambda(T_{\rm dust})}{n_{\rm CRe} B^{1+\alpha_{\rm nt}}}
\end{equation}
Hence, based on a controlled sample `$q$' can be used as a proxy to
`relatively' distinguish object based on their ISM properties.
On the other hand, the slope, $b$, is an important parameter that connects the
various physical parameters in the ISM \citep[see e.g.,][]{nikla97b, dumas11,
schle13}. Note that at the heart of the radio--FIR correlation lies the
interdependence between various ISM parameters and not their absolute values,
{\it viz.}, coupling between $B$ and gas density \citep[$B\propto \rho_{\rm
gas}^\kappa$; see e.g.,][]{helou93, nikla97b, grove03}, the Kennicutt-Schmidt
law \citep{kenni98} and spectrum of the CREs. Therefore, the evolution in
slope can throw meaningful insights into understanding the cause and/or
evolution of the radio--FIR correlation. In our study, a single slope is
enough to fit the radio--FIR correlation throughout the luminosity and redshift
range. We do not find any evidence of its evolution within the uncertainty of
our measurements.
\subsection{Heterogeneity in the sample}
In spite of the wealth of observational evidence, a clear understanding of the
reason behind the radio--FIR correlation, across various galaxy types with wide
range of star-formation activity, magnetic field strengths, nature of ISM
turbulence, etc., remains elusive. One of the major areas of progress in recent
years has been in our understanding of how star-formation/supernova driven
turbulence helps in amplification of magnetic field strength in galaxies
\citep[][]{breit09, deavi05,maclo05, gent13a, gent13b}, and how the magnetic
field in turn couples with the gas density, and hence the star formation rate
\citep{cho00, grove03}. Recently, \citet{schle13} interpreted the radio--FIR
correlation as a result of turbulent magnetic field amplification driven by
star-formation activity and their interplay. Cosmic ray energy loss mechanisms
and magnetic field strength evolution at higher redshifts may affect the
synchrotron emission and hence change the non-thermal spectral index giving rise
to modification of the radio--FIR correlation.
We would like to point out, since our sample is flux-limited in the
optical, we have a wide range of galaxies in our sample. In terms of $L_{\rm
TIR}$, galaxies are classified as, 1) normal star-forming ($L_{\rm TIR}
\lesssim 10^{11} L_\odot$), 2) LIRGs ($10^{11}L_\odot < L_{\rm TIR} <
10^{12}$), 3) ULIRGs ($10^{12}L_\odot < L_{\rm TIR} < 10^{13}$) and 4) Hyper
LIRGs ($L_{\rm TIR} > 10^{13}$) \citep[see e.g.,][]{sande96}. As per these
definitions, the stacked sources mostly fall under the category of normal
star-forming galaxies. Although, the number of (U)LIRGs are significantly less
in the local universe ($z < 0.3$), they could contribute significantly to the
infrared luminosity at higher redshifts \citep{kim98, caput07, eser14}.
\citet{magne09} found significant evolution of the contribution from (U)LIRGs
to the cosmic star formation rate density with respect to that from main
sequence galaxies. Thus, towards the higher redshift bins ($z\gtrsim0.9$)
there could be significant contribution from LIRGs and ULIRGs to the stacked
luminosity. On the other hand, the majority of directly detected sources falls
under the LIRG and ULIRG category.
In this study, the stacked blue galaxies and the directly detected luminous
galaxies are expected to have different nature of ISM turbulence and magnetic
field amplification. For normal star-forming galaxies, at lower luminosity
range, the turbulence is mostly driven by star-formation activity while for the
luminous galaxies the turbulence could be driven by interactions and mergers
\citep{veill02, eser14}. Even perhaps, the mechanisms driving the radio--FIR
correlation can differ in these wide variety of galaxies
\citep[see][]{lacki10}. Ideally, one should study the different population of
galaxies based on a well defined luminosity or stellar-mass selection.
Unfortunately, due to the lack of sufficient number of directly detected
galaxies of similar luminosities/stellar-masses across all redshift bins, our
sample does not allow us to study this aspect. But, nonetheless, notable fact
is that both class of galaxies follow the radio--FIR correlation with similar
parameters. This brings to light the universal nature of the radio--FIR
correlation and suggests similar global processes at play in galaxies with very
different ISM properties.
The stacking technique described in this paper trades off sample size for
improved signal to noise. Such a compromise has the obvious drawback that one
can only study the mean properties of a sample. Outliers in the parameter space
that correspond to more extreme physical environments are completely missed
out.
In order to study the radio-FIR correlation in normal galaxies at high redshift
without the above trade-off requires large, spectroscopically confirmed samples
of such galaxies spanning the entire redshift range of interest. Multi-object
spectrographs on large optical telescopes are now routinely producing such
samples totalling hundreds of thousands of galaxies (e.g., \citealt{coil11}
[PRIMUS]; \citealt{guzzo13} [VIPERS]; \citealt{newma13} [DEEP2];
\citealt{lefev05} [VVDS]; \citealt{baldr10} [GAMA]). Radio followup at
sufficient depth will also be routine with the JVLA \citep{jarvi14} and
deep surveys with upcoming facilities such as ASKAP \citep{norri11} and
MeerKAT. The situation with deep FIR surveys is less hopeful. The Level 5 and
Level 6 HerMES data are already sufficiently confused that increased depth in
the FIR can only be achieved with a larger telescope operating at somewhat
shorter wavelengths. Such a super-Spitzer will need to have a large aperture
and instruments far more sensitive than MIPS. Unfortunately, such a telescope
is nowhere on the horizon.
The stacking methods described in this paper can be gainfully applied to a
number of other deep fields where almost all the required data are available in
public archives.
\acknowledgements
We thank the anonymous referee for insightful comments that greatly improved
the content and presentation of this paper. We thank Nissim Kanekar for
fruitful suggestions on sample selection. We thank Dominik Schleicher, Rainer
Beck, Nirupam Roy and Dipanjan Mitra for useful discussions. We gratefully
acknowledge generous support from the Indo-French Center for the Promotion of
Advanced Research (Centre Franco- Indien pour la Promotion de la Recherche
Avance) under program no. 4404- 3. We thank Chris Simpson for providing the
1.4-GHz VLA radio image of the SXDF field. This work has made use of the PRIMUS
for which the funding has been provided by NSF grants AST-0607701, 0908246,
0908442, 0908354, and NASA grant 08-ADP08-0019.
|
\section*{Introduction}
Inspired by the surprising idea that the dark matter flux in the Solar System particularly and in the Milky Way generally can be modulated with the periods
equal to those of the solar cycles (including the 11-year one, being also typical for the cosmic muon flux measured at the Gran Sasso laboratory
\cite{Fernandez}), actually causing these cycles themselves, in this brief Letter we find a source for such a modulation in the vicinity of the Galactic Center
and establish a connection of this source (namely, S-stars) with some selected solar and terrestrial observables.
Let us address the well-known experimental data on the oscillations of the sunspot number, the geomagnetic field Y-component and the global temperature (Fig.
1, 2) and try to answer the following sudden and unconventional question: is there any observed relationship between their periods and revolution periods of
S-stars orbiting a supermassive black hole at the Galactic Center of the Milky Way?
\
In Fig. 1 we depict the power spectra of the sunspot number (1874-2010, the Royal Greenwich Observatory), the geomagnetic field Y-component (Greenwich and
Eskdalemuir observatories) and HadCRUT4 GST (1850-2012). NH and SH stand for Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere respectively, while MESA indicates the
maximum entropy spectral analysis. Pink stripes correspond to the major heliospheric harmonics.
\
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}\includegraphics[width=4.85in,height=5.05in]{Fig1.eps}\end{center}
\caption{Power spectral densities for the sunspot number, the geomagnetic field Y-component and HadCRUT4 GST.}
\end{figure}
\
One can easily see that these harmonics may be associated with the orbits of the best known short-period S-stars (S102, S2, S38, S21,
S4-S9-S12-S13-S17-S18-S31) at the Galactic Center \cite{Gillessen,Schodel,Genzel} and with the solar cycles (about 11-12, 15-16, 20-22, 29-30, 60-61 years).
For example, the star S102 has the orbital period around $11.5$ years corresponding to the 11-year solar cycle (see the first pink stripe on the left).
\
In Fig. 2 we depict the power spectra of the global temperature \cite{Bintanja}. Again, pink stripes correspond to the major harmonics, which, in their turn,
may be associated with the orbits of the best known non-short-period S-stars (S19, S24, S66-S87, S97, S83, S?) at the Galactic Center
\cite{Gillessen,Schodel,Genzel} and with the solar cycles (about 250, 330, 500, 1050, 1700, 3600 years). For example, the star S19 has the orbital period
$(260\pm31)$ years presumably corresponding to the 250-year solar cycle (see the first pink stripe on the left). Green stripes represent the major temperature
oscillations, which are presumably associated with the variations of the Earth orbital parameters: eccentricity ($\sim$93~kyr), obliquity ($\sim$41~kyr) and
axis precession ($\sim$23~kyr).
\
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}\includegraphics[width=4.85in,height=3.60in]{Fig2.eps}\end{center}
\caption{Power spectral density for the global temperature.}
\end{figure}
\
Thus, we see that the answer to the raised question is definite and positive: the compared periods coincide with each other.
\section*{Conclusion}
In this brief Letter on basis of the experimental data on the oscillations of the sunspot number, the geomagnetic field Y-component and the global temperature
we have explicitly demonstrated that their periods coincide with revolution periods of S-stars orbiting a supermassive black hole at the Galactic Center of the
Milky Way. It is absolutely obvious that such a fine coincidence cannot be random. Then the next quite natural question arises: how do the solar and
terrestrial observables "know" about motion of S-stars? And a hypothesis inevitably comes to mind: the "carrier" is none other than dark matter. More
specifically, S-stars can modulate dark matter flows in our galaxy and, consequently, cause variations of dark matter space and velocity distributions, in
particular, at the Sun and Earth positions. Further, these variations may cause the corresponding variations of the Solar System observables by means of some
mechanism, e.g., the interaction of dark matter particles with the cores of the Sun and the Earth. Such a probable mechanism as well as the above-mentioned
modulation itself are beyond the scope of our Letter and require a separate profound investigation, which is a subject of the forthcoming paper. Here our aim
is to stress that the available experimental data indicate the frequency transfer from the center of our galaxy to the Solar System. This fact can serve as an
indirect evidence of the proposed hypothesis that dark matter plays the role of the variations carrier.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The work of M. Eingorn was supported by NSF CREST award HRD-1345219 and NASA grant NNX09AV07A.
|
\section{ Introduction}
The general problem of deciding whether a homogeneous polynomial $F$ in $n$ variables with real coefficients is nonnegative has been one of the guiding questions of real algebraic geometry since the time of Hilbert. The intrinsic interest of this question has been complemented by a recent surge in its applications to polynomial optimization~\cite{BPT}, control theory~\cite{L} and to the general theory of aproximation algorithms~\cite{STEURER} among others. For all these applications, finding simple and efficient certificates for guaranteeing the nonnegativity of a given polynomial is of paramount importance.
In the case of polynomials which are invariant under symmetric groups, such certificates have taken the form of ``nonnegativity witness sets", that is subsets $S\subset \mathbb{R}^n$ such that nonnegativity of $F$ on $S$ is equivalent to the nonnegativity of $F$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$. If the witness set $S$ is sufficiently simple then verifying that $F$ is nonnegative becomes a simpler problem. The work of several authors has provided important and interesting examples of nonnegativity witness sets for symmetric polynomials~\cite{Ch},~\cite{Ha},~\cite{Ti},~\cite{R}, ~\cite{IW}. The following theorems are some representative results,
\begin{theorem*}[Choi-Lam-Reznick \cite{Ch}]
An $n$-ary even symmetric sextic is nonnegative if and only if it is so at the $n$ points $(1,0\ldots,0),(1,1,0,\ldots,0),\ldots,(1,1\ldots,1)$.
\end{theorem*}
\begin{theorem*}[Timofte's half-degree principle \cite{Ti},\cite{R}] An $n$-variate symmetric polynomial of degree $2d$ is nonnegative if and only if it is so at every point with at most $\max\{2,d\}$ distinct components.
\end{theorem*}
The purpose of this note is to provide witness sets for polynomials which are invariant under the action of a finite reflection group. Our main finding is that the locus of points where a $\mathcal{W}$-invariant form achieves its minimum must contain the real points of certain families of $\mathcal{W}$-invariant curves. These curves, constructed using the classical theory of finite reflection groups, must in turn intersect certain simple subsets which, as a result, can be used as witness sets for nonnegativity. To give a more precise description of the results of the article we need to establish some notation (see Section~$\S\ref{S: Prelims}$ for additional background and definitions).
Let $V$ be a real euclidean vector space of dimension $n$ and let $\Phi\subseteq V$ be a root system. Let $\mathcal{W}$ be the finite reflection group defined by $\Phi$. By a Theorem of Chevalley (see Theorem~\ref{Chevalley}) the algebra of polynomial functions on $V$ which are invariant under $\mathcal{W}$ (i.e. polynomials $f$ such that $f\circ g^{-1}=f$ for all $g\in \mathcal{W}$) is generated by $n$ basic homogeneous invariants of degrees $1\leq d_1\leq \dots \leq d_n$. Our first result is the following existence theorem for codimension one witness sets,
\begin{theorem} \label{Thm A} Assume $|x|^2$ is an element of the algebra generated by the first $n-1$ invariants. If $F$ is a $\mathcal{W}$-invariant form of degree $2d< 2d_n$ then $F$ is nonnegative on $V$ if and only if $F$ is nonnegative on the set $\mathcal{H}_{\mathcal{W}}$, defined as the union of the hyperplanes that are perpendicular to the elements of $\Phi$.
\end{theorem}
If $\Phi:=\{e_i-e_j:1\leq i\neq j\leq n\}\subseteq \mathbb{R}^n$ then the group $\mathcal{W}$ is the permutation group in $n$ letters and acts on the orthogonal complement of the subspace generated by $e_1+\dots+e_n$. This group with the action on that $n-1$ dimensional subspace is called $A_{n-1}$. Its basic invariants have degrees $2,\dots, n$ and Theorem~\ref{Thm A} says that a symmetric form $F$ of degree $2d<2n$ is nonnegative if and only if it is so on the hyperplanes $x_i-x_j=0$ (i.e. if and only if $F$ is nonnegative at all points with at most $n-1$ distinct components). If $\Phi=\{\pm e_i: 1\leq i \leq n\}\cup \{\pm e_i\pm e_j:1\leq i\neq j\leq n\}\subseteq \mathbb{R}^n$ then $\mathcal{W}$ is the Weyl group of $B_n$ acting on the polynomial ring in $n$ variables by signed permutations. The degrees of the basic invariants of $\mathcal{W}$ are $2,4,\dots, 2n$. In this case Theorem~\ref{Thm A} says that an even symmetric form of degree $2d<4n$ is nonnegative if and only if it is so on the hyperplanes defined by $x_i=0$ and by $\pm x_i\pm x_j=0$ for $1\leq i\neq j\leq n$. The statement of Theorem~\ref{Thm A} can be made more explicit by knowing the degrees of the basic invariants. Table~\ref{Table1} contains these degrees for the reflection groups $\mathcal{W}$ generated by an irreducible root system (see~\cite[Chapter 2]{H} for a proof of the classification of finite reflection groups and for explicit descriptions of the roots in each case).
Next, it is natural to ask whether the degree bound in Theorem~\ref{Thm A} is sharp. We prove that this is the case when $\mathcal{W}$ is a reflection group all of whose basic invariants have even degree (i.e. for those reflection groups containing multiplication by $-1$). More generally, we prove the following existence theorem for $\mathcal{W}$-invariant forms for which the set $\mathcal{H}_\mathcal{W}$ is {\it not} a witness set for nonnegativity.
\begin{theorem} \label{Thm B} Let $\underline{o}$ and $\overline{o}$ be the smallest and largest odd degrees of basic invariants for $\mathcal{W}$ and define $\underline{o}=\overline{o}=1$ if all invariants of $\mathcal{W}$ have even degree. If $2d\geq \max(2d_n, 2(\underline{o}+\overline{o}))$ then there exists a $\mathcal{W}$-invariant form $F$ of degree $2d$ which is nonnegative on $\mathcal{H}_\mathcal{W}$ and which is negative at some point of $V$.
\end{theorem}
In the case of irreducible reflection groups the bounds from the previous two Theorems can be computed explicity and we do so in Table~\ref{Table1}. Theorem~\ref{Thm B} implies that Theorem~\ref{Thm A} is sharp whenever the entries of the last two columns of Table~\ref{Table1} agree.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\caption{Degrees of basic invariants of irreducible reflection groups.}
\label{Table1}
\begin{tabular}{|c|l|l|l|}
\hline
Root System & Degrees $d_i$ & $2d_n$ & $\max(2d_n, 2(\underline{o}+\overline{o}))$\\
\hline
$A_n$ & $2,3,\dots, n+1$ & $2(n+1)$ & $\begin{cases} 2(n+3)\text{, $n$ odd}\\ 2(n+4)\text{, $n$ even.}\\ \end{cases}$ \\
\hline
$B_n$ & $2,4,6,\dots, 2n$ & $4n$ & $4n$\\
\hline
$D_n$ & $2,4,6,\dots, 2n-2$,$n$ & $4n-4$ & $\begin{cases} 4n\text{, $n$ odd}\\ 4n-4\text{, $n$ even.}\end{cases}$\\
\hline
$E_6$ & $2,5,6,8,9,12$ & $24$ & $28$\\
\hline
$E_7$ & $2,6,8,10,12,14,18$ & $36$ & $36$\\
\hline
$E_8$ & $2,8,12,14,18,20,24,30$ & $60$ & $60$\\
\hline
$F_4$ & $2,6,8,12$ & $24$ & $24$ \\
\hline
$G_2$ & $2,6$ & $12$ & $12$ \\
\hline
$H_3$ & $2,6,10$ & $20$ & $20$\\
\hline
$H_4$ & $2,12,20,30$ & $60$ & $60$ \\
\hline
$I_2(m)$ & $2,m$ & $2m$ & $\begin{cases} 4m\text{, $m$ odd}\\ 2m\text{, $m$ even.}\end{cases}$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}\\
\end{center}
\smallskip
\end{table}
By Theorem~\ref{Thm B} we know that the set $\mathcal{H}_\mathcal{W}$ above is not a witness set for {\it all} forms of sufficiently large degree. It is therefore natural to ask whether some subspaces of forms of higher degree have a natural nonnegativity witness set. Our next Theorem gives many such families of ``sparse" forms in the more general context of polynomials on forms,
\begin{theorem}\label{CI} Suppose $g_1,\dots, g_n$ are a sequence of homogeneous forms in $\mathbb{R}[x_1,\dots, x_n]$ and let $j$ be an integer such that $|x|^2\in \mathbb{R}[g_1,\dots, g_{j}]$. If $F$ is a homogeneous polynomial of the form
\[F=A(g_1,\dots, g_j)+g_{j+1}B(g_1,\dots, g_j)\]
for some polynomials $A,B \in \mathbb{R}[z_1,\dots, z_j]$ then $F$ is nonnegative on $\mathbb{R}^n$ if and only if it is nonnegative on the algebraic set defined by the maximal minors of the matrix with columns $\nabla g_1,\dots ,\nabla g_{j+1}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{cor}\label{corCI} Assume $g_1,\dots, g_n$ is a graded regular sequence in $\mathbb{R}[x_1,\dots, x_n]$ of degrees $d_1\leq \dots\leq d_n$ and let $\mathcal{S}$ be the algebraic set defined by the determinant of the matrix with columns $\nabla g_1,\dots, \nabla g_n$. The set $\mathcal{S}$ is a witness set for nonnegativity of a form $F\in \mathbb{R}[g_1,\dots, g_n]$ if either
\begin{enumerate}
\item $|x|^2\in \mathbb{R}[g_1,\dots, g_{n-1}]$ and $\deg(F)<2d_n$ or
\item $F$ depends algebraically on no more than $n-1$ of the $g_i$ and the algebra generated by these $g_i$ contains $|x|^2$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{cor}
By the Theorem of Chevalley, the basic invariants of a finite reflection group form a regular sequence and we can apply the Corollary above, obtaining a generalization of Theorem~\ref{Thm A}. For groups $\mathcal{W}$ which satisfy an additional ``minor factorization condition" (Definition~\ref{DefMF}) Theorem~\ref{CI} leads to higher codimension witness sets (see Corollary~\ref{highCodim}).
For the special case of polynomials invariant under the permutation group $S_n$, the previous Theorems are weaker than Timofte's remarkable half-degree principle~\cite{Ti},\cite{R}. It is natural to ask whether there is a generalization of the half-degree principle for all finite reflection groups. We conclude by proposing the following conjectural half-degree principle, which is a natural generalization of Theorem~\ref{Thm A}.
\begin{conjecture} \label{ABetter} Let $j\geq 1$ be an integer. Assume $|x|^2$ is in the algebra generated by the basic invariants $\eta_1,\dots, \eta_j$. If $F$ is a $\mathcal{W}$-invariant form of degree $2d$ with $d< d_{j}$ then $F$ is nonnegative on $V$ if and only if $F$ is nonnegative on the union of all subspaces obtained by intersecting $n-j+1$ linearly independent hyperplanes orthogonal to the elements of the root system $\Phi$ which defines $\mathcal{W}$.
\end{conjecture}
Proving Conjecture~\ref{ABetter} would imply both Timofte's half degree principle and the result of Choi, Lam and Reznick stated earlier on even symmetric sextics.
{\bf Acknowledgements} We wish to thank Grigoriy Blekherman, C\'esar Galindo, Mehdi Garrousian, Cordian Riener, Raman Sanyal and Gregory G. Smith for several insightful conversations during the completion of this project. M. Velasco was partially supported by the FAPA funds from Universidad de los Andes.
\section{Preliminaries}\label{S: Prelims}
\begin{definition} Let $V$ be a real vector space of dimension $n$ with a chosen positive definite bilinear form $\langle,\rangle$. The reflection across the hyperplane $H$ perpendicular to $v\in V$ is the element $T_H\in \operatorname{GL}(V)$ given by
\[ T_H(w)=w-2\frac{\langle w,v\rangle}{\langle v,v\rangle}\]
\end{definition}
\begin{definition} A root system $\Phi\subseteq V$ is a finite subset of vectors of $V$, called roots which satisfy the following properties,
\begin{enumerate}
\item{ The only multiples of $v\in \Phi$ which belong to $\Phi$ are $\{v,-v\}$.}
\item{ The inclusion $T_{H}(\Phi)\subseteq \Phi$ holds for any hyperplane $H$ perpendicular to an element of $\Phi$.}
\end{enumerate}
If moreover, $\forall x,y\in \Phi$ the real number $2\frac{\langle x,y\rangle}{\langle y,y\rangle}$ is an integer then the root system $\Phi$ is called crystallographic.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition} The Reflection group $\mathcal{W}$ defined by a root system $\Phi$ is the subgroup of $\operatorname{GL}(V)$ generated by reflections across the hyperplanes perpendicular to the roots in $\Phi$. The rank of the group $\mathcal{W}$ is the dimension of the span of $\Phi$. A Weyl group is a reflection group defined by a crystallographic root system. \end{definition}
There is a complete classification of finite reflection groups (see~\cite[Chapter 2]{H}). Their most fundamental examples, pervasive throughout mathematics, are the Weyl groups. The classification of Weyl groups is as follows: there are three infinite one-parameter families $A_n, B_n, D_n$ for $n\in\mathbb{N}$ and five exceptional groups $E_6,E_7,E_8,F_4$ and $G_2$. The index $n$ always corresponds to the dimension of the vector space $V$ spanned by the corresponding root system.
Let $S:=\operatorname{Sym}^{\bullet}(V^*)$ be the $\mathbb{R}$-algebra of polynomial functions on $V$. Recall that $S$ is endowed with the contragradient action of $\mathcal{W}$, given by $w(f)(x):=f(w^{-1}x)$ and thus contains an invariant subalgebra $R:=S^{\mathcal{W}}\subseteq S$. The main theorem about invariants of finite reflection groups is the following Theorem (see~\cite[Chapter 3]{H} for a proof),
\begin{theorem}\label{Chevalley}[Chevalley] The algebra $R$ is generated by $n$ homogeneous, algebraically independent elements of positive degree. Moreover, $S$ is a free $R$-module of rank $|\mathcal{W}|$.
\end{theorem}
Henceforth we will denote by $\eta_1,\dots, \eta_n$ a fixed set of homogeneous generators of $R$ of degrees $1\leq d_1\leq d_2\leq\dots \leq d_n$. It is well known (see~\cite[Section 3.9]{H}) that the degrees $d_i$ of these generators are uniquely determined by $\mathcal{W}$ and that they satisfy the equality
\[\prod_{j=1}^n d_j=|\mathcal{W}|.\]
A result of Shephard and Todd (see~\cite[Section 3.11]{H}) shows that the only finite subgroups of $\operatorname{GL}(V)$ whose ring of invariants is a polynomial algebra are generated by reflections so the Theorem of Chevalley is in fact a characterization of finite reflection groups.
\begin{definition} The Chevalley mapping of $\mathcal{W}$ is the morhism $\Psi: V\rightarrow \mathbb{A}^n$ which sends $x$ to $(\eta_1(x),\dots, \eta_n(x))$.
\end{definition}
We will often use the following factorization identity for the Jacobian determinant of the Chevalley mapping,
\begin{lemma}~\cite[Section 3.13]{H} \label{fact1}
For each root $\alpha\in\Phi$, define $l_{\alpha}$ to be a (nonzero) linear form that vanishes at the hyperplane orthogonal to $\alpha$. Then
\begin{align}
\nabla\eta_1\wedge\ldots\wedge\nabla\eta_n=\lambda \prod_{\alpha\in\Phi^+}{l_{\alpha}}
\end{align}
for some nonzero constant $\lambda\in \mathbb{R}$. So $\nabla\eta_1\wedge\ldots\wedge\nabla\eta_n$ does not depend, up to multiplication by a nonzero constant, on the choice of basic invariants for $\mathcal{W}$.
\end{lemma}
\section{Geometry of basic $\mathcal{W}$-invariant subvarieties}
\begin{definition} We say that a point $v\in V$ is $\mathcal{W}$-general if its $\mathcal{W}$-orbit has cardinality $|\mathcal{W}|$ (equivalently if its stabilizer subgroup is trivial). A point $v\in V$ is $\mathcal{W}$-special if it is not $\mathcal{W}$-general. The set of $\mathcal{W}$-special points is the union of all hyperplanes perpendicular to the roots. We denote this set by $\mathcal{H}_\mathcal{W}$. \end{definition}
By Lemma~\ref{fact1} the $\mathcal{W}$-general points can be characterized geometrically as the points where the Chevalley mapping $\Psi$ is a local dif and only ifeomorphism (i.e. the points where the Jacobian determinant of $\Psi$ does not vanish)
In this section we use $\mathcal{W}$-general points and the Chevalley mapping to construct certain families of $\mathcal{W}$-invariant subvarieties which we call basic. To study their geometry we first base-change to the algebraic closure. Let $\overline{V}=V\otimes_{\mathbb{R}}\mathbb{C}$ be the complexification of $V$ and define $U=\mathbb{C}\times \overline{V}$ and let $\mathbb{P}^n:=\mathbb{P}(U)$ be the projective space over $\mathbb{C}$ with homogeneous coordinates $x_0,\dots, x_n$. The action of $\mathcal{W}$ on $V$ extends to an action of $\mathcal{W}$ on $\mathbb{P}^n$ by fixing the $x_0$ coordinate.
\begin{definition} For $y\in V$ and $1\leq i\leq n$ let $\overline{\eta_i}=\eta_i(y)$. For any integer $k$ with $1\leq k\leq n$ let $\mathcal{Z}_y^k\subseteq U$ be the affine scheme defined by $(\eta_i-\overline{\eta_i}:1\leq i\leq k)$ and let $\hat{\mathcal{Z}}^k_y\subseteq \mathbb{P}^n$ be the projective subscheme defined by $(\eta_i-\overline{\eta_i}x_0^{d_i}:1\leq i\leq k)$.
\end{definition}
The following Lemma summarizes some basic geometric properties of the schemes $\mathcal{Z}_y^k$ and $\hat{\mathcal{Z}}_y^k$.
\begin{lemma} \label{Geom} The scheme $\hat{\mathcal{Z}}_y^k$ is $\mathcal{W}$-invariant, arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay of codimension $k$ and degree $\prod_{i=1}^kd_i$. In particular, $\hat{\mathcal{Z}}_y^k$ is unmixed and has no embedded components.
Moreover, if $y$ is a $\mathcal{W}$-general point then $\hat{\mathcal{Z}}_y^k$ is reduced.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} We will show that the sequence $q_i:=\eta_i-\overline{\eta_i}x_0^{d_i}$, $i=1,\dots, n$ is a regular sequence. Since $\mathbb{C}[x_0,\dots, x_n]$ is an integral domain, $x_0$ is a nonzero divisor. Modulo $(x_0)$ the above sequence becomes $\eta_1,\dots, \eta_{n}$ in $\mathbb{C}[x_1,\dots,x_n]$ which is a regular sequence by~\cite[Corollary 5.3.4]{NS} and Theorem~\ref{Chevalley}. By~\cite[Corollary 17.2]{E} any permutation of a graded regular sequence is a regular sequence and thus $q_1,\dots, q_n$ is a regular sequence in $\mathbb{C}[x_0,\dots, x_n]$. As a result, for any $k$, the scheme $\hat{\mathcal{Z}}_y^k$ has codimension $k$ and is arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay of degree equal to the product of the degrees of the $q_i$. By~\cite[Corollary 18.14]{E}, $\hat{\mathcal{Z}}_y^{k}$ is unmixed and has no embedded components. The fact that $\mathcal{Z}^k_y$ is $\mathcal{W}$-invariant is immediate from the fact that it is defined by $\mathcal{W}$-invariant forms.
By Theorem~\ref{Chevalley}, the Chevalley mapping $\Psi: U\rightarrow \mathbb{A}^n$ is a finite and flat morphism of degree $|\mathcal{W}|$. Base-changing to the affine subspace $B\subseteq \mathbb{A}^n$ consisting of $(z_1,\dots, z_n)$ such that $z_i=\overline{\eta_i}$ for $1\leq i \leq k$ we obtain a finite and flat morphism $\Psi: \mathcal{Z}^{k}_y\rightarrow B$ of degree $|\mathcal{W}|$. As a result, every component of $\hat{\mathcal{Z}}_y^k$ surjects onto $B$ and it suffices to find a fiber of $\Psi$ consisting of a set of $|\mathcal{W}|$ smooth points to conclude that $\hat{\mathcal{Z}}_y^k$ is reduced. If $y$ is $|\mathcal{W}|$-general then, because the Jacobian of the original Chevalley mapping does not vanish at $y$, we conclude that $y$ is a nonsingular point of $\hat{\mathcal{Z}}_y^k$ and thus, that the $\mathcal{W}$-orbit of $y$ is the desired fiber.
\end{proof}
The main idea of our proof will be to show that if $F$ is a homogeneous nonnegative form of sufficiently small degree and $y$ is a point where $F$ achieves its minimum on the unit sphere then the curve $\mathcal{Z}^{n-1}_y(\mathbb{R})$ is entirely contained on the locus of minima of $F$. As a result, to understand the minima of $F$ we can instead look at the geometry of the curves $\mathcal{Z}^{n-1}_y$. Our next Lemma gives a method to find a real point of these curves lying in the set $\mathcal{H}_\mathcal{W}$.
\begin{lemma} \label{specialPt} Assume $|x|^2$ is an element of the algebra generated by the first $n-1$ invariants. For every $y\in V\setminus \{0\}$ the curve $\mathcal{C}_y:=\mathcal{Z}_y^{n-1}$ contains a point $x^*\in\mathcal{H}_\mathcal{W}\setminus \{0\}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Since $|x|^2$ belongs to the algebra generated by the first $n-1$ invariants, the set of real points of the curve $\mathcal{C}_y$ is contained in the set of points $x$ with $|x|^2=|y|^2$. As a result $\mathcal{C}_y(\mathbb{R})$ is a nonempty compact set of nonzero points of $V$. Furthermore the optimization problem
\[\min \eta_n(x): x\in \mathcal{C}_y(\mathbb{R})\]
has a real solution $x^*$. Any such solution is a local minimum for $\eta_n(x)$ on $\mathcal{C}_y$ and thus, by the Lagrange multipliers Theorem there exists $\lambda\in \mathbb{R}^{n}\setminus \{0\}$ such that
\[\lambda_1\nabla \eta_1(x^*)+\dots + \lambda_n\nabla\eta_n(x^*)=0\]
and thus the Jacobian determinant of the Chevalley mapping vanishes at $x^*$. By Lemma~\ref{fact1} it follows that $x^*\in \mathcal{H}_\mathcal{W}$ as claimed.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
The previous proof was inspired to us by ~\cite{Co}.
\end{remark}
\section{ Proof of Main Theorems}
In this section we prove our Main Theorems. The proof of the first Theorem is an application of Bezout's theorem on the reducible curve $\hat{\mathcal{Z}}_y^{n-1}$. It generalizes an argument due to H.W. Schülting~\cite{Ch} in the case of even symmetric sextics. The proof of the second Theorem is constructive and gives us a method to build forms of sufficiently high degree which are nonnegative on $\mathcal{H}_\mathcal{W}$ and not on $V$.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{Thm A}]
Suppose $F$ is nonnegative on $\mathcal{H}_\mathcal{W}$ and not on $V$. Let $y$ be a point of $V$ where $F$ reaches its minimum $\mu<0$ on the unit sphere $S$ of $V$. Note that $y$ must be a $\mathcal{W}$-general point. Let $G:=F-\mu|x|^{2d}$. The form $G$ is $\mathcal{W}$-invariant and nonnegative on $V$. We will show that if $2d<2d_n$ then there is a point $x^*\neq 0$ in $\mathcal{H}_\mathcal{W}$ which satisfies $G(x^*)=0$. This shows that $F(x^*)=\mu|x^*|^{2d}<0$ contradicting the fact that $F$ is nonnegative on $\mathcal{H}_\mathcal{W}$. Our proof relies on Bezout's theorem and thus we first base-change to the complex numbers and let $\mathcal{C}_y:=\hat{\mathcal{Z}}_y^{n-1}\subseteq \mathbb{P}^n$ be the basic $\mathcal{W}$-invariant curve through $y$. By Lemma~\ref{Geom} we know that $\mathcal{C}_y$ is a reduced curve of degree $\prod_{i=1}^{n-1}d_i$. Since $G$ is $\mathcal{W}$ invariant we have two possibilities, either $G$ is identical to zero on $\mathcal{C}_y$ or it is nonzero on every irreducible component of $\mathcal{C}_y$. If $G$ is nonzero on every irreducible component of $\mathcal{C}_y$ then (see~\cite[\S 1.20]{K} for a detailed treatment of the degree theory of line bundles on a singular curve).
\[ 2d\deg(\mathcal{C}_y)=\deg_{\mathcal{C}_y}({\mathcal O}_{\mathbb{P}^n}(2d))=\sum_{p\in \mathcal{C}_y} e_p(G)\geq 2|\mathcal{W}|\]
where the last inequality occurs because every real zero of a nonnegative polynomial is a minimum, so every point in the orbit of $[1:y]$ contributes at least two to the degree of the line bundle. Since $|\mathcal{W}|=\prod_{i=1}^nd_i$ we conclude that $2d\geq 2d_n$ contradicting our assumption on the degree of the form $G$. We thus conclude that $G$ is identically zero in $\mathcal{C}_y$. By Lemma~\ref{specialPt}, the curve $\mathcal{C}_y$ contains a point $x^*\in \mathcal{H}_\mathcal{W}\setminus \{0\}$ proving our claim.
\end{proof}
\begin{example} The assumption that $|x|^2$ belongs to the algebra generated by the first $n-1$ invariants is necessary for Theorem~\ref{Thm A} to hold. If this hypothesis is not satisfied the statement may fail as the following example shows. Let $\Phi=\{\pm e_1\}\subseteq \mathbb{R}^2$. The forms $x_2,x_1^2$ are a set of basic invariants for $\mathcal{W}$. The form $-x_1^2$, of degree $2<4=2d_2$ is nonnegative on $\mathcal{H}_\mathcal{W}=\{x_1=0\}$ but not on V.
\end{example}
The previous proof implies the following Theorem of complex algebraic geometry, of interest in its own right. It is interesting to ask whether similar statements hold for $\mathcal{W}$-invariant varieties of higher codimension.
\begin{theorem} If $F$ is a $\mathcal{W}$-invariant hypersurface of degree $d<2d_n$ which is singular at a point $y$ where the Jacobian determinant of the Chevalley mapping does not vanish then $V(F)$ must contain the curve $\mathcal{C}_y$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{Thm B}] Let $y\in V$ be a $\mathcal{W}$-general point on the unit sphere $S$ of $V$ where none of the basic invariants of $\mathcal{W}$ vanishes. Let $X:={\rm Cone}(\mathcal{W} y)\subseteq V$ be the cone over the $\mathcal{W}$-orbit of $y$. Let $J$ be any homogeneous ideal with $V_\mathbb{R}(J)=X$ and let $\beta$ be the maximum degree of one of its generators. We will construct a homogeneous $\mathcal{W}$-invariant form of degree $2\beta$ which is nonnegative on $\mathcal{H}_\mathcal{W}$ and which is strictly negative on $y$. To this end, let $h_1,\dots, h_s$ be a generating set of the vector space $J_\beta$ which is closed under the action of $\mathcal{W}$. Define $\phi:=h_1^2+\dots + h_s^2$ and note that $\phi$ is $\mathcal{W}$-invariant, nonnegative, and satisfies $V_\mathbb{R}(\phi)=X$. Let $\mu=\min\{\phi(x): x\in \mathcal{H}_\mathcal{W}\cap S\}$. Then $\mu>0$ and thus $\overline{\phi}:=h_1^2+\dots+h_s^2-\frac{\mu}{2}|x|^{2\beta}$ is a homogeneous, $\mathcal{W}$-invariant form, which is nonnegative on $\mathcal{H}_\mathcal{W}$ and satisfies $\overline{\phi}(y)=-\frac{\mu}{2}<0$. Next, we obtain an upper bound for the number $\beta$ by constructing homogeneous ideals $J$ with $V_\mathbb{R}(J)=X$.
Let $O=\{j: 1\leq j\leq n\text{ and }\deg(\eta_j)\text{ is odd} \}$. If $O\neq \emptyset$ then let $\underline{o}:=\min O$ and $\overline{o}=\max O$ and for a basic invariant $\eta_j$ define $\overline{\eta_j}:=\eta_j(y)$. Define homogeneous polynomials $p_j$ for $1\leq j\leq n$ by
\[
p_j:=\begin{cases}
\eta_j-\overline{\eta_j}|x|^{d_j}\text{, if $j\not\in O$}\\
\eta_j\eta_{\underline o}-\overline{\eta_j} \overline{\eta_{\underline o}}|x|^{d_j+\underline{o}}\text{, if $j\in O$}\\
\end{cases}
\]
We claim that $V_\mathbb{R}(p_1,\dots, p_n)=X$. Equivalently we will show that $V_\mathbb{R}(p_1,\dots, p_n)\cap S$ equals $\mathcal{W} y\cup -\mathcal{W} y$. Since $V_\mathbb{R}(p_1,\dots, p_n)$ is generated by homogeneous $\mathcal{W}$-invariant forms of even degree it is immediate that $\mathcal{W} y \cup -\mathcal{W} y\subseteq V_\mathbb{R}(p_1,\dots, p_n)\cap S$. For the opposite inclusion, if $x\in V_\mathbb{R}(p_1,\dots, p_n)\cap S$ then $\eta_{\underline{o}}(x)^2=\eta_{\underline{o}}(y)^2$ and thus $\eta_{\underline{o}}(x)=\pm \eta_{\underline{o}}(y)$. It follows that either $\eta_i(x)=\eta_i(y)$ for all $i$ with $1\leq i\leq n$ or $\eta_i(x)=\eta_i(-y)$ for all $i$ with $1\leq i\leq n$ so that $x\in \mathcal{W} y\cup -\mathcal{W} y$ (note that the two alternatives coincide if $\mathcal{W}$ has no invariants of odd degree). The largest degree of a polynomial $p_j$ is $\max(d_n, \underline{o}+\overline{o})$ and this is an upper bound for $\beta$ in the previous paragraph.
As a result, the $\mathcal{W}$-invariant form $\overline{\phi}$ obtained from the ideal $J=(p_1,\dots, p_n)$ has degree $2\max(d_n,\underline{o}+\overline{o})$, is nonnegative on $\mathcal{H}_\mathcal{W}$ and is strictly negative on $y$ as claimed.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{CI}] Suppose that $F$ is nonnegative on the algebraic set defined by the maximal minors of the matrix with columns $\nabla g_1,\dots, \nabla g_j$ and not on $V$. Let $\mu<0$ be the absolute minimum of $F$ on the unit sphere in $V$ and let $y$ be a point where this minimum is achieved. Define $G:=F-\mu|x|^{2d}$ where $2d=\deg(F)$ and note that $G$ is nonnegative on $V$. Let $\overline{g_i}=g(y_i)$ and let $\mathcal{Z}$ be the variety defined by $(g_i-\overline{g_i}: 1\leq i\leq j)$. Since $|x|^2$ is an element of $\mathbb{R}[g_1,\dots, g_j]$ we know that $\mathcal{Z}(\mathbb{R})$ is a closed subset of the unit sphere in $V$ and thus compact. Moreover, letting $\overline{A}:= A(\overline{g_1},\dots, \overline{g_j})$ and $\overline{B}:=B(\overline{g_1},\dots, \overline{g_j})$ the form $G$ restricts to a function $\phi$ on $\mathcal{Z}$ given by
\[ \phi(x)=\overline{A}-\mu|y|^{2d}+g_{j+1}(x)\overline{B}\]
which satisfies $\phi(y)=0$ and $\phi(x)\geq 0$ for all $x\in \mathcal{Z}$. We have two cases, either $\overline{B}=0$ and $\phi$ is identical to zero in $\mathcal{Z}$ or $\overline{B}\neq 0$. We will show that we reach a contradiction in both cases.
In the first case, arguing as in Lemma~\ref{specialPt} we conclude that there is a point $x^*\in \mathcal{Z}(\mathbb{R})$ where the maximal minors of $\nabla g_1,\dots, \nabla g_j$ vanish. If $\overline{B}\neq 0$ then the point $y$ is a global and hence local minimum of $\phi$ on $\mathcal{Z}$. By the Theorem of Lagrange multipliers there exist $(\lambda_0,\dots, \lambda_j)\neq 0$ such that $\lambda_0\nabla \phi(y) +\sum_{i=1}^j\lambda_i\nabla g_i(y)=0$. Since $\nabla\phi = \overline{B}\nabla g_{j+1}$ it follows that the matrix with columns $\nabla g_1(y),\dots, \nabla g_{j+1}(y)$ has a nonzero element in its kernel and thus that $y$ belongs to the algebraic set defined by the maximal minors of the matrix with columns $\nabla g_1,\dots \nabla g_j$, a contradiction.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Corollary~\ref{corCI}] $(1)$ Since the forms $g_1,\dots, g_n$ are a regular sequence the algebra $\mathbb{R}[g_1,\dots, g_n]$ is isomorphic to a graded polynomial ring. As a result, for every homogeneous element $F\in \mathbb{R}[g_1,\dots, g_n]$ there exists a unique polynomial $H\in \mathbb{R}[z_1,\dots, z_n]$ such that $F=H(g_1,\dots, g_n)$. If $\deg(F)<2d_n$ then no monomial in $H$ can be divisible by $z_n^2$ and $H=A(z_1,\dots, z_{n-1})+z_n B(z_1,\dots, z_{n-1})$. The claim follows from Theorem~\ref{CI}. $(2)$ Follows immediately from Theorem~\ref{CI}.
\end{proof}
Next we analyze the consequences of Theorem~\ref{CI} on forms which are invariant under a reflection group $\mathcal{W}$.
\begin{definition}\label{DefMF} A sequence of basic invariants $\eta_1,\dots \eta_n$ satisfy the minor factorization condition if for every $x\in V$ and every $j\in 1,\dots, n$ the following equality holds
\[\operatorname{rank}\left(\nabla \eta_1(x),\dots,\nabla \eta_{n}(x)\right)\leq j-1 \iff \operatorname{rank} \left(\nabla \eta_1(x),\dots,\nabla \eta_{j}(x)\right)\leq j-1\]
\end{definition}
The motivation for the terminology comes from the fact that, in some cases, the equivalence is a consequence of a factorization property of the minors of the Jacobian of the Chevalley mapping. The following example shows that this is the case for the Weyl group of $B_n$. An analogous argument shows that this property also holds for type $A$.
\begin{example} Let $\Phi=\{\pm e_i: 1\leq i \leq n\}\cup \{\pm e_i\pm e_j:1\leq i\neq j\leq n\}\subseteq \mathbb{R}^n$ and let $\eta_i:=\sum_{j=1}^n x_j^{2i}$. The group $\mathcal{W}$ is the Weyl group of $B_n$ and $\eta_1,\dots, \eta_n$ are a set of basic invariants. For $1\leq i_1< \dots < i_k\leq n$ and $1\leq j_1< \dots < j_k\leq n$ Let $\Delta_{i_1,\dots, i_k}^{j_1,\dots, j_k}$ be the determinant of the submatrix of the Jacobian of the Chevalley mapping with rows indexed by $i_1,\dots, i_k$ and columns indexed $j_1,\dots, j_k$. We show that the minor factorization property holds by proving that for every $i_1,\dots,i_k$ and $j_1,\dots, j_k$, the polynomial $\Delta_{i_1,\dots,i_k}^{1,\dots, k}$ divides $\Delta_{i_1,\dots,i_k}^{j_1,\dots, j_k}$. To see this, note that the subgroup of $B_n$ which fixes the components $x_{s_j}$ for $s_j\in[n]\setminus \{i_1,\dots, i_k\}$ is isomorphic to $B_k$ and has as set of fundamental invariants $\eta_1,\dots, \eta_k, x_{s_1},\dots, x_{s_{n-k}}$. Thus, the Jacobian determinant of its Chevalley mapping is precisely $J=\Delta_{i_1,\dots, i_k}^{1,\dots, k}$. On the other hand, the determinant of the submatrix of $\nabla \eta_{j_1},\dots, \nabla \eta_{j_k}, \nabla x_{s_1},\dots, \nabla x_{s_{n-k}}$ with rows $i_1,\dots, i_k$ is an alternating function for $B_k$ and thus, by Proposition~\cite[pag. 69]{H} its determinant $\Delta_{i_1,\dots, i_k}^{j_1,\dots, j_k}$ is divisible by $J$ as claimed.
\end{example}
\begin{remark} There are several possible explanations for the above minor factorization conditions. In the $A_{n-1}$ and $BC_n$ cases the ratios between the various minors are Schur polynomials. But this is not always the case, for example, taking a explicit set of basic invariants for $D_3$, for instance $x_1^2+x_2^2+x_3^2$, $x_1x_2x_3$ and $x_1^4+x_2^4+x_3^4$~\cite{Iwa}, the ratios between the various minors is not a polynomial. However, the vanishing locus of the maximal minors corresponding to the first $k$ columns of their Jacobian is the same as the vanishing locus of all $k\times k$ minors of the Jacobian for each $k=1,2,3$ (see the next Example). We conjecture that both vanishing loci are the same for each $k=1,2,\dots,n$ for a finite reflection group of rank $n$, i.e., the minor factorization property holds for every finite reflection group. \end{remark}
\begin{example}\label{locus}
Consider the jacobian matrix $J_{D_3}$ of the Chevalley map of $D_3$ corresponding to the basic invariants above.
$$J_{D_3}(x)=\arraycolsep=8pt\def2.2}\left[\begin{array}{c c c{2.2}\left[\begin{array}{c c c}
2x_1 & x_2x_3 & 4x_1^3\\
2x_2 & x_1x_3 & 4x_2^3\\
2x_3 & x_1x_2 & 4x_3^3
\end{array}\right]$$
\end{example}
The vanishing locus of the $2\times2$ minors of the first two columns is given by the solution set to the following system:
\begin{eqnarray*}
x_3(x_1^2-x_2^2)=0\\
x_2(x_1^2-x_3^2)=0\\
x_1(x_2^2-x_3^2)=0
\end{eqnarray*}
If one of the variables is zero then another one must be zero as well and therefore the third one can assume any value. If none of the $x_i$ vanish then all must have the same square. Therefore the vanishing locus is $$\{(t,0,0),(0,t,0),(0,0,t),(t,t,t),(t,t,-t),(t,-t,t),(t,-t,-t):t\in\mathbb{R}\}.$$ Up to symmetry, for a given $t$, there are three kinds of points in the locus above: $(t,0,0)$, $(t,t,t)$ and $(t,t,-t)$. Plugging in each one of them in the matrix above we get:
$$\arraycolsep=8pt\def2.2}\left[\begin{array}{c c c{2.2}\left[\begin{array}{c c c}
2t & 0 & 4t^3\\
0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}\right]\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\arraycolsep=8pt\def2.2}\left[\begin{array}{c c c{2.2}\left[\begin{array}{c c c}
2t & t^2 & 4t^3\\
2t & t^2 & 4t^3\\
2t & t^2 & 4t^3
\end{array}\right]\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\arraycolsep=8pt\def2.2}\left[\begin{array}{c c c{2.2}\left[\begin{array}{c c c}
2t & -t^2 & 4t^3\\
2t & -t^2 & 4t^3\\
-2t & t^2 & -4t^3
\end{array}\right]$$
Since all $2\times2$ minors of each matrix vanish, we conclude that the vanishing locus of all $2\times2$ minors of $J_{D_3}(x)$ coincides with the vanishing locus of the $2\times2$ minors of the first two columns.
\begin{cor} \label{highCodim}Assume $\eta_1,\dots \eta_n$ satisfy the minor factorization property and that $|x|^2$ is in the algebra generated by the basic invariants $\eta_1,\dots, \eta_{j-1}$. Define $\mathcal{S}$ as the union of all subspaces obtained by intersecting $n-j+1$ linearly independent hyperplanes orthogonal to the elements of the root system $\Phi$ which defines $\mathcal{W}$ (i.e., the set of $(j-1)$-dimensional faces of $\mathcal{H}_\mathcal{W}$). The set $\mathcal{S}$ is a witness set for nonnegativity of any form $F\in \mathbb{R}[\eta_1,\dots, \eta_j]$ which is linear in $\eta_j$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof} Arguing as in the proof of Corollary~\ref{corCI} the claim reduces to proving that the locus of points $x$ where $\operatorname{rank}(\nabla \eta_1(x),\dots, \nabla \eta_j(x))<j$ coincides with $\mathcal{S}$. By the minor factorization property this set consists of points where the rank of the Jacobian of the Chevalley mapping is at most $j-1$ which coincides with $\mathcal{S}$ by a well known Theorem of Steinberg~\cite{St}. \end{proof}
Since $B_n$ satisfies the minor factorization property, part $(a)$ of the previous Corollary implies that an even symmetric sextic is nonnegative if and only if it is so on the intersection of any $n-2$ linearly independent hyperplanes perpendicular to elements of $B_n$ and that an even symmetric quartic is nonnegative if and only if it is so at the $n$ points $(1,0\ldots,0),(1,1,0,\ldots,0),\ldots,(1,1\ldots,1)$ which, up to the action of $B_n$, span the subspaces that can be obtained by intersecting any $n-1$ linearly independent hyperplanes perpendicular to elements of $B_n$.
\begin{remark} As this article was being completed we learned of independent in progress work by Friedl, Riener and Sanyal~\cite{RSF} where they provide the first high codimension witness sets valid for all finite reflection groups.
\end{remark}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec1}
The study of hadronic properties under extreme conditions of temperature and density is an interesting and important theoretical thesis, being related to present and future heavy-ion experiments. Whereas the calculation of hadronic parameters at finite temperature and density directly from QCD faces some difficulties. The thermal QCD is a calculable theory in large momentum transfer region or at short distance, where the running coupling constant is small, so the perturbative method can be used efficiently. However, the coupling constant becomes large and the standard perturbation theories fail at the hadronic level. Therefore, investigation of hadron properties requires nonperturbative methods. Some nonperturbative approaches have been put forward since 1970s, such as lattice QCD, heavy quark effective theory (HQET), different quark models, QCD sum rules and so on. In addition, it is believed that the hadronic matter undergoes a phase transition to a quark-gluon plasma(QGP) at sufficiently high temperature. Whereas the nature of this transition is not well understood, so investigation of thermal properties of hadrons is very instructive.
\par The QCD sum rule method has been widely used to study the thermal properties of the light-light mesons in Refs. \cite{art1,art2}, the heavy-light mesons in Refs. \cite{art3,art4,art5} and the heavy-heavy mesons in Refs. \cite{art6,art7,art8,art9,art10,art11} since it was firstly extended to finite temperature in Ref. \cite{art12} by Bochkarev and Shaposhnikov. The extension bases on the following assumption: Both the operator product expansion(OPE) technique and notion of quark-hadron duality remain valid at finite temperature, but the vacuum condensates must be replace by their thermal expectation values. For baryons, Yuji. Koike investigated the octet baryon masses at finite temperature, taking into account the contribution of $\pi$+$N$ $\rightarrow N$ in the calculation of the spectral function\cite{art13}. In Ref. \cite{art14}, the authors constructed the spectral representation of the two-point correlation function of nucleon from the Feynman diagrams. Therefore it is interesting to investigate the temperature effect of the baryon masses from the principle of QCD. The main aim of this work is to calculate the spectral functions directly from the quark propagator at finite temperature.
\par The rest of the paper is organized as follow. In section \ref{sec2}, we calculate the spectral functions to $T^{8}$ order, summarize the nonperturbative contributions and obtain the Borel transformed sum rules for the masses. Section \ref{sec3} is devoted to the numerical analysis and a summary is given at the end of this part.
\section{Thermal QCD sum rules of the decuplet baryons}\label{sec2}
We begin with the following two-point thermal correlation function:
\begin{equation}\label{correlator}
\Pi_{\mu\nu}(q,T)=i\int dx^{4}e^{iqx}\langle \textsl{T}(J_{\mu}(x))\overline{J_{\nu}(0)}\rangle,
\end{equation}
where $J_{\mu}(x)$ is the interpolating current for the decuplet baryons. In the above equation, the first $T$ is a variable for temperature and the second one stands for time-order product. We omit the first one in the rest of the paper in order to avoid confusion. The thermal average of any operator $O$ is defined as
\begin{equation}
\langle O \rangle=\frac{Tr(\exp(-\beta H)O)}{Tr(\exp(-\beta H))},
\end{equation}
in which $H$ is the QCD Hamiltonian, $\beta=\frac{1}{T}$ stands for the inverse of the temperature, and the traces are carried out over the complete set of states. In this paper, we use the Ioffe's currents for the baryons:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&J_{\mu}^{\Delta}=\varepsilon_{abc}(u^{a}(x)C\gamma_{\mu}u^{b}(x))u^{c}(x),\nonumber\\
&&J_{\mu}^{\Sigma^{*}}=\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}\varepsilon_{abc}({2(u^{a}(x)C\gamma_{\mu}s^{b}(x))u^{c}(x)+(u^{a}(x)C\gamma_{\mu}u^{b}(x))s^{c}(x)}),\nonumber\\
&&J_{\mu}^{\Xi^{*}}=\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}\varepsilon_{abc}({2(s^{a}(x)C\gamma_{\mu}u^{b}(x))s^{c}(x)+(s^{a}(x)C\gamma_{\mu}s^{b}(x))u^{c}(x)}),\nonumber\\
&&J_{\mu}^{\Omega}=\varepsilon_{abc}(s^{a}(x)C\gamma_{\mu}s^{b}(x))s^{c}(x),
\end{eqnarray}
where $a,b,c$ are color indices and $C$ is the charge conjugate operator.
\par According to the standard procedure of the QCD sum rules, we need to calculate the correlator(\ref{correlator}) in terms of physical particles (hadrons) and in quark-gluon language, and then match the two representations. On the theoretical side, the correlator can be expanded as
\begin{equation}
\Pi(q^2)=\Pi^{pert}(q^2)+\Pi^{cond}(q^2)=\int ds\frac{\rho(s)}{s-q^{2}}+\Pi^{cond}(q^2),
\end{equation}
where $\rho(s)$ is the spectral density. We calculate the perturbative part of the two-point thermal correlator by using the quark propagator at finite temperature in coordinate space\cite{art15},
\begin{equation}
S_{T}(x)=S_{0}(x)f(\pi T x),
\end{equation}
where $S_{0}(x)$ is the quark propagator at $T=0$ and $f$ is a temperature modification factor. The function $f(\pi T x)$ satisfies $f(0)=1$ at $T=0$ and at $T\neq 0$
\begin{equation}
f(z)=z \exp(-z) \frac{z+1+(z-1)\exp(-2z)}{[1-\exp(-2z)]^{2}},
\end{equation}
which can be expanded at small $z$ as
\begin{equation}
f(z)=1-\frac{7 z^{4}}{360}.
\end{equation}
For $u$ or $d$ quark, $S_{0}(x)=\frac{i\not\!{x}}{2 \pi^{2} x^{4}}$, and for $s$ quark, $S_{0}(x)=\frac{i\not\!{x}}{2 \pi^{2} x^{4}}-\frac{m}{4 \pi^2 x^2}$, where $m$ is the mass of the $s$ quark.
\par After some calculations, it is found that the terms containing $T^{8}$ do not contribute to the imaginary part of the perturbative side of the two-point thermal correlator. The result for the $\Delta$ is
\begin{eqnarray}\label{imaginary}
\mbox{Im}\Pi_{\mu\nu}(q)=&&(-\frac{1}{20 (2\pi)^{3}} q^{4}-\frac{14}{15(2\pi)^{3}}\pi^{4} T^{4})g_{\mu\nu}\not\!{q}
+\frac{1}{20 (2\pi)^{3}} q^{2}q_{\mu}q_{\nu}\not\!{q}+\nonumber\\ &&\frac{1}{64 (2\pi)^{3}} q^{4}\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{\nu}\not\!{q}
-\frac{7}{20 (2\pi)^{3}}\pi^{4} T^{4}\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{\nu}\not\!{q}
+(\frac{1}{80 (2\pi)^{3}} q^{4}-\nonumber\\ &&\frac{7}{15 (2\pi)^{3}} \pi^{4} T^{4})\gamma_{\nu} q_{\mu}+(-\frac{3}{160 (2\pi)^{3}} q^{4}+\frac{7}{30 (2\pi)^{3}} \pi^{4} T^{4}) \gamma_{\mu} q_{\nu}.
\end{eqnarray}
According to the basic assumption of the extension of the QCD sum rules to finite temperature, we take advantage of the results in Ref. \cite{art16} for the condensate part, replacing the vacuum condensates by the thermal expectation values,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{condensate}
\Pi_{\mu\nu}^{cond}(q)=&&-\frac{1}{3 \pi^{2}} \langle\overline{u} u\rangle q^{2} \ln(-q^{2})\{g_{\mu\nu}
-\frac{5}{16} \gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{\nu}+\frac{1}{4}(\gamma_{\mu} q_{\nu}-\gamma_{\nu} q_{\mu})\frac{\not\!{q}}{q^{2}}
-\frac{1}{2}\frac{q_{\mu}q_{\nu}}{q^{2}}\}\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{4}{3}\langle\overline{u}u\rangle^{2}\frac{1}{q^{2}} \{g_{\mu\nu}\not\!{q}
-\frac{3}{8} \gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{\nu}\not\!{q}
+\frac{3}{8} (\gamma_{\mu} q_{\nu}-\gamma_{\nu}q_{\mu})
-\frac{1}{8} (\gamma_{\mu}q_{\nu}+\gamma_{\nu}q_{\mu})\}\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{1}{24\pi^{2}}\ln(-q^{2})g_{s}
\langle\overline{u}\sigma_{\lambda\sigma}\frac{\lambda^{a}}{2}u G_{\lambda\sigma}^{a}\rangle(g_{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{4}\lambda_{\mu}\lambda_{\nu}).
\end{eqnarray}
\par Now we turn to the hadronic representation of the thermal two-point correlator(\ref{correlator}). In order to obtain the hadronic representation, a complete set of states $\Delta(q,r)$ are inserted into the r.h.s. of Eq. (\ref{correlator}),
\begin{equation}
\langle T(J_{\mu}(x))\overline{J_{\nu}(0)}\rangle=\sum_{r}\langle T(J_{\mu}(x))|\Delta(q,r)\rangle\langle\Delta(q,r)|\overline{J_{\nu}(0)}\rangle,
\end{equation}
where the summation is made over the spin projection $r$ of the baryon $\Delta$ with momentum $q$, and $q^2=M_{\Delta}^2$, with $M_{\Delta}$ the mass of $\Delta$. The coupling of the interpolating current to the baryon state is defined as
\begin{equation}
\langle 0|J_{\mu}(0)|\Delta(q,r)\rangle=\lambda_{\Delta} \nu_{\mu}^{r}(q),
\end{equation}
in which $\nu_{\mu}^{r}(q)$ is the wave function of the $\Delta$ baryon, $(\not\!{q}-M_{\Delta})\nu_{\mu}^{r}(q)=0$, and $\lambda_{\Delta}$ is a constant. Then the hadronic representation of the correlator is obtained as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{hadronic}
&&\sum_{r}\langle (J_{\mu}(x))|\Delta(q,r)\rangle\langle\Delta(q,r)|\overline{J_{\nu}(0)}\rangle\nonumber\\ &&=-\lambda_{\Delta} [g_{\mu\nu}\not\!{q}-\frac{1}{3}\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{\nu}\not\!{q}+\frac{1}{3}(\gamma_{\mu}q_{\nu}-\gamma_{\nu}q_{\mu})-\frac{2}{3}\frac{q_{\mu}q_{\nu}\not\!{q}}{M_{\Delta}^{2}}\nonumber\\ &&+g_{\mu\nu}M_{\Delta}-\frac{1}{3}\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{\nu}M_{\Delta}+\frac{1}{3}(\gamma_{\mu}q_{\nu}-\gamma_{\nu}q_{\mu})\frac{\not\!{q}}{M_{\Delta}}-\frac{2}{3}\frac{q_{\mu}q_{\nu}}{M_{\Delta}}]+\cdots,
\end{eqnarray}
where $``\cdots"$ stands for the contributions of continuum states and the interaction between the current and particles in the medium\cite{art16}. It can be seen that the structures $g_{\mu\nu}$ and $g_{\mu\nu}\not\!{q}$ contain more information than other structures by comparing the Eqs.(\ref{imaginary})-(\ref{condensate}) with Eq. (\ref{hadronic}), therefore we chose the two structures, $g_{\mu\nu}$ and $g_{\mu\nu}\not\!{q}$, to obtain the sum rule. For the structure $g_{\mu\nu}$, the spectral function is
\begin{equation}
\rho_{1}(s)=\lambda_{\Delta}^{2}M_{\Delta} \delta(s-M_{\Delta}^{2})+\cdots,
\end{equation}
and for the structure $g_{\mu\nu}\not\!{q}$, the spectral representation is
\begin{equation}
\rho_{2}(s)=\lambda_{\Delta}^{2} \delta(s-M_{\Delta}^{2})+\cdots.
\end{equation}
According to the quark-hadron duality, the contributions of the continuum states and the interaction between current and particles in the medium can be approximated by the OPE spectral function. Finally we arrive at
\begin{equation}
\Pi_{1}^{phy}=\int ds\frac{\rho_{1}(s)}{s-q^{2}}=\frac{\lambda_{\Delta}^2 M_{\Delta}}{M_{\Delta}^2-q^{2}}+\int_{s_{0}}^{\infty} ds \frac{\frac{-1}{3 \pi^{2}} \langle\overline{u} u\rangle s}{s-q^2},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\Pi_{2}^{phy}=\int ds\frac{\rho_{2}(s)}{s-q^{2}}=\frac{\lambda_{\Delta}^2} {M_{\Delta}^2-q^{2}}+\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{s_{0}}^{\infty} ds \frac{-\frac{1}{20 (2\pi)^{3}} s^{2}-\frac{14}{15(2\pi)^{3}}\pi^{4} T^{4}}{s-q^{2}},
\end{equation}
with $s_{0}$ the threshold parameter. On the OPE side, we have
\begin{equation}
\Pi_{1}^{OPE}=\int_{0}^{\infty} ds \frac{\frac{-1}{3 \pi^{2}} \langle\overline{u} u\rangle s}{s-q^2} +\frac{1}{24\pi^{2}}\ln(-q^{2})g_{s}\langle\overline{u}\sigma_{\lambda\sigma}\frac{\lambda^{a}}{2}u G_{\lambda\sigma}^{a}\rangle,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\Pi_{2}^{OPE}=\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{0}^{\infty} ds \frac{-\frac{1}{20 (2\pi)^{3}} s^{2}-\frac{14}{15(2\pi)^{3}}\pi^{4} T^{4}}{s-q^{2}}+\frac{4}{3}\langle\overline{u}u\rangle^{2}\frac{1}{q^{2}}.
\end{equation}
\par Matching both representations and taking Borel transformation, it is obtained
\begin{equation}\label{sum:origin1}
\lambda_{\Delta}^{2}M_{\Delta}e^{-M_{\Delta}^{2}/M^{2}}=\frac{-\langle\overline{u}u\rangle}{3\pi^{2}}
M^{4}[1-(1+\frac{s_{0}}{M^{2}})e^{-s_{0}/M^{2}}]
+\frac{1}{24\pi^{2}}M^{2}M_{0}^{2}\langle\overline{u}u\rangle,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{sum:origin2}
\lambda_{\Delta}^{2} e^{-M_{\Delta}^{2}/M^{2}}=\frac{1}{10(2\pi)^{4}} M^{6} [2-(2+\frac{2 s_{0}}{M^{2}}
+\frac{s_{0}^{2}}{M^{4}})e^{-s_{0}/M^{2}}]
+\frac{7}{60}T^{4}M^{2}(1-e^{-s_{0}/M^{2}})
+\frac{4}{3}\langle\overline{u}u\rangle^{2},
\end{equation}
with the Borel parameter $M^2$. In the calculation, we have used the parameterization for the mixed condensate\cite{art16},
\begin{equation}
g_{s}\langle\overline{u}\sigma_{\lambda\sigma}\frac{\lambda^{a}}{2}u G_{\lambda\sigma}^{a}\rangle=M_{0}^{2}\langle\overline{u}u\rangle,
\end{equation}
with $M_{0}^{2}=0.8\pm0.2GeV^{2}$.
\par Equations (\ref{sum:origin1}) and (\ref{sum:origin2}) lead to the mass sum rule for the $\Delta$ baryon
\begin{equation}\label{sum rule1}
M_{\Delta}^{1}=\frac{\frac{160\pi^2}{3}abM^4-\frac{20\pi^2}{3}M_0^2aM^2}{cM^6+\frac{56}{3}\pi^4T^4dM^2+\frac{640\pi^4}{3}a^2},
\end{equation}
where $a=-\langle\overline{u}u\rangle$, $b=1-(1+\frac{s_0}{M^2})e^{-s_0/M^2}$, $c=2-(2+\frac{2 s_{0}}{M^{2}}+\frac{s_{0}^{2}}{M^{4}})e^{-s_{0}/M^{2}}$, and $d=1-e^{-s_{0}/M^{2}}$.
\par Another way to get the mass sum rule is from Eq. (\ref{sum:origin2}) and its derivative with respect to $\frac{1}{M^2}$, which leads to another sum rule for the $\Delta$ mass:
\begin{equation}\label{sum rule2}
M_\Delta^{2}=(\frac{eM^8+\frac{56\pi^4}{3}T^4bM^4}{cM^6+\frac{56}{3}\pi^4T^4dM^2+\frac{640\pi^4}{3}a^2})^{1/2},
\end{equation}
with $e=6-(6+\frac{6s_0}{M^2}+\frac{3s_0^2}{M^4}+\frac{s_0^3}{M^6})e^{-s_0/M^2}$.
\par Similarly, the sum rules for the masses of the $\Sigma^{*}$, $\Xi^{*}$ and $\Omega$ baryons can be obtained in the same process, taking advantage of the results in Ref. \cite{art17} for the condensates parts. The results are, to order $m$,
\begin{equation}
M_{\Sigma^{*}}^{1}=\frac{\frac{160\pi^2}{9}(2a+f)bM^4-\frac{20\pi^2}{9}M_0^2(2a+f)M^2+5mcM^6+\frac{320\pi^2}{3}ma^2+\frac{56\pi^4}{3}mT^4dM^2}{cM^6+\frac{56}{3}\pi^4T^4dM^2+\frac{40\pi^2}{3}m(4a-f)M^2+\frac{640\pi^4}{9}(a^2+2af)},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
M_{\Sigma^{*}}^{2}=(\frac{eM^8+\frac{56\pi^4}{3}T^4bM^4-\frac{40\pi^2}{3}m(4a-f)M^4}{cM^6+\frac{56}{3}\pi^4T^4dM^2+\frac{40\pi^2}{3}m(4a-f)M^2+\frac{640\pi^4}{9}(a^2+2af)})^{1/2},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
M_{\Xi^{*}}^{1}=\frac{\frac{160\pi^2}{9}(a+2f)bM^4-\frac{20\pi^2}{9}M_0^2(a+2f)M^2+10mcM^6+\frac{640\pi^2}{9}m(2a^2+af)+\frac{112\pi^4}{3}mT^4dM^2}{cM^6+\frac{56}{3}\pi^4T^4dM^2+\frac{80\pi^2}{3}m(2a+f)M^2+\frac{640\pi^4}{9}(b^2+2af)},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
M_{\Xi^{*}}^{2}=(\frac{eM^8+\frac{56\pi^4}{3}T^4bM^4-\frac{80\pi^2}{3}m(2a+f)M^4}{cM^6+\frac{56}{3}\pi^4T^4dM^2+\frac{80\pi^2}{3}m(2a+f)M^2+\frac{640\pi^4}{9}(b^2+2af)})^{1/2},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
M_{\Omega}^{1}=\frac{\frac{160\pi^2}{3}fbM^4-\frac{20\pi^2}{3}M_0^2fM^2+15mcM^6+320\pi^4mf^2+56\pi^4mT^4dM^2}{cM^6+\frac{56}{3}\pi^4T^4dM^2+120\pi^2mfM^2+\frac{640\pi^4}{3}f^2},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
M_{\Omega}^{2}=(\frac{eM^8+\frac{56}{3}\pi^4T^4bM^4-120\pi^2mfM^4}{cM^6+\frac{56}{3}\pi^4T^4dM^2+120\pi^2mfM^2+\frac{640\pi^4}{3}f^2})^{1/2},
\end{equation}
where $f=-\langle\overline{s}s\rangle$ and $m$ is the mass of the $s$ quark.
\par In order to do numerical analysis, we have to know the relations between thermal expectation of operators in our OPE computation and the corresponding vacuum condensate. To first order in the pion distribution, the thermal average of an operator $O$ is given by \cite{art18}:
\begin{equation}
\langle O\rangle=\langle0|O|0\rangle+\sum_{i=1,2,3}\int\frac{d^3k n_1(\omega_1)}{(2\pi)^32\omega_1}\langle\pi^i(x)|O|\pi^i(x)\rangle.
\end{equation}
\par Making use of the soft $\pi$-meson methods, the pion matrix element can be reduced to the vacuum expectation value of a double commutator,
\begin{equation}
\langle O\rangle=\langle0|O|0\rangle-\frac{1}{F_\pi^2}\sum_{i=1,2,3}\int\frac{d^3k n_1(\omega_1)}{(2\pi)^32\omega_1}\langle0|[Q_5^i,[Q_5^i,O]]|0\rangle,
\end{equation}
where $Q_5^i=\int d^3x A_0^i(x)$ is the axial-vector charge. For light quark case, the result is,
\begin{equation}
\langle\overline{q}q\rangle=\langle0|\overline{q}q|0\rangle (1-\frac{T^{2}}{8F_{\pi}^{2}}),
\end{equation}
with $F_{\pi}=0.092\mbox{GeV}$ being the decay constant of $\pi$ meson.
\section{Numerical analysis and Summary}\label{sec3}
Before the numerical analysis of the mass QCD sum rules, we first need to know the input parameters of the QCD vacuum condensates. The relation between the condensate of $u$ or $d$ quark and the condensate of $s$ quark is $\langle0|\overline{s}s|0\rangle= 0.8\langle0|\overline{q}q|0\rangle$ \cite{art19}. Moreover, we use QCD inputs: $M_{0}^{2}=0.8\mbox{GeV}^2$ in Ref. \cite{art19}, $\langle0|\overline{u}u|0\rangle=-0.014\mbox{GeV}^3$ in Ref. \cite{art20} and $m=0.14\mbox{GeV}$ in Ref. \cite{art21}, taking into account the effect of renormalization.
\par The sum rules also contain two auxiliary parameters: the Borel parameter $M^2$ and the continuum threshold $s_{0}$. These are not physical quantities, hence the physical observable should be approximately insensitive to them. Therefore, we look for working regions of these parameters such that the dependence of the mass on these parameters are weak. Generally, the continuum threshold $s_{0}$ is related to the square of the first exited state which has the same quantum numbers as the concerned hadron, while the Borel parameter $M^2$ is determined by demanding that both the contributions of the higher states and continuum are sufficiently suppressed and the contributions coming from higher dimensional operators have a good convergence.
\par In Fig.\ref{fig1} we show the contributions from the excited and continuum states and from the higher-dimension operators in the OPE computation for the $\Delta$ case. The lower limit of the Borel parameter $M^2$ is determined by demanding that the contribution of the higher-dimension operator is less than $10\%$ of the total contribution and the upper value of $M^2$ is the point at which the contribution of the excited and continuum states is $50\%$ of the total one. The working window is $2\mbox{GeV}^2\leq M^2 \leq 3.5\mbox{GeV}^2$ as we can see from Fig.\ref{fig1}. In addition, the physical quantities should vary weakly with the Borel parameter. Thus the proper range of $M^2$ in our case is chosen as $2.6\mbox{GeV}^2\leq M^2 \leq 3.5\mbox{GeV}^2$. For the parameter $s_0$, we take values in some range of the square of the first excited state of the baryon $\Delta$, $s_0=2.4 \mbox{GeV}^2, s_0=2.5 \mbox{GeV}^2, s_0=2.6 \mbox{GeV}^2$ in our case, and find that its effect can be neglected within the current accuracy. Because we don't know which sum rule is better than the other, we analyze the mass sum rules (\ref{sum rule1}), (\ref{sum rule2}) and their average at $T=0\mbox{GeV}$ in Fig.\ref{fig2}, finding that the average sum rule works well which gives the mass estimation $M_\Delta=1.20\pm 0.10\mbox{GeV}$.
\par The same analysis are carried out for the cases of the other three baryons. With the same criterion of determining the lower and upper values of the Borel parameter $M^2$, the results are the following: $2.3\mbox{GeV}^2\leq M^2 \leq 3.5\mbox{GeV}^2$ for the $\Sigma^*$ baryon, $2.5\mbox{GeV}^2\leq M^2 \leq 3.7\mbox{GeV}^2$ for the $\Xi^*$ baryon, and $3\mbox{GeV}^2\leq M^2 \leq 4\mbox{GeV}^2$ for the $\Omega$ baryon. Fig. \ref{fig3} shows the average sum rules for the other three baryons at $T=0\mbox{GeV}$, from which we get the numerical estimates $M_{\Sigma^*}=1.37\pm 0.08\mbox{GeV}$, $M_{\Xi^*}=1.50\pm0.09\mbox{GeV}$, and $M_{\Omega}= 2.28\pm0.08\mbox{GeV}$. These results show that our sum rules for the masses of the decuplet baryons are meaningful and the results agree with the experimental results. In table \ref{table} we list the spectra of the decuplet baryons and the comparison with the experimental results.
\begin{table}
\caption{ The mass spectra of the decuplet baryons.}\label{table}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
Baryon & Experimental($\mbox{Mev}$)\cite{art20} & This work($\mbox{GeV}$) \\
\hline
{$\Delta$} & $1232\pm3$ & $1.20\pm0.10$ \\
\hline
{$\Sigma^*$} & $1382\pm2$ & $1.37\pm0.08$ \\
\hline
{$\Xi^*$} & $1533\pm1$ & $1.50\pm0.09$ \\
\hline
{$\Omega$} & $2252\pm9$ & $2.28\pm0.08$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\par Fig.\ref{fig4} presents the temperature dependence of the baryons' masses. It is found that the masses nearly vary with temperature below $T \leq 0.11 \mbox{GeV}$, but decrease with increasing temperature as $T \geq 0.11 \mbox{GeV}$. Because the hadrons undertake a phase transition from hadron states to quark-gluon plasm at sufficiently high temperature, the results show that the baryons remain as hadronic states as $T\leq0.11\mbox{GeV}$ and the critical temperature of phase transition to quark-gluon plasma is above $T=0.11 \mbox{GeV}$, ie. $T_c\geq 0.11 \mbox{GeV}$. In fact, as the temperature is increased, the hadron melts and the width of the hadron increases until it becomes infinite at the critical temperature.
\par In summary, we study the temperature dependence of masses of the decuplet baryons using the thermal QCD sum rules. For the terms containing condensates, we use the results obtained by the OPE method and replace the vacuum condensates by the thermal expectation values at finite temperature. The extension of QCD sum rules to finite temperature is based on the following assumption: the operator product expansion(OPE) and notion of quark-hadron duality remain valid at finite temperature, but the vacuum condensates must be replaced by their thermal expectation values. Adopting the quark propagator in the coordinate space at finite temperature, we calculate the perturbative part of the thermal two-point correlator to $T^{8}$ order. It is found that the terms containing $T^{8}$ order have no contribution to the spectral functions and the temperature corrections mainly come from $T^4$ terms. The calculations indicate that the baryon ``melts" or the hadron-quark phase transition occurs at the temperature $T \geq 0.11\mbox{GeV}$ for the decuplet baryons.
\begin{figure}
\subfigure[]{
\epsfxsize=7cm{\epsffile{ratio.eps}}}
\subfigure[]{
\epsfxsize=7cm{\epsffile{ratio1.eps}}}
\caption{The solid line represents the ratio of the contribution of the highest-dimension operator to the total contribution; the dashed line stands for the ratio of the contribution of the excited and continuum states to the total one. Figs. (a) and (b) represent the $g_{\mu\nu}$ and the $g_{\mu\nu}\not\!{q}$ structures, respectively.}\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\subfigure[]{
\epsfxsize=7cm{\epsffile{Delta4.eps}}}
\subfigure[]{
\epsfxsize=7cm{\epsffile{Delta5.eps}}}
\subfigure[]{
\epsfxsize=7cm{\epsffile{Delta3.eps}}}
\caption{(a) The sum rule (\ref{sum rule1}) at $T=0GeV$. (b) The sum rule (\ref{sum rule2}) at $T=0GeV$. (c) The average sum rule$\frac{M_\Delta^1+M_\Delta^2}{2}$ at $T=0GeV$.}\label{fig2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\subfigure[]{
\epsfxsize=7cm{\epsffile{Sigma1.eps}}}
\subfigure[]{
\epsfxsize=7cm{\epsffile{Xi1.eps}}}
\subfigure[]{
\epsfxsize=7cm{\epsffile{Omega1.eps}}}
\caption{(a) The average sum rule of $\Sigma^*$ mass at $T=0GeV$. (b) The average sum rule of $\Xi^*$ mass at $T=0GeV$. (c) The average sum rule of $\Omega$ mass at $T=0GeV$. }\label{fig3}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\subfigure[]{
\epsfxsize=7cm{\epsffile{Delta2.eps}}}
\subfigure[]{
\epsfxsize=7cm{\epsffile{Sigma2.eps}}}
\subfigure[]{
\epsfxsize=7cm{\epsffile{Xi2.eps}}}
\subfigure[]{
\epsfxsize=7cm{\epsffile{Omega2.eps}}}
\caption{(a) The variations of $\frac{M_{\Delta}^{1}+M_{\Delta}^{2}}{2}$ with temperature $T$. (b) The variations of $\frac{M_{\Sigma^*}^1+M_{\Sigma^*}^2}{2}$ with temperature $T$. (c) The variations of $\frac{M_{\Xi^*}^1+M_{\Xi^*}^2}{2}$ with temperature $T$. (d) The variations of $\frac{M_\Omega^1+M_\Omega^2}{2}$ with temperature $T$.}\label{fig4}
\end{figure}
\acknowledgments This work was supported in part by the National
Natural Science Foundation of China under Contracts No.11475257 and No.11275268, and NUDT Foundation under Contract JC14-02-05.
|
\section{Introduction}
The apparent matter-antimatter asymmetry of the universe remains an outstanding mystery of physics that cannot be explained within the standard model (SM) \cite{Cohen:1993nk}. This disagreement between the SM and observation motivates the existence of beyond the standard model (BSM) theories with additional violation of $CP$ and baryon number ($B$) conservation. Many BSM models with additional symmetry violation can be constructed, and experimental guidance is necessary to constrain the space of viable BSM models and determine what theory describes our matter-dominated universe.
Experimental measurements of, or bounds on, baryon number violation rates can only be directly compared to theoretical predictions of transition rates between hadronic states. Reliable calculations of hadronic observables must include the strong nuclear forces present, and performing top-down calculations of hadronic transition rates for every BSM model of interest is highly impractical. Instead, baryon number violating processes can be treated in a model-independent way by considering the standard model as an effective field theory that includes baryon number violating operators composed only of quarks and other SM degrees of freedom. The predictions of particular BSM models of interest can be straightforwardly parametrized in terms of local SM operators. Once the model-independent matrix elements of these operators have been determined, BSM models can be directly confronted with experimental constraints.
The most relevant baryon number violating operator that can be added to the standard model is a dimension 6 operator that permits proton decay. Experimental constraints on proton decay rates place stringent bounds on matrix elements of this operator and therefore the scale of $\Delta B = 1$ physics. Many phenomenologically attractive BSM theories include a suppression of these well-constrained $\Delta B = 1$ effects, see Ref. \cite{Mohapatra:2009wp} for a review. In these theories, the baryon number violating effects most accessible in low-energy experiments are typically $\Delta B = 2$ neutron-antineutron transitions. Neutron decay searches have a long history \cite{Takita:1986zm}, but extracting neutron transition rates from observations of nuclei remains challenging. Experiments using reactor neutron beams can provide clean measurements of the $n-\bar{n}$ transition rate \cite{BaldoCeolin:1994jz}, and current experimental bounds have the potential to be greatly improved with new measurements \cite{Kronfeld:2013uoa}.
Turning precise experimental data on $n-\bar{n}$ transition rates into precise constraints on BSM physics presents theoretical challenges. Naive dimensional analysis alone cannot be used to reliably estimate transition rates--varying the value of $\Lambda_{QCD}$ used for naive dimensional analysis of a six-quark operator matrix element leads to a thousand-fold transition rate variation. The requisite nuclear matrix elements have also been estimated within the MIT bag model \cite{Rao:1982gt}, but there is no way to determine the theoretical uncertainty present.
The only technique currently available for turning experimental $n-\bar{n}$ transition rate data into constraints on BSM physics with quantified uncertainties is lattice quantum chromodynamics (LQCD). Preliminary LQCD calculations of the required matrix elements have been performed \cite{Buchoff:2012bm}. These simulations include large systemic uncertainties arising from the need to relate lattice regularized matrix elements defined at GeV scales to $\bar{MS}$ renormalized matrix elements defined at high scales where reliable BSM predictions have been made. This report describes an ongoing calculation of these operator renormalization effects.
\section{Operator Renormalization}
The Hamiltonian for $n-\bar{n}$ transitions can be expanded in a complete basis of six-quark operators, explicitly constructed below. Denoting these operators by $\mathcal{O}^{\mathbf{a}}$ the Wilson coefficients predicted by a particular BSM theory by $C^{\mathbf{a}}$, the Hamiltonian density for $n-\bar{n}$ transitions is expanded as
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{H}_{n\bar{n}} &=& C_0^{\mathbf{a}} \mathcal{O}_0^{\mathbf{a}} = C^{\mathbf{a}}(\mu) \mathcal{O}^{\mathbf{a}}(\mu),
\end{eqnarray}
where the first equality involves bare operators and coefficients and the second renormalized operators and coefficients defined at an arbitrary renormalization scale $\mu$. These are related by renormalization coefficients that are defined for a particular renormalization scheme and scale as
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{O}_{scheme}^{\mathbf{a}}(\mu) = Z^{\mathbf{ab}}_{scheme}(\mu) \mathcal{O}_0^{\mathbf{b}}.
\label{Zdef}
\end{equation}
BSM models can typically be used to perturbatively calculate Wilson coefficients of $\bar{MS}$ renormalized operators at high scales. Model independent relations between these coefficients and measurable $n-\bar{n}$ transition rates can only be provided once lattice regularized matrix elements extracted from LQCD simulations are related to $\bar{MS}$ renormalized matrix elements at high scales.
Since the $\bar{MS}$ renormalization prescription can only be applied to dimensionally regularized (dim reg) matrix elements, relating lattice and $\bar{MS}$ matrix elements necessitates the introduction of an intermediate renormalization scheme that can be applied to both lattice and dim reg matrix elements. The Regularization Invariant Momentum (RI-MOM) scheme is well suited for this \cite{Martinelli:1994ty}, and has been utilized for practical operator renormalization of kaon oscillation \cite{Aoki:2010pe} and proton decay \cite{Aoki:2013yxa} matrix elements.
The RI-MOM renormalization scheme, explicitly defined below, is implemented by demanding that vertex functions calculated at a reference momentum $p_0$ are fixed to a particular value. This definition can be applied non-perturbatively to LQCD matrix elements in order to determine the coefficient matrix $Z_{RI}^{latt}(p_0)$ relating lattice regularized and RI-MOM renormalized operators. The RI-MOM scheme can also be applied perturbatively to dimensionally regularized matrix elements to determine $Z_{RI}^{cont}(p_0)$ and necessarily removes all poles in $D-4$ to produce finite renormalized matrix elements. This means that the ratio of $Z_{RI}^{cont}(p_0)$ to $Z_{\bar{MS}}(p_0)$ is a finite quantity that can be reliably calculated in perturbation theory provided $\alpha_s(p_0) \ll 1$.
Combining the matching factor given by this ratio with standard renormalization group analysis, the relation between $\bar{MS}$ operators at arbitrary scales and lattice operators with quark momenta $p_0$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber
\mathcal{O}_{\bar{MS}}(\mu) &=& \left( \frac{Z_{\bar{MS}}(p_0)}{Z_{RI}^{cont}(p_0)} \right)Z_{RI}^{latt}(p_0)\left[ \frac{\alpha_s(\mu)}{\alpha_s(p_0)} \right]^{-\gamma_0/2\beta_0}\left[ 1 + \left( \frac{\beta_1 \gamma_0}{2\beta_0^2} - \frac{\gamma_1}{2\beta_0} \right)\frac{\alpha_s(\mu) - \alpha_s(p_0)}{4\pi} \right]\mathcal{O}_{latt},\\
\label{master}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\beta_0$ and $\beta_1$ are the one-loop and two-loop coefficients of the QCD $\beta$-function and $\gamma_0$ and $\gamma_1$ are the one-loop and two-loop coefficients of the $\Delta B = 2$ operator anomalous dimension matrix.
Keeping both discretization and perturbative errors parametrically suppressed requires the hierarchy of scales $\Lambda_{QCD}\ll p_0 \ll a^{-1}$ where $a$ is the LQCD lattice spacing. BSM matching calculations are performed at much higher scales than present inverse lattice spacings, and so Eq. \ref{master} will be generally applied to cases where $\alpha_s(\mu) \ll \alpha_s(p_0)$. In this case both one-loop contributions to the matching factor $\left( \frac{Z^{\bar{MS}}(p_0)}{Z^{MOM}_{cont}(p_0)} \right)$ and the two-loop anomalous dimension $\gamma_1$ provide $O(\alpha_s(p_0))$ operator renormalization effects. The one-loop anomalous dimension has been known for some time \cite{Caswell:1982qs}, but both the one-loop matching factor and two-loop anomalous dimensions are unknown and form the targets of our investigation.
\section{Operators and Vertex Functions}\label{ops}
Six-quark operators that are Lorentz invariant, local, standard model gauge invariant, and have the correct flavor structure to describe $n-\bar{n}$ transitions can be expressed in a basis of operators of the form\footnote{We thank Brian Tiburzi and Sergey Syritsyn for helpful discussions on the symmetry transformation properties of six-quark operators and optimal operator basis construction.}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{opdef}
\mathcal{O}^1_{\chi_1\chi_2\chi_3} &=& (u^T_i C P_{\chi_1} u_j)(d^T_j C P_{\chi_2} d_l)(d^T_m C P_{\chi_3} d_n)T_{\{ij\}\{kl\}\{mn\}},\\\nonumber
\mathcal{O}^2_{\chi_1\chi_2\chi_3} &=& (u^T_i C P_{\chi_1} d_j)(u^T_k C P_{\chi_2} d_l)(d^T_m C P_{\chi_3} d_n)T_{\{ij\}\{kl\}\{mn\}},\\\nonumber
\mathcal{O}^3_{\chi_1\chi_2\chi_3} &=& (u^T_i C P_{\chi_1} d_j)(u^T_k C P_{\chi_2} d_l)(d^T_m C P_{\chi_3} d_n)T_{[ij][kl]\{mn\}},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\chi_1,\chi_2,\dots = \pm$ are chirality labels with $P_{\pm} = \frac{1}{2}(1\pm \gamma_5)$, $C$ is the charge conjugation matrix, and $i,j,k\cdots$ above are color labels. The only tensors that can combine six quarks of this flavor structure into color singlets are
\begin{eqnarray}
T_{\{ij\}\{kl\}\{mn\}} &=& \varepsilon_{ikm}\varepsilon_{jln} + \varepsilon_{jkm}\varepsilon_{iln} + \varepsilon_{ilm}\varepsilon_{jkn} + \varepsilon_{ikn}\varepsilon_{jlm},\\\nonumber
T_{[ij][kl]\{mn\}} &=& \varepsilon_{ijm}\varepsilon_{kln} + \varepsilon_{ijn}\varepsilon_{klm},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\varepsilon_{ijk}$ is the Levi-Civita symbol. These tensors are symmetric $\{ij\}$ or antisymmetric $[ij]$ in each pair of indices as shown. Operators with more complicated Dirac matrix structures are not independent and can be expressed as linear combinations of those above through Fierz transformations. The trivial constraints $\mathcal{O}^1_{\chi LR} = \mathcal{O}^1_{\chi RL}$, $\mathcal{O}^{2,3}_{RL\chi}=\mathcal{O}^{2,3}_{LR\chi}$ and non-trivial constraints $\mathcal{O}^2_{\chi\chi\chi^\prime} - \mathcal{O}^1_{\chi\chi\chi^\prime} = 3\mathcal{O}^3_{\chi\chi\chi^\prime}$ immediately reduce the number of independent operators of this form from 24 to 14. Parity further reduces the number of independent operators to 7. Chiral symmetry provides further constraints, but maintaining a complete operator basis when utilizing chiral symmetry breaking lattice regularizations requires a basis of 7 independent operators such as
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{O}^\mathbf{a} &=& \{\mathcal{O}^1_{RLL},\; \mathcal{O}^2_{LLR},\; \mathcal{O}^2_{LRL},\; \mathcal{O}^2_{RRR},\; \mathcal{O}^3_{LLR},\; \mathcal{O}^3_{LRR},\; \mathcal{O}^3_{RRR}\}.
\end{eqnarray}
Vertex functions for each operator can be constructed (in both perturbation theory and LQCD) by Wick contracting with neutron and antineutron interpolating operators
\begin{eqnarray}
(\Lambda^{\bf{a}})^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta\eta\sigma}_{ijklmn} = \left.\avg{\bar{u}^\alpha_i \bar{d}^\gamma_k \bar{d}^\delta_l \left({}^{\bf{a}}\mathcal{O}\right) \bar{u}^\beta_j \bar{d}^\eta_m \bar{d}^\sigma_n }\right|_{amp},
\end{eqnarray}
where the subscript amp refers to the prescription of amputating external legs by taking
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{q}_i^\alpha \rightarrow \bar{q}_{i^\prime}^{\alpha^\prime} \avg{(S_q^{-1})_{i^\prime i}^{\alpha^\prime\alpha}},
\end{eqnarray}
where $S_q$ is the propagator for quark flavor $q$. The tree-level vertex functions for these operators are given explicitly by
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\left(\Lambda^{1}_{(0)}\right)_{ijklmn}^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta\eta\sigma} = \avg{\bar{d}_n^\sigma \bar{d}_m^\eta \bar{d}_l^\delta \bar{d}_k^\gamma \bar{u}_j^\beta \bar{u}_i^\alpha u_{i^\prime}^{\alpha^\prime}u_{j^\prime}^{\beta^\prime} d_{k^\prime}^{\gamma^\prime} d_{l^\prime}^{\delta^\prime} d_{m^\prime}^{\eta^\prime}d_{n^\prime}^{\sigma^\prime} }X_1^{\alpha^\prime\beta^\prime}X_2^{\gamma^\prime\delta^\prime}X_3^{\eta^\prime\sigma^\prime}T_{\{i^\prime j^\prime\}\{k^\prime l^\prime\}\{m^\prime n^\prime\}}\\\nonumber
&&\hspace{10pt}=8T_{\{ij\}\{kl\}\{mn\}}\big[X_1^{\alpha \beta}X_2^{\gamma \delta} X_3^{\eta \sigma} + X_1^{\alpha \beta}X_2^{\eta \sigma} X_3^{\gamma \delta} \big]+8T_{\{ij\}\{km\}\{ln\}}\big[X_1^{\alpha \beta}X_2^{\eta \gamma} X_3^{\delta \sigma} + X_1^{\alpha \beta}X_2^{\delta \sigma} X_3^{\eta \gamma} \big]\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{20pt}+8T_{\{ij\}\{kn\}\{lm\}}\big[X_1^{\alpha \beta}X_2^{\gamma \sigma} X_3^{\delta \eta} + X_1^{\alpha \beta}X_2^{\delta \eta} X_3^{\gamma \sigma}\big], \nonumber\\
&&\left(\Lambda^{2,3}_{(0)}\right)_{ijklmn}^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta\eta\sigma} = -\avg{\bar{d}_n^\sigma \bar{d}_m^\eta \bar{d}_l^\delta \bar{d}_k^\gamma \bar{u}_j^\beta \bar{u}_i^\alpha u_{i^\prime}^{\alpha^\prime}u_{j^\prime}^{\beta^\prime} d_{k^\prime}^{\gamma^\prime} d_{l^\prime}^{\delta^\prime} d_{m^\prime}^{\eta^\prime}d_{n^\prime}^{\sigma^\prime} }X_1^{\alpha^\prime\gamma^\prime}X_2^{\beta^\prime\delta^\prime}X_3^{\eta^\prime\sigma^\prime}T_{(i^\prime k^\prime)(j^\prime l^\prime)\{m^\prime n^\prime\}}\\\nonumber
&&\hspace{10pt}= 2T_{(ik)(jl)\{mn\}}\big[X_1^{\alpha \gamma}X_2^{\beta \delta} X_3^{\sigma \eta} + X_1^{\beta \delta}X_2^{\alpha \gamma} X_3^{\sigma \eta} \big]+2T_{(ik)(jm)\{ln\}}\big[X_1^{\alpha \gamma}X_2^{\beta \eta} X_3^{\delta \sigma} + X_1^{\beta \eta}X_2^{\alpha \gamma} X_3^{\delta \sigma} \big]\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{20pt} +2T_{(ik)(jn)\{lm\}}\big[X_1^{\alpha \gamma}X_2^{\beta \sigma} X_3^{\eta \delta} + X_1^{\beta \sigma}X_2^{\alpha \gamma} X_3^{\eta \delta} \big]+2T_{(il)(jk)\{mn\}}\big[X_1^{\alpha \delta}X_2^{\beta \gamma} X_3^{\eta \sigma} + X_1^{\beta \gamma}X_2^{\alpha \delta} X_3^{\eta \sigma} \big]\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{20pt} +2T_{(il)(jm)\{kn\}}\big[X_1^{\alpha \delta}X_2^{\beta \eta} X_3^{\sigma \gamma} + X_1^{\beta \eta}X_2^{\alpha \delta} X_3^{\sigma \gamma} \big]+2T_{(il)(jn)\{km\}}\big[X_1^{\alpha \delta}X_2^{\beta \sigma} X_3^{\gamma \eta} + X_1^{\beta \sigma}X_2^{\alpha \delta} X_3^{\gamma \eta} \big]\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{20pt}+2T_{(im)(jk)\{ln\}}\big[X_1^{\alpha \eta}X_2^{\beta \gamma} X_3^{\sigma \delta} + X_1^{\beta \gamma}X_2^{\alpha \eta} X_3^{\sigma \delta} \big]+2T_{(im)(jl)\{kn\}}\big[X_1^{\alpha \eta}X_2^{\beta \delta} X_3^{\gamma \sigma} + X_1^{\beta \delta}X_2^{\alpha \eta} X_3^{\gamma \sigma} \big]\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{20pt}+2T_{(im)(jn)\{kl\}}\big[X_1^{\alpha \eta}X_2^{\beta \sigma} X_3^{\delta \gamma} + X_1^{\beta \sigma}X_2^{\alpha \eta} X_3^{\delta \gamma} \big]+2T_{(in)(jk)\{lm\}}\big[X_1^{\alpha \sigma}X_2^{\beta \gamma} X_3^{\delta \eta} + X_1^{\beta \gamma}X_2^{\alpha \sigma} X_3^{\delta \eta} \big]\nonumber\\\nonumber
&&\hspace{20pt}+2T_{(in)(jl)\{km\}}\big[X_1^{\alpha \sigma}X_2^{\beta \delta} X_3^{\eta \gamma} + X_1^{\beta \delta}X_2^{\alpha \sigma} X_3^{\eta \gamma} \big]+2T_{(in)(jm)\{kl\}}\big[X_1^{\alpha \sigma}X_2^{\beta \eta} X_3^{\gamma \delta} + X_1^{\beta \eta}X_2^{\alpha \sigma} X_3^{\gamma \delta} \big],
\end{eqnarray}
where $X_i = CP_{\chi_i}$, $(ij)$ denotes $\{ij\}$ for ${}^2\Lambda$ and $[ij]$ for ${}^3\Lambda$, and we have suppressed chiral indices on ${}^{\mathbf{a}}\Lambda$.
The RI-MOM renormalization condition is formally defined by a condition on these vertex functions evaluated with all quarks at a reference (Euclidean) momentum $p_0$ and $\mu^2 = p_0^2$
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{MOM}
\left.Z_{RI}^{\bf{ab}}\left( Z_{RI}^q \right)^{-3} \left(P^{\bf{b}}\right)^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta\eta\sigma}_{ijklmn} \left(\Lambda^{\bf{c}}\right)^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta\eta\sigma}_{ijklmn}\right|_{\mu^2 = p_0^2} = \delta^{\bf{ac}},
\end{eqnarray}
where $Z_{MOM}^q$ is the RI-MOM wavefunction renormalization factor defined in Ref \cite{Martinelli:1994ty}, $Z_{MOM}^{\mathbf{ab}}$ is the matrix of renormalization coefficients appearing in Eqs. \eqref{Zdef}, \eqref{master}, and $P^{\mathbf{a}}$ projects onto the tree-level vertex function $\Lambda_{(0)}^{\mathbf{a}}$ according to the defining relation
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{projectordef}
(P^{\bf{a}})_{ijklmn}^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta\eta\sigma}\left(\Lambda_{(0)}^{\bf{b}}\right)_{ijklmn}^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta\eta\sigma} = \delta^{\bf{ab}}.
\end{eqnarray}
There is some freedom in constructing projectors that satisfy Eq. \eqref{projectordef}. The set we have constructed is given explicitly by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{projectors}
\left(P_{RLL}^1\right)^{\alpha \beta\gamma\delta\sigma}_{ijklmn}&=&\frac{1}{55296}T_{\{ij\}\{kl\}\{mn\}}X_R^{\alpha \beta}X_L^{\gamma \delta} X_L^{\eta \sigma}\\\nonumber
\left(P_{LRL}^2\right)^{\alpha \beta\gamma\delta\sigma}_{ijklmn}&=&\frac{1}{13824}\big[T_{\{ij\}\{kl\}\{mn\}}X_R^{\alpha \delta}X_L^{\gamma \beta} X_L^{\eta \sigma}+6T_{[ij][kl]\{mn\}}X_R^{\alpha \delta}X_L^{\gamma \sigma} X_L^{\eta \beta}\big]\\\nonumber
\left(P_{RLL}^3\right)^{\alpha \beta\gamma\delta\sigma}_{ijklmn}&=&\frac{1}{4608}\big[-T_{\{ij\}\{kl\}\{mn\}}X_R^{\alpha \delta}X_L^{\gamma \beta} X_L^{\eta \sigma}+2T_{[ij][kl]\{mn\}}X_R^{\alpha \delta}X_L^{\gamma \sigma} X_L^{\eta \beta}\big]\\\nonumber
\left(P_{LLL}^2\right)^{\alpha \beta\gamma\delta\sigma}_{ijklmn}&=&\frac{1}{55296}\big[T_{\{ij\}\{kl\}\{mn\}}X_L^{\alpha \beta}X_L^{\gamma \delta} X_L^{\eta \sigma}+3T_{[ij][kl]\{mn\}}X_L^{\alpha \delta}X_L^{\gamma \beta} X_L^{\eta \sigma}\big]\\\nonumber
\left(P_{LLL}^3\right)^{\alpha \beta\gamma\delta\sigma}_{ijklmn}&=&\frac{1}{18432}\big[-T_{\{ij\}\{kl\}\{mn\}}X_L^{\alpha \beta}X_L^{\gamma \delta} X_L^{\eta \sigma}+T_{[ij][kl]\{mn\}}X_L^{\alpha \delta}X_L^{\gamma \beta} X_L^{\eta \sigma}\big]\\\nonumber
\left(P_{RRL}^2\right)^{\alpha \beta\gamma\delta\sigma}_{ijklmn}&=&\frac{1}{18432}\big[T_{\{ij\}\{kl\}\{mn\}}X_R^{\alpha \beta}X_R^{\gamma \delta} X_L^{\eta \sigma}+2T_{[ij][kl]\{mn\}}X_R^{\alpha \delta}X_R^{\gamma \beta} X_L^{\eta \sigma}\big]\\\nonumber
\left(P_{RRL}^3\right)^{\alpha \beta\gamma\delta\sigma}_{ijklmn}&=&\frac{1}{18432}\big[-3T_{\{ij\}\{kl\}\{mn\}}X_R^{\alpha \beta}X_R^{\gamma \delta} X_L^{\eta \sigma}+2T_{[ij][kl]\{mn\}}X_R^{\alpha \delta}X_R^{\gamma \beta} X_L^{\eta \sigma}\big].
\end{eqnarray}
Projectors satisfying Eq. \eqref{projectordef} are useful for decomposing matrix elements into a desired operator basis in more general contexts than enforcing the RI-MOM condition Eq. \eqref{MOM}. In particular, we can express the $\bar{MS}$ renormalization condition as
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{MSbar}
Z_{\bar{MS}}^{\mathbf{ab}}\left( Z_{\bar{MS}}^q \right)^{-3} \left(P^{\mathbf{b}}\right)^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta\eta\sigma}_{ijklmn} \left(\Lambda_{pole}^{\bf{c}}\right)^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta\eta\sigma}_{ijklmn} = \delta^{\mathbf{ac}},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Lambda_{pole}^{\mathbf{a}}$ denotes the dim reg vertex function contributions proportional to $1/\bar{\varepsilon} = 2/(4-D) - \gamma_E + \ln 4\pi$, $Z_{\bar{MS}}$ is the usual $\bar{MS}$ quark wavefunction renormalization factor, and we have suppressed dependence on the renormalization scale $\mu$.
Using projectors to decompose matrix elements into a particular operator basis is essential for LQCD relations where the analytic relations between full and tree-level vertex functions are unknown. Given the complicated tensor structures of our vertex functions, the projector definitions of $Z_{RI}$ and $Z_{\bar{MS}}$ have practical advantages for our perturbative calculations as well. Most importantly, applying the projector definitions greatly simplifies the tensor decomposition of the many spin, color, and flavor structures produced by one-loop and especially two-loop diagrams in dim reg.
\section{Perturbative Calculation}
A calculation of the one-loop RI-MOM/$\bar{MS}$ matching factor includes 15 one-loop Feynman diagrams. These can be straightforwardly expressed as contractions of four independent tensor integrals, two for Feynman gauge and two more for general $R_\xi$ gauge needed for consistency with LQCD simulations performed in Landau gauge.
The contractions of these tensor integrals with the Dirac structures of the diagrams introduces subtleties, however. Applying the projectors to structures such as $\frac{1}{\bar{\varepsilon}}\left[ \sigma_{\mu\nu}P_{\chi_1} \right]^{\alpha\beta}\left[ \sigma_{\mu\nu}P_{\chi_2} \right]^{\gamma\delta}P_{\chi_3}^{\eta\sigma}$ introduces traces of 4 $\gamma^\mu$ times $\gamma_5$ that are ill-defined in naive dimensional regularization. While these structures can be related to our original operator basis through Fierz transformations, these Fierz transforms are only valid in four dimensions. To consistently account for the fact that our operator basis is only complete in $D=4$ we follow the approach of Ref. \cite{Buras:1989xd} and introduce evanescent operators proportional to $D-4$ that complete our basis in $D$ dimensions. Both the one-loop matching factors and two-loop anomalous dimensions depend on the basis of evanescent operators chosen and are ambiguous until this basis is specified.
320 two-loop diagrams contribute to the $\bar{MS}$ anomalous dimension matrix. Standard multiloop techniques can be used to perform tensor reductions of the independent tensor integrals appearing and to use integration by parts algorithms to recursively decompose the resulting scalar integrals into a minimal set that can be evaluated straightforwardly \cite{Passarino:1978jh, Chetyrkin:1981qh, Tkachov:1984xk}. Slightly more than half of the independent two-loop topologies can be treated as simple generalizations of the diagram topologies appearing in four-quark operator renormalization calculations, but the remaining diagrams involving gluon exchange between all three spin-singlet diquark structures in our operators have no direct four-quark analogs. Proper treatment of evanescent operators in these diagrams in particular requires the introduction of new evanescent operator structures that do not appear in four-quark operator calculations.
\section{Conclusion}
Extracting predictions of $n-\bar{n}$ transition rates with quantified uncertainties from BSM theories relevant for baryogensis requires LQCD simulation as well as perturbative operator renormalization analysis. Accurately calculating relations between lattice regularized and $\bar{MS}$ renormalized matrix elements requires both non-perturbative renormalization of LQCD matrix elements in a regularization invariant scheme such as RI-MOM and perturbative matching between RI-MOM and $\bar{MS}$ renormalization factors. In addition to this one-loop renormalization scheme matching calculation, the two-loop $\bar{MS}$ anomalous dimension matrix is needed for accurate relations between BSM matching calculations and LQCD simulations at different scales.
We have begun an ongoing calculation of both of these perturbative quantities using suitably generalized four-quark operator renormalization techniques as well as operator projectors that simplify two-loop tensor decompositions. Completing this calculation will remove a significant systematic uncertainty in using $n-\bar{n}$ transition rate measurements to constrain BSM physics. Our two-loop calculation is well underway, and we will publish results on both the one-loop matching factors and two-loop anomalous dimension matrix once the two-loop calculation is complete.
|
\section{Introduction: the MLE of a monotone density}
\label{sec:intro}
\hfill
\par\noindent
Nonparametric estimation of a monotone density was first considered by
\cite{MR0086459}. Suppose that $X_1, \ldots , X_n$ are i.i.d. with
distribution function $F$ on $[0,\infty)$ having a decreasing density $f$.
Grenander showed that the maximum likelihood estimator
$\hat{f}_n$ of $f$ is the (left-) derivative of the least concave majorant of
the empirical distribution function ${\mathbb F}_n$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\widehat{f}_n
& = & \{ \mbox{left derivative of the least concave majorant of } {\mathbb F}_n \}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\bigskip
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Figures/GrenConvexHull-1-06-4-14.pdf}
\caption{Empirical distribution and Least concave majorant, $n=10$}
\label{fig:figure1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Figures/Grenander-1-06-4-14.pdf}
\caption{Grenander Estimator and Exp(1) density, $n=10$}
\label{fig:figure2}
\end{figure}
The asymptotic distribution of $\hat{f}_n (t_0)$ at a fixed point $t_0$ with $f'(t_0) < 0$
was obtained by \cite{MR0267677},
and given a somewhat different proof by
\cite{MR822052}.
If $f'(t_0) < 0$ and $f'$ is continuous in a neighborhood of $t_0$, then
\begin{equation}
n^{1/3} (\widehat{f}_n (t_0) - f(t_0))
\rightarrow_d \Big | \frac{1}{2} f(t_0)f'(t_0) \Big |^{1/3} 2 {\mathbb Z} ,
\label{GrenanderLimitDistributionAtFixedPoint}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
2 {\mathbb Z} &\ = &\mbox{slope at 0 of the least concave majorant of } \ \ W(t) - t^2 \,
\label{LimitRVFixedPoint}\\
& \stackrel{d}{=} & \mbox{slope at 0 of the greatest convex } \ \mbox{minorant of } \ \ W(t) + t^2 \nonumber \\
& \stackrel{d}{=} & 2 \, \mathop{\rm argmin}_{t \in {\mathbb R}} \{ W(t) + t^2 \}; \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
here $\{ W(t) : \ t \in {\mathbb R}\}$ is a two-sided Brownian motion process starting
at $0$.
In fact, the convergence in (\ref{GrenanderLimitDistributionAtFixedPoint}) can be
extended to weak convergence of the (local) Grenander process as follows.
Let
$\{{\mathbb S}_{a,b} (t) : \ t \in {\mathbb R}\} $ denote the slope process corresponding to the
least concave majorant of $X_{a,b} (t) = aW(t)-bt^2$, with
$a = \sqrt{f(t_0)}$ and $b = | f'(t_0)|/2$.
Then for fixed $t_0$ with $f'(t_0) < 0$ and
$f'$ continuous in a neighborhood of $t_0$,
$$
n^{1/3} (\hat{f}_n (t_0 + n^{-1/3} t) - f(t_0) ) \Rightarrow {\mathbb S}_{a,b} (t)
$$
in the Skorokhod topology on $D[-K,K]$ for every finite $K>0$;
see e.g.
\cite{MR981568},
\cite{MR1041391}, and
\cite{MR1311975}.
\cite{MR981568}
gives a complete analytic
characterization of the limiting distribution ${\mathbb Z}$ and further, the distributional structure of the
process ${\mathbb S}$. The distribution of ${\mathbb Z} = {\mathbb S}(0)/2$ has been
studied numerically by \cite{MR1939706}
which relies heavily on
\cite{MR822052} and \cite{MR981568}.
\cite{MR3160580}
show that the distribution of ${\mathbb Z}$ is log-concave.
Note that there is an ``invariance principle'' involved here: the centered
slope of the least concave majorant of ${\mathbb F}_n$ converges weakly to a
constant times the slope of the least concave majorant of $X(t) = W(t) - t^2$.
We can regard the slope in this Gaussian limit problem, $2 {\mathbb Z}$, as an
``estimator'' of the slope of the line $2t$ in the Gaussian problem of
``estimating'' the ``canonical'' linear function $2t$ in ``Gaussian white noise'' $dW(t)$ since
$$
d X(t) = 2 t dt + dW(t) \, .
$$
\section{A law of the iterated logarithm for the Grenander estimator}
\label{sec:LILforGrenander}
Our main goal is to prove the following Law of the Iterated Logarithm (LIL) for the Grenander estimator
corresponding to the limiting distribution result in (\ref{GrenanderLimitDistributionAtFixedPoint}).
\medskip
\begin{thm}
Suppose that $f(t_0) >0$, $f_0^{\prime} (t_0) < 0$ with $f^{\prime}$ continuous in a neighborhood of
$t_0$. Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
\limsup_{n\rightarrow\infty} \frac{n^{1/3} ( \widehat{f}_n (t_0) - f(t_0)) }{(2 \log \log n)^{1/3}}
\ = \ \Big | \frac{1}{2} f(t_0)f'(t_0) \Big |^{1/3} 2 M
\end{eqnarray*}
almost surely where
\begin{eqnarray*}
M \equiv \sup_{g \in {\cal G}} \mathop{\rm argmax}_{t \in {\mathbb R}} \{ g(t) - t^2 \}
= \left ( \frac{3}{4} \right )^{1/3} ;
\end{eqnarray*}
here ${\cal G}$ is the two-sided Strassen limit set on ${\mathbb R}$ given by
\begin{equation}
{\cal G}
\ = \ \left \{ g : {\mathbb R} \rightarrow {\mathbb R} \,\big|\,
g(t) = \int_0^t \dot{g}(s) ds, \ t \in {\mathbb R},
\ \ \int_{-\infty}^\infty \dot{g}^2 (s) ds \le 1 \right \} \, .
\label{TwoSideStrassenSetonR}
\end{equation}
\end{thm}
Our proof of Theorem 1 will rely on functional laws of the iterated logarithm for the local empirical process
established by \cite{MR978022};
see also \cite{MR1303659},
\cite{MR1652321},
\cite{MR1440134},
and
\cite{MR2060302}.
Along the way we will also prove several lemmas concerning the limit set ${\cal G}$.
\medskip
\begin{proof}[\bf Proof]
We begin the proof of Theorem 1 with a switching argument.
Let $b_n \equiv (n^{-1}2 \log \log n)^{1/3}$. Then we want to find a number $x_0$ such that
\begin{eqnarray*}
P( b_n^{-1} (\widehat{f}_n (t_0 ) - f(t_0)) > x \ \ \mbox{i.o.} ) = \left \{
\begin{array}{l l} 0, & \ \ \mbox{if} \ x> x_0, \\ 1, & \ \ \mbox{if} \ x < x_0 .
\end{array} \right .
\end{eqnarray*}
Now we let
\begin{eqnarray}
\widehat{s}_n (a) \equiv \mathop{\rm argmax}_s \{ {\mathbb F}_n (s) - a s \}, \ \ a \ge 0,
\label{SwitchingRelation}
\end{eqnarray}
and note that $\{ \widehat{f}_n (t_0) > a \} = \{ \widehat{s}_n (a) > t_0 \}$
by Groeneboom's switching relation (see e.g.
\cite{MR822052},
\cite{MR1385671} page 296,
and \cite{MR2829859}, Theorem 2.1, page 881).
Thus the event in the last display can be rewritten as
\begin{eqnarray}
\left \{ \widehat{f}_n (t_0) > f(t_0) + b_n x \ \ \mbox{i.o.} \right \}
& = & \left \{ \widehat{s}_n (f(t_0) + b_n x ) > t_0 \ \ \mbox{i.o.} \right \} .
\label{SwitchRelationforLIL}
\end{eqnarray}
But, by letting $s = t_0 + b_n h$ in (\ref{SwitchingRelation}) we see that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\widehat{s}_n (f(t_0) + b_n x ) - t_0
& = & b_n \mathop{\rm argmax}_h \{ {\mathbb F}_n (t_0 + b_n h) - (f(t_0) + b_n x)(t_0 + b_n h) \} ,
\end{eqnarray*}
and hence the right side of (\ref{SwitchRelationforLIL}) can be rewritten
as $\{ \widehat{h}_n > 0 \ \mbox{i.o.} \}$ where
\begin{eqnarray}
\widehat{h}_n
& = & \mathop{\rm argmax}_h \{ {\mathbb F}_n (t_0 + b_n h) - (f(t_0)+ b_n x)(t_0 + b_n h) \} \nonumber \\
& = & \mathop{\rm argmax}_h \left \{ b_n^{-2} \{ {\mathbb F}_n (t_0 + b_n h) - {\mathbb F}_n (t_0) - (F(t_0 + b_n h) - F(t_0)) \} \right . \nonumber \\
&& \qquad \left . + \ b_n^{-2} \{ F(t_0 + b_n h) - F(t_0) - f(t_0) b_n h \} - x h \right \} . \label{ArgMaxReformulated}
\end{eqnarray}
The second term on the right side in the last display converges to $f^{\prime} (t_0) h^2/2 $ as $n \rightarrow \infty$.
The handle the first term we appeal to (a slight extension of) Theorem 2 of
\cite{MR978022};
see also
\cite{MR1303659}
Theorem A and Theorem 1.1, pages 1620-1621:
by considering $h \in {\mathbb R}$ and introducing the two-sided version ${\cal G}$ of the Strassen limit set
given in (\ref{TwoSideStrassenSetonR}) much as in \cite{MR0358950},
we see that the sequence of functions
$$
\left \{ b_n^{-2} \{ {\mathbb F}_n (t_0 + b_n h) - {\mathbb F}_n (t_0) - (F(t_0 + b_n h) - F(t_0))\} : \ h \in {\mathbb R} \right \}
$$
is almost surely relatively compact with limit set
$$
\{ g( f(t_0) \cdot ) : \ g \in {\cal G} \}
$$
where ${\cal G}$ is given by \eqref{TwoSideStrassenSetonR}.
This is most easily seen as follows: let ${\mathbb G}_n$ be the empirical d.f. of $\xi_1, \ldots , \xi_n$ i.i.d. Uniform$(0,1)$.
As in \cite{MR1303659},
with $n^{-1} k_n \equiv b_n$ so that $k_n = nb_n = n^{2/3} (2 \log \log n)^{1/3} \nearrow \infty$
and $n^{-1} k_n = b_n \searrow 0$,
the processes
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lefteqn{\frac{\xi_n (s)}{\sqrt{2 \log \log n} } } \\
& = & \frac{n^{1/2}}{\sqrt{k_n/n}}
\frac{\left \{ {\mathbb G}_n ( F (t_0 + n^{-1} k_n s)) - {\mathbb G}_n (F(t_0)) - (F( t_0+n^{-1} k_n s) - F(t_0)) \right \}}
{\sqrt{2 \log \log n}}
\end{eqnarray*}
with $s\ge 0$
are almost surely relatively compact with limit set
${\cal K}_{\infty} (c ) \equiv \{ t \mapsto g(ct): \ g \in {\cal K}_{\infty} \}$ with $c = f(t_0)$.
Here we also note that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{n^{1/2}}{\sqrt{k_n/n} \sqrt{2 \log \log n}} = \frac{n^{2/3}}{(2 \log \log n)^{2/3}} = b_n^{-2} .
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus the processes involved in the argmax in
\eqref{ArgMaxReformulated} are almost surely relatively compact with limit set
\begin{eqnarray*}
\{ g( f(t_0) h ) + 2^{-1} f'(t_0) h^2 - xh : \ \ g \in {\cal G} \},
\end{eqnarray*}
and by Lemma 1 below this set is equal to
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left \{ a g(h) - b h^2 - xh : \ \ g \in {\cal G} \right \}
\end{eqnarray*}
where $a \equiv \sqrt{ f(t_0)}$, and $b = |f'(t_0)|/2$.
Thus by Lemma 2 below, the set of limits for the argmax in \eqref{ArgMaxReformulated} equals
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left \{ (a/b)^{2/3} \mathop{\rm argmax}_h \{ g(h) - h^2 \} - x/(2b) : \ \ g \in {\cal G} \right \}
\end{eqnarray*}
where
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left ( \frac{a}{b} \right )^{2/3} = \left ( \frac{\sqrt{ f(t_0)}}{2^{-1} | f'(t_0) |} \right )^{2/3} = \left ( \frac{4 f(t_0)}{|f'(t_0)|^2} \right )^{1/3} .
\end{eqnarray*}
Hence, with $T_g = \mathop{\rm argmax}_h \{ g(h) - h^2 \}$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left \{ \widehat{h}_n > 0 \ \ \mbox{i.o.} \right \}
& \stackrel{a.s.}{=} & \left \{ \left ( \frac{a}{b} \right )^{2/3} \sup_{g \in {\cal G}} T_g > \frac{x}{2b} \right \} \\
& = & \left \{ 2 b \left ( \frac{a}{b} \right )^{2/3} \sup_{g \in {\cal G}} T_g > x \right \} \\
& = & \emptyset
\end{eqnarray*}
if
$$
x > x_0 \equiv 2 b \left ( \frac{a}{b} \right )^{2/3} \sup_{g \in {\cal G}} T_g
= \Big | \frac{1}{2} f(t_0)f'(t_0) \Big |^{1/3} 2 \sup_{g \in {\cal G}} T_g .
$$
It remains only to show that
$\sup_{g\in {\cal G}} T_g = (3/4)^{1/3}$. This follows from Lemma 3 in Section 4 below.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
Let $c > 0$ and $d \in {\mathbb R}$. Then
$$
\left \{ t \mapsto g(ct+d) - g(d) : \ g \in {\cal G} \right \}
= \sqrt{c}{\cal G} .
$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}[\bf Proof]
If $g \in {\cal G}$, then
\begin{eqnarray*}
g(ct+d) - g(d)
& = & \int_d^{ct+d} \dot{g}(s) ds = \int_0^{ct} \dot{g} (v + d) dv = \int_0^t \dot{g} (cu +d ) c du \\
& = & \sqrt{c} \int_0^t \sqrt{c} \dot{g} (cu + d) du \\
& = & \sqrt{c} \tilde{g} (t)
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\tilde{g} \in {\cal G}$ since
\[
\int_{-\infty}^\infty ( \sqrt{c} \dot{g} (cu+d))^2 du = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \dot{g}^2 (w) dw \le 1 .
\]
This shows that the set of functions $t \mapsto g(ct + d) - g(d)$, $g \in {\cal G}$, is contained in $\sqrt{c} {\cal G}$. On the other hand, any function $\tilde{g} \in {\cal G}$ with derivative $\dot{\tilde{g}}$ may be written as $\tilde{g}(t) = \int \sqrt{c} \dot{g}(cu + d) du$ with $\dot{g}$ given by $\dot{g}(s) \equiv \sqrt{c^{-1}} \dot{\tilde{g}}(c^{-1}s - c^{-1}d)$ and satisfying $\int_{-\infty}^\infty \dot{g}(s)^2 ds = \int_{-\infty}^\infty \dot{\tilde{g}}(s)^2 ds \le 1$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
Let $\alpha,\beta$ be positive constants and $\gamma \in {\mathbb R}$. Then
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{\left \{ \mathop{\rm argmax}_h \{ \alpha g(h) - \beta h^2 - \gamma h \} : \ \ g \in {\cal G} \right \} }\nonumber \\
& = &
\left \{ (\alpha/\beta)^{2/3} \mathop{\rm argmax}_h \{ g(h) - h^2 \} - \gamma/(2\beta) : \ \ g \in {\cal G} \right \} .
\label{StrassenArgMaxIdentity}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}[\bf Proof]
Note first that
\begin{eqnarray*}
M_g
& \equiv & \mathop{\rm argmax}_h \left\{ \alpha g(h) - \beta h^2 - \gamma h \right\} \\
& = & \mathop{\rm argmax}_h \left\{ \alpha g(h) - \beta (h + \gamma/(2\beta))^2 \right\} \\
& = & \mathop{\rm argmax}_h \left\{ g(h) - (\beta/\alpha) (h + \gamma/(2\beta))^2 \right\} \\
& = & \mathop{\rm argmax}_v \left\{ g(v + d) - (\beta/\alpha) v^2 \right\} + d
\end{eqnarray*}
with $d := - \gamma/(2\beta)$. Moreover, for any $c > 0$ and
\[
\tilde{g}(u) \equiv c^{-1/2} \left( g(cu + d) - g(d) \right)
\]
we may write
\begin{eqnarray*}
M_g
& = & c \mathop{\rm argmax}_u \left\{ g(cu + d) - g(d) - (\beta/\alpha) c^2 u^2 \right\}
+ d \\
& = & c \mathop{\rm argmax}_u \left\{ c^{1/2} \tilde{g}(u) - (\beta/\alpha) c^2 u^2 \right\}
+ d \\
& = & c \mathop{\rm argmax}_u \left\{ \tilde{g}(u) - (\beta/\alpha) c^{3/2} u^2 \right\}
+ d .
\end{eqnarray*}
In case of $c = (\alpha/\beta)^{2/3}$ we obtain
\[
M_g = (\alpha/\beta)^{2/3} \mathop{\rm argmax}_u \left\{ \tilde{g}(u) - u^2 \right\}
- \gamma / (2\beta) .
\]
Now the claim follows from Lemma~1, because the set $\left\{ \tilde{g} : g \in {\cal G} \right\}$ equals ${\cal G}$.
\end{proof}
\section{Some comparisons and connections}
\label{sec:Comparisons}
As noted in the introduction,
$$
2 {\mathbb Z} \stackrel{d}{=} \mbox{slope at zero of the least concave majorant of} \ \ W(t) - t^2 .
$$
This suggests that with $T_g = \mbox{argmax}_t \{ g(t) - t^2 \}$ we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lefteqn{\left \{ 2 \sup T_{g} : \ g \in {\cal G} \right \} }\\
& = & \sup
\{ \mbox{slope at} \ 0 \ \mbox{of the least concave majorant of } \ g(t) - t^2 : \ g \in {\cal G} \} .
\end{eqnarray*}
\section{Proof for the variational problem}
\label{sec:ProofVariationalProblem}
It is natural to conjecture that $\sup_{g \in {\cal G}} T_g = (3/4)^{1/3} \approx 0.90856 \ldots$.
This is motivated by the asymptotic behavior of Chernoff's density; see
\cite{MR981568}, Corollary 3.4, page 94: since the density
$$
f_{{\mathbb Z}} (z) \sim \frac{1}{2Ai^{\prime} (a_1) } 4^{4/3} z \exp \left ( - \frac{2}{3} z^3 + 3^{1/3} a_1 z \right )
$$
as $z \rightarrow \infty$, the tail probability $P( {\mathbb Z} >z )$ satisfies
$$
P( {\mathbb Z} > z ) \sim \frac{1}{2Ai^{\prime} (a_1) } 4^{4/3} \frac{1}{z} \exp \left ( - \frac{2}{3} z^3 \right )
$$
as $z\rightarrow \infty$ where
$a_1 \dot= -2.3381$ is the largest zero of the Airy function $Ai$ and
$Ai^{\prime} (a_1) \dot= 0.7022$.
Thus from (\ref{GrenanderLimitDistributionAtFixedPoint}) we expect that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\limsup_{n\rightarrow\infty} \frac{n^{1/3} ( \widehat{f}_n (t_0) - f(t_0)) }{((3/2) \log \log n)^{1/3}}
\ = \ \Big | \frac{1}{2} f(t_0)f'(t_0) \Big |^{1/3} 2 ,
\end{eqnarray*}
or, equivalently,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\limsup_{n\rightarrow\infty} \frac{n^{1/3} ( \widehat{f}_n (t_0) - f(t_0)) }{(2 \log \log n)^{1/3}}
& \ = \ & \Big | \frac{1}{2} f(t_0)f'(t_0) \Big |^{1/3} 2 \cdot \frac{1}{2^{1/3}} \cdot \left ( \frac{3}{2} \right )^{1/3} \\
& \ = \ & \Big | \frac{1}{2} f(t_0)f'(t_0) \Big |^{1/3} 2 \cdot \left ( \frac{3}{4} \right )^{1/3} .
\end{eqnarray*}
On the other hand the proof of Theorem 1 above leads to
\begin{eqnarray*}
\limsup_{n\rightarrow\infty} \frac{n^{1/3} ( \widehat{f}_n (t_0) - f(t_0)) }{(2 \log \log n)^{1/3}}
& \ = \ & \Big | \frac{1}{2} f(t_0)f'(t_0) \Big |^{1/3} 2 \cdot M\ \ \ \mbox{a.s.}
\end{eqnarray*}
where
$$
M \equiv \sup_{g \in {\cal G}} \mbox{argmax}_{t \in {\mathbb R}} \{ g(t) - t^2 \} \equiv \sup_{g \in {\cal G}} T_g .
$$
Thus we conjecture that $M = (3/4)^{1/3} $.
\medskip
\begin{lemma}
Let $t_0 > 0$ be an arbitrary positive number and let $\dot{g} \in L_1 ([0,t_0])$
be an arbitrary function satisfying
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_0^{t_0} \dot{g} (s) ds - t_0^2 \ge \int_0^t \dot{g}(s) ds - t^2
\ \ \ \mbox{for} \ \ 0 \le t \le t_0 .
\end{eqnarray*}
Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_0^{t_0} \dot{g} (u)^2 du \ge \int_0^{t_0} (2u)^2 du
= \frac{4t_0^3}{3} .
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}[\bf Proof]
Let $\dot{g}_0 (u) \equiv 2u$. The claimed inequality is trivial if the
integral on the left side is infinite, so we may
view $\dot{g}$ and $\dot{g_0}$ as elements of the Hilbert space
$L_2 ([0,t_0])$. Then the assumption on $\dot{g}$ may be rewritten as
\begin{eqnarray*}
\langle \dot{g} - \dot{g}_0 , 1 \rangle \ge \langle \dot{g} - \dot{g}_0 , 1_{[0,t]} \rangle \ \ \mbox{for} \ \ 0 \le t \le t_0 .
\end{eqnarray*}
In other words,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\langle \dot{g} - \dot{g}_0 , 1_{(t,t_0]} \rangle \ge 0 \ \ \ \mbox{for} \ \ 0 \le t \le t_0 ,
\end{eqnarray*}
and this is equivalent to
\begin{eqnarray*}
\langle \dot{g} - \dot{g}_0 , f \rangle \ge 0
\end{eqnarray*}
for all functions $f$ in the closed convex cone ${\mathbb K}$ generated by the indicator functions $1_{(t,t_0]}$.
This is the set of non-negative and non-decreasing functions on $[0,t_0]$. In particular,
$\dot{g}_0 \in {\mathbb K}$, so
\begin{eqnarray*}
\langle \dot{g} - \dot{g}_0 , \dot{g}_0 \rangle \ge 0 .
\end{eqnarray*}
Together with the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality we obtain
\begin{eqnarray*}
0 \le \langle \dot{g} - \dot{g}_0, \dot{g}_0 \rangle
= \langle \dot{g} , \dot{g}_0 \rangle - \| \dot{g}_0 \|^2 \le \| \dot{g} \| \| \dot{g}_0 \| - \| \dot{g}_0 \|^2 ,
\end{eqnarray*}
so $\| \dot{g} \| \ge \|\dot{g}_0 \|$. This inequality is strict unless $\dot{g} = \lambda \dot{g}_0$
for some $\lambda \in {\mathbb R}$. In this special case the last display reads
$0 \le ( \lambda - 1) \| \dot{g}_0 \|^2$, so $\lambda \ge 1$ and $\| \dot{g}\| = \lambda \| \dot{g}_0 \|$
with equality if, and only if, $\lambda =1$ and $\dot{g} = \dot{g}_0 $.
\end{proof}
\begin{example}
If we take $f(x) = e^{-x} 1_{[0,\infty)} (x)$ and $t_0 = \log 2$, then
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Big | \frac{1}{2} f(t_0)f'(t_0) \Big |^{1/3} \cdot 2 = (2^{-3})^{1/3} \cdot 2 = 1,
\end{eqnarray*}
so the limit superior is just $\sup_{g \in {\cal G}} T_g = (3/4)^{1/3}$.
\end{example}
\begin{example}
If we take $f(x) = (1+x)^{-2} 1_{[0,\infty)} (x)$, then $-f^{\prime}(x) = 2(1+x)^{-3}$ and hence
with $t_0 =1$ we have $f(1) = 1/4 = - f^{\prime} (1)$. Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Big | \frac{1}{2} f(t_0)f'(t_0) \Big |^{1/3} \cdot 2 = (2^{-5/3}) \cdot 2 = 2^{-2/3},
\end{eqnarray*}
so the limit superior is $2^{-2/3} \sup_{g \in {\cal G}} T_g = (3/16)^{1/3}$.
\end{example}
\begin{example}
If we take $f(x) = (\sqrt{2} -x)1_{[0,\sqrt{2}]} (x)$ and $t_0 = \sqrt{2}-1$,
then $f(t_0) = 1$, $- f^{\prime} (t_0 ) = 1$, and
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Big | \frac{1}{2} f(t_0)f'(t_0) \Big |^{1/3} \cdot 2 = (2^{-1/3}) \cdot 2 = 2^{+2/3},
\end{eqnarray*}
so the limit superior is $2^{+2/3} \sup_{g \in {\cal G}} T_g = 2^{2/3} (3/4)^{1/3} = 3^{1/3}$.
\end{example}
\section{Some corollaries}
Theorem~1 has a number of corollaries and consequences, since the argument in the proof applies to a number
of problems involving nonparametric estimation of a monotone function.
Our first corollary, however, involves estimation of the mixing distribution $G$ in the mixture representation of
a monotone density:
that is,
\begin{eqnarray}
f(x)
= \int_0^{\infty} \frac{1}{y} 1_{[0,y)} (x) d G(y)
= \int_{\{y>x\} } \frac{1}{y} dG(y) ,
\qquad x \in (0,\infty)
\label{MixRepresA-Monotone}
\end{eqnarray}
for some distribution function $G$ on $(0,\infty)$.
This fact apparently goes back at least to \cite{schoenberg:41};
see the introduction of \cite{MR0077581}, and \cite{MR0270403}, page 158.
The relationship (\ref{MixRepresA-Monotone}) implies that the corresponding
distribution function $F$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray*}
F(x) & = & \int_0^{\infty} \frac{x}{y} 1_{[0,y)} (x) dG(y) + \int_0^{\infty} 1_{[y,\infty)} (x) dG(y) \\
& = & x f(x) + G(x) \, ,
\end{eqnarray*}
and this can be ``inverted'' to yield
\begin{equation}
G(x) = F(x) - x f(x) \, .
\label{InverseOfAMonotone}
\end{equation}
From Figure~\ref{fig:figure3} we see that the function on the
right side of (\ref{InverseOfAMonotone})
is non-negative and non-decreasing:
the shaded area gives exactly the difference $F(x) - xf(x)$.
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Figures/mon-invers2-ai.pdf}
\caption{Graphical view of the inversion formula, monontone density}
\label{fig:figure3}
\end{figure}
The identity (\ref{InverseOfAMonotone}) implies that the nonparametric maximum
likelihood estimator of $G$ is $\widehat{G}_n$ given by
\begin{eqnarray*}
\widehat{G}_n (t) = \widehat{F}_n (t) - t \widehat{f}_n (t) , \ \ \mbox{for} \ \ t\ge 0
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\widehat{F}_n (t) = \int_0^{t} \widehat{f}_n (x)dx $ is the least concave majorant of ${\mathbb F}_n$
and the MLE of $F$ assuming that $f$ is monotone (and hence $F$ is concave).
Thus for $t_0 > 0$ we can write
\begin{eqnarray*}
n^{1/3} (\widehat{G}_n (t_0) - G(t_0)) = n^{1/3} ( \widehat{F}_n (t_0) - F(t_0)) - t_0 n^{1/3} (\widehat{f}_n (t_0) - f(t_0))
\end{eqnarray*}
From Marshall's lemma \cite{MR0273755} and $n^{1/2} \| {\mathbb F}_n - F \|_{\infty} = O_p (1)$ it follows that
$n^{1/3} \| \widehat{F}_n - F \|_{\infty} = o_p (1)$. Thus if $t_0>0$ is a point at which the hypotheses of Theorem 1 hold,
then the convergence in (\ref{GrenanderLimitDistributionAtFixedPoint}) implies that
\begin{equation}
n^{1/3} (\widehat{G}_n (t_0) - G(t_0))
\rightarrow_d t_0 \Big | \frac{1}{2} f(t_0)f'(t_0) \Big |^{1/3} 2 {\mathbb Z} ,
\label{MixingDFMLELimitDistributionAtFixedPoint}
\end{equation}
Similarly, from Marshall's lemma \cite{MR0273755} and Chung's law of the iterated logarithm for
$\| {\mathbb F}_n - F\|_{\infty}$
(see e.g. \cite{MR838963}, page 505), we know that with $b_n \equiv (2 \log \log n)^{1/2}$
$$
\limsup_{n\rightarrow \infty} n^{1/2} \| \widehat{F}_n - F \|_{\infty}/b_n \le
\limsup_{n\rightarrow \infty} n^{1/2} \| {\mathbb F}_n - F \|_{\infty}/b_n = 1/2 \ \ \mbox{a.s.} .
$$
It follows that if $t_0>0$ is a point at which the hypotheses of Theorem 1 hold, then Theorem 1 yields a LIL result for
$\widehat{G}_n (t_0)$ as follows:
\medskip
\begin{col}
Suppose that $f(t_0) > 0$ and $f'(t_0) < 0$ with $f'$ continuous in a neighborhood of $t_0$.
Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
\limsup_{n\rightarrow \infty} \frac{n^{1/3} ( \widehat{G}_n (t_0) - G(t_0))}{(2 \log \log n)^{1/3}}
= t_0 \Big | \frac{1}{2} f(t_0)f'(t_0) \Big |^{1/3} 2 (3/4)^{1/3} \
\end{eqnarray*}
almost surely.
\end{col}
\section{A further problem}
For the problem of estimating a convex decreasing density,
\cite{MR1891741} described the limiting distribution of the estimator
(at a point under a natural curvature condition) in terms of an ``invelope'' of two-sided
integrated Brownian motion plus $t^4$ which was characterized in \cite{MR1891741}.
The same distribution has appeared in other nonparametric convex function estimation problems,
for example for log-concave density estimation: see \cite{MR2509075}.
In spite of this description of the limiting distribution for the convex density case
in terms of integrated Brownian motion, almost
nothing is known concerning a direct analytical description of the limit distribution comparable
to the results of \cite{MR822052,MR981568} for Chernoff's distribution.
(On the other hand, a preliminary numerical investigation of the distribution is given by \cite{MR3178372}.)
This leads to the following question: can some information concerning
the constants involved in the limiting distribution in the convex function case
be obtained by establishing LIL results analogous
to those established here in the monotone case?
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The second author owes thanks to Piet Groeneboom for many discussions concerning the Grenander
estimator and monotone function estimation more generally.
Thanks are due as well to David Mason for references concerning local LIL's for empirical processes.
$\phantom{blabla}$
|
\section{Results}
\subsection{Mean field theory}
We characterise this system by studying the order parameters chosen naturally
as the fraction of active nodes in network A and network B, $z_A$ and
$z_B$, respectively. For purposes of simplifying the calculation, however, we first
concentrate on the complementary and equally intuitive fraction of {\it
failed\/} nodes $a_A$ and $a_B$, in networks A and B respectively
($a_{A}=1-z_{A}$, $a_{B}=1-z_{B}$).
Using the mean field theory presented in Methods, Note 2, we
obtain two coupled equations that connect $a_A$ and $a_B$, which the
system must satisfy in the equilibrium
\begin{eqnarray}
a_A&=&p_A^*+r_d a_B(1-p_A^*) + \sum_{k}f(k) F(k, a_{A})[r_A-p_A^* r_A
-r_A r_d a_B+p_A^*r_A r_d a_B]\label{e1}\\
a_B&=&p_B^*+r_d a_A(1 -p_B^*) + \sum_{k}f(k) F(k, a_{B})[r_B-p_B^* r_B
-r_B r_d a_A+p_B^*r_B r_d a_A] \label{e2}
\end{eqnarray}
Here $F(k,x)=\sum_{j=0}^{m}{{k\choose{j}} x^{k-j}{(1-x)}^j}$, and we
have also introduced simplifying parameters $p_A^*\equiv e^{-p_A \tau}$
and $p_B^*\equiv e^{-p_B \tau}$ to make the equations more elegant and to
reduce the number of parameters by replacing $p_A$, $p_B$, and $\tau$
that appear as a product. We find that the parameters $p_A^*$ and
$p_B^*$ are very convenient to work with because they correspond to the fraction
of internally failed nodes in network A and network B, respectively.
Despite the seeming complexity of Eqs.~(1) and (2), note that there are
only two unknown variables, $a_A$ and $a_B$, and that all other parameters are
fixed. These two equations define two curves
in the ($a_A, a_B$) plane.
\begin{figure} [!htbp]
\centering \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Fig1a.pdf}
\centering \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Fig1b.pdf}
\caption{ {\bf Graphical representations of the mean field equations for
a system with two interdependent networks ($k=16$, $m=8$).} {\bf a)
} The blue and brown curves represent Eq. (1) and Eq. (2), respectively,
for $p_A^*=p_B^*=0.16$, $r_A=r_B=0.60$ and $r_d=0.15$. There are nine
intersections, representing mathematical solutions for network
activities $a_A$ and $a_B$. Four of them are stable solutions (green
circles) representing physical states that we also observe in our
simulations, and five are unstable solutions (red crosses). {\bf
b) } Example for $p_A^*=0.20$, $p_B^*=0.24$, $r_A=r_B=0.60$ and
$r_d=0.15$. Here we obtain two stable and one unstable solutions. The two
stable solutions correspond to 11 state (both networks are at high activity)
and 22 state (both networks are at low activity). }
\label{1}
\end{figure}
Figure~1a shows a graphical representation of the curves for a random
regular \cite{CohenHavlin} network (in which all the nodes have the same
degree) with degree of $k=16$ and threshold $m=8$, for the symmetric
parameter values $p_A^*=p_B^*=0.16$, $r_A=r_B=0.60$, and
$r_d=0.15$. The size of each network is $N=2 \times 10^4$. The blue
curve is a graphical representation of Eq.~(\ref{e1}), and the brown
curve is defined by Eq.~(\ref{e2}). The curves, like two ``ropes,''
create a ``knot'' that can have up to nine intersections, representing
mathematical solutions of the system of equations. Not all of these
solutions represent observable physical states, however.
Some of them turn out to be unstable and we need to discard them.
To see that, observe one of the curves in Fig.~1a, for example the blue curve
described by Eq.~(1).
We can think of this curve as describing the fraction of failed nodes $a_A$
in network A as a function of $a_B$ (the fraction of failed nodes in network B),
keeping everything else fixed. If we increase damage done to network B
(i.e. we increase $a_B$) and keep everything else constant,
some damage will undoubtedly spread to network A. Thus we expect that when
$a_B$ is increased, $a_A$ must also increase (it would be very unusual if one network
improves its activity as a result of damaging the other network, in our model where
activities of the two networks are positively correlated).
We conclude that the parts of the blue and brown curve that
produce physical solutions are only those where $a_A$ and $a_B$ increase
together or decrease together along the curve.
This elimination leaves only four states in Fig.~1a that are stable (green
circles), while the other five states are unstable (red crosses), for this
particular choice of parameters. Generally, for any choice of
parameters, we have between one and four physical
states. Figure~1b shows the scenario for the same network system when
$p_A^*=0.20$, $p_B^*=0.24$, $r_A=r_B=0.60$, and $r_d=0.15$. In this case
we have two stable states and one unstable. This mean field theory
calculation agrees well with the states that we observe in our
simulations, as we will demonstrate below.
Note that our choice of $r_d$ value is quite limited. If $r_d$ is too large,
we find that the damage spreads through dependency links extremely efficiently
and the only possible stable state is total system collapse. The extreme
vulnerability of interdependent networks is well-known
\cite{Sergey, Parshani}.
Because there is always at least one functional
stable state in biological or man-made systems, total system
collapse as the only stable state is not realistic.
Thus we need the $r_d$ parameter to
''soften'' the dependency links \cite{Parshani} and allow a more realistic behavior.
The four physical solutions found above correspond to the following four scenarios:
(i) when there is high activity in both network A and network B
(denoted ``11'' or ``up-up''),
(ii) when there is high activity in network A and low activity
in network B (``12'' or ``up-down''),
(iii) when there is low activity in network A and high activity
in network B (``21'' or ``down-up''), and
(iv) when there is low activity in both network A and network B
(``22'' or ``down-down'').
Depending on the parameters, we obtain between one and four stable
states. Each of the states exists in a certain volume of the
multi-dimensional space of parameters. Results of the mean field theory
calculation for a particular set of parameters are presented in
Fig.~2a-d as a phase diagram with four layers. Figure~2 shows the
regions in which each of the four states exist in the ($p_A^*$, $p_B^*$)
parametric sub-space, when other parameters are fixed at values
$r_A=r_B=0.60$ and $r_d=0.15$, with $k$ and $m$ remaining the same as before.
For example, in Fig.~2a the green area indicates the region where the 11 state exists.
This state (phase) is bounded with a smooth boundary of three colors. If the
boundary is crossed (by increasing $p_A^*$ and $p_B^*$), the system
makes a transition to either state 12 (if the orange line is crossed),
state 22 (if the blue line is crossed), or state 21 (if the purple line
is crossed). The arrows indicate transitions. In Fig.~2a there are
two triple points (black points) that mark the change in the
transition type and where three different states can exist. The
blue area in Fig.~2b indicates the 22 state. This layer of
the phase diagram has two triple points as well, and three possible
transitions ($22\rightarrow12$, $22\rightarrow11$, and $22\rightarrow21$).
Figures 2c and 2d show the regions of state 21 (purple) and state 12
(orange), respectively. Each has two different transitions and one
critical point. For example, there are two possible ways out of state
21 (Fig.~2c): by a transition to the 11 (green arrow) state or the 22
(blue arrow) state. Note that the different state regions (Figs.~2a,
2b, 2c, and 2d) are not disjoint sets but there is an overlap, resulting in 2-fold,
3-fold, or even 4-fold hysteresis regions.
The state in which the system is found depends on the initial
conditions or the system's past. There are a total of 10
different transitions ($11\rightarrow12$, $11\rightarrow22$,
$11\rightarrow21$, $12\rightarrow11$, $12\rightarrow22$,
$21\rightarrow11$, $21\rightarrow22$, $22\rightarrow12$,
$22\rightarrow21$ and $22\rightarrow11$) that connect different layers
of the phase diagram (states 11, 12, 21, and 22), much like elevators
connecting different floors. Transitions $12\rightarrow21$ and
$21\rightarrow12$ are the only missing (``forbidden'') combinations.
Although regions 12 and 21 do overlap, there is no a direct transition
connecting these two states. These transitions would correspond to the
unusual combination in which one network recovers (transitions to a
higher activity) and simultaneously the other network fails. Thus a
transition from state 12 to state 21 requires the use of an intermediate
state (11 or 22). A more detailed discussion of the absence of these two
transitions can be found in Methods, part 3. The set of all allowed and
forbidden transitions is presented in Fig.~2e. The total phase diagram
(all four layers on top of each other) is presented in Fig.~3. Here,
color lines represent the boundaries of four states, with each color
corresponding to the boundary of one state, e.g., the green line is a
boundary of the 11 state. Note that there is a small central ``window''
where all four states are possible.
\begin{figure} [!htbp]
\centering \includegraphics[width=0.38\textwidth]{11.pdf}
\centering \includegraphics[width=0.38\textwidth]{22.pdf}\\
\centering \includegraphics[width=0.38\textwidth]{21.pdf}
\centering \includegraphics[width=0.38\textwidth]{12.pdf}\\
\centering \includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{Allowed.pdf}
\caption{ {\bf Four layers of the phase diagram and the transitions
connecting them. } {\bf a) } Region of 11 state, in green. Possible
transitions are $11\rightarrow12$ (orange line), $11\rightarrow22$
(blue line) and $11\rightarrow21$ (purple line). This layer of the
phase diagram has two triple points, marked as black points.
{\bf b) } Region of 22 state (
blue), with two triple points and three transitions. {\bf c) } Region
of 21 state (purple), with two transition lines (to 11 and 22 state)
that merge in a critical point. {\bf d) } Region of 12 state
(orange), with two transition lines (to 11 and 22 state) that merge in
a critical point. {\bf e) } Illustration showing states (11, 12, 21 and
22) with allowed (blue arrows) and "forbidden" (red line)
transitions. }
\label{2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure} [!htbp]
\centering \includegraphics[width=0.80\textwidth]{phase00.pdf}
\caption{ {\bf Total phase diagram, with all four layers.} Solid
lines represent the border of region 11 (green), 22 (blue), 12
(orange) and 21 (purple). Dashed lines represent cross-sections where
we calculate the activity profile, shown in Figure 4. }
\label{3}
\end{figure}
We next can examine the activity profile for various cross-sections in
the phase diagram. In Figure~3 we choose two representative cross sections
(dashed straight lines) to measure activity $z_A=1-a_A$ as
$p_A^*$ and $p_B^*$ change. The black dashed line is defined by the
equation $p_B^*=0.1+4/3 p_A^*$ and the red dashed line by
$p_B^*=0.4-p_A^*$. Figure 4a~shows the activity measured in simulations
of network A as we move along the black dashed line, changing both
$p_A^*$ and $p_B^*$ and preserving the relation $p_B^*=0.1+4/3
p_A^*$. We perform simulations for various initial conditions and find (Fig.~4a)
three different states denoted by green, orange and blue colors, which
we identify as 11, 12, and 22 states, respectively. We find four different
transitions: $11\rightarrow12$, $12\rightarrow22$, $12\rightarrow11$,
and $22\rightarrow12$. The solid lines show the mean field theory (MFT)
prediction [Eqs.~(1) and (2)] for the activity of network A. The good agreement shows
that the mean field theory correctly captures all the properties of the
system. We note that qualitative agreement between the MFT and the
simulations is better for higher values of $k$, because for higher $k$
the fluctuations are smaller, which improves the accuracy of the
MFT. Figure~4b shows the activity when moving along the red dashed
line. Here we obtain four states and six different transitions.
\begin{figure} [!htbp]
\centering \includegraphics[width=0.62\textwidth]{transit.pdf}\\
\centering \includegraphics[width=0.62\textwidth]{transit2.pdf} \\
\caption{ {\bf States, transitions and hysteresis loops for two activity
profiles. } {\bf a) } Activity $z_A$ of network A, as measured in
simulations (dots) and predicted by mean field theory (solid lines),
along the cross section defined by the black dashed line in Fig
3. Parameters $p_A^*$ and $p_B^*$ are changed, preserving the relation
$p_B^*=0.1+4/3 p_A^*$. Transitions are denoted by arrows. {\bf b) }
Same for the cross section defined by $p_B^*=0.4-p_A^*$ (red dashed
line in Fig. 3). Here we obtain 4 states and 6 different transitions,
giving rise to more complex hysteresis loops. }
\label{4}
\end{figure}
The phase diagram of a system of $n=2$ interacting networks is much
richer than the phase diagram of a single network with damage and
recovery \cite{Derek}.
The analytical results we presented here for $n=2$ can be
generalized to $n$ interacting networks in any topological
configuration, although as $n$ increases they become increasingly
difficult to visualize.
In general, a system with $n$ interacting
networks can have up to $2^n$ physical states. The maximum number of critical
points grows linearly with $n$ while the upper limit for the number of triple points grows
exponentially.
\subsection{The problem of optimal repairing}
Knowing and understanding the phase diagram of interacting networks enable us to
answer some fundamental and practical questions. A partially
or completely collapsed system of $n\geq2$ interacting networks in which
some of them are in the low activity state is a scenario common in
medicine, e.g., when diseases or traumas affect the human body and
a few organs are simultaneously damaged and need to be treated, and the
interaction between the organs is critical. It is also common in economics,
when two or more coupled sectors of the economy \cite{Chester} experience simultaneous problems,
or when a few geographical clusters of countries experience economic difficulties.
The practical question that arises is: What is the most efficient strategy to
repair such a system? Many approaches are possible if resources are unlimited,
but this is usually not the case and we would like to minimize the resources
that we spend in the repairing process.
For simplicity, consider two interacting networks, both damaged (low activity).
Is repairing both networks simultaneously the more efficient approach, or
repairing them one after the other? What is the minimum amount of
repair needed to make the system fully functional again? In other
words, what is the minimum number of nodes we need to repair in order to
bring the system to the functional 11 (``up-up'') state, and how do we allocate
repairs between the two networks? An optimal repairing strategy is
essential when resources needed for repairing are limited or very
expensive, when the time to repair the system is limited, or when the
damage is still progressing through the system, threatening further
collapse, and a quick and efficient intervention is needed.
\begin{figure} [!htbp]
\centering \includegraphics[width=0.80\textwidth]{optimal_treatment.pdf}
\caption{ {\bf Optimal repairing strategies.} The solution to the
problem of least expensive repairing corresponds to finding the
minimal Manhattan distance from the point where the collapsed system
is situated, and the border of the green region. In the red
square region (point A for example), there are two solutions and it is
equally optimal to reach any of the two triple points R1 and R2 by
decreasing $p_A^*$ and $p_B^*$. In the yellow regions, it is optimal
to reach only one triple point - R1 for the sector containing point B,
or R2 for the sector containing point C. In the dark blue regions it
is optimal to decrease $p_B^*$ only, and in the light blue regions it
is optimal to decrease $p_A^*$ only. Note that triple points represent
the solution of the optimal repairing for the warm color regions (red
and yellow). }
\label{5}
\end{figure}
We show below that this problem is equivalent to finding the minimum
Manhattan distance between the point in the phase diagram where the
damaged system is currently situated, and the recovery transition lines
to the 11 region. The Manhattan distance between two points is defined
as the sum of absolute horizontal and vertical components of the vector
connecting the points, with defined vertical and horizontal
directions. It is a driving distance between two points in a rectangular
grid of streets and avenues. In our phase diagram, it is equal to
$|\Delta p_A^*|+|\Delta p_B^*|$. It turns out that two triple points of
the phase diagram play a very important role in this fundamental
problem. We find that these special points have a direct practical
meaning and are not just a topological or thermodynamic curiosity.
To show this, we start by making some simplifying but reasonable assumptions.
First, we assume that only internal failures can be
repaired by human hands, since these failures are physical faults in nodes (any
external and dependency failures and recoveries are ``environmental,''
and are a spontaneous recognition of the changing neighborhood of a
node). We mentioned above that the parameters $p_A^*$ and $p_B^*$
correspond to fractions of internally failed nodes in networks A and B,
respectively. This implies that the number of internally failed nodes
repaired in, say, network A, is directly proportional to the change of
$p_A^*$. Hence repairing nodes in networks A and B means decreasing
$p_A^*$ or $p_B^*$. We also assume that these repairs are done fast
enough that there is only a small probability that the newly repaired
nodes will internally fail again before the repair process is completed. The
total number of repaired nodes is therefore $N_{\rm rep}=N(|\Delta
p_A^*|+|\Delta p_B^*|)$, and it is proportional to the Manhattan distance between the
starting and final point in the phase diagram.
To optimize repairing we need to minimize this metric. Figure~5 shows
the solution to the minimization problem, and a detailed discussion is
provided in Methods. The different colors in Fig.~5 correspond to the
different optimal repair strategies, which depend on the failure state
of the system. If the system is initially at point A, both networks are
in a low activity state, i.e., they are non-functional. Our goal is to
decrease $p_A^*$ and $p_B^*$ and arrive to the region where the system
is fully recovered (the green region) by performing a minimal number of
repairs, i.e. minimal $N_{\rm rep}$. We find that for any point in
the red region there are actually two closest points in the green region,
at an equal Manhattan distance away from the red region point.
These two points are the triple points R1 and R2 shown in Fig.~5, which also correspond to the triple points in Fig.~2b.
Although R1 may be closer to point A than R2 by Euclidian distance,
the Manhattan distance is the same. Thus two
equally good repairing strategies are available. One involves
allocating more node repairs to network A, and the other allocating more
repairs to network B. For the yellow regions (points B and C), the
closest points by Manhattan distance are R1 (for point B) or R2 (for point
C). Here only one triple point represents the optimal solution. Note
that the path samples in Fig.~5 are ``zig-zag'' in shape (to highlight that
we are minimizing $|\Delta p_A^*|+|\Delta p_B^*|$), but even when a
diagonal path (direct straight line) to a triple point is used, the
Manhattan distance is the same. For the dark blue regions (points D and
G), the optimal strategy is to decrease $p_B^*$ only, until the system is
recovered. Similarly, for the light blue regions (points E and F), the
optimal strategy is to decrease only $p_A^*$.
From our optimal repairing strategy analysis we find that the order of
repair (the specific path taken between the initial point and final point)
does not affect the final result. Minimizing the Manhattan distance only
determines the optimal destination point. Therefore, there is actually a set
of paths corresponding to equally optimal repairing processes.
\subsection{States and transitions in Real World Networks}
In relatively small networks ($N\approx 10$--1000) fluctuations are very
large. Thus, in small network systems exhibiting multistability it is possible to
observe phase flipping \cite{Derek, flip, BP} between different states.
Figure~6a shows the fraction of active nodes for both networks, in time,
for a symmetric choice of parameters, $p_A^*=p_B^*=0.21$,
$r_A=r_B=0.60$, and $r_d=0.15$, when each network has only $N=100$
nodes. Large fluctuations cause the system to jump between the different
states allowed for this set of parameters. Note that interdependent
links cause the two networks to have partially dependent and correlated
dynamics. Very often a transition in one network triggers a transition
in the other. In Figure~6a we can identify examples of all four global states: 22,
11, 21 and 12. For example, at time $t\approx 400$ both networks are in
the high activity state (11), while at $t\approx 620$ network A is in
the low activity and network B in the high activity state (21). Because
a controlled experimental changing of such parameters as $p_A^*$ or $p_B^*$ is
usually impossible or hardly accessible in real-world networks, we can exploit the
phenomenon of phase flipping, use it as a probe to explore different
layers of the phase diagram, and verify the existence of well-defined
states and the transitions between them in a real-world network system.
By observing the dynamics in a selected real-world interacting network,
we find evidence of rapid transitions between different states (Fig.~6b)
that strongly resemble the spontaneous phase switching seen in our model
(Fig.~6a).
\begin{figure} [!htbp]
\centering \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{switching_a.pdf}
\centering \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{switching_b.pdf}
\caption{ {\bf Collective states in simulated and real interacting
networks}. {\bf a} Simulation of the networks' dynamics, activity
versus time, for $N=100$ and failure parameters
$p_A^*=p_B^*=0.21$, $r_A=r_B=0.60$, $r_d=0.15$, shows the switching of
the system between four different states. We can easily identify four
collective states - 11, 22, 11, and 21. {\bf b} Dynamics of two CDS
geographical networks consisting of 18 European and 8 Latin American
countries, shows very similar elements of the behavior: individual
networks switching between well defined high activity and low activity
states, as well as the correlated collective behavior of the two
networks in interaction. We identify collective states 11, 22, 12 and
21 and mark them with connected black ovals. Note that since the CDS
value grows with risk, a higher activity in a CDS network corresponds
to bad economic news. }
\label{6}
\end{figure}
To test our model with a real-world example we analyze the sovereign
debt 5-year credit default swaps (CDSs) of 26 different countries from
two geographical regions, Europe and Latin America. The full list of the
countries given in Methods, Part 5 represents all European and Latin
American countries that began to issue the CDS as early as 2005. A CDS
is a derivative contract that protects against the default risk of an
underlying reference asset as a result of a specific credit event, a
kind of insurance against credit default. In a CDS the buyer pays the
seller a premium for the recovery of a credit loss in case of
default. The higher the risk of default, the higher the premium, so the
value of a governmental CDS reflects the size and probability of a
potential loss for an investor in governmental bonds of a particular
country. A more detailed explanation of CDSs from an economic and
financial perspective is given in Methods, Part 5. CDSs are leveraged
instruments (small changes in the underlying variables on which the
instrument is dependent can cause enormous changes in the value of the
instrument) and their values are very sensitive to both negative and
positive economic and political news emerging from various countries
- they reflect the sentiment or investor's perception of risk and fear
about a particular country's economy. When one country is experiencing problems,
this fear might affect the CDS values in other countries,
usually in the countries of the same geographical region first,
and then in other countries.
This behavior suggests that
we can treat countries as nodes and geographical regions (e.g., Europe
and South America) as interacting networks.
We examine the upward and downward movements of the CDS values in the 26
countries during the period June 2005--February 2014. We represent each
country with one node that can have two states: active or failed. Since
the CDS data is continuous, and in our model we have binary node states,
we perform the following mapping to produce a binary state for each
country. For each time $t$, we consider the interval [$t-252,t$] of 252
business days (this number is usually taken as the number of business
days in a year). If the CDS of a country has a net increase during that
period, we consider the node of the country to be active at $t$. If it
does not, it is inactive. Figure~6b shows the interaction of the two
geographical CDS networks: Latin America and Europe. First we note that
the networks indeed spend most of their time having either a very high activity
or a very low activity (i.e., there are two well-defined
single-networks states). We also observe that because of interactions
between the two networks they can share transition moments between high
and low activity, but sometimes these transitions occur
independently. This behavior is very similar to the model behavior observed in our simulations,
Fig.~6a. We conclude that our network model successfully captures the
behavior of this real network, and it represents a plausible model to
explain the most important elements of its evolution.
\section{METHODS}
{\bf 1. Damage conductivity parameters}. Parameters $r_A$ and $r_B$ are
introduced because they describe how easily the damage is spread
through the network. When $r=0$ there is no damage spread between the
nodes, and when $r=1$ there is perfect damage conduction. Assuming that
external failures occur with certainty would mean fixing $r$ to be equal to 1.
In the case of a single network with recovery it has been shown \cite{Derek} that many
important phenomena (e.g., spontaneous recovery) are lost when
$r=1$. The most interesting parts of the phase diagram are in fact where
$r$ is far from 1.
\bigskip
{\bf 2. Mean field theory}. Fractions $a_A$ and $a_B$ denote the
fraction of nodes that are failed due to any of the three types of
failures: internal (I), external (E), or dependency failure (D). We
denote the probabilities that a node at a time of observation
experiences a failure of I, E, or D type as $P$(I), $P$(E), and $P$(D),
respectively. As a first approximation, we assume that these failures
are mutually independent events. Considering network A first, we write an expression
for the probability $a_{A,k}$ that a node of degree $k$ in network A has
failed. The node can fail due to I, E, or D events or to a combination
of them. Using the inclusion-exclusion principle for independent events,
we write
\begin{equation}
a_{A,k}=P(I)+P(E)+P(D)-P(I)P(E)-P(I)P(D)-P(E)P(D)+P(I)P(E)P(D).
\label{e3}
\end{equation}
Next, we separately calculate $P$(I), $P$(E), and $P$(D).
{\bf Calculating P(I)}, the probability that a randomly chosen node is
internally failed at the time of observation. $P(I)$ is also the average
fraction of internally-failed nodes in a network, since internal
failures are independent events. This is a Poisson process on
individual nodes \cite{Poisson, Derek}, and therefore $P(I)=e^{-p_A
\tau}$. Since parameters $p_A$ and $\tau$ come in this expression as a
product, we can replace them with a single parameter, $p_A^*\equiv e^{-p_A
\tau}$, which is bounded and also has the property $0\leq p_A^* \leq
1$, and so $P(I)= p_A^*$ for network A.
{\bf Calculating P(E)}, the probability that a randomly chosen node with
degree $k$ has externally failed. Focusing once again on network A, without a loss
of generality, we let $F(k)$ be the probability that a node of degree
$k$ in network A is located in a critically damaged neighborhood (where
fewer than $m+1$ nodes are active). By definition, the time-averaged
fraction of failed nodes (for any reason) in network A is $0\leq
a_{A}\leq1$. In a mean-field approximation, this is also the average
probability that a randomly chosen node in that network has
failed. Using combinatorics, we obtain $F(k, a_{A}) =
\sum_{j=0}^{m}{{k\choose{j}} a_{A}^{k-j}{(1-a_{A})}^j}$~\cite{Derek}.
The probability that a node of degree $k$ in network A has externally
failed is then $P(E)=r_AF(k, a_{A})$. An analogous result is valid for
network B.
{\bf Calculating P(D)}, the probability that a node has failed due to
the failure of its dependent counterpart node in the other network. For
network A, this probability is equal to the product of parameter $r_d$
and the probability that a counterpart node in B has failed: $P(D)=r_d
a_B$. In network B by analogy this probability is equal to $r_d a_A$.
Writing Eq.~(\ref{e1}) for both networks and inserting the results for
P(I), P(E), and P(D) after summing over all k (and noting $a_A=
\sum_{k}f(k) a_{A,k}$ and $a_B= \sum_{k}f(k) a_{B,k}$), we get a
system of two coupled equations that describes the system of networks,
\begin{eqnarray}
a_A&=&p_A^*+r_d a_B(1-p_A^*) + \sum_{k}f(k) F(a_{A})[r_A-p_A^* r_A -r_A
r_d a_B+p_A^*r_A r_d a_B]\label{e4}\\ a_B&=&p_B^*+r_d a_A(1 -p_B^*) +
\sum_{k}f(k) F(a_{B})[r_B-p_B^* r_B -r_B r_d a_A+p_B^*r_B r_d
a_A]. \label{e5}
\end{eqnarray}
\bigskip
{\bf 3. "Forbidden" transitions.} Transition lines for $12\rightarrow21$
and $21\rightarrow12$ do not appear in our phase diagram, and it is quite
easy to understand why. Let’s assume that the transition line for
$12\rightarrow21$ does exist. To obtain that transition, the idea would
be to simultaneously increase $p_A^*$ and
decrease $p_B^*$ (i.e., increase the damage in one part of the system,
and decrease in another part). Suppose we are in phase 12 and
infinitesimally close to the supposed transition line.
Considering the local geometry of this line, we may be able to observe
its angle with respect to the $p_A^*$ axis. If a transition occurs when
increasing $p_A^*$ and decreasing $p_B^*$, the tangent on the
supposed line would have an angle of $\theta \in
[0,\frac{\pi}{2}]$. From here it follows that by increasing $p_A^*$ only, while keeping $p_B^*$
constant, we would also make a transition (cross the transition line). The only other possibility would
be that we were moving {\it along\/} the transition line, but this is
easy to disprove because it would imply that the transition does not depend on
$p_A^*$. If increasing $p_A^*$ only, causes a transition, the transition
must end in state 22, not 21. This is because if we only increase $p_A^*$, we increase
damage to both network A (directly) and network B (indirectly, through
the interdependent links).
\bigskip
{\bf 4. Geometry of the Manhattan distance minimization problem}. The
optimal strategies shown in different colors in Fig.~5 are derived from
the geometrical reasoning shown in Fig.~7. Figure~7a shows a plot of a
series of curves consisting of points at identical Manhattan distances
from point A (equidistant curves). They produce a ``diamond'' shape, and the minimal
Manhattan distance between point A and the green region translates into
the task of ``fitting'' the diamond so that it just touches the green
region and its center is at A. The diamond in Fig.~7a touches the green
region at two points---triple points, which are the solution to the
minimisation problem. Figure~7b shows the solution for point F in the
light blue region. Here the solution suggests a different
strategy---decreasing only $p_A^*$.
\begin{figure} [!htbp]
\centering \includegraphics[width=0.475\textwidth]{explanation1.pdf}
\centering \includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{explanation2.pdf}
\caption{ {\bf Minimum Manhattan distance problem}.
{\bf a} For the red sector, fitting the largest ``diamond'' barely touching the green region
and having its center at point A, suggests there are two equally optimal
solutions to the minimization problem. {\bf b} The same geometrical construction
for point F in the light blue region, suggests a unique solution: decreasing $p_A^*$.
}
\label{7}
\end{figure}
\bigskip
{\bf 5. Credit default swaps.} Figure 6b shows an analysis of 5-year sovereign
debt CDSs for a set of European countries: France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal,
Belgium, Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Greece, Ukraine, Hungary, Poland, Croatia,
Slovenia, Romania, Bulgaria, and Slovakia. This is the set of European countries that had a
sovereign debt CDS in 2005. The set of Latin American countries we
analyze consists of Brazil, Colombia, Argentina, Mexico, Venezuela,
Chile, Peru, and Panama. A CDS is typically used to transfer the credit
exposure of fixed income products from one party to another. The buyer
of the CDS is then obligated to make periodic payments to the seller of
the CDS until the swap contract matures. In return, the seller of the
CDS agrees to compensate (pay off) the seller who holds this third party
debt if this (third party) defaults on the issued debt.
A CDS is, in effect, an insurance against non-payment of a debt owed by
a third party. The buyer of a CDS does not have to hold the debt of the
third party but can speculate on the possibility that the third party
will indeed default, and the buyer can purchase the CDS for this
speculative purpose. CDSs were developed in the 1990s and, given their simple
structure and flexible conditions, they are now a major part of the credit
derivative activity in the OTC market used to hedge credit risk.
One of the most important aspects of a CDS is the definition of the
``credit event'' that triggers the CDS. These events include bankruptcy,
obligation acceleration, obligation default, failure to pay, repudiation
(moratorium), and restructuring. In the case of the sovereign bond
market, the last three are typically included in the contracts.
CDSs are used by investors to hedge exposure to a fixed income instrument,
to speculate on likelihood of a third party (reference asset) default,
or to invest in foreign country credit without currency exposure.
\subsection*{Acknowledgments}
\noindent
We thank the DTRA, NSF (grants CMMI 1125290, CHE-1213217 and “SES 1452061”), Keck Foundation, European Commission FET Open Project (“FOC” 255987, “FOC-INCO” 297149) and Office of Naval Research for financial support.
S.H. acknowledges the European LINC and MULTIPLEX (EU-FET project 317532) projects, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), the Israel Science Foundation, ONR and DTRA for financial support.
L.A.B thanks UNMdP and FONCyT, PICT 0429/13 for financial support.
S.L.C. gratefully acknowledges the financial support of the Fulbright Program for visiting scholars.
A.M. thanks Bijeli Zeko for useful discussions.
|
\section{Introduction}
The aim of these lectures is to explain how to apply controlled path
ideas~{\cite{Gubinelli2004}} to solve simple problems in singular PDEs. The
hope is that the insight gained by doing so can inspire new applications or
the construction of other more powerful tools to analyze a wider class of
problems.
\
We discuss some problems involving singular stochastic non--linear parabolic
equations from the point of view of controlled paths. To understand the origin
of such singular equations, we have chosen to present the example of a
homogenization problem for a singular potential in a linear parabolic
equation. This point of view has the added benefit that it allows us to track
back the renormalization needed to handle the singularities as effects living
on other scales than those of interest. The basic problem is that of having to
handle effects of the microscopic scales and their interaction through
non--linearities on the macroscopic behavior of the solution.
\
Mathematically, this problem translates into the attempt of making Schwartz's
theory of distribution coexist with non--linear operations which are
notoriously not continuous in the usual topologies on distributions. This is a
very old problem of analysis and has been widely studied. The additional input
which is not present in the usual approaches is that the singularities which
force us to treat the problem in the setting of Schwartz's distributions are
of a stochastic nature. So we dispose of two handles on the problem: the
analytical one and the probabilistic one. The right mix of the two will
provide an effective solution to a wide class of problems.
\
A first and deep understanding of these problems has been obtained starting
from the late '90s by T. Lyons~{\cite{Lyons1998}}, who introduced a theory of
{\tmem{rough paths}} in order to settle the conflict of topology and
non--linearity in the context of driven differential equations, or more
generally in the context of the non--linear analysis of time--varying signals.
Nowadays there are many expositions of this
theory~{\cite{Lyons2002,Friz2010,Lyons2007,Friz2014}} and we refer the reader
to the literature for more details.
\
In~{\cite{Gubinelli2004,Gubinelli2010}}, the notion of {\tmem{controlled
paths}} has been introduced in order to extend the applicability of the rough
path ideas to a larger class of problems that are not necessarily related to
the integration of ODEs but which still retain the one--dimensional nature of
the directions in which the irregularity manifest itself. The controlled path
approach has been used to make sense of the evolution of irregular objects
such as vortex filaments and certain SPDEs. Later Hairer understood how to
apply these ideas to the long standing problem of the Kardar--Parisi--Zhang
equation~{\cite{Hairer2013b}}, and his insights prompted the researchers to
try more ambitious approaches to extend rough paths to a multidimensional
setting.
\
In~{\cite{Gubinelli2012}}, in collaboration with P. Imkeller, we introduced a
notion of {\tmem{paracontrolled distributions}} which is suitable suitable to
handle a wide class of SPDEs which were well out of reach with previously
known methods. Paracontrolled distributions can be understood as an extension
of controlled paths to a multidimensional setting, and they are based on new
combinations of basic tools from harmonic analysis.
\
At the same time, Hairer managed to devise a vast generalization of the basic
construction of controlled rough paths in the multidimensional and
distributional setting, which he called the theory of {\tmem{regularity
structures}}~{\cite{Hairer2014}} and which subsumes standard analysis based on
H{\"o}lder spaces and controlled rough path theory but goes well beyond that.
Just few days after the lectures in Mambucaba took place, it was announced
that Martin Hairer was awarded a Fields Medal for his work on SPDEs and in
particular for his theory of regularity structures~{\cite{Hairer2014}} as a
tool for dealing with singular SPDEs. This prize witnesses the exciting period
we are experiencing: we now understand sound lines of attack to long standing
problems, and there are countless opportunities to apply similar ideas to new
problems.
\
\
The plan of the lectures is the following. We start by explaining ``energy
solutions''~{\cite{goncalves_universality_2010,gubinelli_regularization_2013}},
a notion of solution to (a particular class of) singular PDEs which has the
advantage of being comparably easy to handle but which also has the
inconvenience of not having a comprehensive uniqueness theory so far. This
will allow us to introduce the reader to SPDEs in a progressive manner, and
also to introduce Gaussian tools (Wick products, hypercontractivity) and to
present some of the basic phenomena appearing when dealing with singular
SPDEs. Next we set up the analytical tools we need in the rest of the
lectures: Besov spaces and some basic harmonic analysis based on the
Littlewood--Paley decomposition. Next, in order to motivate the reader and to
provide a physical ground for the intuition to stand on, we discuss a
homogenization problem for the linear heat equation with random potential.
This will allow us to derive the need for the weak topologies we shall use and
for irregular objects like white--noise from first principles and ``concrete''
applications. The homogenization problem also allows us to see the
renormalization effects appear naturally and to track their mathematical
meaning. Starting from these problems we introduce the two--dimensional
parabolic Anderson model, the simplest SPDE in which most of the features of
more difficult problems are already present, and we explain how to use
paraproducts and the paracontrolled ansatz in order to keep the non--linear
effect of the singular data under control. Then we go on to discuss the more
involved situation of the Stochastic Burgers equation in one dimension, which
is one of the avatars of the Kardar--Parisi--Zhang equation.
\ \
\paragraph{Conventions and notations}We write $a \lesssim b$ if there exists
a constant $C > 0$, independent of the variables under consideration, such
that $a \leqslant C b$. Similarly we define $\gtrsim$. We write $a \simeq b$
if $a \lesssim b$ and $b \lesssim a$. If we want to emphasize the dependence
of $C$ on the variable $x$, then we write $a (x) \lesssim_x b (x)$.
If $i$ and $j$ are index variables of Littlewood--Paley blocks (to be defined
below), then $i \lesssim j$ is to be interpreted as $2^i \lesssim 2^j$, and
similarly for $\simeq$ and $\lesssim$. In other words, $i \lesssim j$ means $i
\leqslant j + N$ for some fixed $N \in \mathbb{N}$ that does not depend on
$i$ or $j$.
We use standard multi-index notation: for ${\mu} \in \mathbb{N}^d_0$ we
write $| {\mu} | ={\mu}_1 + \ldots +{\mu}_d$ and
$\partial^{{\mu}} = \partial^{| {\mu} |} /
\partial^{{\mu}_1}_{x_1} \ldots \partial^{{\mu}_d}_{x_d}$, as well as
$x^{{\mu}} = x^{{\mu}_1}_1 \cdot \ldots \cdot x^{{\mu}_d}_d$
for $x \in \mathbb{R}^d$.
For $\alpha > 0$ we write $C^{\alpha}_b$ for the functions $F : \mathbb{R}
\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ which are $\lfloor \alpha \rfloor$ times continuously
differentiable with $(\alpha - \lfloor \alpha \rfloor)$--H{\"o}lder continuous
derivatives of order $\lfloor \alpha \rfloor$, equipped with its natural norm
$\| \cdot \|_{C^{\alpha}_b}$.
If we write $u \in \mathscr{C}^{\alpha -}$, then that means that $u$ is in
$\mathscr{C}^{\alpha - \varepsilon}$ for all $\varepsilon > 0$. The $\mathscr{C}^{\alpha}$
spaces will be defined below.
\section{Energy solutions}\label{sec:energy}
The first issue one encounters when dealing with singular SPDEs is the
ill--posed character of the equation, even in a weak sense. Typically, the
non--linearity does not make sense in the natural spaces where solutions live
and one has to provide a suitable smaller space in which it is possible to
give an appropriate interpretation to ``ambiguous quantities'' that are
featured in the equation.
\
Energy
solutions~{\cite{goncalves_universality_2010,gubinelli_regularization_2013}}
are a relatively simple tool in order to come up with well--defined
non--linearities. The drawback is that currently the issue of uniqueness is
open, at least in the most interesting cases. It is not clear if uniqueness of
energy solutions holds or even how to find conditions that ensure uniqueness.
On the other hand, proving existence of energy solutions or even convergence
to energy solutions is usually a quite simple problem, at least compared to
the other approaches like paracontrolled solutions or regularity structures,
where existence requires already quite a large amount of computations but
where uniqueness can be established quite easily afterwards.
\
Our aim here is to motivate the ideas leading to the notion of energy
solutions. We will not insist on a detailed formulation of all the available
results. The reader can always refer to the original
paper~{\cite{gubinelli_regularization_2013}} for missing details. Applications
to the large scale behavior of particle systems are studied
in~{\cite{goncalves_universality_2010,goncalves_kpznew_2014}}.
\
We will study energy solutions for the stochastic Burgers equation on the
torus $\mathbb{T}=\mathbb{R}/ (2 \pi \mathbb{Z})$. The unknown $u :
\mathbb{R}_+ \times \mathbb{T} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ should satisfy
\[ \partial_t u = \Delta u + \partial_x u^2 + \partial_x \xi, \]
where $\xi : \mathbb{R}_+ \times \mathbb{T} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is a
space--time white noise defined on a given probability space $(\Omega,
\mathcal{F}, \mathbb{P})$ fixed once and for all. That is, $\xi$ is a
centered Gaussian process indexed by $L^2 (\mathbb{R}_+ \times \mathbb{T})$
with covariance
\[ \mathbb{E} [\xi (f) \xi (g)] = \int_{\mathbb{R}_+ \times \mathbb{T}} f
(t, x) g (t, x) \mathrm{d} t \mathrm{d} x. \]
The equation has to be understood as a relation for processes which are
distributions in space with sufficiently regular time dependence (for a short
introduction to distributions on $\mathbb{T}$ see
Section~\ref{sec:preliminaries} below). In particular, if we test the above
relation with $\varphi \in \mathscr{S} := \mathscr{S} (\mathbb{T}) : = C^{\infty}
(\mathbb{T})$, denote with $u_t (\varphi)$ the pairing of the distribution $u
(t, \cdot)$ with $\varphi$, and integrate in time over the interval $[0, t]$,
we get
\[ u_t (\varphi) = u_0 (\varphi) + \int_0^t u_s (\Delta \varphi) \mathrm{d} s -
\int_0^t \langle u^2_s, \partial_x \varphi \rangle \mathrm{d} s - \int_0^t
\xi_s (\partial_x \varphi) \mathrm{d} s. \]
Let us discuss the various terms in this equation. In order to make sense of
$u_t (\varphi)$ and $\int_0^t u_s (\Delta \varphi) \mathrm{d} s$, it is enough to
assume that for all $\varphi \in \mathscr{S}$ the mapping $(t, \omega) \mapsto u_t
(\varphi) (\omega)$ is a stochastic process with continuous trajectories.
Next, if we denote $M_t (\varphi) = \int_0^t \xi_s (\partial_x \varphi) \mathrm{d}
s$ then, at least by a formal computation, we have that $(M_t (\varphi))_{t
\geqslant 0, \varphi \in \mathscr{S}}$ is a Gaussian random field with covariance
\[ \mathbb{E} [M_t (\varphi) M_s (\psi)] = (t \wedge s) \langle \partial_x
\varphi, \partial_x \psi \rangle_{L^2 (\mathbb{T})} . \]
In particular, for every $\varphi \in \mathscr{S}$ the stochastic process $(M_t
(\varphi))_{t \geqslant 0}$ is a Brownian motion with covariance
\[ \| \varphi \|_{H^1 (\mathbb{T})}^2 := \langle \partial_x \varphi,
\partial_x \varphi \rangle_{L^2 (\mathbb{T})} . \]
Here we used the notation $M$ in order to stress the fact that $M_t (\varphi)$
is a martingale in its natural filtration and more generally in the filtration
$\mathcal{F}_t = \sigma (M_s (\varphi) : s \leqslant t, \varphi \in H^1
(\mathbb{T}))$, $t \geqslant 0$.
\
The most difficult term is of course the nonlinear one: $\int_0^t \langle
u^2_s, \partial_x \varphi \rangle \mathrm{d} s$. In order to define it, we need to
square the distribution $u_t$, an operation which in general can be quite
dangerous. A natural approach would be to define it as the limit of some
regularizations. For example, if $\rho : \mathbb{R} \rightarrow
\mathbb{R}_+$ is a compactly supported $C^{\infty}$ function such that
$\int_{\mathbb{R}} \rho (x) \mathrm{d} x = 1$, and we set $\rho_{\varepsilon}
(\cdot) = \rho (\cdot / \varepsilon) / \varepsilon$, then we can set
$\mathcal{N}_{t, \varepsilon} (u_{}) (x) = \int_0^t (\rho_{\varepsilon} \ast
u_s) (x)^2 \mathrm{d} s$ \ and define $\mathcal{N}_t (u) = \lim_{\varepsilon
\rightarrow 0} \mathcal{N}_{t, \varepsilon} (u)$ whenever the limit exists in
$\mathscr{S}' := \mathscr{S}' (\mathbb{T})$, the space of distributions on
$\mathbb{T}$. Then the question arises which properties $u$ should have for
this convergence to occur.
\subsection{The Ornstein--Uhlenbeck process}
\
Let us simplify the problem and start by studying the linearized equation
obtained by neglecting the non--linear term. Let $X$ be a solution to
\begin{equation}
X_t (\varphi) = X_0 (\varphi) + \int_0^t X_s (\Delta \varphi) \mathrm{d} s + M_t
(\varphi) \label{eq:ou-weak}
\end{equation}
for all $t \geqslant 0$ and $\varphi \in \mathscr{S}$. This equation has \tmtextit{at
most} one solution (for fixed $X_0$). Indeed, the difference $D$ between two
solutions should satisfy $D_t (\varphi) = \int_0^t D_s (\Delta \varphi) \mathrm{d}
s$, which means that $D$ is a distributional solution to the heat equation.
Taking $\varphi (x) = e_k (x)$, where
\[ e_k (x) := \exp (- i kx) / \sqrt{2 \pi}, \hspace{2em} k \in
\mathbb{Z}, \]
we get $D_t (e_k) = - k^2 \int_0^t D_s (e_k) \mathrm{d} s$ and then by Gronwall's
inequality $D_t (e_k) = 0$ for all $t \geqslant 0$. This easily implies that
$D_t = 0$ in $\mathscr{S}'$ for all $t \geqslant 0$.
To obtain the \tmtextit{existence} of a solution, observe that
\[ X_t (e_k) = X_0 (e_k) - k^2 \int_0^t X_s (e_k) \mathrm{d} s + M_t (e_k) \]
and that $M_t (e_0) = 0$, while for all $k \neq 0$ the process $\beta_t (k) =
M_t (e_k) / (- i k)$ is a complex valued Brownian motion (i.e. real and
imaginary part are independent Brownian motions with the same variance). The
covariance of $\beta$ is given by
\[ \mathbb{E} [\beta_t (k) \beta_s (m)] = (t \wedge s) \delta_{k + m = 0} \]
and moreover $\beta_t (k)^{\ast} = \beta_t (- k)$ for all $k \neq 0$ (where
$\cdot^{\ast}$ denotes complex conjugation), as well as $\beta_t (0) = 0$.
In other words, $(X_t (e_k))$ is a complex--valued Ornstein--Uhlenbeck process
which solves a linear one--dimensional SDE and has an explicit representation
given by the variation of constants formula
\[ X_t (e_k) = e^{- k^2 t} X_0 (e_k) + i k \int_0^t e^{- k^2 (t - s)} \mathrm{d}_s
\beta_s (k) . \]
This is enough to determine $X_t (\varphi)$ for all $t \geqslant 0$ and
$\varphi \in \mathscr{S}$.
\begin{exercise}
Show that $(X_t (e_k) : t \in \mathbb{R}_+, k \in \mathbb{Z})$ is a
complex Gaussian random field, that is for all $n \in \mathbb{N}$, for all
$t_1, \ldots, t_n \in \mathbb{R}_+$, $k_1, \ldots, k_n \in \mathbb{Z}$,
the vector
\[ (\tmop{Re} (X_{t_1} (k_1)), \ldots, \tmop{Re} (X_{t_n} (k_n)), \tmop{Im}
(X_{t_1} (k_1)), \ldots, \tmop{Im} (X_{t_n} (k_n))) \]
is multivariate Gaussian. Show that $X$ has mean $\mathbb{E} [X_t (e_k)] =
e^{- k^2 t} X_0 (e_k)$ and covariance
\[ \mathbb{E} [(X_t (e_k) -\mathbb{E} [X_t (e_k)]) (X_s (e_m) -\mathbb{E}
[X_s (e_m)])] = k^2 \delta_{k + m = 0} \int_0^{t \wedge s} e^{- k^2 (t -
r) - k^2 (s - r)} \mathrm{d} r \]
as well as
\[ \mathbb{E} [(X_t (e_k) -\mathbb{E} [X_t (e_k)]) (X_s (e_m) -\mathbb{E}
[X_s (e_m)])^{\ast}] = k^2 \delta_{k = m} \int_0^{t \wedge s} e^{- k^2 (t
- r) - k^2 (s - r)} \mathrm{d} r. \]
In particular,
\[ \mathbb{E} [| X_t (e_k) -\mathbb{E} [X_t (e_k)] |^2] = \frac{1 - e^{- 2
k^2 t}}{2} . \]
\end{exercise}
\
Next we examine the Sobolev regularity of $X$. For this purpose, we need the
following definition.
\begin{definition}
Let $\alpha \in \mathbb{R}$. Then the Sobolev space $H^{\alpha}$ is defined
as
\[ H^{\alpha} := H^{\alpha} (\mathbb{T}) := \left\{ \rho \in \mathscr{S}'
: \| \rho \|_{H^{\alpha}} := \sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z}} (1 + | k
|^2)^{\alpha} | \rho (e_k) |^2 < \infty \right\} . \]
We also write $C H^{\alpha}$ for the space of continuous functions from
$\mathbb{R}_+$ to $H^{\alpha}$.
\end{definition}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:ou-regularity}Let $\gamma \leqslant - 1 / 2$ and assume that
$X_0 \in H^{\gamma}$. Then almost surely $X \in C H^{\gamma -}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\alpha = \gamma - \varepsilon$ and consider
\[ \| X_t - X_s \|_{H^{\alpha}}^2 = \sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z}} (1 + | k
|^2)^{\alpha} | X_t (e_k) - X_s (e_k) |^2 . \]
Let us estimate the $L^{2 p} (\Omega)$ norm of this quantity for $p \in
\mathbb{N}$ by writing
\[ \mathbb{E} \| X_t - X_s \|_{H^{\alpha}}^{2 p} = \sum_{k_1, \ldots, k_p
\in \mathbb{Z}} \prod_{i = 1}^p (1 + | k_i |^2)^{\alpha} \mathbb{E}
\prod_{i = 1}^p | X_t (e_{k_i}) - X_s (e_{k_i}) |^2 . \]
By Cauchy--Schwartz, we get
\[ \mathbb{E} \| X_t - X_s \|_{H^{\alpha}}^{2 p} \lesssim \sum_{k_1,
\ldots, k_p \in \mathbb{Z}} \prod_{i = 1}^p (1 + | k_i |^2)^{\alpha}
\prod_{i = 1}^p (\mathbb{E} | X_t (e_{k_i}) - X_s (e_{k_i}) |^{2 p})^{1
/ p} . \]
Note now that $X_t (e_{k_i}) - X_s (e_{k_i})$ is a Gaussian random variable,
so that there exists a universal constant $C_p$ for which
\[ \mathbb{E} | X_t (e_{k_i}) - X_s (e_{k_i}) |^{2 p} \leqslant C_p
(\mathbb{E} | X_t (e_{k_i}) - X_s (e_{k_i}) |^2)^p . \]
Moreover,
\[ X_t (e_k) - X_s (e_k) = (e^{- k^2 (t - s)} - 1) X_s (e_k) + ik \int_s^t
e^{- k^2 (t - r)} \mathrm{d}_r \beta_r (k), \]
leading to
\begin{align*}
&\mathbb{E} | X_t (e_k) - X_s (e_k) |^2 = (e^{- k^2 (t - s)} - 1)^2 \mathbb{E} | X_s (e_k) |^2 + k^2 \int_s^t e^{- 2 k^2 (t - r)} \mathrm{d} r \\
&\hspace{40pt} = (e^{- k^2 (t - s)} - 1)^2 e^{- 2 k^2 s} | X_0 (e_k) |^2 + (e^{- k^2 (t - s)} - 1)^2 k^2 \int_0^s e^{- 2 k^2 (s - r)} \mathrm{d} r \\
&\hspace{40pt} \qquad + k^2 \int_s^t e^{- 2 k^2 (t - r)} \mathrm{d} r \\
&\hspace{40pt} = (e^{- k^2 t} - e^{- k^2 s})^2 | X_0 (e_k) |^2 + \frac{1}{2} (e^{- k^2 (t - s)} - 1)^2 (1 - e^{- 2 k^2 s}) + \frac{1}{2} (1 - e^{- 2 k^2 (t - s)}).
\end{align*}
For any $\kappa \in [0, 1]$ and $k \neq 0$, we thus have
\[ \mathbb{E} | X_t (e_k) - X_s (e_k) |^2 \lesssim (k^2 (t - s))^{\kappa}
(| X_0 (e_k) |^2 + 1), \]
while for $k = 0$ we have $\mathbb{E} | X_t (e_0) - X_s (e_0) |^2 = 0$.
Therefore,
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E} \| X_t - X_s \|_{H^{\alpha}}^{2 p} & \lesssim \sum_{k_1, \ldots, k_p \in \mathbb{Z}_0} \prod_{i = 1}^p (1 + | k_i |^2)^{\alpha} \prod_{i = 1}^p \mathbb{E} | X_t (e_{k_i}) - X_s (e_{k_i}) |^2 \\
& \lesssim (t - s)^{\kappa p} \sum_{k_1, \ldots, k_p \in \mathbb{Z}_0} \prod_{i = 1}^p (1 + | k_i |^2)^{\alpha} (k_i^2)^{\kappa} (| X_0 (e_{k_i}) |^2 + 1) \\
& \lesssim (t - s)^{\kappa p} \Big[ \sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z}_0} (1 + | k
|^2)^{\alpha} (k^2)^{\kappa} (| X_0 (e_k) |^2 + 1) \Big]^p \\
& \lesssim (t - s)^{\kappa p} \Big(\| X_0 \|^{2 p}_{H^{\alpha + \kappa} (\mathbb{T})} + \Big[\sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z}_0} (1 + | k |^2)^{\alpha} (k^2)^{\kappa}\Big]^p\Big) .
\end{align*}
If $\alpha < - 1 / 2 - \kappa$, the sum on the right hand side is finite and
we obtain an estimation for the \ modulus of continuity of $t \mapsto X_t$
in $L^{2 p} (\Omega ; H^{\alpha})$:
\[ \mathbb{E} \| X_t - X_s \|_{H^{\alpha}}^{2 p} \lesssim (t - s)^{\kappa
p} [1 + \| X_0 \|^{2 p}_{H^{\alpha + \kappa}}] . \]
Now Kolmogorov's continuity criterion allows us to conclude that almost
surely $X \in C H^{\alpha}$ whenever $X_0 \in H^{\alpha + \kappa}$.
\end{proof}
Now note that the regularity of the Ornstein--Uhlenbeck process does not allow
us to form the quantity $X^2_t$ point--wise in time since by Fourier inversion
$X_t = \sum_k X_t (e_k) e_k^{\ast}$, and therefore we should have
\[ X_t^2 (e_k) = (2 \pi)^{- 1 / 2} \sum_{\ell + m = k} X_t (e_{\ell}) X_t
(e_m) . \]
Of course, at the moment this expression is purely formal since we cannot
guarantee that the infinite sum converges. A reasonable thing to try is to
approximate the square by regularizing the distribution, taking the square,
and then trying to remove the regularization. Let $\Pi_N$ be the projector of
a distribution onto a finite number of Fourier modes:
\[ (\Pi_N \rho) (x) = \sum_{| k | \leqslant N} \rho (e_k) e^{\ast}_k (x) . \]
Then $\Pi_N X_t (x)$ is a smooth function of $x$ and we can consider $(\Pi_N
X_t)^2$ which satisfies
\[ (\Pi_N X_t)^2 (e_k) = (2 \pi)^{- 1 / 2} \sum_{\ell + m = k} \mathbb{I}_{|
\ell | \leqslant N, | m | \leqslant N} X_t (e_{\ell}) X_t (e_m) . \]
We would then like to take the limit $N \rightarrow + \infty$. For
convenience, we will perform the computations below in the limit $N = +
\infty$, but one has to come back to the case of finite $N$ in order to make
it rigorous.
Let us introduce the notation $\mathbb{Z}_0 =\mathbb{Z} \setminus \{ 0 \}$.
Then
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E} [X_t^2 (e_k)] & = (2 \pi)^{- 1 / 2} \delta_{k = 0} \sum_{m \in \mathbb{Z}_0} \mathbb{E} [X_t (e_{- m}) X_t (e_m)] \\
& = (2 \pi)^{- 1 / 2} \delta_{k = 0} \sum_{m \in \mathbb{Z}_0} e^{- 2 m^2 t} | X_0 (e_m) |^2 + (2 \pi)^{- 1 / 2} \delta_{k = 0} \sum_{m \in \mathbb{Z}_0} m^2 \int_0^t e^{- 2 m^2 (t - s)} \mathrm{d} s
\end{align*}
and
\[ \sum_{m \in \mathbb{Z}_0} m^2 \int_0^t e^{- 2 m^2 (t - s)} \mathrm{d} s =
\frac{1}{2} \sum_{m \in \mathbb{Z}_0} (1 - e^{- 2 m^2 t}) = + \infty . \]
This is not really a problem since in the equation only components of $u^2_t
(e_k)$ with $k \neq 0$ appear. However, $X^2_t (e_k)$ is not even a
well--defined random variable. For the moment, let us assume that $X_0 = 0$,
which will slightly simplify the computation. If $k \neq 0$, we have
\[ \mathbb{E} [| X^2_t (e_k) |^2] =\mathbb{E} [X^2_t (e_k) X^2_t (e_{- k})]
= (2 \pi)^{- 1} \sum_{\ell + m = k} \sum_{\ell' + m' = - k} \mathbb{E}
[X_t (e_{\ell}) X_t (e_m) X_t (e_{\ell'}) X_t (e_{m'})] . \]
By Wick's theorem (see {\cite{Janson1997}}, Theorem~1.28), the expectation can
be computed in terms of the covariances of all possible pairings of the four
Gaussian random variables (3 possible combinations):
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E} [X_t (e_{\ell}) X_t (e_m) X_t (e_{\ell'}) X_t (e_{m'})] &=\mathbb{E} [X_t (e_{\ell}) X_t (e_m)] \mathbb{E} [X_t (e_{\ell'}) X_t(e_{m'})] \\
&\quad + \mathbb{E} [X_t (e_{\ell}) X_t (e_{\ell'})] \mathbb{E} [X_t (e_m) X_t(e_{m'})] \\
&\quad +\mathbb{E} [X_t (e_{\ell}) X_t (e_{m'})] \mathbb{E} [X_t (e_m) X_t (e_{\ell'})].
\end{align*}
Since $k \neq 0$, we have $\ell + m \neq 0$ and $\ell' + m' \neq 0$ which
allows us to neglect the first term since it is zero. By symmetry of the
summations, the two other give the same contribution and we remain with
\begin{align}\label{eq:OU square variance}
\mathbb{E} [| X^2_t (e_k) |^2] & = 2 \sum_{\ell + m = k} \sum_{\ell' + m' = k} \mathbb{E} [X_t (e_{\ell}) X_t (e_{\ell'})] \mathbb{E} [X_t (e_m) X_t (e_{m'})] \\ \nonumber
& = 2 \sum_{\ell + m = k} \mathbb{E} [X_t (e_{\ell}) X_t (e_{- \ell})] \mathbb{E} [X_t (e_m) X_t (e_{- m})] \\ \nonumber
& = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{\ell + m = k} (1 - e^{- 2 \ell^2 t}) (1 - e^{- 2 m^2 t}) = + \infty.
\end{align}
This shows that even when tested against smooth test functions, $X_t^2$ is not
in $L^2 (\Omega)$. This indicates that there are problems with $X_t^2$ and
indeed one can show that $X_t^2 (e_k)$ does not make sense as a random
variable.
\
To understand this better, observe that the Ornstein--Uhlenbeck process can
be decomposed as
\[ X_t (e_k) = ik \int_{- \infty}^t e^{- k^2 (t - s)} \mathrm{d} \beta_s (k) - ik
e^{- k^2 t} \int_{- \infty}^0 e^{k^2 s} \mathrm{d} \beta_s (k), \]
where we extended the Brownian motions $(\beta_s (k))_{s \geqslant 0}$ to two
sided complex Brownian motions by considering independent copies. It is not
difficult to show that the second term gives rise to a smooth function if $t >
0$, so all the irregularity of $X_t$ is described by the first term which we
call $Y_t (e_k)$. Note that $Y_t (e_k) \sim \mathcal{N}_{\mathbb{C}} (0, 1 /
2)$ for all $k \in \mathbb{Z}_0$ and $t \in \mathbb{R}$, where we write
\[ U \sim \mathcal{N}_{\mathbb{C}} (0, \sigma^2) \]
if $U = V + i W$, where $V$ and $W$ are independent random variables with
distribution $\mathcal{N} (0, \sigma^2 / 2)$. The random distribution $Y_t$
then satisfies $Y_t (\varphi) \sim \mathcal{N} (0, \| \varphi \|_{L^2
(\mathbb{T})}^2 / 2)$, or in other words it is ($1 / \sqrt{2}$ times) the
white noise on $\mathbb{T}$. It is also possible to deduce that the white
noise on $\mathbb{T}$ is indeed the invariant measure of the
Ornstein--Uhlenbeck process, that it is the only one, and that it is
approached quite fast.
\
So we should expect that, at fixed time, the regularity of the
Ornstein--Uhlenbeck process is like that of the space white noise and this is
a way of understanding our difficulties in defining $X^2_t$ since this will
be, modulo smooth terms, the square of the space white noise.
\
A different matter is to make sense of the time--integral of $\partial_x
X^2_t$. Let us give it a name and call it $J_t (\varphi) = \int_0^t \partial_x
X_s^2 (\varphi) \mathrm{d} s$. For $J_t (e_k)$, the computation of its variance
gives a quite different result.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:OU square}Almost surely, $J \in C^{1 / 2 -} H^{- 1 / 2 -}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Proceeding as in~(\ref{eq:OU square variance}), we have now
\[ \mathbb{E} [| J_t (e_k) |^2] = 2 k^2 \int_0^t \int_0^t \sum_{\ell + m =
k} \mathbb{E} [X_s (e_{\ell}) X_{s'} (e_{- \ell})] \mathbb{E} [X_s
(e_m) X_{s'} (e_{- m})] \mathrm{d} s \mathrm{d} s' . \]
If $s > s'$, we have
\[ \mathbb{E} [X_s (e_{\ell}) X_{s'} (e_{- \ell})] = \frac{1}{2} e^{-
\ell^2 (s - s')} (1 - e^{- 2 \ell^2 s'}), \]
and therefore
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E} [| J_t (e_k) |^2] & = \frac{k^2}{2} \int_0^t \int_0^t \sum_{\ell + m = k} e^{- (\ell^2 + m^2) | s - s' |} (1 - e^{- 2 \ell^2(s' \wedge s)}) (1 - e^{- 2 m^2 (s' \wedge s)}) \mathrm{d} s \mathrm{d} s' \\
& \leqslant \frac{k^2}{2} \int_0^t \int_0^t \sum_{\ell + m = k} e^{-(\ell^2 + m^2) | s - s' |} \mathrm{d} s \mathrm{d} s' \leqslant k^2 t \sum_{\ell + m = k} \int_0^{\infty} e^{- (\ell^2 + m^2) r} \mathrm{d} r \\
& = k^2 t \sum_{\ell + m = k} \frac{1}{\ell^2 + m^2}.
\end{align*}
Now for $k \neq 0$
\[ \sum_{\ell + m = k} \frac{1}{\ell^2 + m^2} \lesssim \int_{\mathbb{R}}
\frac{\mathrm{d} x}{x^2 + (k - x)^2} \lesssim \frac{1}{| k |}, \]
so finally $\mathbb{E} [| J_t (e_k) |^2] \lesssim | k | t$. Redoing a
similar computation in the case $J_t (e_k) - J_s (e_k)$, we obtain
$\mathbb{E} [| J_t (e_k) - J_s (e_k) |^2] \lesssim | k | \times | t - s |$.
To go from this estimate to a path--wise regularity result of the
distribution $(J_t)_t$, following the line of reasoning of
Lemma~\ref{lemma:ou-regularity}, we need to estimate the $p$-th moment of
$J_t (e_k) - J_s (e_k)$. Gaussian hypercontractivity (see Theorem~3.50
of~{\cite{Janson1997}}) tells us that all $L^p$ moments of polynomials of
Gaussian random variables are equivalent and in particular that
\[ \mathbb{E} [| J_t (e_k) - J_s (e_k) |^{2 p}] \lesssim_p (\mathbb{E} [|
J_t (e_k) - J_s (e_k) |^2])^p . \]
From here we easily derive that almost surely $J \in C^{1 / 2 -} H^{- 1 / 2
-}$.
\end{proof}
This shows that $\partial_x X^2_t$ exists as a space--time distribution but
not as a continuous function of time with values in distributions in space.
The key point in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:OU square} is the fact that the
Ornstein--Uhlenbeck process decorrelates quite rapidly in time.
\
The construction of the process $J$ does not solve our problem since we need
similar properties for the full solution $u$ of the non--linear dynamics (or
for some approximations thereof), and all we have done so far relies on
explicit computations and the specific Gaussian features of the
Ornstein--Uhlenbeck process. But at least this give us a hint that indeed
there could exist a way of making sense of the term $\partial_x u (t, x)^2$,
even if only as a space--time distribution, and that in doing so we should
exploit some decorrelation properties of the dynamics.
\
So when dealing with the full solution $u$, we need a replacement for the
Gaussian computations used above. This will be provided, in the current
setting, by stochastic calculus along the time direction. Indeed, note that
for each $\varphi \in \mathscr{S}$ the process $(X_t (\varphi))_{t \geqslant 0}$ is a
semimartingale in the filtration $(\mathcal{F}_t)_{t \geqslant 0}$.
\
Before proceeding with these computations, we need to develop some tools to
describe the It{\^o} formula for functions of the Ornstein--Uhlenbeck process.
This will be also serve us as an opportunity to set up some analysis on
Gaussian spaces.
\subsection{Gaussian computations}
For cylindrical functions $F : \mathscr{S}' \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ of the form $F
(\rho) = f (\rho (\varphi_1), \ldots, \rho (\varphi_n))$ with $\varphi_1,
\ldots, \varphi_n \in \mathscr{S}$ and $f : \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ at
least $C^2_b$, we have by It{\^o}'s formula
\[ \mathrm{d}_t F (X_t) = \sum_{i = 1}^n F_i (X_t) \mathrm{d} X_t (\varphi_i) +
\frac{1}{2} \sum_{i, j = 1}^n F_{i, j} (X_t) \mathrm{d} \langle X (\varphi_i),
X (\varphi_j) \rangle_t, \]
where $\langle \rangle_t$ denotes the quadratic covariation of two continuous
semimartingales and where $F_i (\rho) = \partial_i f (\rho (\varphi_1),
\ldots, \rho (\varphi_n))$ and $F_{i, j} (\rho) = \partial_{i, j}^2 f (\rho
(\varphi_1), \ldots, \rho (\varphi_n))$, with $\partial_i$ denoting the
derivative with respect to the $i$-th argument. Now
\[ \mathrm{d} \langle X (\varphi_i), X (\varphi_j) \rangle_t = \mathrm{d} \langle M
(\varphi_i), M (\varphi_j) \rangle_t = \langle \partial_x \varphi_i,
\partial_x \varphi_j \rangle_{L^2 (\mathbb{T})} \mathrm{d} t, \]
and then
\[ \mathrm{d}_t F (X_t) = \sum_{i = 1}^n F_i (X_t) \mathrm{d} M_t (\varphi_i) + L_0 F
(X_t) \mathrm{d} t, \]
where $L_0$ is the second--order differential operator defined on cylindrical
functions $F$ as
\begin{equation}
L_0 F (\rho) = \sum_{i = 1}^n F_i (\rho) \rho (\Delta \varphi_i) + \sum_{i,
j = 1}^n \frac{1}{2} F_{i, j} (\rho) \langle \partial_x \varphi_i,
\partial_x \varphi_j \rangle_{L^2 (\mathbb{T})} .
\end{equation}
Another way to describe the generator $L_0$ is to give its value on the
functions $\rho \mapsto \exp (\rho (\psi))$ for $\psi \in \mathscr{S}$, which is
\[ L_0 e^{\rho (\psi)} = e^{\rho (\psi)} (\rho (\Delta \psi) - \frac{1}{2}
\langle \psi, \Delta \psi \rangle_{L^2 (\mathbb{T})}) . \]
If $F, G$ are two cylindrical functions (which we can take of the form $F
(\rho) = f (\rho (\varphi_1), \ldots, \rho (\varphi_n))$ and $G (\rho) = g
(\rho (\varphi_1), \ldots, \rho (\varphi_n))$ for the same $\varphi_1, \ldots,
\varphi_n \in \mathscr{S}$), we can check that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:L0 and E} L_0 (F G) = (L_0 F) G + F (L_0 G) +\mathcal{E} (F, G),
\end{equation}
where the quadratic form $\mathcal{E}$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{E} (F, G) (\rho) = \sum_{i, j} F_i (\rho) G_j (\rho) \langle
\partial_x \varphi_i, \partial_x \varphi_j \rangle_{L^2 (\mathbb{T})} .
\end{equation}
\begin{lemma}
(Gaussian integration by parts) Let $(Z_i)_{i = 1, \ldots, M}$ be a
$M$-dimensional Gaussian vector with zero mean and covariance $(C_{i,
j})_{i, j = 1, \ldots, M}$. Then for all $g \in C^1_b (\mathbb{R}^M)$ we
have
\[ \mathbb{E} [Z_k g (Z)] = \sum_{\ell} C_{k, \ell} \mathbb{E} \left[
\frac{\partial g (Z)}{\partial Z_{\ell}} \right] . \]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Use that $\mathbb{E} [e^{i \langle Z, \lambda \rangle}] = e^{- \langle
\lambda, C \lambda \rangle / 2}$ and moreover that
\[ \mathbb{E} [Z_k e^{i \langle Z, \lambda \rangle}] = (- i)
\frac{\partial}{\partial \lambda_k} \mathbb{E} [e^{i \langle Z, \lambda
\rangle}] = (- i) \frac{\partial}{\partial \lambda_k} e^{- \langle
\lambda, C \lambda \rangle / 2} = i (C \lambda)_k e^{- \langle \lambda, C
\lambda \rangle / 2} \]
\[ = i \sum_{\ell} C_{k, \ell} \lambda_{\ell} \mathbb{E} [e^{i \langle Z,
\lambda \rangle}] = \sum_{\ell} C_{k, \ell} \mathbb{E}
[\frac{\partial}{\partial Z_{\ell}} e^{i \langle Z, \lambda \rangle}] .
\]
The relation is true for trigonometric functions and taking Fourier
transforms we see that it holds for all $g \in \mathscr{S}$. Is then a matter of
taking limits to show that we can extend it to any $g \in C^1_b
(\mathbb{R}^M)$.
\end{proof}
As a first application of this formula let us show that $\mathbb{E} [L_0 F
(\eta)] = 0$ for every cylindrical function, where $\eta (\varphi) \sim
\mathcal{N} (0, \| \varphi \|_{L^2 (\mathbb{T})}^2 / 2)$ is a space white
noise. Indeed, note that $\mathbb{E} [\eta (\varphi_i) \eta (\Delta
\varphi_j)] = \frac{1}{2} \langle \varphi_i, \Delta \varphi_j \rangle_{L^2
(\mathbb{T})}$, leading to
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E} \sum_{i, j = 1}^n \frac{1}{2} F_{i, j} (\eta) \langle \partial_x \varphi_i, \partial_x \varphi_j \rangle_{L^2 (\mathbb{T})} &= -\mathbb{E} \sum_{i, j = 1}^n \frac{1}{2} F_{i, j} (\eta) \langle \varphi_i, \Delta \varphi_j \rangle_{L^2 (\mathbb{T})} \\
& = - \frac{1}{2} \sum_{i, j = 1}^n \langle \varphi_i, \Delta \varphi_j \rangle_{L^2 (\mathbb{T})} \mathbb{E} \frac{\partial}{\partial \eta (\varphi_i)} F_j (\eta) \\
& = - \sum_{j = 1}^n \mathbb{E} [\eta (\Delta \varphi_j) F_j (\eta)],
\end{align*}
so that $\mathbb{E} [L_0 F (\eta)] = 0$. In combination with It{\^o}'s
formula, this shows that the white noise law is indeed a stationary
distribution for $X$ (check it!). From now on we fix the initial distribution
$X_0 \sim \eta$, which means that $X_t \sim \eta$ for all $t \geqslant 0$.
As another application of the Gaussian integration by parts formula, we get
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{2} \mathbb{E} [\mathcal{E} (F, G) (\eta)] & = - \frac{1}{2} \sum_{i, j} \mathbb{E} [F_i (\eta) G_j (\eta)] \langle \varphi_i, \Delta \varphi_j \rangle_{L^2 (\mathbb{T})} . \\
& = - \frac{1}{2} \sum_{i, j} \mathbb{E} [(F (\eta) G_j (\eta))_i] \langle \varphi_i, \Delta \varphi_j \rangle_{L^2 (\mathbb{T})} \\
&\qquad + \frac{1}{2} \sum_{i, j} \mathbb{E} [F (\eta) G_{i j} (\eta)] \langle \varphi_i, \Delta \varphi_j \rangle_{L^2 (\mathbb{T})} \\
& = - \sum_j \mathbb{E} [F (\eta) G_j (\eta) \eta (\Delta \varphi_j)] + \frac{1}{2} \sum_{i, j} \mathbb{E} [F (\eta) G_{i j} (\eta)] \langle \varphi_i, \Delta \varphi_j \rangle_{L^2 (\mathbb{T})} \\
& = -\mathbb{E} [(FL_0 G) (\eta)].
\end{align*}
Combining this with~(\ref{eq:L0 and E}) and with $\mathbb{E} [L_0 (F G)
(\eta)] = 0$, we obtain $\mathbb{E} [(FL_0 G) (\eta)] =\mathbb{E} [(GL_0 F)
(\eta)]$. That is, $L_0$ is a symmetric operator with respect to the law of
$\eta$.
\
Consider now the operator $\mathrm{D}$, defined on cylindrical functions $F$ by
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{D} F (\rho) = \sum_i F_i (\rho) \varphi_i
\end{equation}
so that $\mathrm{D} F$ takes values in $\mathscr{S}'$, the continuous linear functionals
on $\mathscr{S}$.
\begin{exercise}
Show that $\mathrm{D}$ is independent of the specific representation of $F$,
that is if
\[ F (\rho) = f (\rho (\varphi_1), \ldots, \rho (\varphi_n)) = g (\rho
(\psi_1), \ldots, \rho (\psi_m)) \]
for all $\rho \in \mathscr{S}'$, then
\[ \sum_i \partial_i f (\rho (\varphi_1), \ldots, \rho (\varphi_n))
\varphi_i = \sum_j \partial_j g (\rho (\psi_1), \ldots, \rho (\psi_m))
\psi_m . \]
\tmtextbf{Hint:} One possible strategy is to show that for all $\theta \in
\mathscr{S}$,
\[ \langle \mathrm{D} F (\rho), \theta \rangle = \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}
\varepsilon} F (\rho + \varepsilon \theta) |_{\varepsilon = 0} . \]
\end{exercise}
\
We have
\[ \mathbb{E} [F (\eta) \langle \psi, \mathrm{D} G (\eta) \rangle] +\mathbb{E}
[G (\eta) \langle \psi, \mathrm{D} F (\eta) \rangle] = \sum_i \mathbb{E} [(F
G)_i (\eta) \langle \psi, \varphi_i \rangle] = 2\mathbb{E} [\eta (\psi)
(FG) (\eta)], \]
and therefore
\[ \mathbb{E} [F (\eta) \langle \psi, \mathrm{D} G (\eta) \rangle] =\mathbb{E}
[G (\eta) \langle \psi, \mathrm{D}^{\ast} F (\eta) \rangle] \]
with $\mathrm{D}^{\ast} F (\rho) = - \mathrm{D} F (\rho) + 2 \rho F (\rho)$ being the
adjoint of $\mathrm{D}$ for the scalar product in $L^2 (\tmop{law} (\eta))$. Let
$\mathrm{D}_{\psi} F = \langle \psi, \mathrm{D} F \rangle$ and similarly for
$\mathrm{D}^{\ast}_{\psi} F = - \mathrm{D}_{\psi} F + 2 \rho (\psi)$.
\begin{exercise}
Let $(e_n)_{n \geqslant 1}$ be an orthonormal basis of $L^2 (\mathbb{T})$.
Show that
\[ L_0 = \frac{1}{2} \sum_n \mathrm{D}^{\ast}_{e_n} \mathrm{D}_{\Delta e_n} . \]
\end{exercise}
\
The commutator between $\mathrm{D}_{\theta}$ and $\mathrm{D}^{\ast}_{\psi}$ is given
by
\[ [\mathrm{D}_{\theta}, \mathrm{D}^{\ast}_{\psi}] F (\rho) := (\mathrm{D}_{\theta}
\mathrm{D}^{\ast}_{\psi} - \mathrm{D}^{\ast}_{\psi} \mathrm{D}_{\theta}) F (\rho) = 2
\langle \psi, \theta \rangle_{L^2 (\mathbb{T})} F (\rho), \]
whereas $[\mathrm{D}^{\ast}_{\theta}, \mathrm{D}^{\ast}_{\psi}] = 0$. Therefore,
\[ [L_0, \mathrm{D}^{\ast}_{\psi}] = \frac{1}{2} \sum_n [\mathrm{D}^{\ast}_{e_n}
\mathrm{D}_{\Delta e_n}, \mathrm{D}^{\ast}_{\psi}] = \frac{1}{2} \sum_n
\mathrm{D}^{\ast}_{e_n} [\mathrm{D}_{\Delta e_n}, \mathrm{D}^{\ast}_{\psi}] +
\frac{1}{2} \sum_n [\mathrm{D}^{\ast}_{e_n}, \mathrm{D}^{\ast}_{\psi}]
\mathrm{D}_{\Delta e_n} \]
\[ = \sum_n \mathrm{D}^{\ast}_{e_n} \langle \psi, \Delta e_n \rangle_{L^2
(\mathbb{T})} = \mathrm{D}^{\ast}_{\Delta \psi} . \]
So if $\psi$ is an eigenvector of $\Delta$ with eigenvalue $\lambda$, then
$[L_0, D^{\ast}_{\psi}] = \lambda \mathrm{D}^{\ast}_{\psi}$. Let now $(\psi_n)_{n
\in \mathbb{N}}$ be an orthonormal eigenbasis for $\Delta$ with eigenvalues
$\Delta \psi_n = \lambda_n$ and consider the functions
\[ H (\psi_{i_1}, \ldots, \psi_{i_n}) : \mathscr{S} \rightarrow \mathbb{R},
\hspace{2em} H (\psi_{i_1}, \ldots, \psi_{i_n}) (\rho) = \left(
\mathrm{D}^{\ast}_{\psi_{i_1}} \cdots \mathrm{D}^{\ast}_{\psi_{i_n}} 1 \right)
(\rho) . \]
Then
\begin{align}\label{eq:L0-eigenvalues}
L_0 H (\psi_{i_1}, \ldots, \psi_{i_n}) & = L_0 \mathrm{D}^{\ast}_{\psi_{i_1}} \cdots \mathrm{D}^{\ast}_{\psi_{i_n}} 1 = \mathrm{D}^{\ast}_{\psi_{i_1}} L_0 \mathrm{D}^{\ast}_{\psi_{i_2}} \cdots \mathrm{D}^{\ast}_{\psi_{i_n}} 1 + \lambda_{i_1} \mathrm{D}^{\ast}_{\psi_{i_1}} \cdots \mathrm{D}^{\ast}_{\psi_{i_n}} 1 \\ \nonumber
& = \cdots = (\lambda_{i_1} + \cdots + \lambda_{i_n}) H (\psi_{i_1}, \ldots,
\psi_{i_n}),
\end{align}
where we used that $L_0 1 = 0$. So these functions are eigenfunctions for
$L_0$ and the eigenvalues are all the possible combinations of $\lambda_{i_1}
+ \cdots + \lambda_{i_n}$ for $i_1, \ldots, i_n \in \mathbb{N}$. We have
immediately that for different $n$ these functions are orthogonal in $L^2
(\tmop{law} (\eta))$. They are actually orthogonal as soon as the indices $i$
differ since in that case there is an index $j$ which is in one but not in the
other and using the fact that $\mathrm{D}^{\ast}_{\psi_j}$ is adjoint to
$D_{\psi_j}$ and that $D_{\psi_j} G = 0$ if $G$ does not depend on $\psi_j$ we
get the orthogonality. The functions $H (\psi_{i_1}, \ldots, \psi_{i_n})$ are
polynomials and they are called \tmtextit{Wick polynomials}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:exp-D-star}For all $\psi \in \mathscr{S}$, almost surely
\[ (e^{\mathrm{D}^{\ast}_{\psi}} 1) (\eta) = e^{2 \eta (\psi) - \| \psi \|^2} .
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
If $F$ is a cylindrical function of the form $F (\rho) = f (\rho
(\varphi_1), \ldots, \rho (\varphi_m))$ with $f \in \mathscr{S} (\mathbb{R}^m)$,
then
\[ \mathbb{E} [F (\eta) (e^{\mathrm{D}^{\ast}_{\psi}} 1) (\eta)] =\mathbb{E}
[e^{\mathrm{D}_{\psi}} F (\eta)] =\mathbb{E} [F (\eta + \psi)] =\mathbb{E}
[F (\eta) e^{2 \eta (\psi) - \| \psi \|^2}], \]
where the second step follows from the fact that if we note $\Psi_t (\eta) =
F (\eta + t \psi)$ we have $\partial_t \Psi_t (\eta) = \mathrm{D}_{\psi} \Psi_t
(\eta)$ and $\Psi_0 (\eta) = F (\eta)$ so that $\Psi_t (\eta) = (e^{t
\mathrm{D}_{\psi}} F) (\eta)$ for all $t \geqslant 0$ and in particular for $t =
1$. The last step is simply a Gaussian change of variables. Indeed if we
take $\varphi_1 = \psi$ and $\varphi_k \bot \psi$ for $k \geqslant 2$ we
have
\[ \mathbb{E} [F (\eta + \psi)] =\mathbb{E} [f (\eta (\psi) + \langle
\psi, \psi \rangle, \eta (\varphi_2), \ldots, \eta (\varphi_m))] \]
since $(\eta + \psi) (\varphi_k) = \eta (\varphi_k)$ for $k \geqslant 2$.
Now observe that $\eta (\psi)$ is independent of $(\eta (\varphi_2), \ldots,
\eta (\varphi_m))$ so that
\[ \mathbb{E} [f (\eta (\psi) + \langle \psi, \psi \rangle, \eta
(\varphi_2), \ldots, \eta (\varphi_m))] = \int_{\mathbb{R}} \frac{e^{-
z^2 / \| \psi \|^2}}{\sqrt{\pi \| \psi \|^2}} \mathbb{E} [f (z + \langle
\psi, \psi \rangle, \eta (\varphi_2), \ldots, \eta (\varphi_m))] \]
\[ = \int_{\mathbb{R}} \frac{e^{- z^2 / \| \psi \|^2}}{\sqrt{\pi \| \psi
\|^2}} e^{2 z - \| \psi \|^2} \mathbb{E} [f (z, \eta (\varphi_2),
\ldots, \eta (\varphi_m))] =\mathbb{E} [F (\eta) e^{2 \eta (\psi) - \|
\psi \|^2}] . \]
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}
The Wick polynomials $\{ H (\psi_{i_1}, \ldots, \psi_{i_n}) (\eta) : n
\geqslant 0, i_1, \ldots, i_n \in \mathbb{N} \}$ form an orthogonal basis
of $L^2 (\tmop{law} (\eta))$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Taking $\psi = \sum_i \sigma_i \psi_i$ in Lemma~\ref{lem:exp-D-star}, we get
\begin{align*}
e^{2 \sum_i \sigma_i \eta (\psi_i) - \sum_i \sigma_i^2 \| \psi_i \|^2} & = (e^{\mathrm{D}^{\ast}_{\psi}} 1) (\eta) = \sum_{n \geqslant 0} \frac{((\mathrm{D}^{\ast}_{\psi})^n 1) (\eta)}{n!} \\
& = \sum_{n \geqslant 0} \sum_{i_1, \ldots, i_n} \frac{\sigma_{i_1} \cdots \sigma_{i_n}}{n!} H(\underbrace{_{} \psi_{i_1}, \ldots, \psi_{i_n}}_{n \tmop{times}})(\eta),
\end{align*}
which is enough to show that any random variable in $L^2$ can be expanded in
a series of Wick polynomials showing that the Wick polynomials are an
orthogonal basis of $L^2 (\tmop{law} (\eta))$ (but they are still not
normalized). Indeed assume that $Z \in L^2 (\tmop{law} (\eta))$ but $Z \bot
H (\psi_{i_1}, \ldots, \psi_{i_n}) (\eta)$ for all $n \geqslant 0$, $i_1,
\ldots, i_n \in \mathbb{N}$, then
\[ 0 = e^{\sum_i \sigma_i^2 \| \psi_i \|^2} \mathbb{E} [Z
(e^{\mathrm{D}^{\ast}_{\psi}} 1) (\eta)] = e^{\sum_i \sigma_i^2 \| \psi_i
\|^2} \mathbb{E} [Z e^{2 \sum_i \sigma_i \eta (\psi_i) - \sum_i
\sigma_i^2 \| \psi_i \|^2}] =\mathbb{E} [Z e^{2 \sum_i \sigma_i \eta
(\psi_i)}] . \]
Since the $\sigma_i$ are arbitrary, this means that $Z$ is orthogonal to any
polynomial in $\eta$ and then that it is orthogonal also to $\exp \left( i
\sum_i \sigma_i \eta (\psi_i) \right)$. So let $f \in \mathscr{S} (\mathbb{R}^M)$
and $\sigma_i = 0$ for $i > m$, and observe that
\[ 0 = (2 \pi)^{- m / 2} \int \mathrm{d} \sigma_1 \cdots \mathrm{d} \sigma_m \mathscr{F} f
(\sigma_1, \ldots, \sigma_m) \mathbb{E} [Z e^{i \sum_i \sigma_i \eta
(\psi_i)}] =\mathbb{E} [Z f (\eta (\psi_1), \ldots, \eta (\psi_M))], \]
which means that $Z$ is orthogonal to all the random variables in $L^2$
which are measurable with respect to the $\sigma$--field generated by $(\eta
(\psi_n))_{n \geqslant 0}$. This implies $Z = 0$. That is, Wick polynomials
form a basis for $L^2 (\tmop{law} (\eta))$.
\end{proof}
\begin{example}
The first few (un--normalized) Wick polynomials are
\[ H (\psi_i) (\rho) = \mathrm{D}^{\ast}_{\psi_i} 1 = 2 \rho (\psi_i), \]
\[ H (\psi_i, \psi_j) (\rho) = \mathrm{D}^{\ast}_{\psi_i} \mathrm{D}^{\ast}_{\psi_j}
1 = 2 \mathrm{D}^{\ast}_{\psi_i} \rho (\psi_j) = - 2 \delta_{i = j} + 4 \rho
(\psi_i) \rho (\psi_j), \]
and
\begin{align*}
H (\psi_i, \psi_j, \psi_k) (\rho) & = \mathrm{D}^{\ast}_{\psi_i} (- 2 \delta_{j= k} + 4 \rho (\psi_j) \rho (\psi_k)) \\
& = - 4 \delta_{j = k} \rho (\psi_i) - 4 \delta_{i = j} \rho (\psi_k) - 4 \delta_{i = k} \rho (\psi_j) + 8 \rho (\psi_i) \rho (\psi_j) \rho (\psi_k).
\end{align*}
\end{example}
Some other properties of Wick polynomials can be derived using the commutation
relation between $\mathrm{D}$ and $\mathrm{D}^{\ast}$. By linearity
$\mathrm{D}^{\ast}_{\varphi + \psi} = \mathrm{D}^{\ast}_{\varphi} +
\mathrm{D}^{\ast}_{\psi}$, so that using the symmetry of $H$ we get
\[ H_n (\varphi + \psi) := H \underbrace{(\varphi + \psi, \ldots, \varphi
+ \psi)}_n = \sum_{0 \leqslant k \leqslant n} \binom{n}{k} H
(\underbrace{\varphi, \ldots, \varphi}_k, \underbrace{\psi, \ldots,
\psi}_{n - k}) . \]
Then note that by Lemma~\ref{lem:exp-D-star} we have
\begin{align*}
(e^{\mathrm{D}^{\ast}_{\varphi}} 1) (\eta) (e^{\mathrm{D}^{\ast}_{\psi}} 1) (\eta)& = e^{\eta (\varphi) - \frac{1}{4} \| \varphi \|^2} e^{\eta (\psi) - \frac{1}{4} \| \psi \|^2} = e^{\eta (\varphi + \psi) - \frac{1}{4} \| \varphi + \psi \|^2 + \frac{1}{2} \langle \varphi, \psi \rangle} \\
& = (e^{\mathrm{D}^{\ast}_{\varphi + \psi}} 1) (\eta) e^{\frac{1}{2} \langle \varphi, \psi \rangle}.
\end{align*}
Expanding the exponentials,
\[ \sum_{m, n} \frac{H_m (\varphi)}{m!} \frac{H_n (\psi)}{n!} = \sum_{r,
\ell} \frac{H_r (\varphi + \psi)}{r!} \frac{\left( \frac{1}{2} \langle
\varphi, \psi \rangle \right)^{\ell}}{\ell !} = \sum_{p, q, \ell} \frac{H
(\overbrace{\varphi, \ldots, \varphi}^p, \overbrace{\psi, \ldots,
\psi}^q)}{p!q!} \frac{\left( \frac{1}{2} \langle \varphi, \psi \rangle
\right)^{\ell}}{\ell !}, \]
and identifying the terms of the same homogeneity in $\varphi$ and $\psi$
respectively we get
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:wick polynomial product} H_m (\varphi) H_n (\psi) = \sum_{p + \ell
= m} \sum_{q + \ell = n} \frac{m!n!}{p!q! \ell !} H (\overbrace{\varphi,
\ldots, \varphi}^p, \overbrace{\psi, \ldots, \psi}^q) \left( \frac{1}{2}
\langle \varphi, \psi \rangle \right)^{\ell} .
\end{equation}
This gives a general formula for such products. By polarization of this
multilinear form, we can also get a general formula for the products of
general Wick polynomials. Indeed taking $\varphi = \sum_{i = 1}^m \kappa_i
\varphi_i$ and $\psi = \sum_{j = 1}^n \lambda_j \psi_j$ for arbitrary real
coefficients $\kappa_1, \ldots, \kappa_m$ and $\lambda_1, \ldots, \lambda_n$,
we have
\begin{align*}
&H_m (\sum_{i = 1}^m \kappa_i \varphi_i) H_n (\sum_{j = 1}^n \lambda_j \psi_j) \\
&\hspace{50pt} = \sum_{i_1, \ldots, i_m} \sum_{j_1, \ldots, j_n} \kappa_{i_1} \cdots \kappa_{i_m} \lambda_{j_1} \cdots \lambda_{j_m} H (\varphi_1, \ldots, \varphi_m) H (\psi_{j_1}, \ldots, \psi_{j_n}).
\end{align*}
Deriving this with respect to all the $\kappa, \lambda$ parameters and setting
them to zero, we single out the term
\[ \sum_{\sigma \in S_m, \omega \in S_n} H (\varphi_{\sigma (1)}, \ldots,
\varphi_{\sigma (m)}) H (\psi_{\omega (1)}, \ldots, \psi_{\omega (n)}) =
m!n!H (\varphi_1, \ldots, \varphi_m) H (\psi_1, \ldots, \psi_n), \]
where $S_k$ denotes the symmetric group on $\{ 1, \ldots, k \}$, and where we
used the symmetry of the Wick polynomials. Doing the same also for the right
hand side of~(\ref{eq:wick polynomial product}) we get
\begin{align*}
& H (\varphi_1, \ldots, \varphi_m) H (\psi_1, \ldots, \psi_n) \\
&\hspace{50pt} = \sum_{p +\ell = m} \sum_{q + \ell = n} \frac{1}{p!q! \ell !} \sum_{i, j} H(\overbrace{\varphi_{i_1}, \ldots, \varphi_{i_p}}^p, \overbrace{\psi_{j_1}, \ldots, \psi_{j_q}}^q) \prod_{r = 1}^{\ell} \langle \varphi_{i_{p + r}}, \psi_{j_{q + r}} \rangle,
\end{align*}
where the sum over $i, j$ runs over $i_1, \ldots, i_n$ permutation of $1,
\ldots, n$ and similarly for $j_1, \ldots, j_m$. In particular, we obtain
\[ \mathbb{E} [H (\psi_1, \ldots, \psi_n) H (\psi_1, \ldots, \psi_n)] =
\frac{1}{n!} \sum_{i, j} \prod_{r = 1}^n \langle \psi_{i_r}, \psi_{j_r}
\rangle = \sum_{\sigma \in S_n} \prod_{r = 1}^n \langle \psi_r,
\psi_{\sigma (r)} \rangle . \]
\begin{remark}
In our problem it will be convenient to take the Fourier basis as basis in
the above computations. Let $e_k (x) = \exp (i k x) / \sqrt{2 \pi} = a_k (x)
+ ib_k (x)$ where $\left( \sqrt{2} a_k \right)_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$ and
$\left( \sqrt{2} b_k \right)_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$ form together a real
valued orthonormal basis for $L^2 (\mathbb{T})$. Then $\rho (e_k)^{\ast} =
\rho (e_{- k})$ whenever $\rho$ is real valued, and we will denote $\mathrm{D}_k
= \mathrm{D}_{e_k} = \mathrm{D}_{a_k} + i \mathrm{D}_{b_k}$ and similarly for
$\mathrm{D}^{\ast}_k = \mathrm{D}_{a_k}^{\ast} - i \mathrm{D}_{b_k}^{\ast} = - \mathrm{D}_{-
k} + 2 \rho (e_{- k})$. In this way, $\mathrm{D}^{\ast}_k$ is the adjoint of
$\mathrm{D}_k$ with respect to the Hermitian scalar product on $L^2 (\Omega ;
\mathbb{C})$ and the Ornstein--Uhlenbeck generator takes the form
\begin{equation}
L_0 = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{k \in \mathbb{N}} (\mathrm{D}_{\partial_x a_k}^{\ast}
\mathrm{D}_{\partial_x a_k} + \mathrm{D}_{\partial_x b_k}^{\ast}
\mathrm{D}_{\partial_x b_k}) = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z}} k^2
\mathrm{D}_k^{\ast} \mathrm{D}_k
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{E} (F, G) = \sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z}} k^2 (\mathrm{D}_k F)^{\ast}
(\mathrm{D}_k G) .
\end{equation}
\end{remark}
\subsection{The It{\^o} trick}
We are ready now to start our computations. Recall that we want to analyse
$J_t (\varphi) = \int_0^t \partial_x X_s^2 (\varphi) \mathrm{d} s$ using It{\^o}
calculus with respect to the Ornstein--Uhlenbeck process. We want to
understand $J_t$ as a correction term in It{\^o}'s formula, so we have to find
a function $F$ such that $L_0 F (X_t) = \partial_x X_t^2$. Of course, $F$ will
not be a cylindrical function but we only defined $L_0$ on cylindrical
functions. So to make the following calculations rigorous we would again have
to replace $\partial_x X_t^2$ by $\partial_x \Pi_n X^2_t$ and then pass to the
limit, see the paper~{\cite{gubinelli_regularization_2013}} for details. As
before we will perform the calculations already in the limit $N = + \infty$,
in order to simplify the computations and not to obscure the ideas through
technicalities.
Note that
\[ \partial_x X_t^2 (e_k) = ik \sum_{\ell + m = k} X_t (e_{\ell}) X_t (e_m) =
i k \sum_{\ell + m = k} H_{\ell, m} (X_t), \]
where $H_{\ell, m} (\rho) = \frac{1}{4} (\mathrm{D}^{\ast}_{- \ell}
\mathrm{D}^{\ast}_{- m} 1) (\rho) = \rho (e_{\ell}) \rho (e_m) - \frac{1}{2}
\delta_{\ell + m = 0}$ is a second order Hermite polynomial so that $L_0
H_{\ell, m} = - (\ell^2 + m^2) H_{\ell, m}$ by~(\ref{eq:L0-eigenvalues}).
Therefore, it is enough to take
\begin{equation}
F (X_t) (e_k) = - ik \sum_{\ell + m = k} \frac{H_{\ell, m} (X_t)}{\ell^2 +
m^2} .
\end{equation}
This corresponds to the distribution $F (X_t) (\varphi) = - \int_0^{\infty}
\partial_x (e^{s \Delta} X_t)^2 (\varphi) \mathrm{d} s$ (check it!). Then
\[ F (X_t) (\varphi) = F (X_0) (\varphi) + M_{F, t} (\varphi) + J_t (\varphi),
\]
where $M_{F, t} (\varphi)$ is a martingale with quadratic variation
\[ \mathrm{d} \langle M_{F, \ast} (\varphi), M_{F, \ast} (\varphi) \rangle_t
=\mathcal{E} (F (\ast) (\varphi), F (\ast) (\varphi)) (X_t) \mathrm{d} t. \]
We can estimate
\[ \mathbb{E} [| J_t (\varphi) - J_s (\varphi) |^{2 p}] \lesssim_p
\mathbb{E} [| M_{F, t} (\varphi) - M_{F, s} (\varphi) |^{2 p}]
+\mathbb{E} [| F (X_t) (\varphi) - F (X_s) (\varphi) |^{2 p}] . \]
To bound the martingale expectation, we will use the following Burkholder
inequality:
\begin{lemma}
Let $m$ be a continuous local martingale with $m_0 = 0$. Then for all $T
\geqslant 0$ and $p > 1$,
\[ \mathbb{E} [\sup_{t \leqslant T} | m_t |^{2 p}] \leqslant C_p
\mathbb{E} [\langle m \rangle_T^p] . \]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Start by assuming that $m$ and $\langle m \rangle$ are bounded. It{\^o}'s
formula yields
\[ \mathrm{d} | m_t |^{2 p} = (2 p) | m_t |^{2 p - 1} \mathrm{d} m_t + \frac{1}{2}
(2 p) (2 p - 1) | m_t |^{2 p - 2} \mathrm{d} \langle m \rangle_t, \]
and therefore
\[ \mathbb{E} [| m_T |^{2 p}] = C_p \mathbb{E} \left[ \int_0^T | m_s |^{2
p - 2} \mathrm{d} \langle m \rangle_s \right] \leqslant C_p \mathbb{E}
[\sup_{t \leqslant T} | m_t |^{2 p - 2} \langle m \rangle_T] . \]
By Cauchy--Schwartz we get
\[ \mathbb{E} [| m_T |^{2 p}] \leqslant C_p \mathbb{E} [\sup_{t \leqslant
T} | m_t |^{2 p}]^{(2 p - 2) / 2 p} \mathbb{E} [\langle m
\rangle_T^p]^{1 / p} . \]
But now Doob's $L^p$ inequality yields $\mathbb{E} [\sup_{t \leqslant T} |
m_t |^{2 p}] \leqslant C'_p \mathbb{E} [| m_T |^{2 p}]$, and this implies
the claim in the bounded case. The unbounded case can be treated with a
localization argument.
\end{proof}
Applying Burkholder's inequality, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E} [| J_t (\varphi) - J_s (\varphi) |^{2 p}] & \lesssim_p \mathbb{E} \left[ \left| \int_s^t \mathcal{E} (F (\ast) (\varphi), F (\ast) (\varphi)) (X_r) \mathrm{d} r \right|^p \right] +\mathbb{E} [| F (X_t)(\varphi) - F (X_s) (\varphi) |^{2 p}] \\
& \leqslant (t - s)^{p - 1} \int_s^t \mathbb{E} [| \mathcal{E} (F (\ast)(\varphi), F (\ast) (\varphi)) (X_r) |^p] \mathrm{d} r \\
&\qquad +\mathbb{E} [| F (X_t) (\varphi) - F (X_s) (\varphi) |^{2 p}] \\
& = (t - s)^p \mathbb{E} [| \mathcal{E} (F (\ast) (\varphi), F (\ast)(\varphi)) (\eta) |^p] +\mathbb{E} [| F (X_t) (\varphi) - F (X_s) (\varphi) |^{2 p}],
\end{align*}
using that $X_r \sim \eta$. Now
\[ \mathrm{D}_m F (\rho) (e_k) = - 2 ik \frac{\rho (e_{k + m})}{(k + m)^2 + (-
m)^2}, \]
and therefore
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{E} (F (\ast) (e_k), F (\ast) (e_k)) (\rho) & = \sum_m m^2 \mathrm{D}_{- m} F (\rho) (e_{- k}) \mathrm{D}_m F (\rho) (e_k) \\
& = 4 k^2 \sum_{\ell + m = k} m^2 \frac{| \rho (e_{\ell}) |^2}{(\ell^2 + m^2)^2} \lesssim k^2 \sum_{\ell + m = k} \frac{| \rho (e_{\ell}) |^2}{\ell^2 + m^2},
\end{align*}
which implies that
\[ \mathbb{E} [| \mathcal{E} (F (\ast) (e_k), F (\ast) (e_k)) (\eta) |]
\lesssim k^2 \mathbb{E} \sum_{\ell + m = k} \frac{| \eta (e_{\ell})
|^2}{\ell^2 + m^2} \lesssim k^2 \sum_{\ell + m = k} \frac{1}{\ell^2 + m^2}
\lesssim | k | . \]
A similar computation gives also that
\[ \mathbb{E} [| \mathcal{E} (F (\ast) (e_k), F (\ast) (e_k)) (\eta) |^p]
\lesssim | k |^p . \]
Further, we have
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E} [| F (X_t) (e_k) - F (X_s) (e_k) |^2] & \lesssim k^2 \sum_{\ell + m = k} \mathbb{E} \left[ \frac{(H_{\ell, m} (X_t) - H_{\ell, m} (X_s))^2}{(\ell^2 + m^2)^2} \right] \\
& \lesssim k^2 | t - s | \sum_{\ell + m = k} \frac{m^2}{(\ell^2 + m^2)^2} \lesssim | k | | t - s |.
\end{align*}
And finally, this computation lets us recover the result that
\[ \mathbb{E} [| J_t (e_k) - J_s (e_k) |^{2 p}] \lesssim_p (t - s)^p | k |^p
. \]
The advantage of the It{\^o} trick with respect to the explicit Gaussian
computation is that it goes over to the non--Gaussian case. Indeed note that
while the boundary term $F (X_t) (\varphi) - F (X_s) (\varphi)$ has been
estimated using a lot of the Gaussian information about $X$, we used only the
law at a fixed time to handle the term $\int_s^t \mathcal{E} (F (\ast)
(\varphi), F (\ast) (\varphi)) (X_r) \mathrm{d} r$.
\
In order to carry over these computation to the full process $u$ solution of
the non--linear dynamics we need to replace the generator of $X$ with that of
$u$ and to have a way to handle the boundary terms. The idea is now to reverse
the Markov process $u$ in time, which will allow us to kill the antisymmetric
part of the generator and at the same time kill the boundary terms. Indeed
observe that if $u$ solves the stochastic Burgers equation, then formally we
have the It{\^o} formula
\[ \mathrm{d}_t F (u_t) = \sum_{i = 1}^n F_i (u_t) \mathrm{d} M_t (\varphi_i) + L F
(u_t) \mathrm{d} t, \]
where $L$ is now the full generator of the non--linear dynamics, given by
\[ L F (\rho) = L_0 F (\rho) + \sum_i F_i (\rho) \langle \partial_x \rho^2,
\varphi_i \rangle = L_0 F (\rho) + B F (\rho), \]
where
\[ B F (\rho) = \sum_k (\partial_x \rho^2) (e_k) \mathrm{D}_k F (\rho) . \]
Formally, the non--linear term is antisymmetric with respect to the
invariant measure of $L_0$. Indeed since $B$ is a first order operator
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:antisymmetry of nonlinear}
\mathbb{E} [(B F (\eta)) G (\eta)] =\mathbb{E} [(B (F G) (\eta))]
-\mathbb{E} [F (\eta) (B G (\eta))] = -\mathbb{E} [F (\eta) (B G (\eta))]
\end{equation}
provided $\mathbb{E} [B F (\eta)]=0$ for any cylinder function $F$. Let us show this.
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E} [B F (\eta)] & = \sum_k \mathbb{E} [(\partial_x \eta^2) (e_k)
\mathrm{D}_k F (\eta)]\\
& = \sum_k \mathbb{E} [(\mathrm{D}_k (\partial_x \eta^2) (e_k)) F (\eta)] +
\sum_k \mathbb{E} [\mathrm{D}_k [(\partial_x \eta^2) (e_k) F (\eta)]]
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
But now, using that $e_k^{\ast} e_k = 1 / (2 \pi)$ and that $\langle \eta, 1
\rangle$ we have
\begin{equation*}
\mathrm{D}_k (\partial_x \eta^2) (e_k) = 2 \langle \partial_x (\eta e_k), e_k
\rangle = - 2 i k \langle \eta e_k, e_k \rangle = - 2 i k \langle \eta,
e_k^{\ast} e_k \rangle = - \frac{2 ik}{2 \pi} \langle \eta, 1 \rangle = 0
\end{equation*}
and using the Gaussian integration by parts
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E} [B F (\eta)] &= \sum_k \mathbb{E} [\mathrm{D}_k [(\partial_x
\eta^2) (e_k) F (\eta)]] = - \sum_k \mathbb{E} [\eta (e_k) (\partial_x
\eta^2) (e_k) F (\eta)] \\
& = -\mathbb{E} [\langle \eta, \partial_x \eta^2 \rangle F (\eta)] = -
\frac{1}{3} \mathbb{E} [\langle 1, \partial_x \eta^3 \rangle F (\eta)] = 0
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
since $- \langle 1, \partial_x \eta^3 \rangle = \langle \partial_x 1, \eta^3
\rangle = 0$.
\medskip
The dynamics of $u$ backwards in time has a Markovian description which is the
subject of the next exercise.
\begin{exercise}
Let $(y_t)_{t \geqslant 0}$ be a stationary Markov process on a Polish
space, with semigroup $(P_t)_{t \geqslant 0}$ and stationary distribution
${\mu}$. Show that if $P^{\ast}_t$ is the adjoint of $P_t$ in $L^2
({\mu})$, then $(P^{\ast}_t)$ is a semigroup of operators on $L^2
({\mu})$ (that is $P^{\ast}_0 = \tmop{id}$ and $P^{\ast}_{s + t} =
P^{\ast}_s P^{\ast}_t$ as operators on $L^2 ({\mu})$). Show that if $y_0
\sim {\mu}$, then for all $T > 0$ the process $\hat{y}_t = y_{T - t}$,
$t \in [0, T]$, is also Markov, with semigroup $(P^{\ast}_t)_{t \in [0,
T]}$, and that ${\mu}$ is also an invariant distribution for
$(P^{\ast}_t)$. Show also that if $(P_t)$ has generator $L$ then
$(P^{\ast}_t)$ has generator $L^{\ast}$ which is the adjoint of $L$ with
respect to $L^2 ({\mu})$.
\end{exercise}
Now if we reverse the process in time letting $\hat{u}_t = u_{T - t}$, we have
by stationarity
\[ \mathbb{E} [F (\hat{u}_t) G (\hat{u}_0)] =\mathbb{E} [F (u_{T - t}) G
(u_T)] =\mathbb{E} [F (u_0) G (u_t)] . \]
So if we denote by $\hat{L}$ the generator of $\hat{u}$:
\[ \mathbb{E} [\hat{L} F (\hat{u}_0) G (\hat{u}_0)] = \left.
\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} t} \right|_{t = 0} \mathbb{E} [F (\hat{u}_t) G
(\hat{u}_0)] = \left. \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} t} \right|_{t = 0} \mathbb{E}
[F (u_0) G (u_t)] =\mathbb{E} [L G (u_0) F (u_0)], \]
which means that $\hat{L}$ is the adjoint of $L$, that is
\[ \hat{L} F (\rho) = L_0 F (\rho) - B F (\rho) = L_0 F (\rho) - \sum_k
(\partial_x \rho^2) (e_k) \mathrm{D}_k F (\rho) . \]
Then It{\^o}'s formula for the reversed process gives
\[ \mathrm{d}_t F (\hat{u}_t) = \sum_{i = 1}^n F_i (\hat{u}_t) \mathrm{d} \hat{M}_t
(\varphi_i) + \hat{L} F (\hat{u}_t) \mathrm{d} t, \]
where for all test functions $\varphi$, the process $\hat{M} (\varphi)$ is a
martingale in the filtration of $\hat{u}$ with covariance
\[ \mathrm{d} \langle \hat{M} (\varphi), \hat{M} (\psi) \rangle_t = \langle
\partial_x \varphi, \partial_x \psi \rangle_{L^2 (\mathbb{T})} \mathrm{d} t.
\]
Combining the It{\^o} formulas for $u$ and $\hat{u}$, we get
\[ F (u_T) (\varphi) = F (u_0) (\varphi) + M_{F, T} (\varphi) + \int_0^T L F
(u_s) (\varphi) \mathrm{d} s \]
and
\begin{align*}
F (u_0) (\varphi) & = F (\hat{u}_T) (\varphi) = F (\hat{u}_0) (\varphi) + \hat{M}_{F, T} (\varphi) + \int_0^T \hat{L} F (\hat{u}_s) (\varphi) \mathrm{d} s \\
& = F (u_T) (\varphi) + \hat{M}_{F, T} (\varphi) + \int_0^T \hat{L} F (u_s) (\varphi) \mathrm{d} s,
\end{align*}
and summing up these two equalities gives
\[ 0 = M_{F, T} (\varphi) + \hat{M}_{F, T} (\varphi) + \int_0^T (\hat{L} + L)
F (u_s) (\varphi) \mathrm{d} s, \]
that is
\[ 2 \int_0^T L_0 F (u_s) (\varphi) \mathrm{d} s = - M_{F, T} (\varphi) -
\hat{M}_{F, T} (\varphi) . \]
An added benefit of this forward--backward representation is that only term
which required quite a lot of informations about $X$, that is the boundary
term $F (X_t) (\varphi) - F (X_s) (\varphi)$ does not appear at all now. As
above if $2 L_0 F (\rho) = \partial_x \rho^2$, we end up with
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:martingale trick sbe} \int_0^T \partial_x u_s^2 (\varphi) \mathrm{d}
s = - M_{F, T} (\varphi) - \hat{M}_{F, T} (\varphi) .
\end{equation}
\
\begin{exercise}
Perform a similar formal calculation as in~(\ref{eq:antisymmetry of
nonlinear}) to see that $\mathbb{E} [L F (\eta)] = 0$ for all cylindrical
functions $F$, so that $\eta$ is also invariant for the stochastic Burgers
equation. Combine this with~(\ref{eq:martingale trick sbe}) to show that
setting $\mathcal{N}_t^N (\varphi) = \int_0^t \partial_x (\Pi_N u_s)^2
(\varphi) \mathrm{d} s$ we have
\[ \mathbb{E} [| \mathcal{N}_t^N (e_k) -\mathcal{N}_s^N (e_k) |^{2 p}]
\lesssim_p (t - s)^p | k |^p \]
and letting $\mathcal{N}_t^{N, M} =\mathcal{N}_t^N -\mathcal{N}_t^M$ we get
\[ \mathbb{E} [| \mathcal{N}_t^{N, M} (e_k) -\mathcal{N}_s^{N, M} (e_k)
|^{2 p}] \lesssim_p (| k | / N)^{\varepsilon p} (t - s)^p | k |^p \]
for all $1 \leqslant N \leqslant M$. Use this to derive that
\[ (\mathbb{E} [\| \mathcal{N}_t^{N, M} -\mathcal{N}_s^{N, M} \|^{2
p}_{H^{\alpha}}])^{1 / 2 p} \lesssim_{p, \alpha} N^{- \varepsilon / 2} (t
- s)^{1 / 2} \]
for all $\alpha < - 1 - \varepsilon$, and realize that this estimate allows
you to prove compactness of the approximations $\mathcal{N}^N$ and then
convergence to a limit $\mathcal{N}$ in $L^{2 p} (\Omega ; C^{1 / 2 -} H^{-
1 -})$.
\end{exercise}
\subsection{Controlled distributions}
Let us cook up a definition which will allow us to rigorously perform the
formal computations above in a general setting.
\begin{definition}
Let $u, \mathcal{A}: \mathbb{R}_+ \times \mathbb{T} \rightarrow
\mathbb{R}$ be a couple of generalized process such that
\begin{enumerateroman}
\item For all $\varphi \in \mathscr{S} (\mathbb{T})$ the process $t \mapsto u_t
(\varphi)$ is a continuous semimartingale satisfying
\[ u_t (\varphi) = u_0 (\varphi) + \int_0^t u_s (\Delta \varphi) \mathrm{d} s
+\mathcal{A}_t (\varphi) + M_t (\varphi), \]
where $t \mapsto M_t (\varphi)$ is a martingale with quadratic variation
$\langle M_t (\varphi), M_t (\psi) \rangle = \langle \partial_x \varphi,
\partial_x \psi \rangle_{L^2 (\mathbb{T})}$ and $t \mapsto \mathcal{A}_t
(\varphi)$ is a finite variation process with $\mathcal{A}_0 = 0$.
\item For all $t \geqslant 0$ the random distribution $\varphi \mapsto u_t
(\varphi)$ is a zero mean space white noise with variance $\| \varphi
\|_{L^2_0}^2 / 2$.
\item For any $T > 0$ the reversed process $\hat{u}_t = u_{T - t}$ has
again properties $i, i i$ with martingale $\hat{M}$ and finite variation
part $\hat{\mathcal{A}}$ such that $\hat{\mathcal{A}}_t (\varphi) = -
(\mathcal{A}_T (\varphi) -\mathcal{A}_{T - t} (\varphi))$.
\end{enumerateroman}
Any pair of processes $(u, \mathcal{A})$ satisfying these condition will be
called \tmtextit{controlled by the Ornstein--Uhlenbeck process} and we will
denote the set of all such processes with $\mathcal{Q}_{\tmop{ou}}$.
\end{definition}
\begin{theorem}
Assume that $(u, \mathcal{A}) \in \mathcal{Q}_{\tmop{ou}}$ and for any $N
\geqslant 1$, $t \geqslant 0$, $\varphi \in \mathscr{S}$ let
\[ \mathcal{N}_t^N (\varphi) = \int_0^t \partial_x (\Pi_N u_s)^2 (\varphi)
\mathrm{d} s \]
Then for any $p \geqslant 1$ $(\mathcal{N}^N)_{N \geqslant 1}$ converges in
probability to a space--time distribution $\mathcal{N} \in C^{1 / 2 -} H^{-
1 -}$.
\end{theorem}
We are now at a point were we can give a meaning to our original equation.
\begin{definition}
A pair of random distribution $(u, \mathcal{A}) \in \mathcal{Q}_{\tmop{ou}}$
is an {\tmem{energy solution}} to the stochastic Burgers equation if it
satisfies
\[ u_t (\varphi) = u_0 (\varphi) + \int_0^t u_s (\Delta \varphi) \mathrm{d} s
+\mathcal{N}_t (\varphi) + M_t (\varphi) \]
for all $t \geqslant 0$ and $\varphi \in \mathscr{S}$. That is if
$\mathcal{A}=\mathcal{N}$.
\end{definition}
Now we are in a relatively standard setting of needing to prove existence and
uniqueness of such energy solutions. Note that in general the solutions are
{\tmem{pairs}} of processes $(u, \mathcal{A})$.
\begin{remark}
The notion of energy solution has been introduced (in a slightly different
way) in the work of Gon{\c c}alves and
Jara~{\cite{goncalves_universality_2010}} on macroscopic universal
fluctuations of weakly asymmetric interacting particle systems.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Existence of solutions}
For the existence the way to proceed is quite standard. We approximate the
equation, construct approximate solutions and then try to have enough
compactness to have limiting points which then naturally will satisfy the
requirements for energy solutions. For any $N \geqslant 1$ consider solutions
$u^N$ to
\[ \partial_t u^N = \Delta u^N + \partial_x \Pi_N (\Pi_N u^N)^2 + \partial_x
\xi \]
These are generalized functions such that
\[ \mathrm{d} u^N_t (e_k) = - k^2 u^N_t (e_k) \mathrm{d} t + [\partial_x \Pi_N (\Pi_N
u^N)^2] (e_k) \mathrm{d} t + ik \mathrm{d} \beta_t (k) \]
for $k \in \mathbb{Z}$ and $t \geqslant 0$. We take $u_0$ to be the white
noise with covariance $u_t (\varphi) \sim \mathcal{N} (0, \| \varphi \|^2 /
2)$. The point of our choice of the non--linearity is that this
(infinite--dimensional) system of equations decomposes into a finite
dimensional system for $(v^N (k) = \Pi_N u^N (e_k))_{k : | k | \leqslant N}$
and an infinite number of one--dimensional equations for each $u^N (e_k)$ with
$| k | > N$. Indeed if $| k | > N$ we have $[\partial_x \Pi_N (\Pi_N u^N)^2]
(e_k) = 0$ so $u_t (e_k) = X_t (e_k)$ the Ornstein--Uhlenbeck process with
initial condition $X_0 = u_0$ which renders it stationary in time (check it).
The equation for $(v^N (k))_{| k | \leqslant N}$ reads
\[ \mathrm{d} v^N_t (k) = - k^2 v^N_t (k) \mathrm{d} t + b_k (v^N_t) \mathrm{d} t + ik
\mathrm{d} \beta_t (k), \hspace{2em} | k | \leqslant N, t \geqslant 0 \]
where
\[ b_k (v^N_t) = ik \sum_{\ell + m = k} \mathbb{I}_{| \ell |, | k |, | m |
\leqslant N} v^N_t (\ell) v^N_t (m) . \]
This is a standard finite--dimensional ODE having global solutions for all
initial conditions which gives rise to a nice Markov process. The fact that
solutions do not blow up even if the interaction is quadratic can be seen
by computing the evolution of the norm
\[ A_t = \sum_{| k | \leqslant N} | v^N_t (k) |^2 \]
and by showing that
\[ \mathrm{d} A_t = 2 \sum_{| k | \leqslant N} v^N_t (- k) \mathrm{d} v^N_t (- k) = -
2 k^2 A_t \mathrm{d} t + 2 \sum_{| k | \leqslant N} v^N_t (- k) b_k (v^N_t)
\mathrm{d} t + 2 \iota k \sum_{| k | \leqslant N} v^N_t (- k) \mathrm{d} \beta_t
(k). \]
But now
\begin{align*}
\sum_{| k | \leqslant N} v^N_t (- k) b_k (v^N_t) & = 2 \iota \sum_{k, \ell, m : \ell + m = k} \mathbb{I}_{| \ell |, | k |, | m | \leqslant N} kv^N_t (\ell) v^N_t (m) v^N_t (- k) \\
& = - 2 \iota \sum_{k, \ell, m : \ell + m + k = 0} \mathbb{I}_{| \ell |, | k |, | m | \leqslant N} (k) v^N_t (\ell) v^N_t (m) v^N_t (k)
\end{align*}
and by symmetry of this expression it is equal to
\[ = - \frac{2}{3} \iota \sum_{k, \ell, m : \ell + m + k = 0} \mathbb{I}_{|
\ell |, | k |, | m | \leqslant N} (k + \ell + m) v^N_t (\ell) v^N_t (m)
v^N_t (k) = 0, \]
so $A_t = A_0 + M_t$ where $\mathrm{d} M_t = 2 \sum_{| k | \leqslant N}
\mathbb{I}_{| k | \leqslant N} (\iota k) v^N_t (- k) \mathrm{d} \beta_t (k)$. Now
\[ \mathbb{E} [M_T^2] \lesssim \int_0^T \sum_{| k | \leqslant N} k^2 | v^N_t
(k) |^2 \mathrm{d} t \lesssim N^2 \int_0^T A_t \mathrm{d} t \]
and then by martingales inequalities
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E} [\sup_{t \in [0, T]} (A_t)^2] & \leqslant 2\mathbb{E} [A_0^2] + 2\mathbb{E} [\sup_{t \in [0, T]} (M_t)^2] \leqslant 2\mathbb{E} [A_0^2]^{} + 2\mathbb{E} [M_T^2]^{} \\
& \leqslant 2\mathbb{E} [A_0^2]^{} + CN^2 \int_0^T \mathbb{E} (A_t) \mathrm{d} t.
\end{align*}
Now Gronwall's inequality gives
\[ \mathbb{E} [\sup_{t \in [0, T]} (A_t)^2] \lesssim e^{CN^2 T} \mathbb{E}
[A_0^2], \]
from where we can deduce (by a continuation argument) that almost surely there
is no blowup at finite time for the dynamics. From the Galerkin approximations
the It{\^o} trick will provide enough compactness in order to pass to the
limit and build an energy solution to the Stochastic Burgers equation; see \cite{Russo2001} for details on how to implement the It\^o trick on the level of diffusions.
\section{Distributions and Besov spaces}\label{sec:preliminaries}
Here we collect some classical results from harmonic analysis which we will
need in the following. We concentrate on distributions and SPDEs on the torus,
but everything in this Section applies mutatis mutandis on the full space
$\mathbb{R}^d$, see~{\cite{Gubinelli2012}}. The only problem is that then the
stochastic terms will no longer be in the Besov spaces $\mathscr{C}^{\alpha}$ which we
encounter below but rather in weighted Besov spaces. Handling SPDEs in weighted function spaces is more delicate and we prefer here to concentrate to the simpler situation of the torus.
The space of distributions $\mathscr{S}' = \mathscr{S}' (\mathbb{T}^d)$ is the set of linear
maps $f$ from $\mathscr{S} = C^{\infty} (\mathbb{T}^d, \mathbb{C})$ to
$\mathbb{C}$, such that there exist $k \in \mathbb{N}$ and $C > 0$ with
\[ | \langle f, \varphi \rangle | : = | f (\varphi) | \leqslant C \sup_{|
{\mu} | \leqslant k} \| \partial^{{\mu}} \varphi \|_{L^{\infty}
(\mathbb{T}^d)} \]
for all $\varphi \in \mathscr{S}$.
\begin{example}
Clearly $L^p = L^p (\mathbb{T}^d) \subset \mathscr{S}'$ for all $p \geqslant 1$,
and more generally the space of finite signed measures on $\left(
\mathbb{T}^d, \mathcal{\mathscr{B}} (\mathbb{T}^d) \right)$ is contained in
$\mathscr{S}'$. Another example of a distribution is $\varphi \mapsto
\partial^{{\mu}} \varphi (x)$ for ${\mu} \in \mathbb{N}^d_0$ and $x
\in \mathbb{T}$.
\end{example}
In particular, the Fourier transform $\mathscr{F} f : \mathbb{Z}^d \rightarrow
\mathbb{C}$,
\[ \mathscr{F} f (k) = \hat{f} (k) = \langle f, e_k \rangle \]
with $e_k = e^{- i \langle k, \cdot \rangle} / (2 \pi)^{d / 2}$ is defined
for all $f \in \mathscr{S}'$, and it satisfies $\left| \mathscr{F} f (k) \right| \leqslant | P
(k) |$ for a suitable polynomial $P$. Conversely, if $(g (k))_{k \in
\mathbb{Z}^d}$ is at most of polynomial growth, then its inverse Fourier
transform
\[ \mathscr{F}^{- 1} g = \sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z}^d} g (k) e_k^{\ast} \]
defines a distribution.
\begin{exercise}
\label{exo:fourier inversion}Show that the Fourier transform of $\varphi \in
\mathscr{S}$ decays faster than any rational function (we say that it is of
\tmtextit{rapid decay}). Combine this with the fact that $\mathscr{F}$ defines a
bijection from $L^2 (\mathbb{T}^d)$ to $\ell^2 (\mathbb{Z}^d)$ with
inverse $\mathscr{F}^{- 1}$ to show that $\mathscr{F}^{- 1} \mathscr{F} f = f$ for all $f \in \mathscr{S}'$
and $\mathscr{F} \mathscr{F}^{- 1} g = g$ for all $g$ of polynomial growth. Extend the
Parseval formula
\[ \langle f, \varphi^{\ast} \rangle_{L^2 (\mathbb{T}^d)} =
\int_{\mathbb{T}^d} f (x) g (x)^{\ast} \mathrm{d} x = \sum_k \hat{f} (k)
\hat{\varphi} (k)^{\ast} \]
from $f, \varphi \in L^2 (\mathbb{T}^d)$ to $f \in \mathscr{S}'$ and $\varphi \in
\mathscr{S}$.
\end{exercise}
\begin{exercise}
\label{exo:wn}Fix a complete probability space $(\Omega, \mathcal{F},
\mathbb{P})$. On that space let $\xi$ be a spatial white noise on
$\mathbb{T}^d$, i.e. $\xi$ is a centered Gaussian process indexed by $L^2
(\mathbb{T}^d)$, with covariance
\[ \mathbb{E} [\xi (f) \xi (g)] = \int_{\mathbb{T}^d} f (x) g (x) \mathrm{d}
x. \]
Show that there exists $\tilde{\xi}$ with $\mathbb{P} (\tilde{\xi} (f) =
\xi (f)) = 1$ for all $f \in L^2$, such that $\tilde{\xi} (\omega) \in \mathscr{S}'$
for all $\omega \in \Omega$.
\tmtextbf{Hint:} Show that $\mathbb{E} \left[ \sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z}^d}
\exp (\lambda \| \xi (e_k) \|^2) / (1 + | k |^{d + 1}) \right] < \infty$ for
some suitable $\lambda > 0$.
\end{exercise}
Linear maps on $\mathscr{S}'$ can be defined by duality: if $A : \mathscr{S} \rightarrow \mathscr{S}$
is such that for all $k \in \mathbb{N}$ there exists $n \in \mathbb{N}$ and
$C > 0$ with $\sup_{| {\mu} | \leqslant k} \| \partial^{{\mu}} (A
\varphi) \|_{L^{\infty}} \leqslant C \sup_{| {\mu} | \leqslant n} \|
\partial^{{\mu}} \varphi \|_{L^{\infty}}$, then we set $\langle^t A f,
\varphi \rangle = \langle f, A \varphi \rangle$. Differential operators are
defined by $\langle \partial^{{\mu}} f, \varphi \rangle = (- 1)^{|
{\mu} |} \langle f, \partial^{{\mu}} \varphi \rangle$. If $\varphi :
\mathbb{Z}^d \rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ grows at most polynomially, then it
defines a \tmtextit{Fourier multiplier}
\[
\varphi (\mathrm{D}) : \mathscr{S}' \rightarrow \mathscr{S}', \hspace{2em} \varphi (\mathrm{D}) f = \mathscr{F}^{- 1} ( \varphi \mathscr{F} f ).
\]
\begin{exercise}
\label{exercise:convolution}Use the Fourier inversion formula of
Exercise~\ref{exo:fourier inversion} to show that for $f \in \mathscr{S}'$, $\varphi
\in \mathscr{S}$ and for $u, v : \mathbb{Z}^d \rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ with $u$ of
polynomial growth and $v$ of rapid decay
\[ \mathscr{F} (f \varphi) (k) = (2 \pi)^{- d / 2} \sum_{\ell} \hat{f} (k - \ell)
\hat{\varphi} (\ell) \hspace{1em} \tmop{and} \hspace{1em} \mathscr{F}^{- 1} (u v)
(x) = (2 \pi)^{d / 2} \left\langle \mathscr{F}^{- 1} u, \mathscr{F}^{- 1} v (x - \cdot)
\right\rangle . \]
\end{exercise}
We will now use Littlewood--Paley blocks to obtain a decomposition of
distributions into an infinite series of smooth functions. Of course, we have
already such a decomposition at our disposal: $f = \sum_k \hat{f} (k)
e^{\ast}_k$. But it turns out to be convenient not to consider each Fourier
coefficient separately, but to work with projections on dyadic Fourier blocks.
\begin{definition}
A \tmtextit{dyadic partition of unity} consists of two nonnegative radial
functions $\chi, \rho \in C^{\infty} (\mathbb{R}^d, \mathbb{R})$, where
$\rho$ is supported in a ball $\mathscr{B} = \{ | x | \leqslant c \}$ and $\rho$ is
supported in an annulus $\mathscr{A} = \{ a \leqslant | x | \leqslant b \}$ for
suitable $a, b, c > 0$, such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\chi + \sum_{j \geqslant 0} \rho (2^{- j} \cdot) \equiv 1$ and
\item \label{property-2-dyadic}$\tmop{supp} (\chi) \cap \tmop{supp} (\rho
(2^{- j} \cdot)) \equiv 0$ for $j \geqslant 1$ and $\tmop{supp} (\rho
(2^{- i} \cdot)) \cap \tmop{supp} (\rho (2^{- j} \cdot))
\equiv 0$ for all $i, j \geqslant 0$ with $| i - j | \geqslant 1$.
\end{enumerate}
We will often write $\rho_{- 1} = \chi$ and $\rho_j = \rho (2^{- j}
\cdot)$ for $j \geqslant 0$.
\end{definition}
Dyadic partitions of unity exist, see~{\cite{Bahouri2011}}. The reason for
considering smooth partitions rather than indicator functions is that
indicator functions do not have good Fourier multiplier properties. For
example we only have $\| \mathbb{I}_{[2^j, 2^{j + 1})} (| \mathrm{D} |) f
\|_{L^{\infty}} \lesssim j \| f \|_{L^{\infty}}$, whereas $\| \rho_j (\mathrm{D})
f \|_{L^{\infty}} \lesssim \| f \|_{L^{\infty}}$ uniformly in $j$. From now on
we fix a dyadic partition of unity $(\chi, \rho)$ and define the dyadic blocks
\[ \Delta_j f = \rho_j (\mathrm{D}) f = \mathscr{F}^{- 1} (\rho_j \hat{f}), \hspace{1em}
j \geqslant - 1. \]
We also use the notation
\[ S_j f = \sum_{i \leqslant j - 1} \Delta_i f \]
as well as $K_i = (2 \pi)^{- d / 2} \mathscr{F}^{- 1} \rho_i$ so that
\[ K_i \ast f = \mathscr{F}^{- 1} \left( \rho_j \mathscr{F} f \right) = \Delta_i f. \]
Every dyadic block has a compactly supported Fourier transform and is
therefore in $\mathscr{S}$. It is easy to see that $f = \sum_{j \geqslant - 1}
\Delta_j f = \lim_{j \rightarrow \infty} S_j f$ for all $f \in \mathscr{S}'$.
For $\alpha \in \mathbb{R}$, the H{\"o}lder-Besov space $\mathscr{C}^{\alpha}$ is
given by $\mathscr{C}^{\alpha} = B^{\alpha}_{\infty, \infty} (\mathbb{T}^d,
\mathbb{R})$, where for $p, q \in [1, \infty]$ we define
\[
B^{\alpha}_{p, q} = B^{\alpha}_{p, q} (\mathbb{T}^d, \mathbb{R}) = \Big\{ f \in \mathscr{S}' : \|f\|_{B^{\alpha}_{p, q}} = \Big( \sum_{j \geqslant - 1} (2^{j \alpha} \| \Delta_j f\|_{L^p})^q \Big)^{1 / q} < \infty \Big\},
\]
with the usual interpretation as $\ell^{\infty}$ norm if $q = \infty$. Then
$B^{\alpha}_{p, q}$ is a Banach space and while the norm $\lVert \cdot
\rVert_{B^{\alpha}_{p, q}}$ depends on $(\chi, \rho)$, the space
$B^{\alpha}_{p, q}$ does not and any other dyadic partition of unity
corresponds to an equivalent norm (this follows from Lemma~\ref{lem: Besov
regularity of series} below). We write $\lVert \cdot \rVert_{\alpha}$
instead of $\lVert \cdot \rVert_{B^{\alpha}_{\infty, \infty}}$.
\begin{exercise}
Let $\delta_0$ denote the Dirac delta in 0. Show that $\delta_0 \in \mathscr{C}^{-
d}$.
\end{exercise}
If $\alpha \in (0, \infty) \setminus \mathbb{N}$, then $\mathscr{C}^{\alpha}$ is the
space of $\lfloor \alpha \rfloor$ times differentiable functions whose partial
derivatives of order $\lfloor \alpha \rfloor$ are ($\alpha - \lfloor \alpha
\rfloor$)-H{\"o}lder continuous (see page~99 of~{\cite{Bahouri2011}}). Note
however, that for $k \in \mathbb{N}$ the space $\mathscr{C}^k$ is strictly larger
than $C^k$, the space of $k$ times continuously differentiable functions.
Below we will give the proof for $\alpha \in (0, 1)$, but before we still need
some tools.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:poisson}(Poisson summation) Let $\varphi : \mathbb{R}^d
\rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ be a Schwartz function. Then
\[ \mathscr{F}^{- 1} \varphi (x) = \sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z}^d} \mathscr{F}^{-
1}_{\mathbb{R}^d} \varphi (x + 2 \pi k), \]
for all $x \in \mathbb{T}^d$, where $\mathscr{F}^{- 1}_{\mathbb{R}^d} \varphi (x)
= (2 \pi)^{- d / 2} \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \varphi (y) e^{i \langle x, y
\rangle} \mathrm{d} y$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $g (x) = \sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z}^d} \mathscr{F}^{- 1}_{\mathbb{R}^d} \varphi (x
+ 2 \pi k)$. The function $\mathscr{F}^{- 1}_{\mathbb{R}^d} \varphi$ is of rapid
decay since $\varphi \in \mathscr{S}$ so the sum converges absolutely and defines a
continuous function $g : \mathbb{R}^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ which is
periodic of period $2 \pi$ in every direction. The Fourier transform over
the torus $\mathbb{T}^d$ of this function is
\[ \mathscr{F} g (y) = \int_{\mathbb{T}^d} e^{- i \langle x, y \rangle} g (x)
\frac{\mathrm{d} x}{(2 \pi)^{d / 2}} = \int_{\mathbb{T}^d} \sum_{k \in
\mathbb{Z}^d} \mathscr{F}^{- 1}_{\mathbb{R}^d} \varphi (x + 2 \pi k) e^{- i
\langle x + 2 \pi k, y \rangle} \frac{\mathrm{d} x}{(2 \pi)^{d / 2}} \]
since $e^{- i \langle 2 \pi k, y \rangle} = 1$. By dominated convergence the
sum and the integral can be combined in a overall integration over
$\mathbb{R}^d$:
\[ \mathscr{F} g (y) = \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \mathscr{F}^{- 1}_{\mathbb{R}^d} \varphi (x)
e^{- i \langle x, y \rangle} \frac{\mathrm{d} x}{(2 \pi)^{d / 2}} =
\mathscr{F}_{\mathbb{R}^d} \mathscr{F}^{- 1}_{\mathbb{R}^d} \varphi (y) = \varphi (y)
\]
so we deduce that $g (x) = \mathscr{F}^{- 1} \varphi (x)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{exercise}
\label{exercise:besov-space-inequalities}Show that $\lVert \cdot
\rVert_{\alpha} \leqslant \lVert \cdot \rVert_{\beta}$ for $\alpha
\leqslant \beta$, that $\lVert \cdot \rVert_{L^{\infty}} \lesssim \lVert
\cdot \rVert_{\alpha}$ for $\alpha > 0$, that $\lVert \cdot
\rVert_{\alpha} \lesssim \lVert \cdot \rVert_{L^{\infty}}$ for $\alpha
\leqslant 0$, and that $\|S_j \cdot \|_{L^{\infty}} \lesssim 2^{j \alpha}
\| \cdot \|_{\alpha}$ for $\alpha < 0$.
\tmtextbf{Hint:} When proving $\lVert \cdot \rVert_{\alpha} \lesssim
\lVert \cdot \rVert_{L^{\infty}}$ for $\alpha \leqslant 0$, you might need
Poisson's summation formula.
\end{exercise}
The following Bernstein inequality is extremely useful when dealing with
functions with compactly supported Fourier transform.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:Bernstein}(Bernstein inequality) Let $\mathscr{B}$ be a ball and $k \in
\mathbb{N}_0$. For any $\lambda \geqslant 1$, $1 \leqslant p \leqslant q
\leqslant \infty$, and $f \in L^p$ with $\tmop{supp} (\mathscr{F} f) \subseteq
\lambda \mathscr{B}$ we have
\[ \max_{{\mu} \in \mathbb{N}^d : |{\mu}| = k} \|
\partial^{{\mu}} f\|_{L^q} \lesssim_{k, \mathscr{B}} \lambda^{k + d \left(
\frac{1}{p} - \frac{1}{q} \right)} \|f\|_{L^p} . \]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\psi$ be a compactly supported $C^{\infty}$ function on $\mathbb{R}^d$
such that $\psi \equiv 1$ on $\mathscr{B}$ and write $\psi_{\lambda} (x) = \psi
(\lambda^{- 1} x)$. Then
\begin{align*}
\partial^{{\mu}} f (x) & = \partial^{{\mu}} \mathscr{F}^{- 1} \left( \psi_{\lambda} \mathscr{F} f \right) (x) = (2 \pi)^{d / 2} \left\langle f, \partial^{{\mu}} \left( \mathscr{F}^{- 1} \psi_{\lambda} \right) (x - \cdot) \right\rangle \\
& = (2 \pi)^{d / 2} \left( f \ast \partial^{{\mu}} \left( \mathscr{F}^{- 1} \psi_{\lambda} \right) \right) (x).
\end{align*}
By Young's inequality, we get
\[ \| \partial^{{\mu}} f \|_{L^q} \lesssim \| f \|_{L^p} \left\|
\partial^{{\mu}} \left( \mathscr{F}^{- 1} \psi_{\lambda} \right)
\right\|_{L^r}, \]
where $1 + 1 / q = 1 / p + 1 / r$. Now it is a simple exercise to verify $\|
\cdot \|_{L^r} \leqslant \| \cdot \|_{L^1}^{1 / r} \| \cdot
\|_{L^{\infty}}^{1 - 1 / r}$, and
\begin{align*}
\left\| \partial^{{\mu}} \left( \mathscr{F}^{- 1} \psi_{\lambda} \right) \right\|_{L^1} & = \int_{\mathbb{T}^d} \left| \sum_k \partial^{{\mu}} \left( \mathscr{F}^{- 1}_{\mathbb{R}^d} \psi_{\lambda} \right) (x + 2 \pi k) \right| \mathrm{d} x \leqslant \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \left| \partial^{{\mu}} \left( \mathscr{F}^{- 1}_{\mathbb{R}^d} \psi_{\lambda} \right) (x) \right| \mathrm{d} x \\
& = \lambda^{| {\mu} |} \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \lambda^d \left| \left( \partial^{{\mu}} \mathscr{F}^{- 1}_{\mathbb{R}^d} \psi \right) (\lambda x)\right| \mathrm{d} x \simeq \lambda^{| {\mu} |} ,
\end{align*}
whereas
\begin{align*}
\sup_{x \in \mathbb{T}^d} \Big| \sum_k \partial^{{\mu}} (\mathscr{F}^{- 1}_{\mathbb{R}^d} \psi_{\lambda}) (x + 2 \pi k) \Big| & = \lambda^{d + | {\mu} |} \sup_{x \in \mathbb{T}^d} \Big| \sum_k ( \partial^{{\mu}} \mathscr{F}^{- 1}_{\mathbb{R}^d} \psi ) (\lambda (x + 2 \pi k)) \Big| \\
& \lesssim \lambda^{d + | {\mu} |} \sup_{x \in \mathbb{T}^d} \sum_k (1 + \lambda | x + 2 \pi k |)^{- 2 d} \\
& \lesssim \lambda^{d + | {\mu} |} \sup_{x \in \mathbb{T}^d} \sum_k (1 + | x + 2 \pi k |)^{- 2 d} \lesssim \lambda^{d + | {\mu} |}.
\end{align*}
We end up with
\[ \| \partial^{{\mu}} f \|_{L^q} \lesssim \| f \|_{L^p} \left\|
\partial^{{\mu}} \left( \mathscr{F}^{- 1} \psi_{\lambda} \right)
\right\|_{L^r} \lesssim \| f \|_{L^p} \lambda^{| {\mu} | / r}
\lambda^{(d + | {\mu} |) (1 - 1 / r)} = \| f \|_{L^p} \lambda^{|
{\mu} | + d (1 / p - 1 / q)} . \]
\end{proof}
It then follows immediately that for $\alpha \in \mathbb{R}$, $f \in
\mathscr{C}^{\alpha}$, ${\mu} \in \mathbb{N}^d_0$, we have $\partial^{{\mu}}
f \in \mathscr{C}^{\alpha - | {\mu} |}$. Another simple application of the
Bernstein inequalities is the Besov embedding theorem, the proof of which we
leave as an exercise.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:besov embedding}(Besov embedding) Let $1 \leqslant p_1 \leqslant
p_2 \leqslant \infty$ and $1 \leqslant q_1 \leqslant q_2 \leqslant \infty$,
and let $\alpha \in \mathbb{R}$. Then $B^{\alpha}_{p_1, q_1}$ is
continuously embedded into $B^{\alpha - d (1 / p_1 - 1 / p_2)}_{p_2, q_2}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{exercise}
\label{exo:wn besov}In the setting of Exercise~\ref{exo:wn}, use Besov
embedding to show that $\mathbb{E} [\| \tilde{\xi}
\|_{- d / 2 - \varepsilon}^p] < \infty$ for all $p \geqslant 1$ and
$\varepsilon > 0$ (in particular $\tilde{\xi} \in \mathscr{C}^{- d / 2 -}$ almost
surely).
\tmtextbf{Hint:} Estimate $\mathbb{E} [\| \tilde{\xi} \|_{B^{\alpha}_{2 p,
2 p}}^{2 p}]$ using Gaussian hypercontractivity (equivalence of moments).
\end{exercise}
As another application of the Bernstein inequality, let us show that
$\mathscr{C}^{\alpha} = C^{\alpha}$ for $\alpha \in (0, 1)$.
\begin{lemma}
For $\alpha \in (0, 1)$ we have $\mathscr{C}^{\alpha} = C^{\alpha}$, the space of
$\alpha$-H{\"o}lder continuous functions, and
\[ \| f \|_{\alpha} \simeq \| f \|_{C^{\alpha}} = \| f \|_{L^{\infty}} +
\sup_{x \neq y} \frac{| f (x) - f (y) |}{d_{\mathbb{T}^d} (x,
y)^{\alpha}}, \]
where $d_{\mathbb{T}^d} (x, y)$ denotes the canonical distance on
$\mathbb{T}^d$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Start by noting that for $f \in \mathscr{C}^{\alpha}$ we have $\| f \|_{L^{\infty}}
\leqslant \sum_j \| \Delta_j f \|_{L^{\infty}} \leqslant \sum_j 2^{- j
\alpha} \| f \|_{\alpha} \lesssim \| f \|_{\alpha}$. Let now $x \neq y \in
\mathbb{T}^d$ and choose $j_0$ with $2^{- j_0} \simeq d_{\mathbb{T}^d} (x,
y)$. For $j \leqslant j_0$ we use Bernstein's inequality to obtain
\[ | \Delta_j f (x) - \Delta_j f (y) | \lesssim \| \mathrm{D} \Delta_j f
\|_{L^{\infty}} d_{\mathbb{T}} (x, y) \lesssim 2^j \| \Delta_j f
\|_{L^{\infty}} d_{\mathbb{T}} (x, y) \leqslant 2^{j (1 - \alpha)} \| f
\|_{\alpha} d_{\mathbb{T}} (x, y), \]
whereas for $j > j_0$ we simply estimate
\[ | \Delta_j f (x) - \Delta_j f (y) | \lesssim \| \Delta_j f
\|_{L^{\infty}} \lesssim 2^{- j \alpha} \| f \|_{\alpha} . \]
Summing over $j$, we get
\begin{align*}
| f (x) - f (y) | & \leqslant \sum_{j \leqslant j_0} 2^{j (1 - \alpha)} \| f \|_{\alpha} d_{\mathbb{T}} (x, y) + \sum_{j > j_0} 2^{- j \alpha} \| f \|_{\alpha} \\
& \simeq \| f \|_{\alpha} (2^{j_0 (1 - \alpha)} d_{\mathbb{T}} (x, y) + 2^{- j_0 \alpha}) \simeq \| f \|_{\alpha} d_{\mathbb{T}^d} (x, y)^{\alpha}.
\end{align*}
Conversely, if $f \in C^{\alpha}$, then we estimate $\| \Delta_{- 1} f
\|_{L^{\infty}} \lesssim \| f \|_{L^{\infty}}$. For $j \geqslant 0$, the
function $\rho_j$ satisfies $\int \rho_j \mathrm{d} x = 0$, and therefore
\begin{align*}
| \Delta_j f (x) | & = \Big| \int_{\mathbb{T}^d} \mathscr{F}^{- 1} \rho_j (x - y) (f (y) - f (x)) \mathrm{d} y \Big| \\
& = \Big| \int_{\mathbb{T}^d} \sum_k \mathscr{F}^{- 1}_{\mathbb{R}^d} \rho_j (x - y + 2 \pi k) (f (y) - f (x)) \mathrm{d} y \Big| \\
& = \Big| \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \mathscr{F}^{- 1}_{\mathbb{R}^d} \rho_j (x - y) (f(y) - f (x)) \mathrm{d} y \Big|.
\end{align*}
Now $| f (y) - f (x) | \leqslant \| f \|_{C^{\alpha}} d_{\mathbb{T}} (x,
y)^{\alpha} \leqslant \| f \|_{C^{\alpha}} | x - y |^{\alpha}$, and
thus we end up with
\[ | \Delta_j f (x) | \leqslant \| f \|_{C^{\alpha}} \left| 2^{j d}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \left| \left( \mathscr{F}^{- 1}_{\mathbb{R}^d} \rho \right)
(2^j (x - y)) \right| | x - y |^{\alpha} \mathrm{d} y \right| \lesssim \| f
\|_{C^{\alpha}} 2^{- j \alpha} . \]
\end{proof}
The following lemma, a characterization of Besov regularity for functions that
can be decomposed into pieces which are localized in Fourier space, will be
immensely useful in what follows.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem: Besov regularity of series}{$\mbox{}$}
\begin{enumeratenumeric}
\item Let $\mathscr{A}$ be an annulus, let $\alpha \in \mathbb{\mathbb{R}}$, and
let $(u_j)$ be a sequence of smooth functions such that $\mathscr{F} u_j$ has its
support in $2^j \mathscr{A}$, and such that $\|u_j \|_{L^{\infty}} \lesssim 2^{- j
\alpha}$ for all $j$. Then
\[ u = \sum_{j \geqslant - 1} u_j \in \mathscr{C}^{\alpha} \hspace{2em} \tmop{and}
\hspace{2em} \|u\|_{\alpha} \lesssim \sup_{j \geqslant - 1} \{2^{j
\alpha} \|u_j \|_{L^{\infty}} \} . \]
\item Let $\mathscr{B}$ be a ball, let $\alpha > 0$, and let $(u_j)$ be a sequence
of smooth functions such that $\mathscr{F} u_j$ has its support in $2^j \mathscr{B}$, and
such that $\|u_j \|_{L^{\infty}} \lesssim 2^{- j \alpha}$ for all $j$.
Then
\[ u = \sum_{j \geqslant - 1} u_j \in \mathscr{C}^{\alpha} \hspace{2em} \tmop{and}
\hspace{2em} \|u\|_{\alpha} \lesssim \sup_{j \geqslant - 1} \{2^{j
\alpha} \|u_j \|_{L^{\infty}} \} . \]
\end{enumeratenumeric}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
If $\mathscr{F} u_j$ is supported in $2^j \mathscr{A}$, then $\Delta_i u_j \neq 0$ only for
$i \sim j$. Hence, we obtain
\begin{gather*}
\| \Delta_i u\|_{L^{\infty}} \leqslant \sum_{j : j \sim i} \| \Delta_i u_j
\|_{L^{\infty}} \leqslant \sup_{k \geqslant - 1} \{2^{k \alpha} \|u_k
\|_{L^{\infty}} \} \sum_{j : j \sim i} 2^{- j \alpha} \simeq \sup_{k
\geqslant - 1} \{2^{k \alpha} \|u_k \|_{L^{\infty}} \} 2^{- i \alpha} .
\end{gather*}
If $\mathscr{F} u_j$ is supported in $2^j \mathscr{B}$, then $\Delta_i u_j \neq 0$ only for
$i \lesssim j$. Therefore,
\[ \| \Delta_i u\|_{L^{\infty}} \leqslant \sum_{j : j \gtrsim i} \| \Delta_i
u_j \|_{L^{\infty}} \leqslant \sup_{k \geqslant - 1} \{2^{k \alpha} \|u_k
\|_{L^{\infty}} \} \sum_{j : j \gtrsim i} 2^{- j \alpha} \lesssim
\sup_{k \geqslant - 1} \{2^{k \alpha} \|u_k \|_{L^{\infty}} \} 2^{- i
\alpha}, \]
using $\alpha > 0$ in the last step.
\end{proof}
When solving SPDEs, we will need the smoothing properties of the heat
semigroup. For that purpose we study functions of time with values in
distribution spaces. If $\mathbb{X}$ is a Banach space with norm $\| \cdot
\|_{\mathbb{X}}$ and if $T > 0$, then we define $C\mathbb{X}$ and $C_T
\mathbb{X}$ as the spaces of continuous functions from $[0, \infty)$
respectively $[0, T]$ to $\mathbb{X}$, and $C_T \mathbb{X}$ is equipped with
the supremum norm $\| \cdot \|_{C_T \mathbb{X}}$. If $\alpha \in
(0, 1)$ then we write $C^{\alpha} \mathbb{X}$ for the functions in
$C\mathbb{X}$ that are $\alpha$--H{\"o}lder continuous on every interval $[0,
T]$, and we write
\[ \| f \|_{C^{\alpha}_T \mathbb{X}} = \sup_{0 \leqslant s < t \leqslant T}
\frac{\| f (t) - f (s) \|}{| t - s |^{\alpha}} . \]
We then define $\mathscr{L}^{\alpha} = C \mathscr{C}^{\alpha} \cap C^{\alpha / 2} L^{\infty}$
for $\alpha \in (0, 2)$. For $T > 0$ we set $\mathscr{L}^{\alpha}_T = C_T \mathscr{C}^{\alpha}
\cap C^{\alpha / 2}_T L^{\infty}$ and we equip $\mathscr{L}^{\alpha}_T$ with the norm
\[ \| \cdot \|_{\mathscr{L}^{\alpha}_T} = \max \{ \| \cdot \|_{C_T \mathscr{C}^{\alpha}},
\| \cdot \|_{C^{\alpha / 2}_T L^{\infty}} \} . \]
The notation $\mathscr{L}^{\alpha}$ is chosen to be reminiscent of the operator $\mathscr{L} =
\partial_t - \Delta$ and indeed the parabolic spaces $\mathscr{L}^{\alpha}$ are
adapted to $\mathscr{L}$ in the sense that the temporal regularity ``counts twice'',
which is due to the fact that $\mathscr{L}$ contains a first order temporal but a
second order spatial derivative. If we would replace $\Delta$ by a fractional
Laplacian $- (- \Delta)^{\sigma}$, then we would have to consider the space $C
\mathscr{C}^{\alpha} \cap C^{\alpha / (2 \sigma)} L^{\infty}$ instead of
$\mathscr{L}^{\alpha}$.
We have the following Schauder estimate on the scale of $\left( \mathscr{L}^{\alpha}
\right)_{\alpha}$ spaces:
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:schauder}Let $\alpha \in (0, 2)$ and let $(P_t)_{t \geqslant 0}$
be the semigroup generated by the periodic Laplacian, $\mathscr{F} (P_t f) (k) =
e^{- t | k |^2} \mathscr{F} f (k)$. For $f \in C \mathscr{C}^{\alpha - 2}$ define $J f (t) =
\int_0^t P_{t - s} f_s \mathrm{d} s$. Then
\[ \| J f \|_{\mathscr{L}^{\alpha}_T} \lesssim (1 + T) \| f \|_{C_T \mathscr{C}^{\alpha -
2}} \]
for all $T > 0$. If $u \in \mathscr{C}^{\alpha}$, then $t \mapsto P_t u \in
\mathscr{L}^{\alpha}$ and
\[ \| t \mapsto P_t u \|_{\mathscr{L}^{\alpha}_T} \lesssim \| u \|_{\alpha} . \]
\end{lemma}
\tmtextbf{Bibliographic notes} For a gentle introduction to Littlewood--Paley
theory and Besov spaces see the recent monograph~{\cite{Bahouri2011}}, where
most of our results are taken from. There the case of tempered distributions
on $\mathbb{R}^d$ is considered. The theory on the torus is developed
in~{\cite{Schmeisser1987}}. The Schauder estimates for the heat semigroup are
classical and can be found in~{\cite{Gubinelli2012,Gubinelli2014}}.
\section{Diffusion in a random environment}
Let us consider the following $d$-dimensional homogenization problem. Fix
$\varepsilon > 0$ and let $u^{\varepsilon} : \mathbb{R}_+ \times
\mathbb{T}^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be the solution to the Cauchy problem
\[ \partial_t u^{\varepsilon} (t, x) = \Delta u^{\varepsilon} (t, x) +
\varepsilon^{- \alpha} V (x / \varepsilon) u^{\varepsilon} (t, x),
\hspace{2em} u^{\varepsilon} (0) = u_0, \]
where $V : \mathbb{T}^d_{\varepsilon} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is a random
field defined on the rescaled torus $\mathbb{T}^d_{\varepsilon} =
(\mathbb{R}/ (2 \pi \varepsilon^{- 1} \mathbb{Z}))^d$. This model describes
the diffusion of particles in a random medium (replacing $\partial_t$ by $i
\partial_t$ gives the Schr{\"o}dinger equation of a quantum particle evolving
in a random \ potential). For a review of related results the reader can give
a look at the recent paper of Bal and Gu~{\cite{bal_limiting_2013}}. The limit
$\varepsilon \rightarrow 0$ corresponds to looking at the large scale behavior
of the model since it can be understood as the equation for the
{\tmem{macroscopic}} density $u^{\varepsilon} (t, x) = u (t / \varepsilon^2, x
/ \varepsilon)$ which corresponds to a {\tmem{microscopic}} density $u :
\mathbb{R}_+ \times \mathbb{T}_{\varepsilon}^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$
evolving according to the parabolic equation
\[ \partial_t u (t, x) = \Delta u (t, x) + \varepsilon^{2 - \alpha} V (x) u
(t, x), \hspace{2em} u^{\varepsilon} (0, \cdot) = u_0 (\varepsilon
\cdot) . \]
We assume that $V : \mathbb{T}^d_{\varepsilon} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is
Gaussian and has mean zero and homogeneous correlation function
$C_{\varepsilon}$ given by
\[ C_{\varepsilon} (x - y) =\mathbb{E} [V (x) V (y)] = ( \varepsilon /
\sqrt{2 \pi} )^d \sum_{k \in \varepsilon \mathbb{Z}^d} e^{i
\langle x - y, k \rangle} R (k). \]
On $R :
\mathbb{R}^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R}_+$ we make the following hypothesis: for
some $\beta \in (0, d]$ we have $R (k) = | k |^{\beta - d} \tilde{R} (k)$
where $\tilde{R} \in \mathscr{S} (\mathbb{R}^d)$ is a smooth radial function of rapid
decay. For $\beta < d$ it would be equivalent to require that spatial
correlations (in the limit $\varepsilon \rightarrow 0$) decay as $| x |^{-
\beta}$. For $\beta = d$ this hypothesis means that spatial correlations are
of rapid decay. Indeed by dominated convergence
\begin{align*}
\lim_{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0} C_{\varepsilon} (x) & = \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \frac{\mathrm{d} k}{(2 \pi)^{d / 2}} e^{i \langle x, k \rangle} R (k) = \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \frac{\mathrm{d} k}{(2 \pi)^{d / 2}} e^{i \langle x, k \rangle} | k |^{\beta - d} \tilde{R} (k) \\
& = (2 \pi)^{d / 2} \left( \mathscr{F}^{- 1}_{\mathbb{R}^d} (| \cdot |^{\beta - d}) \ast \mathscr{F}_{\mathbb{R}^d}^{- 1} (\tilde{R}) \right) (x) .
\end{align*}
Now $\mathscr{F}^{- 1}_{\mathbb{R}^d} (\tilde{R}) \in \mathscr{S} (\mathbb{R}^d)$ and
$\mathscr{F}^{- 1}_{\mathbb{R}^d} (| \cdot |^{\beta - d}) (x) \simeq | x |^{- \beta}$
if $0 < \beta < d$ (see for example Proposition~1.29 of~{\cite{Bahouri2011}}),
so $\lim_{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0} | C_{\varepsilon} (x) | \lesssim | x |^{-
\beta}$ for $| x | \rightarrow + \infty$.
\
Let us write $V_{\varepsilon} (x) = \varepsilon^{- \alpha} V (x /
\varepsilon)$ so that $\partial_t u^{\varepsilon} = \Delta u^{\varepsilon} +
V_{\varepsilon} u^{\varepsilon}$, and let us compute the variance of the
Littlewood--Paley blocks of $V_{\varepsilon}$.
In order to perform more easily some computations we can introduce a family of
centered complex Gaussian random variables $\{ g (k) \}_{k \in \varepsilon
\mathbb{Z}_0}$ such that $g (k)^{\ast} = g (- k)$ and $\mathbb{E} [g (k) g
(k')] = \delta_{k + k' = 0}$ and represent $V_{\varepsilon} (x)$ as
\[ V_{\varepsilon} (x) = \frac{\varepsilon^{d / 2 - \alpha}}{\left( \sqrt{2
\pi} \right)^{d / 2}} \sum_{k \in \varepsilon \mathbb{Z}^d} e^{i \langle
x, k / \varepsilon \rangle} \sqrt{R (k)} g (k) \]
\begin{lemma}
Assume $\beta - 2 \alpha \geqslant 0$.We have for any $\varepsilon > 0$ and
$i \geqslant 0$ and any $0 \leqslant \kappa \leqslant \beta - 2 \alpha$:
\[ \mathbb{E} [| \Delta_i V_{\varepsilon} (x) |^2] \lesssim 2^{(2 \alpha +
\kappa) i} \varepsilon^{\kappa} . \]
This estimate implies that if $\beta > 2 \alpha$, there exists $\kappa > 0$
with $V_{\varepsilon} \rightarrow 0$ in $L^2 (\Omega ; B^{- \alpha - \kappa
/ 2}_{2, 2} (\mathbb{T}^d))$ as $\varepsilon \rightarrow 0$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
A spectral computation gives
\[ \Delta_i V_{\varepsilon} (x) = \frac{\varepsilon^{d / 2 - \alpha}}{(
\sqrt{2 \pi} )^{d / 2}} \sum_{k \in \varepsilon \mathbb{Z}^d}
e^{i \langle x, k / \varepsilon \rangle} \rho_i (k / \varepsilon) \sqrt{R
(k)} g (k) \]
so
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{lll}
\mathbb{E} [| \Delta_i V_{\varepsilon} (x) |^2] & = & \varepsilon^d
( \sqrt{2 \pi} )^d \varepsilon^{- 2 \alpha} \sum_{k \in
\varepsilon \mathbb{Z}^d} \rho_i (k / \varepsilon)^2 e^{i \langle x,
k / \varepsilon \rangle} R (k)\\
& = & ( \sqrt{2 \pi} )^d \varepsilon^{d - 2 \alpha} \sum_{k
\in \varepsilon \mathbb{Z}^d} \rho (k / (\varepsilon 2^i))^2 R (k)\\
& \lesssim & \varepsilon^{d - 2 \alpha} 2^{id} \sup_{k \in \varepsilon
2^i \mathscr{A}} R (k),
\end{array} \label{eq:est-lp-v}
\end{equation}
where $\mathscr{A}$ is the annulus in which $\rho$ is supported. Now if $\varepsilon
2^i \leqslant 1$ we have \ $\mathbb{E} [| \Delta_i V_{\varepsilon} (x) |^2]
\lesssim 2^{id} \varepsilon^{d - 2 \alpha} (\varepsilon 2^i)^{\beta - d} =
\varepsilon^{\beta - 2 \alpha} 2^{i \beta}$. The assumption $\beta - 2
\alpha \geqslant 0$ then implies $\mathbb{E} [| \Delta_i V_{\varepsilon}
(x) |^2] \lesssim 2^{(2 \alpha + \kappa) i} \varepsilon^{\kappa}$ for any $0
\leqslant \kappa \leqslant \beta - 2 \alpha$. In the case $\varepsilon 2^i >
1$ we use that $\int_{B (0, 1)^c} R (k) \mathrm{d} k < + \infty$ to estimate
\[ \varepsilon^d \sum_{k \in \varepsilon \mathbb{Z}^d} \rho (k /
(\varepsilon 2^i))^2 R (k) \lesssim \varepsilon^d \sum_{k \in
\mathbb{Z}^d} R (\varepsilon k) \lesssim \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} R (k)
\mathrm{d} k < + \infty, \]
and then $\mathbb{E} [| \Delta_i V_{\varepsilon} (x) |^2] \lesssim
\varepsilon^{- 2 \alpha} \lesssim 2^{2 \alpha i} (\varepsilon 2^i)^{\kappa}$
for any small $\kappa > 0$.
\end{proof}
Note that the computation carried out in equation~(\ref{eq:est-lp-v}) implies
also that if $\beta - 2 \alpha < 0$, then essentially $V_{\varepsilon}$ does
not converge in any reasonable sense since the variance of the
Littlewood--Paley blocks explodes.
\begin{remark}
\label{rmk:different V blocks orthogonal}The same calculation as
in~(\ref{eq:est-lp-v}) shows that
\[ \mathbb{E} [\Delta_i V_{\varepsilon} (x) \Delta_j V_{\varepsilon} (x)] =
0 \]
whenever $| i - j | > 1$, because in that case $\rho_i \rho_j \equiv 0$.
\end{remark}
The previous analysis shows that it is reasonable to take $\alpha \leqslant
\beta / 2$ in order to have some hope of obtaining a well defined limit as
$\varepsilon \rightarrow 0$. In this case $V_{\varepsilon}$ stays bounded (at
least) in spaces of distributions of regularity $\alpha -$. This brings us to
the problem of obtaining estimates for the parabolic PDE
\[ \mathscr{L} u^{\varepsilon} (t, x) = (\partial_t - \Delta) u^{\varepsilon} (t, x) =
V_{\varepsilon} (x) u^{\varepsilon} (t, x), \hspace{2em} (t, x) \in [0, T]
\times \mathbb{T}^d, \]
depending only on negative regularity norms of $V_{\varepsilon}$. On one side
the regularity of $u^{\varepsilon}$ is then limited by the regularity of the
right hand side which cannot be better than that of $V_{\varepsilon}$. On the
other side the product of $V_{\varepsilon}$ with $u_{\varepsilon}$ can cause
problems since we try to multiply an (a priori) irregular object with one of
limited regularity.
Assume that $V_{\varepsilon} \in \mathscr{C}^{\gamma - 2}$ with $\gamma > 0$. It is
then reasonable to assume that also $V_{\varepsilon} u^{\varepsilon} \in C_T
\mathscr{C}^{\gamma - 2}$ and that $u^{\varepsilon} \in C_T \mathscr{C}^{\gamma}$ as a
consequence of the regularising effect of the heat operator
(Lemma~\ref{lem:schauder}). We will see in Section~\ref{ssec:bony} below that
the product $V_{\varepsilon} u^{\varepsilon}$ is under control only if $\gamma
+ \gamma - 2 > 0$, that is if $\gamma > 1$. Since $V_{\varepsilon} \rightarrow
0$ in $\mathscr{C}^{- 1 +}$, it is not difficult to show that $u^{\varepsilon}$
converges as $\varepsilon \rightarrow 0$ to the solution $u$ of the linear
equation $\mathscr{L} u = 0$. In this case the random potential will not have any
effect in the limit.
The interesting situation then is when $\gamma \leqslant 1$. To understand
what could happen in this case let us use a simple transformation of the
solution. Write $u^{\varepsilon} = \exp (X^{\varepsilon}) v^{\varepsilon}$
where $X^{\varepsilon}$ satisfies the equation $\mathscr{L} X^{\varepsilon} =
V^{\varepsilon}$ with initial condition $X^{\varepsilon} (0, \cdot) = 0$. Then
\[ \mathscr{L} u^{\varepsilon} = \exp (X^{\varepsilon}) \left( v^{\varepsilon} \mathscr{L}
X^{\varepsilon} + \mathscr{L} v^{\varepsilon} - v^{\varepsilon} (\partial_x
X^{\varepsilon})^2 - 2 \langle \partial_x X^{\varepsilon}, \partial_x
v^{\varepsilon} \rangle_{\mathbb{R}^d} \right) = \exp (X^{\varepsilon})
v^{\varepsilon} V_{\varepsilon} . \]
Since $\exp (X^{\varepsilon}) > 0$ on $[0, T] \times \mathbb{T}^d$, this
implies that $v^{\varepsilon}$ satisfies
\[ \mathscr{L} v^{\varepsilon} - v^{\varepsilon} | \partial_x X^{\varepsilon} |^2 - 2
\langle \partial_x X^{\varepsilon}, \partial_x v^{\varepsilon}
\rangle_{\mathbb{R}^d} = 0, \hspace{2em} (t, x) \in [0, T] \times
\mathbb{T}^d . \]
Our Schauder estimates imply that $X^{\varepsilon} \in C_T \mathscr{C}^{\gamma}$ with
uniform bounds in $\varepsilon > 0$, so that the problematic term is $|
\partial_x X^{\varepsilon} |^2$ for which this estimate does not guarantee
existence.
Note that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:formula-X}
\partial_x X_{\varepsilon} (t, x) = \frac{\varepsilon^{d / 2 -
\alpha}}{( \sqrt{2 \pi} )^{d / 2}} \sum_{k \in \varepsilon
\mathbb{Z}^d_0} e^{i \langle x, k / \varepsilon \rangle} G_{\varepsilon}
(t, k) g (k)
\end{equation}
where $\mathbb{Z}^d_0 =\mathbb{Z}^d \backslash \{ 0 \}$ and where
\[ G_{\varepsilon} (t, k) = i \frac{k}{\varepsilon} \frac{[1 - e^{- t | k /
\varepsilon |^2}]}{| k / \varepsilon |^2} \sqrt{R (k)} . \]
\begin{lemma}
Assume that
\[ \sigma^2 = ( \sqrt{2 \pi} )^d \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \frac{R
(k)}{k^2} \mathrm{d} k < + \infty . \]
Then if $\alpha = 1$ and $t>0$ we have
\[ \lim_{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E} [| \partial_x
X^{\varepsilon} |^2 (t, x)] = \sigma^2, \]
and if $\alpha < 1$ and $t>0$
\[ \lim_{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E} [(| \partial_x
X^{\varepsilon} |)^2 (t, x)] = 0. \]
Moreover
\[ \tmop{Var} [\Delta_q (| \partial_x X^{\varepsilon} |^2) (t, x)] \lesssim \varepsilon^{4 - 4 \alpha} \min(\sigma^4, (\varepsilon 2^q)^{\beta - 2} \| \tilde R \|_{\infty} \sigma^2)
. \]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
A computation similar to that leading to equation~(\ref{eq:est-lp-v}) gives
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E} [| \partial_x X^{\varepsilon} |^2 (t, x)] & = \varepsilon^d ( \sqrt{2 \pi} )^d \varepsilon^{- 2 \alpha} \sum_{k \in \varepsilon \mathbb{Z}^d_0} | k / \varepsilon |^2 \Big[ \int_0^t e^{-(t - s) | k / \varepsilon |^2} \mathrm{d} s \Big]^2 R (k) \\
& = \varepsilon^d ( \sqrt{2 \pi} )^d \varepsilon^{2 - 2 \alpha} \sum_{k \in \varepsilon \mathbb{Z}^d_0} \frac{[1 - e^{- t (k / \varepsilon)^2}]^2}{k^2} R (k),
\end{align*}
which for $\varepsilon \rightarrow 0$ and $t > 0$ tends to
\[ \lim_{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E} [| \partial_x
X^{\varepsilon} |^2 (t, x)] =\mathbb{I}_{\alpha < 1} ( \sqrt{2 \pi})^d \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \frac{R (k)}{k^2} \mathrm{d} k
=\mathbb{I}_{\alpha < 1} \sigma^2 . \]
Let us now study the variance of $| \partial_x X^{\varepsilon} |^2 (t, x)$.
Using equation~\eqref{eq:formula-X} we have
\[
\Delta_q (| \partial_x X^{\varepsilon} |^2) (t, x) = \frac{\varepsilon^{d - 2\alpha}}{(2 \pi)^{d/2}} \sum_{k_1, k_2 \in \varepsilon \mathbb{Z}^d_0} e^{i \langle k_1 + k_2, x / \varepsilon \rangle} \rho_q ((k_1 + k_2) / \varepsilon) G_\varepsilon (t,k_1) G_\varepsilon (t,k_2) g (k_1) g (k_2).
\]
By Wick's theorem~({\cite{Janson1997}}, Theorem~1.28)
\begin{align*}
\tmop{Cov} (g (k_1) g (k_2), g (k_1') g (k_2')) & = \mathbb{E} [g (k_1) g(k_1')] \mathbb{E} [g (k_2) g (k_2')] +\mathbb{E} [g (k_1) g (k_2')] \mathbb{E} [g (k_2) g (k_1')] \\
& =\mathbb{I}_{k_1 + k_1' = k_2 + k_2' = 0} +\mathbb{I}_{k_1 + k_2' = k_2 + k_1' = 0},
\end{align*}
which implies
\[ \tmop{Var} [\Delta_q (| \partial_x X^{\varepsilon} |^2) (t, x)] =
\frac{\varepsilon^{2d - 4\alpha}}{(2 \pi )^{d}} \sum_{k_1, k_2 \in \varepsilon \mathbb{Z}^d_0} (\rho_q ((k_1 + k_2) / \varepsilon))^2 | G_\varepsilon (t,k_1) |^2 | G_\varepsilon (t,k_2) |^2 . \]
For any $q \geqslant 0$ (the case $q = - 1$ is left to the reader), the variables $k_1$ and $k_2$ are bounded away from 0 and we have
\[ \tmop{Var} [\Delta_q (| \partial_x X^{\varepsilon} |^2) (t, x)] \lesssim
\varepsilon^{2 d + 4 - 4 \alpha} \sum_{k_1, k_2 \in \varepsilon
\mathbb{Z}^d_0} (\rho_q ((k_1 + k_2) / \varepsilon))^2 \frac{| R (k_1) |
| R (k_2) |}{| k_1 |^2 | k_2 |^2} . \]
A first estimate is obtained by just dropping the factor $ \rho_q ((k_1 + k_2) / \varepsilon)$ and results in the bound
\[
\tmop{Var} [\Delta_q (| \partial_x X^{\varepsilon} |^2) (t, x)] \lesssim
\varepsilon^{2 d + 4 - 4 \alpha} \sum_{k_1, k_2 \in \varepsilon
\mathbb{Z}^d_0} \frac{| R (k_1) |
| R (k_2) |}{| k_1 |^2 | k_2 |^2} \lesssim \varepsilon^{ 4 - 4 \alpha} \sigma^4
\]
Another estimate proceed by taking into account the constraint given by the support of $ \rho_q ((k_1 + k_2) / \varepsilon)$. In
order to satisfy $k_1 + k_2 \sim \varepsilon 2^q$ we must have $k_2
\lesssim k_1 \sim \varepsilon 2^q$ or $\varepsilon 2^q \lesssim k_1 \sim
k_2$. In the first case
\begin{align*}
\varepsilon^{2 d + 4 - 4 \alpha} \sum_{k_1, k_2 \in \varepsilon \mathbb{Z}^d_0} & \mathbb{I}_{k_2 \lesssim k_1 \sim \varepsilon 2^q} \frac{| R (k_1) | | R (k_2) |}{| k_1 |^2 | k_2 |^2} \lesssim 2^{q(\beta-2)} \varepsilon^{ d + \beta+ 2 - 4 \alpha} \| \tilde R \|_{\infty} \sum_{k_2 \in \varepsilon \mathbb{Z}^d_0} \mathbb{I}_{k_2 \lesssim \varepsilon 2^q} \frac{| R (k_2) |}{| k_2 |^2} \\
& \lesssim (\varepsilon 2^q)^{\beta - 2} \| \tilde R \|_{\infty} \int \mathrm{d} k \frac{| R (k) |}{| k |^2} \lesssim (\varepsilon 2^q)^{\beta - 2} \varepsilon^{4 - 4 \alpha} \| \tilde R \|_{\infty} \sigma^2
\end{align*}
since $| R (k_1) | / | k_1 |^2 \lesssim \| \tilde R \|_{\infty} (\varepsilon 2^q)^{\beta-d-2}$. If $\varepsilon 2^q \lesssim k_1 \sim k_2$ we similarly have
\begin{align*}
\varepsilon^{2 d + 4 - 4 \alpha} \sum_{k_1, k_2 \in \varepsilon \mathbb{Z}^d_0} & \mathbb{I}_{\varepsilon 2^q \lesssim k_1 \sim k_2} \frac{| R (k_1) | | R (k_2) |}{| k_1 |^2 | k_2 |^2} \lesssim 2^{q(\beta-2)} \varepsilon^{d +\beta + 2 - 4 \alpha} \|\tilde R \|_{\infty} \sum_{k_2 \in \varepsilon \mathbb{Z}^d_0} \mathbb{I}_{\varepsilon 2^q \lesssim k_2} \frac{ | R (k_2) |}{ | k_2 |^2} \\
& \lesssim (\varepsilon 2^q)^{\beta - 2} \varepsilon^{4 - 4 \alpha} \| \tilde R \|_{\infty} \int \mathrm{d} k \frac{| R (k) |}{| k |^2}
\lesssim (\varepsilon 2^q)^{\beta - 2} \varepsilon^{4 - 4 \alpha} \| \tilde R \|_{\infty} \sigma^2.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
This lemma shows that the interesting situation is $\alpha = 1$. Then provided
$\sigma^2 < + \infty$ and $\beta > 2$ we have $| \partial_x X^{\varepsilon} |^2
(t) \rightarrow \sigma^2$ in $\mathscr{C}^{0 -}$ for all $t > 0$, and in fact the
convergence is uniform on $[c, C]$ for all $0 < c < C$. An easy consequence of
this is that $v^{\varepsilon}$ converges to the solution of the PDE
\begin{equation}
\mathscr{L} v = \sigma^2 v \label{eq:homog}
\end{equation}
and since $X^{\varepsilon} \rightarrow 0$ in $C_T \mathscr{C}^{\gamma}$ we finally
obtain the convergence of $(u^{\varepsilon})_{\varepsilon > 0}$ to the same
$v$.
\subsection{The 2d generalized parabolic Anderson model}
The case $\alpha = 1$ and $\beta = 2$ remains open in the previous analysis. When
$\beta = 2$ we cannot expect $\sigma^2$ to be finite and moreover from the above
computations we see that the variance of $| \partial_x X^{\varepsilon} |^2$
remains finite and does not go to zero so the limiting object should satisfy a
stochastic PDE rather than a deterministic one. If we let
$\sigma^2_{\varepsilon} (t) =\mathbb{E} [| \partial_x X^{\varepsilon} |^2 (t,
x)]$ (which depends on time but which is easily shown to be independent of $x
\in \mathbb{T}^2$), then we expect that solving the {\tmem{renormalized}}
equation
\[ \mathscr{L} \tilde{u}^{\varepsilon} = V_{\varepsilon} \tilde{u}^{\varepsilon} -
\sigma^2_{\varepsilon} \tilde{u}^{\varepsilon} \]
should give rise in the limit to a well defined random field $\tilde{u}$
satisfying $\tilde{u} = e^X \tilde{v}$, where
\[ \mathscr{L} \tilde{v} = \tilde{v} \eta + 2 \langle \partial_x X, \partial_x
\tilde{v} \rangle_{\mathbb{R}^d} \]
and where $X$ is the limit of $X^{\varepsilon}$ as $\varepsilon \rightarrow 0$
while $\eta$ is the limit of $(\partial_x X^{\varepsilon})^2 -
\sigma^2_{\varepsilon} (t)$. The relation of $u^{\varepsilon}$ with
$\tilde{u}^{\varepsilon}$ is easily seen to be $\tilde{u}^{\varepsilon} (t, x)
= e^{- \int_0^t \sigma^2_{\varepsilon} (s) \mathrm{d} s} u^{\varepsilon} (t, x)$.
The renormalization procedure is therefore equivalent to a time--dependent
rescaling of the solution to the initial problem.
We will study the renormalization and convergence problem for a more general
equation of the form
\begin{equation}
\mathscr{L} u^{\varepsilon} = F (u^{\varepsilon}) V_{\varepsilon}, \label{eq:gpam}
\end{equation}
where $F : \mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is a sufficiently smooth
non--linearity. One possible motivation is that if $z^{\varepsilon}$ solves
the linear PDE and we set $u^{\varepsilon} = \varphi (z^{\varepsilon})$ for
some invertible $\varphi : \mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ such that
$\varphi' > 0$, then
\[ \mathscr{L} u^{\varepsilon} = \varphi' (z^{\varepsilon}) \mathscr{L} z^{\varepsilon} -
\varphi'' (z^{\varepsilon}) | \partial_x z^{\varepsilon} |^2 = \varphi'
(z^{\varepsilon}) z^{\varepsilon} V_{\varepsilon} - \varphi''
(z^{\varepsilon}) (\varphi' (z^{\varepsilon}))^{- 2} | \partial_x
u^{\varepsilon} |^2 \]
and thus $u^{\varepsilon}$ satisfies the PDE
\[ \mathscr{L} u^{\varepsilon} = F_1 (u^{\varepsilon}) V_{\varepsilon} + F_2
(u^{\varepsilon}) (\partial_x u^{\varepsilon})^2 \]
where $F_1 (x) = \varphi' (\varphi^{- 1} (x)) \varphi^{- 1} (x)$ and $F_2 (x)
= - \varphi'' (\varphi^{- 1} (x)) (\varphi' (\varphi^{- 1} (x)))^{- 2}$. In
the situation we are interested in, the second term in the right hand side is
simpler to treat than the first term so, for the time being, we will drop it
and we will concentrate on the equation~(\ref{eq:gpam}) in $d = 2$ with
$\alpha = 1$ and short ranged ($\beta = d$) potential $V$ which we refer to as
{\tmem{generalized parabolic Anderson model}} ({\tmname{gpam}}).
Under these conditions $V_{\varepsilon}$ converges to the white noise in
space which we usually denote with $\xi$ and our aim will be to set up a
theory in which the non--linear operations involved in the definition of the
dynamics of the {\tmname{gpam}} are well defined, including the possibility of
the renormalization which already appears in the linear case as hinted above.
While the reader should always have in mind a limiting procedure from a well
defined model like the ones we were considering so far, in the following we
will mostly discuss the limiting equation. The specific phenomena appearing
when trying to track the oscillations of the term $F (u^{\varepsilon})
V_{\varepsilon}$ as $\varepsilon \rightarrow 0$ will be described by a
{\tmem{renormalized product}} $F (u) \,\mathord{\diamond}\, \xi$ and so we write the
{\tmname{gpam}} as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:pam-intro} \mathscr{L} u (t, x) = F (u (t, x)) \,\mathord{\diamond}\, \xi (x),
\hspace{2em} u (0) = u_0 .
\end{equation}
In the linear case $F (u) = u$, the problem of the renormalization can be
solved along the lines suggested above. Another possible line of attack comes
from the theory of Gaussian spaces and in particular from Wick products, see
for example~{\cite{Hu2002}}. However, the definition of the Wick product
relies on the concrete chaos expansion of its factors, and since nonlinear
functions change the chaos expansion in a complicated way, there is little
hope of directly extending the Wick product approach to the nonlinear case and
moreover using these non--local (in the probability space) objects can deliver
solutions which are not physically acceptable~{\cite{Chan2000}}.
Equation~(\ref{eq:pam-intro}) is structurally very similar to the stochastic
differential equation
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:sde-intro} \partial_t v (t) = F (v (t)) \partial_t B^H (t),
\hspace{2em} v (0) = v_0,
\end{equation}
where $B^H$ denotes a fractional Brownian motion with Hurst index $H \in (0,
1)$. There are many ways to solve~(\ref{eq:sde-intro}) in the Brownian case.
Since we are interested in a way that might extend to~(\ref{eq:pam-intro})
where the irregularity appears along the two--dimensional spatial variable
$x$, we should exclude all approaches based on information, filtrations, and a
direction of time; in particular, any approach that works for $H \neq 1 / 2$
might seem promising. But Lyons' theory of rough paths~{\cite{Lyons1998}}
equips us exactly with the techniques we need to solve~(\ref{eq:sde-intro})
for general $H$. More precisely, if for $H > 1 / 3$ we are given
$\int_0^{\cdot} B^H_s \mathrm{d} B_s^H$, then we can use the controlled rough path
integral~{\cite{Gubinelli2004}} to make sense of $\int_0^{\cdot} f_s \mathrm{d}
B^H_s$ for any $f$ which ``looks like'' $B^H$, and this allows us to
solve~(\ref{eq:sde-intro}). So the main ingredients required for controlled
rough paths are the integral $\int_0^{\cdot} B^H_s \mathrm{d} B_s^H$ for the
reference path $B^H$, and the fact that we can describe paths which look like
$B^H$. It is worthwhile to note that while we need probability theory to
construct $\int_0^{\cdot} B^H_s \mathrm{d} B_s^H$, the construction of
$\int_0^{\cdot} f_s \mathrm{d} B^H_s$ is achieved using pathwise arguments and it
is given as a continuous map of $f$ and $\left( B^H, \int_0^{\cdot} B^H_s
\mathrm{d} B^H_s \right)$. As a consequence, the solution to the
SDE~(\ref{eq:sde-intro}) depends pathwise continuously on $\left( B^H,
\int_0^{\cdot} B^H_s \mathrm{d} B^H \right)$.
By the structural similarity of~(\ref{eq:pam-intro}) and~(\ref{eq:sde-intro}),
we might hope to extend the rough path approach to~(\ref{eq:pam-intro}). The
equivalent of $B^H$ is given by the solution $\vartheta$ to $\mathscr{L} \vartheta =
\xi$, $\vartheta (0) = 0$, so that we should assume the renormalized product
$\vartheta \,\mathord{\diamond}\, \xi$ as given. Then we might hope to define $f \,\mathord{\diamond}\,
\xi$ for all $f$ that ``look like $\vartheta$'', however this is to be
interpreted. Of course, rough paths can only be applied to functions of a
one--dimensional index variable, while for~(\ref{eq:pam-intro}) the problem
lies in the irregularity of $\xi$ in the spatial variable $x \in
\mathbb{T}^2$.
In the following we combine the ideas from controlled rough paths with Bony's
paraproduct, a tool from functional analysis that allows us to extend them to
functions of a multidimensional parameter. Using the paraproduct, we are able
to make precise in a simple way what we mean by ``distributions looking like a
reference distribution''. We can then define products of suitable
distributions and solve~(\ref{eq:pam-intro}) as well as many other interesting
singular SPDEs.
\subsection{More singular problems}\label{sec:rbe,kpz,she}
Keeping the homogenization problem as leitmotiv for these lectures, we could
consider also space--time varying environments $V_{\varepsilon} (t, x) =
\varepsilon^{- \alpha} V (t / \varepsilon^2, x / \varepsilon)$. The scaling of
the temporal variable is chosen so that it is compatible with the diffusive
scaling from a microscopic description, where $V (t, x)$ has typical variation
in space and time in scales of order $1$. Assume that $d = 1$, then when the
random field $V$ is Gaussian, zero mean, and with short--range space--time
correlations, the natural choice for the magnitude of the macroscopic
fluctuations is $\alpha = 3 / 2$. \ In this case $V_{\varepsilon}$ converges
as $\varepsilon \rightarrow 0$ to a space--time white noise $\xi$.
Understanding the limit dynamics as $\varepsilon \rightarrow 0$ of the
solution $u^{\varepsilon}$ to the linear equation $\mathscr{L} u^{\varepsilon} =
V_{\varepsilon} u^{\varepsilon}$ represents now a more difficult problem than
in the time independent situation. A Gaussian computation shows that the
random field $X^{\varepsilon}$, solution to $\mathscr{L} X^{\varepsilon} =
V_{\varepsilon}$ (e.g. with zero initial condition), stays bounded in $C_T
\mathscr{C}^{1 / 2 -}$ as $\varepsilon \rightarrow 0$. Since $\mathscr{L}$ is a second order
operator (if we use an appropriate parabolic weighting of the time and space
regularities), $\xi$ is expected to live in a space of distributions of
regularity $- 3 / 2 -$. This is to be compared with the $- 1 -$ of the space
white noise which had to be dealt with in the {\tmname{gpam}}. Renormalization
effects are then expected to be stronger in this setting and the limiting
object, which we denote with $w$, should satisfy a (suitably renormalized)
linear stochastic heat equation with multiplicative noise ({\tmname{she}})
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:heat-intro} \mathscr{L} w (t, x) = w (t, x) \,\mathord{\diamond}\, \xi (t, x),
\hspace{2em} w (0) = w_0 .
\end{equation}
As hinted by the computations in the more regular case, it is useful to
consider the change of variables $w = e^h$ which is called Cole--Hopf
transformation. Here $h : [0, \infty) \times \mathbb{T} \rightarrow
\mathbb{R}$ is a new unknown which satisfies now the Kardar--Parisi--Zhang
({\tmname{kpz}}) equation:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:kpz-intro} \mathscr{L} h (t, x) = (\partial_x h (t, x))^{\,\mathord{\diamond}\, 2} + \xi
(t, x), \hspace{2em} h (0) = h_0
\end{equation}
where the difficulty comes now from the squaring of the derivative but which
has the nice feature to be additively perturbed by the space--time white
noise, a feature which simplifies many considerations. Another relevant model
in applications is obtained by taking the space derivative of {\tmname{kpz}}
and letting $u (t, x) = \partial_x h (t, x)$ in order to obtain the stochastic
conservation law
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:burgers-intro} \mathscr{L} u (t, x) = \partial_x (u (t, x))^{\,\mathord{\diamond}\, 2} +
\partial_x \xi (t, x), \hspace{2em} u (0) = u_0,
\end{equation}
which we will refer to as the stochastic Burgers equation ({\tmname{sbe}}). In
all these cases, $\,\mathord{\diamond}\,$ denotes a suitably renormalized product.
The {\tmname{kpz}} equation was derived by Kardar--Parisi--Zhang in 1986 as a
universal model for the random growth of an interface~{\cite{Kardar1986}}. For
a long time it could not be solved due to the fact that there was no way to
make sense of the nonlinearity $(\partial_x h)^{\,\mathord{\diamond}\, 2}$
in~(\ref{eq:kpz-intro}). The only way to make sense of {\tmname{kpz}} was to
apply the Cole-Hopf transform~{\cite{Bertini1997}}: solve
{\tmname{she}}~(\ref{eq:heat-intro}) (which is accessible to It{\^o}
integration) and set $h = \log w$. But there was no intrinsic interpretation
of what it means to solve~(\ref{eq:kpz-intro}). Finally in 2012,
Hairer~{\cite{Hairer2013b}} used rough paths to give a meaning to the equation
and to obtain solutions directly at the {\tmname{kpz}} level. In
Section~\ref{sec:rbe} we will sketch how to recover his solution in the
paracontrolled setting. Applications of the techniques used by Hairer to solve
the {\tmname{kpz}} problem to a more general homogenization problem with
ergodic potentials (not necessarily Gaussian) have been studied
in~{\cite{hairer_random_2013}}.
\subsection{Hairer's regularity structures}
In~{\cite{Hairer2014}}, Hairer introduces a theory of regularity structures
which can also be considered a generalization of the theory of controlled
rough paths to functions of a multidimensional index variable. Hairer
fundamentally rethinks the notion of regularity. Usually a function is called
smooth if it can be approximated around every point by a polynomial of a given
degree (the Taylor polynomial). Naturally, the solution to an SPDE driven by
--say-- Gaussian space-time white noise is not smooth in that sense. So in
Hairer's theory, a function is called smooth if locally it can be approximated
by the noise (and higher order terms constructed from the noise). This induces
a natural topology in which the solutions to semilinear SPDEs depend
continuously on the driving signal.
At this date it seems that the theory of regularity structures has a wider
range of applicability than the paracontrolled approach described
in~{\cite{Gubinelli2012}}, but also at the expense of a very deep conceptual
sophistication. There are problems (like the one--dimensional heat equation
with multiplicative noise and general nonlinearity) that cannot be solved
using paracontrolled distributions, but these problems seem also quite
difficult (even if doable and work in progress) to tackle with regularity
structures. Moreover, equations of a more general kind, say dispersive
equations or wave equations, are still poorly (or not at all) understood in
both approaches.
\section{The paracontrolled PAM}
As we have tried to motivate in the previous sections we are looking for a
theory for {\tmname{pam}} which describes the possible limits of the equation
\begin{equation}
\mathscr{L} u = F (u) \eta \label{eq:pam-eta}
\end{equation}
driven by sufficiently regular $\eta$ but as $\eta$ is converging to the space
white noise $\xi$. From this point of view we are looking for a priori
estimates on the solution $u$ to~(\ref{eq:pam-eta}) which depend only on
distributional norms of $\eta$. So in the following we will assume that we
have at hand only a uniform control of $\eta$ in $C_T \mathscr{C}^{\gamma - 2}$ for
some $\gamma > 0$. For the application to the 2d space white noise we could
take $\gamma = 1 -$, but we will not use this specific information in order to
probe the range of applicability of our approach and we will only assume that
the exponent $\gamma$ is such that $3 \gamma - 2 > 0$.
\
Assume for a moment that we are in the simpler situation $\gamma > 1$ and
$u_0 \in \mathscr{C}^{\gamma}$ and let us try to solve equation~(\ref{eq:pam-eta}) via
Picard iterations $(u^n)_{n \geqslant 0}$ starting from $u^0 \equiv u_0$.
Since $F$ preserves the $C \mathscr{C}^{\gamma}$-regularity (which can be seen by
identifying $C \mathscr{C}^{\gamma}$ with the classical space of bounded
H{\"o}lder--continuous functions of space), the product $F (u^0 (t)) \eta$ is
well defined as an element of $\mathscr{C}^{\gamma - 2}$ for all $t \geqslant 0$ since
$2 \gamma - 2 > 0$ and we are in condition to apply
Corollary~\ref{cor:product} below on the product of elements in
H{\"o}lder--Besov spaces. Now by Lemma~\ref{lem:schauder}, the Laplacian gains
two degrees of regularity so that the solution $u^1$ to $\mathscr{L} u^1 = F (u^0)
\eta$, $u^1 (0) = u_0$, is in $C \mathscr{C}^{\gamma}$. From here we obtain a
contraction on $C_T \mathscr{C}^{\gamma}$ for some small $T > 0$ whose value does not
depend on $u_0$, which gives us global in time existence and uniqueness of
solutions. Note that in one dimension the space white noise has regularity
$\mathscr{C}^{- 1 / 2 -}$ (see Exercise~\ref{exo:wn besov}) so taking $\gamma = 3 / 2
-$ we have determined that the one--dimensional {\tmname{pam}} can be solved
globally in time with standard techniques.
\
When the condition $2 \gamma - 2 > 0$ is not satisfied we still have that if
$\eta \in C_T \mathscr{C}^{\gamma - 2}$ then $u \in \mathscr{L}^{\gamma} = C_T \mathscr{C}^{\gamma -
2} \cap C_T^{\gamma / 2} L^{\infty}$ by the standard parabolic estimates of
Lemma~\ref{lem:schauder}. However with the regularities at hand we cannot use
Corollary~\ref{cor:product} anymore to guarantee the continuity of the
operator $(u, \eta) \mapsto F (u) \eta$. Moreover, as already seen in the
simpler homogenization problems above this is not a technical difficulty but a
real issue of the regime $\gamma \leqslant 1$. We expect that controlling the
model in this regime can be quite tricky since limits exists when $\eta
\rightarrow 0$ but the limiting solution still feels residual order one
effects from the vanishing driving signal $\eta$. This situation cannot be
improved from the point of view of standard analytic considerations. What is
needed is a finer control of the solution $u$ which allows to analyse in more
detail the possible resonances between the fluctuations of $u$ and those of
$\eta$.
\
Before going on we will revise the problem of multiplication of distributions
in the scale of H{\"o}lder--Besov spaces, introducing the basic tool of our
general analysis: Bony's paraproduct.
\subsection{The paraproduct and the resonant term}\label{ssec:bony}
Paraproducts are bilinear operations introduced by Bony~{\cite{Bony1981}} to
linearize a class of nonlinear hyperbolic PDEs in order to analyse the
regularity of their solutions. In terms of Littlewood--Paley blocks, a general
product $fg$ of two distributions can be (at least formally) decomposed as
\[ fg = \sum_{j \geqslant - 1} \sum_{i \geqslant - 1} \Delta_i f \Delta_j g =
f \,\mathord{\prec}\, g + f \,\mathord{\succ}\, g + f \,\mathord{\circ}\, g. \]
Here $f \,\mathord{\prec}\, g$ is the part of the double sum with $i < j - 1$, $f \,\mathord{\succ}\, g$
is the part with $i > j + 1$, and $f \,\mathord{\circ}\, g$ is the ``diagonal'' part, where
$|i - j| \leqslant 1$. More precisely, we define
\[ f \,\mathord{\prec}\, g = g \,\mathord{\succ}\, f = \sum_{j \geqslant - 1} \sum_{i = - 1}^{j - 2}
\Delta_i f \Delta_j g \hspace{2em} \text{and} \hspace{2em} f \,\mathord{\circ}\, g =
\sum_{|i - j| \leqslant 1} \Delta_i f \Delta_j g. \]
Of course, the decomposition depends on the dyadic partition of unity used to
define the blocks $\Delta_j$, and also on the particular choice of the pairs
$(i, j)$ in the diagonal part. The choice of taking all $(i, j)$ with $|i - j|
\leqslant 1$ into the diagonal part corresponds to the fact that the partition
of unity can be chosen such that $\tmop{supp} \mathscr{F} (\Delta_i f \Delta_j g)
\subseteq 2^j \mathscr{A}$ if $i < j - 1$, where $\mathscr{A}$ is a suitable annulus. If $| i
- j | \leqslant 1$, the only apriori information on the spectral support of
the various term in the double sum is $\tmop{supp} \mathscr{F} (\Delta_i f \Delta_j g)
\subseteq 2^j \mathscr{B}$, that is they are supported in balls and in particular they
can have non--zero contributions to very low wave vectors. \ We call $f \,\mathord{\prec}\,
g$ and $f \,\mathord{\succ}\, g$ \tmtextit{paraproducts}, and $f \,\mathord{\circ}\, g$ the
\tmtextit{resonant} term.
Bony's crucial observation is that $f \,\mathord{\prec}\, g$ (and thus $f \,\mathord{\succ}\, g$) is
always a well-defined distribution. Heuristically, $f \,\mathord{\prec}\, g$ behaves at
large frequencies like $g$ (and thus retains the same regularity), and $f$
provides only a frequency modulation of $g$. The only difficulty in
constructing $fg$ for arbitrary distributions lies in handling the diagonal
term $f \,\mathord{\circ}\, g$. The basic result about these bilinear operations is given by
the following estimates.
\begin{theorem}
(Paraproduct estimates)\label{thm:paraproduct} For any $\beta \in
\mathbb{R}$ and $f, g \in \mathscr{S}'$ we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:para-1} \|f \,\mathord{\prec}\, g\|_{\beta} \lesssim_{\beta}
\|f\|_{L^{\infty}} \|g\|_{\beta},
\end{equation}
and for $\alpha < 0$ furthermore
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:para-2} \|f \,\mathord{\prec}\, g\|_{\alpha + \beta} \lesssim_{\alpha, \beta}
\|f\|_{\alpha} \|g\|_{\beta} .
\end{equation}
For $\alpha + \beta > 0$ we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:para-3} \|f \,\mathord{\circ}\, g\|_{\alpha + \beta} \lesssim_{\alpha, \beta}
\|f\|_{\alpha} \|g\|_{\beta} .
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
There exists an annulus $\mathscr{A}$ such that $S_{j - 1} f \Delta_j g$ has Fourier
transform supported in $2^j \mathscr{A}$, and for $f \in L^{\infty}$ we have
\[ \|S_{j - 1} f \Delta_j g\|_{L^{\infty}} \leqslant \|S_{j - 1}
f\|_{L^{\infty}} \| \Delta_j g\|_{L^{\infty}} \lesssim
\|f\|_{L^{\infty}} 2^{- j \beta} \|g\|_{\beta} . \]
By Lemma~\ref{lem: Besov regularity of series}, we thus
obtain~(\ref{eq:para-1}). The proof of of~(\ref{eq:para-2})
and~(\ref{eq:para-3}) works in the same way, where for estimating $f \,\mathord{\circ}\,
g$ we need $\alpha + \beta > 0$ because the terms of the series are
supported in a ball and not in an annulus.
\end{proof}
A simple corollary is then the following:
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:product}Let $f \in \mathscr{C}^{\alpha}$ and $g \in \mathscr{C}^{\beta}$ with
$\alpha + \beta > 0$, then the product $(f, g) \mapsto fg$ is a bounded
bilinear map from $\mathscr{C}^{\alpha} \times \mathscr{C}^{\beta}$ to $\mathscr{C}^{\alpha \wedge
\beta}$. While $f \,\mathord{\prec}\, g$, $f \,\mathord{\succ}\, g$, and $f \,\mathord{\circ}\, g$ depend on the
specific dyadic partition of unity, the product $f g$ does not.
\end{corollary}
The independence of the product from the dyadic partition of unity easily
follows by taking smooth approximations.
\
The ill--posedness of $f \,\mathord{\circ}\, g$ for $\alpha + \beta \leqslant 0$ can be
interpreted as a resonance effect since $f \,\mathord{\circ}\, g$ contains exactly those
part of the double series where $f$ and $g$ are in the same frequency range.
The paraproduct $f \,\mathord{\prec}\, g$ can be interpreted as frequency modulation of $g$,
which should become more clear in the following example.
\begin{example}
In Figure~\ref{fig:slow} we see a slowly oscillating positive function $u$,
while Figure~\ref{fig:fast} depicts a fast sine curve $v$. The product $u
v$, which here equals the paraproduct $u \,\mathord{\prec}\, v$ since $u$ has no rapidly
oscillating components, is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:modulation}. We see that
the local fluctuations of $u v$ are due to $v$, and that $u v$ is
essentially oscillating with the same speed as $v$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\begin{minipage}{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
{\resizebox{5.5cm}{1.5cm}{\includegraphics{slowcurve.pdf}}}
\caption{The function $u$}
\label{fig:slow}
\end{minipage}\hfill
\begin{minipage}{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
{\resizebox{5.5cm}{1.5cm}{\includegraphics{fastcurve.pdf}}}
\caption{The function $v$}
\label{fig:fast}
\end{minipage}\\
\begin{minipage}{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
{\resizebox{5.5cm}{1.5cm}{\includegraphics{modulation_3.pdf}}}
\caption{The function $u \,\mathord{\prec}\, v$}
\label{fig:modulation}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\end{example}
\begin{example}
If $f \in \mathscr{C}^{\gamma} (\mathbb{T})$ and $g \in \mathscr{C}^{\delta} (\mathbb{T})$
with $\gamma + \delta > 1$, then we can define $\int f \mathrm{d} g := \int
(f \partial_t g)$, which is well defined since $\partial_t g \in \mathscr{C}^{\delta
- 1}$ and $\gamma + \delta - 1 > 0$, and since integration is a linear map.
In this way we recover the Young integral~{\cite{Young1936}}.
\end{example}
\begin{example}
Let $B^H$ be a fractional Brownian bridge on $\mathbb{T}$ (or simply a
fractional Brownian motion on $[0, \pi]$, reflected on $[\pi, 2 \pi]$) and
assume that $H > 1 / 2$. We have $\varphi (B^H) \in \mathscr{C}^{H -}$ for all
Lipschitz continuous $\varphi$, and $\partial_t B^H \in \mathscr{C}^{(H - 1) -}$,
and in particular $\varphi (B^H) \partial_t B^H$ is well-defined. This can
be used to solve SDEs driven by $B^H$ in a pathwise sense.
\end{example}
The condition $\alpha + \beta > 0$ is essentially sharp, at least at this
level of generality, see~{\cite{Young1936}} for counterexamples. It excludes
of course the Brownian case: if $B$ is a Brownian motion, then almost surely
$B \in \mathscr{C}^{\alpha}_{\tmop{loc}}$ for all $\alpha < 1 / 2$, so that
$\partial_t B \in \mathscr{C}^{\alpha - 1}_{\tmop{loc}}$ and thus $B \,\mathord{\circ}\, \partial_t
B$ fails to be well defined. See also~{\cite{Lyons2007}}, Proposition~1.29 for
an instructive example which shows that this is not a shortcoming of our
description of regularity, but that it is indeed impossible to define the
product $B \partial_t B$ as a continuous bilinear operation on distribution
spaces.
\
Other counterexamples are given by our discussion of the homogenization
problem above. More simply, one can consider the following situation.
\begin{example}
Consider the sequence of functions $f_n : \mathbb{T} \rightarrow
\mathbb{C}$ given by$f_n (t) = e^{in^2 t} / n$. Then it is easy to show
that $\| f_n \|_{\gamma} \rightarrow 0$ for all $\gamma < 1 / 2$. However
let $g_n (t) = \tmop{Re} f_n (t) \tmop{Im} \partial_t f_n (t) = \cos (n^2
t)^2$. Then $g_n \rightarrow 1 / 2$ in $\mathscr{C}^{0 -}$ which shows that the map
$f \mapsto (\tmop{Re} f) (\partial_t \tmop{Im} f)$ cannot be continuous in
$\mathscr{C}^{\gamma}$ if $\gamma < 1 / 2$. Pictorially the situation is summarized
in Figure~\ref{fig:resonances}, where we sketched the three dimensional
curve given by $t \mapsto \left( \tmop{Re} f_n (t) , \tmop{Im} f_n
(t), \int_0^t g_n (s) \mathrm{d} s \right)$ for various values of $n$ and in the
limit.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\resizebox{5.5cm}{1.5cm}{\includegraphics{third-dim.pdf}}
\caption{\label{fig:resonances}Resonances give macroscopic effects}
\end{figure}
\end{example}
\subsection{Commutator estimates and paralinearization}
The product $F (u) \eta$ appearing in the right hand side of {\tmname{pam}}
can be decomposed via the paraproduct $\,\mathord{\prec}\,$ as a sum of three terms
\[ F (u) \eta = F (u) \,\mathord{\prec}\, \eta + F (u) \,\mathord{\circ}\, \eta + F (u) \,\mathord{\succ}\, \eta . \]
The first and the last of these terms are continuous in any topology we choose
for $F (u)$ and $\eta$. The {\tmem{resonant term}} $F (u) \,\mathord{\circ}\, \eta$ however
is problematic. It gathers the products of the oscillations of $F (u)$ and
$\eta$ on comparable dyadic scales and these products can contribute to all
larger scales in such a way that microscopic oscillations might build up to a
macroscopic effect which does not disappear in the limit (as we already have
seen). If the function $F$ is smooth enough, then we expect the resonances
between $F (u)$ and $\eta$ to correspond to the resonances between $u$ and
$\eta$, and as we will see this is justified.
\
The expected regularity of the different terms is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:para-rhs-intro} \underbrace{F (u) \,\mathord{\prec}\, \eta}_{\gamma - 2} +
\underbrace{F (u) \,\mathord{\circ}\, \eta}_{2 \gamma - 2} + \underbrace{F (u) \,\mathord{\succ}\,
\eta}_{2 \gamma - 2},
\end{equation}
but unless $2 \gamma - 2 > 0$ the resonant term $F (u) \,\mathord{\circ}\, \eta$ cannot be
controlled using only the $C \mathscr{C}^{\gamma}$--norm of $u$ and the $C \mathscr{C}^{\gamma
- 2}$--norm of $\eta$. If $F$ is at least $C^2$, we can use a
{\tmem{paralinearization}} result (stated precisely in
Lemma~\ref{lemma:para-taylor} below) to rewrite this term as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:rde expand Fu} F (u) \,\mathord{\circ}\, \eta = F' (u) (u \,\mathord{\circ}\, \eta) + \Pi_F
(u, \eta),
\end{equation}
with a remainder $\Pi_F (u, \eta) \in \mathscr{C}^{3 \gamma - 2}$ provided $3 \gamma -
2 > 0$. The difficulty is now localized in the linearized resonant product $u
\,\mathord{\circ}\, \eta$. In order to control this term, we would like to exploit the fact
that the function $u$ is not a generic element of $C \mathscr{C}^{\gamma}$ but that it
has a specific structure, since $\mathscr{L} u$ has to match the paraproduct
decomposition given in~(\ref{eq:para-rhs-intro}) where the least regular term
is expected to be $F (u) \,\mathord{\prec}\, \eta \in C \mathscr{C}^{\gamma - 2}$.
In order to do so, we postulate that the solution $u$ is given by the
following \tmtextit{paracontrolled ansatz:}
\[ u = u^X \,\mathord{\prec}\, X + u^{\sharp}, \]
for functions $u^X, X, u^{\sharp}$ such that $u^X, X \in \mathscr{C}^{\gamma}$ and the
remainder $u^{\sharp} \in C \mathscr{C}^{2 \gamma}$. This decomposition allows for a
finer analysis of the resonant term $u \,\mathord{\circ}\, \eta$: indeed, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:rde expand resonant term} u \,\mathord{\circ}\, \eta = (u^X \,\mathord{\prec}\, X) \,\mathord{\circ}\, \eta
+ u^{\sharp} \,\mathord{\circ}\, \eta = u^X (X \,\mathord{\circ}\, \eta) + C (u^X, X, \eta) +
u^{\sharp} \,\mathord{\circ}\, \eta,
\end{equation}
where the {\tmem{commutator}} is defined by $C (u^X, X, \eta) = (u^X \,\mathord{\prec}\, X)
\,\mathord{\circ}\, \eta - u^X (X \,\mathord{\circ}\, \eta)$. Observe now that the term $u^{\sharp} \,\mathord{\circ}\,
\eta$ does not pose any further problem, as it is bounded in $C \mathscr{C}^{3 \gamma
- 2}$. The key point is now that the commutator is a bounded multilinear
function of its arguments as long as the sum of their regularities is strictly
positive, see Lemma~\ref{lemma:commutator} below. By assumption, we have $3
\gamma - 2 > 0$, and therefore $C (u^X, X, \eta) \in C \mathscr{C}^{3 \gamma - 2}$.
The only problematic term which remains to be handled is thus the bilinear
functional of the noise given by $X \,\mathord{\circ}\, \eta$. Here we need to make the
assumption that $X \,\mathord{\circ}\, \eta \in C \mathscr{C}^{2 \gamma - 2}$ in order for the
product $u^X (X \,\mathord{\circ}\, \eta)$ to be well defined. This assumption is not
guaranteed by the analytical estimates at hand, and it has to be added as a
further requirement to our construction.
Granting this last step, we have obtained that the right hand side of
equation~(\ref{eq:pam-eta}) is well defined and a continuous function of $(u,
u^X, u^{\sharp}, X, \eta, X \,\mathord{\circ}\, \eta)$.
\
It remains to check that the paracontrolled ansatz is coherent with the
equation satisfied by solutions to {\tmname{pam}}. Let us first consider the
linear example $F (u) = u$. Here we saw that the solution is of the form $u =
e^X v$ with
\[ \mathscr{L} v = v | \partial_x X |^2 + 2 \langle \partial_x v, \partial_x X
\rangle_{\mathbb{R}^2}, \]
where $| \partial_x X |^2 \in C \mathscr{C}^{2 \gamma - 2}$ and $\partial_x X \in C
\mathscr{C}^{\gamma - 1}$ and therefore $v \in C \mathscr{C}^{2 \gamma}$. In particular
\[ u = e^X v = v \,\mathord{\prec}\, e^X + C \mathscr{C}^{2 \gamma} = v \,\mathord{\prec}\, (e^X \,\mathord{\prec}\, X) + C
\mathscr{C}^{2 \gamma}, \]
using a paralinearization result in last step (see
Lemma~\ref{lemma:paralinearization} below). Now the double paraproduct $f
\,\mathord{\prec}\, (g \,\mathord{\prec}\, h)$ satisfies
\[ \| f \,\mathord{\prec}\, (g \,\mathord{\prec}\, h) - (f g) \,\mathord{\prec}\, h \|_{\alpha + \beta} \lesssim \| f
\|_{\alpha} \| g \|_{\alpha} \| h \|_{\beta}, \]
see~{\cite{Bony1981}}, and therefore $u = (v e^X) \,\mathord{\prec}\, X + C \mathscr{C}^{2 \gamma} =
u \,\mathord{\prec}\, X + C \mathscr{C}^{2 \gamma}$ which shows that the paracontrolled ansatz is at
least justified in the linear case.
\
In the nonlinear case, the paracontrolled ansatz and the Leibniz rule for the
paraproduct imply that~(\ref{eq:pam-eta}) can be rewritten as
\[
\mathscr{L} u = \mathscr{L} (u^X \,\mathord{\prec}\, X + u^{\sharp}) = u^X \,\mathord{\prec}\, \mathscr{L} X + \left[ \mathscr{L}, u^X \,\mathord{\prec}\, \right] X + \mathscr{L} u^{\sharp} = F (u) \,\mathord{\prec}\, \eta + F (u) \,\mathord{\circ}\, \eta + F(u) \,\mathord{\succ}\, \eta,
\]
where we recall that $\left[ \mathscr{L}, u^X \,\mathord{\prec}\, \right] X = \mathscr{L} (u^X \,\mathord{\prec}\, X) -
u^X \,\mathord{\prec}\, \mathscr{L} X$ denotes the commutator. If we choose $X$ such that $\mathscr{L} X =
\eta$ and we set $u^X = F (u)$, then we can use~(\ref{eq:rde expand Fu})
and~(\ref{eq:rde expand resonant term}) to obtain the following equation for
the remainder $u^{\sharp}$:
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{ll}
\mathscr{L} u^{\sharp} & = F' (u) F (u) (X \,\mathord{\circ}\, \eta) + F (u) \,\mathord{\succ}\, \eta -
\left[ \mathscr{L}, F (u) \,\mathord{\prec}\, \right] X\\
& \hspace{2em} + F' (u) C (F (u), X, \eta) + F' (u) (u^{\sharp} \,\mathord{\circ}\,
\eta) + \Pi_F (u, \eta) .
\end{array} \label{eq:u-sharp}
\end{equation}
Lemma~\ref{lemma:comm-L-para} below ensures that $\mathscr{L}^{- 1} \left[ \mathscr{L}, F (u)
\,\mathord{\prec}\, \right] X \in C \mathscr{C}^{2 \gamma}$ whenever $u \in \mathscr{L}^{\gamma}$, and we
have already seen that all the other terms on the right hand side are in $C
\mathscr{C}^{2 \gamma - 2}$ so that this allows us to control $u^{\sharp}$ in $C
\mathscr{C}^{2 \gamma}$. Together with $u = F (u) \,\mathord{\prec}\, X + u^{\sharp}$,
equation~(\ref{eq:u-sharp}) gives an equivalent description of the solution
and allows us to obtain a priori estimates on $u$ and $u^{\sharp}$ in terms of
$(u_0, \| \eta \|_{\gamma - 2}, \|X \,\mathord{\circ}\, \eta \|_{2 \gamma - 2})$. It is now
easy to show that if $F \in C^3_b$, then $u$ depends continuously on the data
$(u_0, \eta, X \,\mathord{\circ}\, \eta)$, so that we have a robust strategy to pass to the
limit in~(\ref{eq:gpam}) and to make sense of the solution
to~(\ref{eq:pam-eta}) also for irregular $\eta \in C \mathscr{C}^{\gamma - 2}$ as long
as $\gamma > 2 / 3$.
\
In the remainder of this section we will prove the results (paralinearization
and various key commutators) which we used in the discussion above, before
going on to gather the consequences of our analysis in the next section. When
the time dependence does not play any role we state the results for
distributions depending only on the space variable as the extension to time
varying functions will not add further difficulty.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:commutator}Assume that $\alpha, \beta, \gamma \in \mathbb{R}$
are such that $\alpha + \beta + \gamma > 0$ and $\beta + \gamma \neq 0$.
Then for $f, g, h \in C^{\infty}$ the trilinear operator
\[ C (f, g, h) = ((f \,\mathord{\prec}\, g) \,\mathord{\circ}\, h) - f (g \,\mathord{\circ}\, h) \]
allows for the bound
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:commutator bound} \|C (f, g, h)\|_{\beta + \gamma} \lesssim
\|f\|_{\alpha} \|g\|_{\beta} \|h\|_{\gamma},
\end{equation}
and can thus be uniquely extended to a bounded trilinear operator from
$\mathscr{C}^{\alpha} \hspace{-0.17em} \times \hspace{-0.17em} \mathscr{C}^{\beta}
\hspace{-0.17em} \times \hspace{-0.17em} \mathscr{C}^{\alpha}$ to $\mathscr{C}^{\beta +
\gamma}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For $\beta + \gamma > 0$ this follows from the paraproduct estimates, so let
$\beta + \gamma < 0$. By definition
\begin{align*}
C (f, g, h) & = \sum_{i, j, k, \ell} \Delta_i (\Delta_j f \Delta_k g) \Delta_{\ell} h (\mathbb{I}_{j < k - 1} \mathbb{I}_{| i - \ell | \leqslant 1} - \mathbb{I}_{| k - \ell | \leqslant 1}) \\
& = \sum_{i, j, k, \ell} \Delta_i (\Delta_j f \Delta_k g) \Delta_{\ell} h (\mathbb{I}_{j < k - 1} \mathbb{I}_{| i - \ell | \leqslant 1}\mathbb{I}_{| k - \ell | \leqslant N} - \mathbb{I}_{| k - \ell |\leqslant 1}),
\end{align*}
where we used that $S_{k - 1} f \Delta_k g$ has support in an annulus $2^k
\mathscr{A}$, so that $\Delta_i (S_{k - 1} f \Delta_k g) \neq 0$ only if $| i - k |
\leqslant N - 1$ for some fixed $N \in \mathbb{N}$, which in combination
with $| i - \ell | \leqslant 1$ yields $| k - \ell | \leqslant N$. Now for
fixed $k$, the term $\sum_{\ell} \mathbb{I}_{2 \leqslant | k - \ell |
\leqslant N} \Delta_k g \Delta_{\ell} h$ is spectrally supported in an
annulus $2^k \mathscr{A}$, so that $\sum_{k, \ell} \mathbb{I}_{2 \leqslant | k -
\ell | \leqslant N} \Delta_k g \Delta_{\ell} h \in \mathscr{C}^{\beta + \gamma}$ and
we may add and subtract $f \sum_{k, \ell} \mathbb{I}_{2 \leqslant | k -
\ell | \leqslant N} \Delta_k g \Delta_{\ell} h$ to $C (f, g, h)$ while
maintaining the bound~(\ref{eq:commutator bound}). It remains to treat
\begin{align}\label{eq:commutator pr1} \nonumber
&\sum_{i, j, k, \ell} \Delta_i (\Delta_j f \Delta_k g) \Delta_{\ell} h \mathbb{I}_{| k - \ell | \leqslant N} (\mathbb{I}_{j < k - 1} \mathbb{I}_{| i - \ell | \leqslant 1} - 1) \\
&\hspace{100pt} = - \sum_{i, j, k, \ell} \Delta_i (\Delta_j f \Delta_k g) \Delta_{\ell} h \mathbb{I}_{| k - \ell | \leqslant N}(\mathbb{I}_{j \geqslant k - 1} + \mathbb{I}_{j < k - 1}\mathbb{I}_{| i - \ell | > 1}) .
\end{align}
We estimate both terms on the right hand side separately. For $m \geqslant - 1$ we have
\begin{align*}
&\Big\| \Delta_m \Big( \sum_{i, j, k, \ell} \Delta_i (\Delta_j f \Delta_k g) \Delta_{\ell} h \mathbb{I}_{| k - \ell | \leqslant N} \mathbb{I}_{j \geqslant k - 1} \Big) \Big\|_{L^{\infty}} \\
&\hspace{35pt} \leqslant \sum_{j, k, \ell} \mathbb{I}_{| k - \ell | \leqslant N} \mathbb{I}_{j \geqslant k - 1} \| \Delta_m (\Delta_j f \Delta_k g \Delta_{\ell} h) \|_{L^{\infty}} \lesssim \sum_{j \gtrsim m} \sum_{k \lesssim j} 2^{- j \alpha} \| f \|_{\alpha} 2^{- k \beta} \| g \|_{\beta} 2^{- k \gamma} \| h \|_{\gamma} \\
&\hspace{35pt} \lesssim \sum_{j \gtrsim m} 2^{- j (\alpha + \beta + \gamma)} \| f \|_{\alpha} \| g \|_{\beta} \| h \|_{\gamma} \lesssim 2^{- m (\alpha + \beta + \gamma)} \| f \|_{\alpha} \| g \|_{\beta} \| h \|_{\gamma},
\end{align*}
using $\beta + \gamma < 0$. It remains to estimate the second term
in~(\ref{eq:commutator pr1}). For $| i - \ell | > 1$ and $i \sim k \sim
\ell$, any term of the form $\Delta_i () \Delta_{\ell} ()$ is spectrally
supported in an annulus $2^{\ell} \mathscr{A}$, and therefore
\begin{align*}
& \Big\| \Delta_m \Big( \sum_{i, j, k, \ell} \Delta_i (\Delta_j f \Delta_k g) \Delta_{\ell} h \mathbb{I}_{| k - \ell | \leqslant N} \mathbb{I}_{j < k - 1} \mathbb{I}_{| i - \ell | > 1} \Big) \Big\|_{L^{\infty}} \\
&\hspace{80pt} \lesssim \sum_{i, j, k, \ell} \mathbb{I}_{j < k - 1} \mathbb{I}_{i \sim k \sim \ell \sim m} \|\Delta_i (\Delta_j f \Delta_k g) \Delta_{\ell} h \|_{L^{\infty}} \\
&\hspace{80pt} \lesssim \sum_{j \lesssim m} 2^{- j \alpha} \| f \|_{\alpha} 2^{- m \beta} \| g \|_{\beta} 2^{- m \gamma} \| h \|_{\gamma} \lesssim 2^{- m(\beta + \gamma)} \| f \|_{\alpha} \| g \|_{\beta} \| h \|_{\gamma}.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
For $\beta + \gamma = 0$ we can apply the commutator estimate with $\gamma'
< \gamma$, as long as $\alpha + \beta + \gamma' > 0$.
\end{remark}
Our next result is a simple paralinearization lemma for non--linear operators.
\begin{lemma}[see also~{\cite{Bahouri2011}}, Theorem 2.92]
\label{lemma:paralinearization}Let $\alpha \in (0, 1)$, $\beta \in (0,
\alpha]$, and let $F \in C^{1 + \beta / \alpha}_b$. There exists a locally
bounded map $R_F : \mathscr{C}^{\alpha} \rightarrow \mathscr{C}^{\alpha + \beta}$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:para-linearization} F (f) = F' (f) \,\mathord{\prec}\, f + R_F (f)
\end{equation}
for all $f \in \mathscr{C}^{\alpha}$. More precisely, we have
\[ \|R_F (f)\|_{\alpha + \beta} \lesssim \|F\|_{C^{1 + \beta / \alpha}_b}
(1 +\|f\|_{\alpha}^{1 + \beta / \alpha}) . \]
If $F \in C_b^{2 + \beta / \alpha}$, then $R_F$ is locally Lipschitz
continuous:
\[ \|R_F (f) - R_F (g)\|_{\alpha + \beta} \lesssim \|F\|_{C^{2 + \beta /
\alpha}_b} (1 +\|f\|_{\alpha} +\|g\|_{\alpha})^{1 + \beta / \alpha} \|f
- g\|_{\alpha} . \]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The difference $F (f) - F' (f) \,\mathord{\prec}\, f$ is given by
\[ R_F (f) = F (f) - F' (f) \,\mathord{\prec}\, f = \sum_{i \geqslant - 1} [\Delta_i F (f)
- S_{i - 1} F' (f) \Delta_i f] = \sum_{i \geqslant - 1} u_i, \]
and every $u_i$ is spectrally supported in a ball $2^i \mathscr{B}$. For $i < 1$, we
simply estimate $\|u_i \|_{L^{\infty}} \lesssim \|F\|_{C^1_b} (1
+\|f\|_{\alpha})$. For $i \geqslant 1$ we use the fact that $f$ is a bounded
function to write the Littlewood--Paley projections as convolutions and
obtain
\begin{align*}
u_i (x) & = \int K_i (x - y) K_{< i - 1} (x - z) [F (f (y)) - F' (f
(z)) f (y)] \mathrm{d} y \mathrm{d} z\\
& = \int K_i (x - y) K_{< i - 1} (x - z) [F (f (y)) - F (f (z)) - F'
(f (z)) (f (y) - f (z))] \mathrm{d} y \mathrm{d} z,
\end{align*}
where $K_i = \mathscr{F}^{- 1} \rho_i$, $K_{< i - 1} = \sum_{j < i - 1} K_j$, and
where we used that $\int K_i (y) \mathrm{d} y = \rho_i (0) = 0$ for $i \geqslant
0$ and $\int K_{< i - 1} (z) \mathrm{d} z = 1$ for $i \geqslant 1$. Now we can
apply a first order Taylor expansion to $F$ and use the $\beta /
\alpha$--H{\"o}lder continuity of $F'$ in combination with the
$\alpha$--H{\"o}lder continuity of $f$, to deduce
\begin{align*}
|u_i (x) | & \lesssim \|F\|_{C^{1 + \beta / \alpha}_b} \|f\|_{\alpha}^{1 +
\beta / \alpha} \int |K_i (x - y) K_{< i - 1} (x - z) | \times |z -
y|^{\alpha + \beta} \mathrm{d} y \mathrm{d} z\\
& \lesssim \|F\|_{C^{1 + \beta / \alpha}_b} \|f\|_{\alpha}^{1 + \beta /
\alpha} 2^{- i (\alpha + \beta)} .
\end{align*}
Therefore, the estimate for $R_F (f)$ follows from Lemma~\ref{lem: Besov
regularity of series}. The estimate for $R_F (f) - R_F (g)$ is shown in the
same way.
\end{proof}
Let $g$ be a distribution belonging to $\mathscr{C}^{\beta}$ for some $\beta < 0$.
Then the map $f \mapsto f \,\mathord{\circ}\, g$ behaves, modulo smoother correction terms,
like a derivative operator:
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:para-taylor}Let $\alpha \in (0, 1)$, $\beta \in (0, \alpha]$,
$\gamma \in \mathbb{R}$ be such that $\alpha + \beta + \gamma > 0$ and
$\alpha + \gamma \neq 0$. Let $F \in C^{1 + \beta / \alpha}_b$. Then there
exists a locally bounded map $\Pi_F : \mathscr{C}^{\alpha} \times \mathscr{C}^{\gamma}
\rightarrow \mathscr{C}^{\alpha + \gamma}$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:para-taylor} F (f) \,\mathord{\circ}\, g = F' (f) (f \,\mathord{\circ}\, g) + \Pi_F (f, g)
\end{equation}
for all $f \in \mathscr{C}^{\alpha}$ and all smooth $g$. More precisely, we have
\[ \| \Pi_F (f, g)\|_{\alpha + \gamma} \lesssim \|F\|_{C^{1 + \beta /
\alpha}_b} (1 +\|f\|_{\alpha}^{1 + \beta / \alpha}) \|g\|_{\gamma} . \]
If $F \in C^{2 + \beta / \alpha}_b$, then $\Pi_F$ is locally Lipschitz
continuous:
\begin{align*}
&\| \Pi_F (f, g) - \Pi_F (u, v)\|_{\alpha + \gamma} \\
&\hspace{50pt} \lesssim \|F\|_{C^{2 + \beta / \alpha}_b} (1 +\|f\|_{\alpha} +\|u\|_{\alpha})^{1 + \beta / \alpha} (1 +\|v\|_{\gamma}) (\|f - u\|_{\alpha} +\|g - v\|_{\gamma}).
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Use the paralinearization and commutator lemmas above to deduce that
\begin{align*}
\Pi (f, g) & = F (f) \,\mathord{\circ}\, g - F' (f) (f \,\mathord{\circ}\, g) = R_F (f) \,\mathord{\circ}\, g + (F'
(f) \,\mathord{\prec}\, f) \,\mathord{\circ}\, g - F' (f) (f \,\mathord{\circ}\, g)\\
& = R_F (f) \,\mathord{\circ}\, g + C (F' (f), f, g),
\end{align*}
so that the claimed bounds easily follow from Lemma~\ref{lemma:commutator}
and Lemma~\ref{lemma:paralinearization}.
\end{proof}
Besides this sort of chain rule, we also have a Leibniz rule for $f \mapsto f
\,\mathord{\circ}\, g$:
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:para-taylor product}Let $\alpha \in (0, 1)$ and $\gamma < 0$ be
such that $2 \alpha + \gamma > 0$ and $\alpha + \gamma \neq 0$. Then there
exists a bounded trilinear operator $\Pi_{\times} : \mathscr{C}^{\alpha} \times
\mathscr{C}^{\alpha} \times \mathscr{C}^{\gamma} \rightarrow \mathscr{C}^{\alpha + \gamma}$, such
that
\[ (fu) \,\mathord{\circ}\, g = f (u \,\mathord{\circ}\, g) + u (f \,\mathord{\circ}\, g) + \Pi_{\times} (f, u, g) \]
for all $f, u \in \mathscr{C}^{\alpha} (\mathbb{R})$ and all smooth $g$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
It suffices to note that $fu = f \,\mathord{\prec}\, u + f \,\mathord{\succ}\, u + f \,\mathord{\circ}\, u$, which
leads to
\[ \Pi_{\times} (f, u, g) = (fu) \,\mathord{\circ}\, g - f (u \,\mathord{\circ}\, g) + u (f \,\mathord{\circ}\, g) = C
(f, u, g) + C (u, f, g) + (f \,\mathord{\circ}\, u) \,\mathord{\circ}\, g. \]
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:comm-L-para}Let $\beta < 1$, $\alpha \in \mathbb{R}$, and let
$f \in \mathscr{L}^{\beta}$ and $G \in C \mathscr{C}^{\alpha}$ with $\mathscr{L} G \in C \mathscr{C}^{\alpha
- 2}$. There exists $H = H (f, G)$ such that $\mathscr{L} H = \left[ \mathscr{L}, f \,\mathord{\prec}\,
\right] G$ and $H (0) = 0$. Moreover $H \in C \mathscr{C}^{\alpha + \beta} \cap
C^{(\alpha \wedge \beta) / 2} L^{\infty}$ and for all $T > 0$
\[ \| H \|_{C^{(\alpha \wedge \beta) / 2}_T L^{\infty}} + \| H \|_{C_T
\mathscr{C}^{\alpha + \beta}} \lesssim \| f \|_{\mathscr{L}^{\beta}_T} \left( \| G
\|_{C_T \mathscr{C}^{\alpha}} + \left\| \mathscr{L} G \right\|_{C_T \mathscr{C}^{\alpha - 2}}
\right) . \]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $T > 0$ and let $f_{\varepsilon}$ be a time mollification of $f$ such
that $\| \partial_t f_{\varepsilon} \|_{C_T L^{\infty}} \lesssim
\varepsilon^{\beta / 2 - 1} \| f \|_{\mathscr{L}^{\beta}_T}$ and $\| f_{\varepsilon}
- f \|_{C_T L^{\infty}} \lesssim \varepsilon^{\beta / 2} \| f
\|_{\mathscr{L}^{\beta}}$ for all $\varepsilon > 0$. For example we can take
$f_{\varepsilon} = \rho_{\varepsilon} \ast f$ with $\rho_{\varepsilon} (t) =
\rho (t / \varepsilon) / \varepsilon$ and $\rho : \mathbb{R} \rightarrow
\mathbb{R}$ compactly supported, smooth, and of unit integral. For $i
\geqslant - 1$ we have
\[ \mathscr{L} \Delta_i H = \Delta_i \left[ \mathscr{L} ((f - f_{\varepsilon}) \,\mathord{\prec}\, G) - (f
- f_{\varepsilon}) \,\mathord{\prec}\, \mathscr{L} G \right] + \Delta_i \left[ \mathscr{L}
(f_{\varepsilon} \,\mathord{\prec}\, G) - f_{\varepsilon} \,\mathord{\prec}\, \mathscr{L} G \right], \]
so that
\begin{align*}
\mathscr{L} \Delta_i (H - (f - f_{\varepsilon}) \,\mathord{\prec}\, G) & = - \Delta_i \left[ (f - f_{\varepsilon}) \,\mathord{\prec}\, \mathscr{L} G \right] + \Delta_i \left[ \mathscr{L}(f_{\varepsilon} \,\mathord{\prec}\, G) - f_{\varepsilon} \,\mathord{\prec}\, \mathscr{L} G \right] \\
& = \Delta_i \left[ (f_{\varepsilon} - f) \,\mathord{\prec}\, \mathscr{L} G \right] + \Delta_i \left[ \mathscr{L} f_{\varepsilon} \,\mathord{\prec}\, G - 2 \partial_x f_{\varepsilon} \,\mathord{\prec}\, \partial_x G \right],
\end{align*}
with initial condition $\Delta_i (H - (f - f_{\varepsilon}) \,\mathord{\prec}\, G) (0) = -
(\Delta_i (f - f_{\varepsilon}) \,\mathord{\prec}\, G) (0)$. The Schauder estimates for
$\mathscr{L}$ (Lemma~\ref{lem:schauder}) give
\begin{align*}
&\| \Delta_i (H + (f - f_{\varepsilon}) \,\mathord{\prec}\, G) \|_{\mathscr{L}^{\alpha + \beta}_T} \\
&\hspace{60pt} \lesssim \left\| \Delta_i \left[ (f - f_{\varepsilon}) \,\mathord{\prec}\, \mathscr{L} G \right] + \Delta_i \left[ \left( \mathscr{L} f_{\varepsilon} \right) \,\mathord{\prec}\, G + \partial_x f_{\varepsilon} \,\mathord{\prec}\, \partial_x G \right] \right\|_{C_T \mathscr{C}^{\alpha + \beta - 2}} \\
&\hspace{60pt} \qquad + \| (\Delta_i (f - f_{\varepsilon}) \,\mathord{\prec}\, G) (0) \|_{\alpha + \beta} .
\end{align*}
Choosing $\varepsilon = 2^{- 2 i}$, we have
\begin{align*}
\| \Delta_i ((f - f_{\varepsilon}) \,\mathord{\prec}\, G) \|_{C_T \mathscr{C}^{\alpha + \beta}} & \lesssim 2^{\beta i} \| \Delta_i ((f - f_{\varepsilon}) \,\mathord{\prec}\, G) \|_{C_T \mathscr{C}^{\alpha}} \lesssim 2^{\beta i} \| f - f_{\varepsilon} \|_{C_T L^{\infty}} \| G \|_{C_T \mathscr{C}^{\alpha}} \\
& \lesssim \| f \|_{\mathscr{L}_T^{\beta}} \| G \|_{C_T \mathscr{C}^{\alpha}}
\end{align*}
and exactly the same argument also gives
\[ \left\| \Delta_i \left[ (f - f_{\varepsilon}) \,\mathord{\prec}\, \mathscr{L} G \right]
\right\|_{C_T \mathscr{C}^{\alpha + \beta - 2}} \lesssim \| f \|_{\mathscr{L}_T^{\beta}}
\left\| \mathscr{L} G \right\|_{C_T \mathscr{C}^{\alpha - 2}} . \]
Since $\beta < 1$, we further get
\begin{align*}
\left\| \Delta_i \left[ \mathscr{L} f_{\varepsilon} \,\mathord{\prec}\, G + \partial_x f_{\varepsilon} \,\mathord{\prec}\, \partial_x G \right] \right\|_{C_T \mathscr{C}^{\alpha + \beta - 2}} & \lesssim 2^{i (\beta - 2)} \| \partial_t f_{\varepsilon} \|_{C_T L^{\infty}} \| G \|_{C_T \mathscr{C}^{\alpha}} + \| f_{\varepsilon} \|_{C_T \mathscr{C}^{\beta}} \| G \|_{C_T \mathscr{C}^{\alpha}} \\
& \lesssim \| f \|_{\mathscr{L}_T^{\beta}} \| G \|_{C_T \mathscr{C}^{\alpha}} + \| f \|_{C_T \mathscr{C}^{\beta}} \| G \|_{C_T \mathscr{C}^{\alpha}}.
\end{align*}
Combining everything, we end up with
\[ \| \Delta_i H \|_{C_T \mathscr{C}^{\alpha + \beta}} \lesssim \| f
\|_{\mathscr{L}^{\beta}_T} \left( \| G \|_{C_T \mathscr{C}^{\alpha}} + \left\| \mathscr{L} G
\right\|_{C_T \mathscr{C}^{\alpha - 2}} \right), \]
which gives the estimate for the space regularity of $H$ since $\| \Delta_i
H \|_{C_T L^{\infty}} \lesssim 2^{- (\alpha + \beta) i} \| \Delta_i H
\|_{C_T \mathscr{C}^{\alpha + \beta}}$. The time regularity of $H$ can be controlled
similarly by noting that $(f - f_{\varepsilon}) \,\mathord{\prec}\, G \in C^{(\alpha
\wedge \beta) / 2}_T L^{\infty}$, uniformly in $\varepsilon$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Paracontrolled distributions}
Here we build a calculus of distributions satisfying a paracontrolled ansatz.
We start by defining a suitable space of such objects.
\begin{definition}
\label{def:paracontrolled parabolic}Let $\alpha > 0$ and $\beta \in (0,
\alpha]$ be such that $\alpha + \beta \in (0, 2)$, and let $u \in
\mathscr{L}^{\alpha}$. A pair of distributions $(f, f^u) \in \mathscr{L}^{\alpha} \times
\mathscr{L}^{\beta}$ is called \tmtextit{paracontrolled} by $g$ if $f^{\sharp} = f -
f^u \,\mathord{\prec}\, u \in C \mathscr{C}^{\alpha + \beta} \cap \mathscr{L}^{\beta}$. In that case we
write $f \in \mathscr{D}^{\beta} = \mathscr{D}^{\beta} (u)$, and for all $T > 0$ we define
the norm
\[ \| f \|_{\mathscr{D}_T^{\beta}} = \| f \|_{C^{\alpha / 2}_T} + \| f^u
\|_{\mathscr{L}^{\beta}_T} + \| f^{\sharp} \|_{C_T \mathscr{C}^{\alpha + \beta}} + \|
f^{\sharp} \|_{C_T^{\beta / 2} L^{\infty}} . \]
If $\tilde{u} \in \mathscr{L}^{\alpha}$ and $(\tilde{f}, \tilde{f}^{\tilde{u}}) \in
\mathscr{D}^{\beta} (\tilde{u}) $, then we also write
\[ d_{\mathscr{D}^{\beta}_T} (f, \tilde{f}) = \| f^u - \tilde{f}^{\tilde{u}}
\|_{\mathscr{L}^{\beta}_T} + \|f^{\sharp} - \tilde{f}^{\sharp} \|_{C_T
\mathscr{C}^{\alpha + \beta}} + \|f^{\sharp} - \tilde{f}^{\sharp} \|_{C_T^{\beta
/ 2} L^{\infty}} . \]
\end{definition}
Of course we should really write $(f, f^u) \in \mathscr{D}^{\beta}$ since given $f$
and $g$, the derivative $f^u$ is usually not uniquely determined. But in the
applications there will always be an obvious candidate for the derivative, and
no confusion will arise.
\begin{remark}
The space $\mathscr{D}^{\beta}$ does not depend on the specific dyadic partition of
unity. Indeed, Bony~{\cite{Bony1981}} has shown that if $\tilde{\,\mathord{\prec}\,}$ is
the paraproduct constructed from another partition of unity, then $\| f^u
\,\mathord{\prec}\, u - f^u \tilde{\,\mathord{\prec}\,} u \|_{C_T \mathscr{C}^{\alpha + \beta}} \lesssim \| f^u
\|_{C_T \mathscr{C}^{\beta}} \| u \|_{C_T \mathscr{C}^{\alpha}}$.
\end{remark}
\paragraph{Nonlinear operations}As an immediate consequence of
Lemma~\ref{lemma:commutator} we can multiply paracontrolled distributions
provided that we know how to multiply the reference distributions.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:paracontrolled product}Let $\alpha, \beta \in \mathbb{R}$,
$\gamma < 0$, with $\alpha + \beta + \gamma > 0$ and $\alpha + \gamma \neq
0$. Let $u \in C \mathscr{C}^{\alpha}$, $v \in C \mathscr{C}^{\gamma}$, and let $\eta \in C
\mathscr{C}^{\alpha + \gamma}$. Then
\[ \mathscr{D}^{\beta} (u) \ni f \mapsto f \cdot v := f \,\mathord{\prec}\, v + f \,\mathord{\succ}\, v +
f^{\sharp} \,\mathord{\circ}\, v + C (f^u, u, v) + f^u \eta \in C \mathscr{C}^{\gamma} \]
defines a linear operator which for all $T > 0$ admits the bound
\[ \| (f v)^{\sharp} \|_{C_T \mathscr{C}^{\alpha + \gamma}} := \| f \cdot v -
f \,\mathord{\prec}\, v \|_{C_T \mathscr{C}^{\alpha + \gamma}} \lesssim \| f \|_{\mathscr{D}^{\beta}_T}
\left( \| v \|_{C_T \mathscr{C}^{\gamma}} + \| u \|_{C_T \mathscr{C}^{\alpha}} \| v
\|_{C_T \mathscr{C}^{\gamma}} + \| \eta \|_{C_T \mathscr{C}^{\alpha + \gamma}} \right) .
\]
If there exist sequences of smooth functions $(u_n)$ and $(v_n)$ converging
to $u$ and $v$ respectively for which $(u_n \,\mathord{\circ}\, v_n)$ converges to $\eta$,
then $f \cdot v$ does not depend on the dyadic partition of unity used to
construct it.
Furthermore, there exists a quadratic polynomial $P$ so that if $\tilde{u},
\tilde{v}, \tilde{\eta}$ satisfy the same assumptions as $u$, $v$, $\eta$
respectively, if $\tilde{f} \in \mathscr{D}^{\beta} (\tilde{u})$, and if
\[ M = \max \left\{ \| u \|_{C_T \mathscr{C}^{\alpha}}, \| v \|_{C_T \mathscr{C}^{\gamma}},
\| \eta \|_{C_T \mathscr{C}^{\alpha + \gamma}}, \| \tilde{u} \|_{C_T
\mathscr{C}^{\alpha}}, \| \tilde{v} \|_{C_T \mathscr{C}^{\gamma}}, \| \tilde{\eta}
\|_{C_T \mathscr{C}^{\alpha + \gamma}}, \|f\|_{\mathscr{D}^{\beta}_T (u)}, \| \tilde{f}
\|_{\mathscr{D}^{\beta}_T (\tilde{u})} \right\}, \]
then
\[ \| (f v)^{\sharp} - (\tilde{f} \tilde{v})^{\sharp} \|_{\alpha + \gamma}
\leqslant P (M) \left( d_{\mathscr{D}^{\beta}} (f, \tilde{f}) +\|u - \tilde{u}
\|_{\alpha} +\|v - \tilde{v} \|_{\gamma} +\| \eta - \tilde{\eta}
\|_{\alpha + \gamma} \right) . \]
\end{theorem}
Given Lemma~\ref{lemma:commutator} (and the paraproduct estimates
Theorem~\ref{thm:paraproduct}), the proof is straightforward and we leave it
as an exercise. From now on we will usually write $f v$ rather than $f \cdot
v$.
To solve equations involving general nonlinear functions, we need to examine
the stability of paracontrolled distributions under smooth functions.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:paralinearization}Let $\alpha \in (0, 1)$ and $\beta \in (0,
\alpha]$. Let $u \in \mathscr{L}^{\alpha}$, $f \in \mathscr{D}^{\alpha} (u)$, and $F \in
C^{1 + \beta / \alpha}_b$. Then $F (f) \in \mathscr{D}^{\beta}$ with derivative $(F
(f))^u = F' (f) f^u$, and for all $T > 0$
\[
\| F (f) \|_{\mathscr{D}^{\beta}_T} \lesssim \| F \|_{C^{1 + \beta / \alpha}_b} ( 1 + \| f \|^2_{\mathscr{D}^{\alpha}_T} ) ( 1 + \| u \|_{\mathscr{L}_T^{\alpha}}^2 ) .
\]
Moreover, there exists a polynomial $P$ which satisfies for all $F \in C^{2
+ \beta / \alpha}_b$, $\tilde{u} \in \mathscr{L}^{\alpha} $, $\tilde{f} \in
\mathscr{D}^{\alpha} (\tilde{u})$, and
\[ M := \max \left\{ \| u \|_{\mathscr{L}^{\alpha}_T}, \| \tilde{u}
\|_{\mathscr{L}^{\alpha}_T}, \|f\|_{\mathscr{D}^{\alpha}_T (u)}, \| \tilde{f}
\|_{\mathscr{D}^{\alpha}_T (\tilde{u})} \right\} \]
the bound
\[ d_{\mathscr{D}^{\beta}_T} (F (f), F (\tilde{f})) \leqslant P (M) \| F \|_{C^{2 +
\beta / \alpha}_T} ( d_{\mathscr{D}^{\alpha}_T} (f, \tilde{f}) + \| u -
\tilde{u} \|_{\mathscr{L}^{\alpha}_T} ) . \]
\end{theorem}
The proof is not very complicated but rather lengthy, and we do not present it
here.
\paragraph{Schauder estimate for paracontrolled distributions}The Schauder
estimate Lemma~\ref{lem:schauder} is not quite sufficient: we also need to
understand how the heat kernel acts on the paracontrolled structure.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:schauder paracontrolled}Let $\alpha \in (0, 1)$ and $\beta \in
(0, \alpha]$. Let $u \in C \mathscr{C}^{\alpha - 2}$ and $\mathscr{L} U = u$ with $U (0) =
0$. Let $f^u \in \mathscr{L}^{\beta}$, $f^{\sharp} \in C \mathscr{C}^{\alpha + \beta - 2}$,
and $g_0 \in \mathscr{C}^{\alpha + \beta}$. Then $(g, f^u) \in \mathscr{D}^{\beta} (U)$,
where $g$ solves
\[ \mathscr{L} g = f^u \,\mathord{\prec}\, u + f^{\sharp}, \hspace{2em} g (0) = g_0, \]
and we have the bound
\[ \| g \|_{\mathscr{D}^{\beta}_T (U)} \lesssim \| g_0 \|_{\alpha + \beta} + (1 + T)
(\| f^u \|_{\mathscr{L}^{\beta}_T} (1 + \| u \|_{C_T \mathscr{C}^{\alpha - 2}}) + \|
f^{\sharp} \|_{C_T \mathscr{C}^{\alpha + \beta - 2}}) \]
for all $T > 0$. If furthermore $\tilde{u}, \tilde{U}, \tilde{f}^u,
\tilde{f}^{\sharp}, \tilde{g}_0, \tilde{g}$ satisfy the same assumptions as
$u, U, f^u, f^{\sharp}, g_0, g$ respectively, and if $M = \max \{ \| f^u
\|_{\mathscr{L}^{\beta}_T}, \| \tilde{u} \|_{C_T \mathscr{C}^{\alpha - 2}}, 1\}$, then
\begin{eqnarray*}
d_{\mathscr{D}^{\beta}_T} (g, \tilde{g}) \lesssim & \| g_0 - \tilde{g}_0
\|_{\alpha + \beta}
+ (1 + T) M (\|f^u - \tilde{f}^u \|_{\mathscr{L}^{\beta}_T} +\|u - \tilde{u}
\|_{C_T \mathscr{C}^{\alpha - 2}} +\|f^{\sharp} - \tilde{f}^{\sharp} \|_{C_T
\mathscr{C}^{\alpha + \beta - 2}}) . &
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let us derive an equation for the remainder $g^{\sharp}$. We have
\begin{align*}
\mathscr{L} g^{\sharp} & = \mathscr{L} (f' \,\mathord{\prec}\, U) - \mathscr{L} g = \left[ \mathscr{L} (f^u \,\mathord{\prec}\, U) - f^u \,\mathord{\prec}\, \mathscr{L} U \right] + f^u \,\mathord{\prec}\, \mathscr{L} U - [f^u \,\mathord{\prec}\, u + f^{\sharp}] \\
& = \left[ \mathscr{L}, f^u \,\mathord{\prec}\, \right] U - f^{\sharp} .
\end{align*}
By Lemma~\ref{lemma:comm-L-para} we know that there exists $H \in C
\mathscr{C}^{\alpha + \beta} \cap C^{\beta / 2} L^{\infty}$ such that $\mathscr{L} H =
\left[ \mathscr{L}, f^u \,\mathord{\prec}\, \right] U$, so we can apply the standard Schauder
estimates of Lemma~\ref{lem:schauder} to $\mathscr{L} (g^{\sharp} - H) = -
f^{\sharp}$ to get
\[ \| g^{\sharp} \|_{C_T \mathscr{C}^{\alpha + \beta}} + \| g^{\sharp}
\|_{C_T^{(\alpha \wedge \beta) / 2} L^{\infty}} \lesssim \| f^u
\|_{\mathscr{L}^{\beta}_T} ( \| U \|_{C_T \mathscr{C}^{\alpha}} + \| \mathscr{L} U
\|_{C_T \mathscr{C}^{\alpha - 2}} ) + \| f^{\sharp} \|_{C_T
\mathscr{C}^{\alpha + \beta - 2}} . \]
The estimate for $g^{\sharp} - \tilde{g}^{\sharp}$ can be derived in the
same way.
\end{proof}
\tmtextbf{Bibliographic notes} Paraproducts were introduced
in~{\cite{Bony1981}}, for a nice introduction see~{\cite{Bahouri2011}}. The
commutator estimate Lemma~\ref{lemma:commutator} is
from~{\cite{Gubinelli2012}}, but the proof here is new and the statement is
slightly different. In~{\cite{Gubinelli2012}}, we require the additional
assumption $\alpha \in (0, 1)$ under which $C$ maps $\mathscr{C}^{\alpha} \times
\mathscr{C}^{\beta} \times \mathscr{C}^{\gamma}$ to $\mathscr{C}^{\alpha + \beta + \gamma}$ and not
only to $\mathscr{C}^{\beta + \gamma}$. Theorem~\ref{thm:paralinearization} is
from~{\cite{Gubinelli2012}}.
Theorem~\ref{thm:schauder paracontrolled} is new, but it is implicitly used
in~{\cite{Gubinelli2012}}. The estimates presented here will only allow us to
consider regular initial conditions. More general situations can be covered by
working on ``explosive spaces'' of the type
\[ \Big\{f \in C \left( (0, \infty), \mathscr{C}^{\alpha} \right) : \sup_{t \in (0, T]} \|
t^{- \gamma} f (t) \|_{\mathscr{C}^{\alpha}} < \infty \tmop{for} \tmop{all} T > 0 \Big\}
\]
and similar for the temporal regularity. This is also done
in~{\cite{Gubinelli2012}}.
Of course it is easily possible to replace the Laplacian by more general
pseudo-differential operators. We only used two properties of $\Delta$: the
fact that $\Delta (f' \,\mathord{\prec}\, U) - f' \,\mathord{\prec}\, (\Delta U)$ is smooth, and that the
semigroup generated by $\Delta$ has a sufficiently strong regularization
effect. This is also true for fractional Laplacians and more generally for a
wide range of pseudo-differential operators.
\subsection{Fixpoint}\label{sec:fixpoint}
Let us now give the details for the solution to {\tmname{pam}} in the space of
paracontrolled distributions. Assume that $F : \mathbb{R} \rightarrow
\mathbb{R}$ is in $C^{1 + \varepsilon}_b$ for some $\varepsilon > 0$ such
that $(2 + \varepsilon) \gamma > 2$.
We know from Theorem~\ref{thm:paralinearization} that if $Y \in C
\mathscr{C}^{\gamma}$ and $u \in \mathscr{D}^{\gamma} (Y)$, then $F (u) \in \mathscr{D}^{\gamma} (Y)$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:fixpoint map1} \mathscr{D}^{\gamma} (Y) \xrightarrow{u \mapsto F (u)}
\mathscr{D}^{\varepsilon \gamma} (Y) .
\end{equation}
If now $Y \,\mathord{\circ}\, \eta \in C \mathscr{C}^{2 \gamma - 2}$ is given, then
Theorem~\ref{thm:paracontrolled product} shows that for all $f \in
\mathscr{D}^{\varepsilon \gamma}$ we have $f \eta = (f \eta)^{\sharp} + F (u) \,\mathord{\prec}\,
\eta$ with $(F (u) \eta)^{\sharp} \in C \mathscr{C}^{2 \gamma - 2}$ -- it is here that
we use $(2 + \varepsilon) \gamma > 0$. Integrating against the heat kernel and
assuming that $u_0 \in \mathscr{C}^{2 \gamma}$, we obtain from
Theorem~\ref{thm:schauder paracontrolled} that the solution $(J (f \eta) (t) +
P_t u_0)_{t \geqslant 0}$ to $\mathscr{L} J (f \eta) + P_{\cdot} u_0 = (f \eta)$, $J
(f \eta) (0) + P_0 u_0 = u_0$, is in $\mathscr{D}^{\gamma} (X)$, where $X$ solves $\mathscr{L}
X = \eta$ and $X (0) = 0$. In other words, we have a map
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:fixpoint map2} \mathscr{D}^{\varepsilon \gamma} (Y) \xrightarrow{f \mapsto
u_0 + J (f \eta)} \mathscr{D}^{\gamma} (X),
\end{equation}
and combining~(\ref{eq:fixpoint map1}), (\ref{eq:fixpoint map2}) we get
\[ \mathscr{D}^{\gamma} (Y) \xrightarrow{u \mapsto F (u)} \mathscr{D}^{\varepsilon \gamma} (Y)
\xrightarrow{F (u) \mapsto u_0 + J (F (u) \eta)} \mathscr{D}^{\gamma} (X), \]
so that for all $T > 0$ we can define
\[ \Gamma_T : \mathscr{D}_T^{\gamma} (Y) \rightarrow \mathscr{D}_T^{\varepsilon \gamma} (X),
\hspace{2em} \Gamma_T (u) = (u_0 + J (F (u) \eta)) |_{[0, T]} . \]
To set up a Picard iteration domain and image space should coincide which
means we should take $Y = X$. Refining the analysis, we obtain a scaling
factor $T^{\delta}$ when estimating the $\mathscr{D}_T^{\gamma} (X)$--norm of
$\Gamma_T (u)$. This allows us to show that for small $T > 0$, the map
$\Gamma_T$ leaves suitable balls in $\mathscr{D}^{\gamma}_T (X)$ invariant, and
therefore we obtain the (local in time) \tmtextit{existence} of solutions to
the equation under the assumption $X \,\mathord{\circ}\, \eta \in C \mathscr{C}^{2 \gamma - 2}$.
To obtain \tmtextit{uniqueness} we need to suppose that $F \in C^{2 +
\varepsilon}_b$. In that case Theorem~\ref{thm:paralinearization} gives the
local Lipschitz continuity of the map $u \mapsto F (u)$ from $\mathscr{D}_T^{\gamma}
(X)$ to $\mathscr{D}^{\varepsilon \gamma}_T (X)$, while
Theorem~\ref{thm:paracontrolled product} and Theorem~\ref{thm:schauder
paracontrolled} show that $f \mapsto u_0 + J (f \eta)$ defines a Lipschitz
continuous map from $\mathscr{D}^{\varepsilon \gamma}_T (X)$ to $\mathscr{D}^{\gamma}_T (X)$.
Again we can obtain a scaling factor $T^{\delta}$, so that $\Gamma_T$ defines
a contraction on a suitable ball of $\mathscr{D}^{\gamma}_T (X)$ for some small $T >
0$.
Even better, $\Gamma_T$ not only depends locally Lipschitz continuously on
$u$, but also on the extended data $(u_0, \eta {,} X \,\mathord{\circ}\, \eta)$, and
therefore the solution to~(\ref{eq:pam-eta}) depends locally Lipschitz
continuously on $ (u_0, \eta, X \,\mathord{\circ}\, \eta)$.
\subsection{Renormalization}
So far we argued under the assumption that $X \,\mathord{\circ}\, \eta$ exists and has a
sufficient regularity. This should be understood via approximations as the
existence of a sequence of smooth functions $(\eta_n)$ that converges to
$\eta$, such that $(X_n \,\mathord{\circ}\, \eta_n)$ converges to $X \,\mathord{\circ}\, \eta$. However,
this hypothesis is questionable and, recalling our homogenization setting,
actually not satisfied at all in the problem we are interested in. More
concretely this can be checked by considering an approximation sequence, for
example if $\eta = \xi$ is the two--dimensional space white noise. Indeed, if
$\varphi$ is a Schwartz function on $\mathbb{R}^2$ and if $\varphi_n = n
\varphi (n \cdot)$ and
\[ \eta_n (x) = \varphi_n \ast \xi (x) = \int_{\mathbb{R}^2} \varphi_n (x -
y) \xi (y) \mathrm{d} y = \sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z}^2} \langle \xi, \varphi_n (x
+ 2 \pi k - \cdot) \rangle, \]
then we will see below that there exist constants $(c_n)$ with $\lim_n c_n =
\infty$, such that $(X_n \,\mathord{\circ}\, \eta_n - c_n)$ converges in $C_T \mathscr{C}^{2 \gamma
- 2}$ for all $T > 0$.
\
This is not a problem with our specific approximation. The homogenization
setting shows that even for $\eta \rightarrow 0$ \ there are cases where the
limiting equation is nontrivial. In the paracontrolled setting we have
continuous dependence on the data $(\eta, X \,\mathord{\circ}\, \eta)$, so this
non--triviality of the limit can only mean that it is $X \,\mathord{\circ}\, \eta$ which
does not converge to zero.
\
Another way to see that there is a problem is to consider the following
representation of the resonant term: use $\mathscr{L} X = \eta$ to write
\[ X \,\mathord{\circ}\, \eta = X \,\mathord{\circ}\, \mathscr{L} X = \frac{1}{2} \mathscr{L} (X \,\mathord{\circ}\, X) + \partial_x X
\,\mathord{\circ}\, \partial_x X = | \partial_x X |^2 + \frac{1}{2} \mathscr{L} (X \,\mathord{\circ}\, X) - 2
\partial_x X \,\mathord{\prec}\, \partial_x X. \]
Integrating this equation over the torus and over $t \in [0, T]$, we get
\[ \int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}} X \,\mathord{\circ}\, \eta \mathrm{d} x \mathrm{d} t = \int_0^T
\int_{\mathbb{T}} | \partial_x X |^2 \mathrm{d} x \mathrm{d} t + \frac{1}{2}
\int_{\mathbb{T}} (X (T) \,\mathord{\circ}\, X (T)) \mathrm{d} x - 2 \int_0^T
\int_{\mathbb{T}} (\partial_x X \,\mathord{\prec}\, \partial_x X) \mathrm{d} x \mathrm{d} t \]
but now if $X \,\mathord{\circ}\, \eta \in C_T \mathscr{C}^{2 \gamma - 2}$ and $X \in C_T
\mathscr{C}^{\gamma}$ then all the terms should be well defined and finite but this is
cannot be since would mean that $\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}} | \partial_x X
|^2 \mathrm{d} x \mathrm{d} t < + \infty$. By direct computation however we
can check that
\[ \int_{\mathbb{T}} | \partial_x X (t, \cdot) |^2 \mathrm{d} x = +
\infty \]
for any $t > 0$ almost surely if $\eta$ is the space white noise. Note also
that the problematic term $| \partial_x X |^2$ is exactly the correction term
appearing in the analysis of the linear homogenization problem above.
\
In order to obtain convergence of the smooth solutions in general, we should
introduce corrections to the equation to remove the divergent constant $c_n$.
Let us see where the resonant product $X \,\mathord{\circ}\, \eta$ appears. We have
\[ (F (u) \eta)^{\sharp} = F (u) \,\mathord{\succ}\, \eta + (F (u))^{\sharp} \,\mathord{\circ}\, \eta + C
((F (u))^X, X, \eta) + (F (u))^X (X \,\mathord{\circ}\, \eta) . \]
Now $(F (u))^X = F' (u) u^X$ by Theorem~\ref{thm:paralinearization}, and if
$u$ solves the equation, then $u^X = F (u)$ by Theorem~\ref{thm:schauder
paracontrolled}. So we should really consider the renormalized equation
\[ \mathscr{L} u_n = F (u_n) \,\mathord{\diamond}\, \eta_n = F (u_n) \xi_n - F' (u_n) F (u_n) c_n \]
and in the limit
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:pam-renormalized} \mathscr{L} u = F (u) \,\mathord{\diamond}\, \eta := (F (u)
\,\mathord{\diamond}\, \eta)^{\sharp} + F (u) \,\mathord{\prec}\, \eta,
\end{equation}
where the paracontrolled product $(F (u) \,\mathord{\diamond}\, \eta)^{\sharp}$ is
calculated using $X \,\mathord{\diamond}\, \eta = \lim_n (X_n \,\mathord{\circ}\, \eta_n - c_n)$ in the
place of $X \,\mathord{\circ}\, \eta$. Formally, we also denote this product by $F (u)
\,\mathord{\diamond}\, \eta = F (u) \eta - F' (u) u^X \cdot \infty$, so that the solution
$u$ will satisfy
\[ \mathscr{L} u = F (u) - F' (u) F (u) \cdot \infty . \]
Note that the correction term has exactly the same form as the
It{\^o}/Stratonovich corrector for SDEs and indeed we should
consider~(\ref{eq:pam-renormalized}) as the ``It{\^o} form'' of the equation.
\
\begin{remark}
The convergence properties of $(X_n \,\mathord{\circ}\, \eta_n)$ are in stark contrast to
the ODE setting: if we consider the equation $\partial_t u = F (u) \zeta$
rather than {\tmname{pam}}, then we should replace $X$ by $Z$ with
$\partial_t Z = \zeta$. But then we have in one dimension $Z \,\mathord{\circ}\, \zeta = 1
/ 2 \partial_t (Z \,\mathord{\circ}\, Z)$, so that the convergence of $(Z_n \,\mathord{\circ}\,
\zeta_n)$ to $Z \,\mathord{\circ}\, \zeta$ comes for free with the convergence of $(Z_n)$
to $Z$. This is due to the Leibniz rule for $\partial_t$ and it is the
reason why rough path theory is trivial in one dimension. As we have discussed, for the second order
differential operator $\mathscr{L}$ we have different rules and
\[ (X \,\mathord{\circ}\, \eta) = (X \,\mathord{\circ}\, \mathscr{L} X) = \frac{1}{2} \mathscr{L} (X \,\mathord{\circ}\, X) +
(\partial_x X \,\mathord{\circ}\, \partial_x X), \]
so that in our setting the nontrivial term is $\partial_x X \,\mathord{\circ}\, \partial_x X$.
\end{remark}
These considerations lead naturally to the following definition.
\begin{definition}
\label{def:pam rough distribution}({\tmname{pam}}--enhancement) Let $\gamma
\in (2 / 3, 1)$ and let
\[ \mathcal{X}_{\tmop{pam}} \subseteq \mathscr{C}^{\gamma - 2} \times C \mathscr{C}^{2
\gamma - 2} \]
be the closure of the image of the map
\[ \Theta_{\tmop{pam}} : C^{\infty} \times C ([0, \infty), \mathbb{R})
\rightarrow \mathcal{X}_{\tmop{pam}}, \]
given by
\begin{equation}
\Theta_{\tmop{pam}} (\theta, f) = (\theta, \Phi \,\mathord{\diamond}\, \theta) : =
(\theta, \Phi \,\mathord{\circ}\, \theta - f), \label{eq:enhanced-pam}
\end{equation}
where $\Phi = J \theta$, that is $\mathscr{L} \Phi = \theta$ and $\Phi (0) = 0$. We
will call $\Theta_{\tmop{pam}} (\theta, f)$ the renormalized
{\tmname{pam}}--enhancement of the driving distribution $\theta$. For $T >
0$ we define $\mathcal{X}_{\tmop{pam}} (T) = \mathcal{X}_{\tmop{pam}} |_{[0,
T]}$ and we write $\| \mathbb{X} \|_{\mathcal{X}_{\tmop{pam}} (T)}$ for the
norm of $\mathbb{X} \in \mathcal{X}_{\tmop{pam}} (T)$ in the Banach space
$\mathscr{C}^{\gamma - 2} \times C_T \mathscr{C}^{2 \gamma - 2}$. Moreover, we define the
distance $d_{\mathcal{X}_{\tmop{pam}} (T)} (\mathbb{X},
\tilde{\mathbb{X}}) = \|\mathbb{X}- \tilde{\mathbb{X}}
\|_{\mathcal{X}_{\tmop{pam}} (T)}$.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
It would be more elegant to renormalize $\Phi \,\mathord{\circ}\, \theta$ with a constant
and not with a time-dependent function. But since we chose $\Phi (0) = 0$,
we have $\Phi (0) \,\mathord{\circ}\, \theta = 0$ and therefore $(\Phi_n (0) \,\mathord{\circ}\,
\theta_n - c_n)$ diverges for any diverging sequence of constants $(c_n)$. A
simple way of avoiding this problem is to consider the stationary version
$\tilde{\Phi}$ given by
\[ \tilde{\Phi} (x) = \int_0^{\infty} P_t \Pi_{\neq 0} \theta (x) \mathrm{d} t,
\]
where $\Pi_{\neq 0}$ denotes the projection on the non-zero Fourier modes,
$\Pi_{\neq 0} u = u - \hat{u} (0)$. But then $\tilde{\Phi}$ does not depend
on time and in particular $\tilde{\Phi} (0) \neq 0$, so that we have to
consider irregular initial conditions in the paracontrolled approach which
complicates the presentation. Alternatively, we could observe that in the
white noise case there exist constants $(c_n)$ so that $(X_n (t) \,\mathord{\circ}\, \xi_n
- c_n)$ converges for all $t > 0$, and while the limit $(X (t) \,\mathord{\diamond}\,
\xi)$ diverges as $t \rightarrow 0$, it can be integrated against the heat
kernel. Again, this would complicate the presentation and here we choose the
simple (and cheap) solution of taking a time-dependent renormalization.
\end{remark}
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:pam}Let $\gamma \in (2 / 3, 1)$ and $\varepsilon > 0$ be such
that $(2 + \varepsilon) \gamma > 2$. Let $\mathbb{X}= (X, \eta) \in
\mathcal{X}_{\tmop{pam}}$, $F \in C^{2 + \varepsilon}_b$, and $u_0 \in
\mathscr{C}^{2 \gamma}$. Then there exists a unique solution $u \in \mathscr{D}^{\gamma}
(X)$ to the equation
\[ \mathscr{L} u = F (u) \,\mathord{\diamond}\, \eta, \hspace{2em} u (0) = u_0, \]
up to the (possibly finite) explosion time $\tau = \tau (u) = \inf \left\{ t
\geqslant 0 : \| u \|_{\mathscr{D}^{\gamma}_t} = \infty \right\} > 0$.
Moreover, $u$ depends on $(u_0, \mathbb{X}) \in \mathscr{C}^{2 \gamma} \times
\mathcal{X}_{\tmop{pam}}$ in a locally Lipschitz continuous way: if $M, T >
0$ are such that for all $(u_0, \mathbb{X})$ with $\| u_0 \|_{2 \gamma}
\vee \| \mathbb{X} \|_{\mathcal{X}_{\tmop{pam}} (T)} \leqslant M$, the
solution $u$ to the equation driven by $(u_0, \mathbb{X})$ satisfies $\tau
(u) > T$, and if $(\tilde{u}_0, \tilde{\mathbb{X}})$ is another set of data
bounded in the above sense by $M$, then there exists $C (F, M) > 0$ for
which
\[ d_{\mathscr{D}^{\gamma}_T} (u, \tilde{u}) \leqslant C (F, M) (\| u_0 -
\tilde{u}_0 \|_{2 \gamma} + d_{\mathcal{X}_{\tmop{pam}} (T)}
(\mathbb{X}, \tilde{\mathbb{X}})) . \]
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We only have to turn the formal discussion of Section~\ref{sec:fixpoint}
into rigorous mathematics. The small factor $T^{\delta}$ is obtained from a
scaling argument and while this does not require any new insights it is
somewhat lengthy and we refer to~{\cite{Gubinelli2012,Gubinelli2014}} for
details.
Let us just indicate how to iterate the construction to obtain the existence
of solutions up to the explosion time $\tau$. Let us assume that we
constructed $u$ on $[0, T_0]$ for some $T_0 > 0$. Now we no longer have $X
(T_0) = 0$, and also the initial condition $u (T_0)$ is no longer in $\mathscr{C}^{2
\gamma}$. But we only used $X (0) = 0$ to derive the initial conditions for
$u'$ and $u^{\sharp}$, and we only used $u_0 \in \mathscr{C}^{\gamma}$ to obtain
$\mathscr{C}^{2 \gamma}$ initial conditions for $u^{\sharp}$. Since now we already
know $(u' (T_0), u^{\sharp} (T_0)) \in \mathscr{C}^{\gamma} \times \mathscr{C}^{2 \gamma}$,
we do not need this anymore.
As for the continuity in $(u_0, \mathbb{X})$, let $(\tilde{u}_0,
\tilde{\mathbb{X}})$ be another set of data also bounded by $M$. Then the
solutions $u$ and $\tilde{u}$ both are bounded in $\mathscr{D}^{\gamma}_T$ by some
constant $C = C (F, M) > 0$. So by the continuity properties of the
paracontrolled product (and the other operations involved), we can estimate
\[ d_{\mathscr{D}^{\gamma}_T} (u, \tilde{u}) \leqslant P (C) \left( \| u_0 -
\tilde{u}_0 \|_{2 \gamma} + d_{\mathcal{X}_{\tmop{pam}} (T)}
(\mathbb{X}, \tilde{\mathbb{X}}) + T^{\delta} d_{\mathscr{D}^{\gamma}_T} (u,
\tilde{u}) \right) \]
for a polynomial $P$. The local Lipschitz continuity on $[0, T]$ immediately
follows if we choose $T > 0$ small enough. This can be iterated to obtain
the local Lipschitz continuity on ``macroscopic'' intervals.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
For the local in time existence it is not necessary to assume $F \in C^{2 +
\varepsilon}_b$, it suffices if $F \in C^{2 + \varepsilon}$. This can be
seen by considering a ball containing $u_0 (x)$ for all $x \in
\mathbb{T}^d$, a function $\tilde{F} \in C^{2 + \varepsilon}_b$ which
coincides with $F$ on this ball, and by stopping $u$ upon exiting the ball.
In the linear case $F (u) = u$ we have global in time solutions: in general
we only get local in time solutions because we pick up a superlinear
estimate when applying the paralinearization result
Theorem~\ref{thm:paralinearization}. This step is not necessary if $F$ is
linear, and all the other estimates are linear in $u$.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Construction of the extended data}
In order to apply Theorem~\ref{thm:pam} to equation~(\ref{eq:pam-eta}) with
white noise perturbation, it remains to show that if $\xi$ is a spatial white
noise on $\mathbb{T}^2$, then $\xi$ defines an element of
$\mathcal{X}_{\tmop{pam}}$. In other words, we need to construct $X \,\mathord{\diamond}\,
\xi$.
Since $P_t \xi$ is a smooth function for every $t > 0$, the resonant term $P_t
\xi \,\mathord{\circ}\, \xi$ is a smooth function, and therefore we could formally set $X
\,\mathord{\circ}\, \xi = \int_0^{\infty} (P_t \xi \,\mathord{\circ}\, \xi) \mathrm{d} t$. But we will see
that this expression does not make sense.
Recall that $(\hat{\xi} (k))_{k \in \mathbb{Z}^2}$ is a complex valued,
centered Gaussian process with covariance
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:wn covariance} \mathbb{E} [\hat{\xi} (k) \hat{\xi} (k')] =
\delta_{k + k' = 0},
\end{equation}
and such that $\hat{\xi} (k)^{\ast} = \hat{\xi} (- k)$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{l:anderson area expectation} For any $x \in \mathbb{T}^2$ and $t > 0$
we have
\[ g_t =\mathbb{E} [(P_t \xi \,\mathord{\circ}\, \xi) (x)] =\mathbb{E} [\Delta_{- 1}
(P_t \xi \,\mathord{\circ}\, \xi) (x)] = (2 \pi)^{- 2} \sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z}^2} e^{- t
|k|^2} . \]
In particular, $g_t$ does not depend on the partition of unity used to
define the $\,\mathord{\circ}\,$ operator, and $\int_0^t g_s \mathrm{d} s = \infty$ for all $t
> 0$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $x \in \mathbb{T}^2$, $t > 0$, and $\ell \ge - 1$. Then
\[ \mathbb{E} [\Delta_{\ell} (P_t \xi \,\mathord{\circ}\, \xi) (x)] = \sum_{|i - j|
\leqslant 1} \mathbb{E} [\Delta_{\ell} (\Delta_i (P_t \xi) \Delta_j \xi)
(x)], \]
where exchanging summation and expectation is justified because it can be
easily verified that the partial sums of $\Delta_{\ell} (P_t \xi \,\mathord{\circ}\, \xi)
(x)$ are uniformly $L^p$--bounded for any $p \ge 1$. Now $P_t = e^{- t
\lvert \cdot \rvert^2} (\mathrm{D})$, and therefore we get from~\eqref{eq:wn
covariance}
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E} [\Delta_{\ell} (\Delta_i (P_t \xi) \Delta_j \xi) (x)] &= (2 \pi)^{- 1} \sum_{k, k' \in \mathbb{Z}^2} e_{k + k'}^{\ast} (x) \rho_{\ell} (k + k') \rho_i (k) e^{- t |k|^2} \rho_j (k') \mathbb{E} [\hat{\xi} (k) \hat{\xi} (k')] \\
& = (2 \pi)^{- 2} \sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z}^2} \rho_{\ell} (0)
\rho_i (k) e^{- t |k|^2} \rho_j (k) = \frac{\delta_{\ell = - 1}}{2 \pi}
\sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z}^2} \rho_i (k) \rho_j (k) e^{- t |k|^2} . &
\end{align*}
For $|i - j| > 1$ we have $\rho_i (k) \rho_j (k) = 0$ and therefore
\[ g_t =\mathbb{E} [(P_t \xi \,\mathord{\circ}\, \xi) (x)] = (2 \pi)^{- 2} \sum_{k \in
\mathbb{Z}^2} \sum_{i, j} \rho_i (k) \rho_j (k) e^{- t |k|^2} = (2
\pi)^{- 2} \sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z}^2} e^{- t |k|^2}, \]
while $\mathbb{E} [(P_t \xi \,\mathord{\circ}\, \xi) (x) - \Delta_{- 1} (P_t \xi \,\mathord{\circ}\,
\xi)) (x)] = 0$.
\end{proof}
\begin{exercise}
Let $\varphi$ be a Schwartz function on $\mathbb{R}^2$ and set
\[ \xi_n (x) = ((n^2 \varphi (n \cdot)) \ast \xi) (x) = \int_{\mathbb{R}^2}
n^2 \varphi (n (x - y)) \xi (y) \mathrm{d} y = \sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z}^2}
\langle \xi, n^2 \varphi (n (x + 2 \pi k - \cdot)) \rangle \]
for $x \in \mathbb{T}^2$. Write $\mathscr{F}_{\mathbb{R}^2} \varphi (z) =
\int_{\mathbb{R}^2} e^{- i \langle z, x \rangle} \varphi (x) \mathrm{d} x$.
Show that
\[ \mathbb{E} [(P_t \xi_n \,\mathord{\circ}\, \xi_n) (x)] =\mathbb{E} [\Delta_{- 1} (P_t
\xi_n \,\mathord{\circ}\, \xi_n) (x)] = (2 \pi)^{- 2} \sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z}^2} e^{- t
|k|^2} | \mathscr{F}_{\mathbb{R}^2} \varphi (k / n) |^2 . \]
\tmtextbf{Hint:} Use Poisson summation.
\end{exercise}
The diverging time integral motivates us to study the renormalized product $X
\,\mathord{\circ}\, \xi - \int_0^{\cdot} g_s \mathrm{d} s$, where $\int_0^{\cdot} g_s \mathrm{d} s$
is an ``infinite function'':
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:pam area}Set
\[ (X \,\mathord{\diamond}\, \xi) (t) = \int_0^t (P_s \xi \,\mathord{\circ}\, \xi - g_s) \mathrm{d} s. \]
Then $\mathbb{E} [\|X \,\mathord{\diamond}\, \xi \|_{C_T \mathscr{C}^{2 \gamma - 2}
(\mathbb{T}^2)}^p] < \infty$ for all $\gamma < 1$, $p \ge 1$, $T > 0$.
Moreover, if $\varphi$ is a Schwartz function on $\mathbb{R}^2$ with $\int
\varphi (x) \mathrm{d} x = 1$, if $\xi_n = \varphi_n \ast \xi$ with $\varphi_n =
n^2 \varphi (n \cdot)$ for $n \in \mathbb{N}$, and $X_n (t) =
\int_0^{\infty} P_t \xi_n \mathrm{d} t$, then
\[ \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \mathbb{E} [\|X \,\mathord{\diamond}\, \xi - (X_n \,\mathord{\circ}\,
\xi_n - f_n)\|_{C_T \mathscr{C}^{2 \gamma - 2} (\mathbb{T}^2)}^p] = 0 \]
for all $p \ge 1$, where for all $x \in \mathbb{T}^2$
\begin{align*}
f_n (t) & = \mathbb{E} [X_n (t, x) \xi_n (x)] =\mathbb{E} [(X_n (t)
\,\mathord{\circ}\, \xi_n) (x)] \\
& = (2 \pi)^{- 2} \sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z}^2 \setminus \{ 0 \}} \frac{|
\mathscr{F}_{\mathbb{R}^2} \varphi (k / n) |^2}{|k|^2} (1 - e^{- t | k |^2}) + (2
\pi)^{- 2} t.
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
To lighten the notation, we will only show that $\mathbb{E} [\|X \,\mathord{\diamond}\,
\xi \|_{C_T \mathscr{C}^{2 \gamma - 2}}^p] < \infty$. The convergence of $(X_n
\,\mathord{\circ}\, \xi_n - f_n)$ to $X \,\mathord{\diamond}\, \xi$ is shown by applying dominated
convergence, and we leave it as an exercise. Let $t > 0$ and define $\Xi_t =
P_t \xi \,\mathord{\circ}\, \xi - g_t$. Using Gaussian hypercontractivity we will be able
to reduce everything to estimating $\mathbb{E} [| \Delta_{\ell} \Xi_t (x)
|^2]$ for $\ell \geqslant - 1$ and $x \in \mathbb{T}^2$.
Lemma~\ref{l:anderson area expectation} yields $\Delta_{\ell} g_t = 0
=\mathbb{E} [\Delta_{\ell} (P_t \xi \,\mathord{\circ}\, \xi) (x)]$ for $\ell \ge 0$ and
$x \in \mathbb{T}^2$, and $\Delta_{- 1} g_t = g_t =\mathbb{E} [\Delta_{- 1}
(P_t \xi \,\mathord{\circ}\, \xi) (x)]$, so that $\mathbb{E} [| \Delta_{\ell} \Xi_t (x)
|^2] = \tmop{Var} (\Delta_{\ell} (P_t \xi \,\mathord{\circ}\, \xi) (x))$. We have
\begin{align*}
\Delta_{\ell} (P_t \xi \,\mathord{\circ}\, \xi) (x) & = \sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z}^2}
e^{\ast}_k (x) \rho_{\ell} (k) \mathscr{F} (P_t \xi \,\mathord{\circ}\, \xi)) (k)\\
& = (2 \pi)^{- 1} \sum_{k_1, k_2 \in \mathbb{Z}^2} \sum_{|i - j| \leqslant
1} e^{\ast}_{k_1 + k_2} (x) \rho_{\ell} (k_1 + k_2) \rho_i (k_1) e^{- t
|k_1 |^2} \hat{\xi} (k_1) \rho_j (k_2) \hat{\xi} (k_2) .
\end{align*}
Hence
\begin{align*}
& \tmop{Var} (\Delta_{\ell} (P_t \xi \,\mathord{\circ}\, \xi) (x))\\
& \hspace{20pt} = (2 \pi)^{- 2} \sum_{k_1, k_2} \sum_{k'_1, k'_2}
\sum_{|i - j| \leqslant 1} \sum_{|i' - j' | \leqslant 1} e^{\ast}_{k_1 +
k_2} (x) \rho_{\ell} (k_1 + k_2) \rho_i (k_1) e^{- t |k_1 |^2} \rho_j
(k_2)\\
& \hspace{65pt} \times e^{\ast}_{k'_1 + k'_2} (x) \rho_{\ell} (k'_1 +
k'_2) \rho_{i'} (k'_1) e^{- t |k'_1 |^2} \rho_{j'} (k'_2) \tmop{Cov}
(\hat{\xi} (k_1) \hat{\xi} (k_2), \hat{\xi} (k'_1) \hat{\xi} (k'_2)),
\end{align*}
where exchanging summation and expectation can be justified a posteriori by
the uniform $L^p$--boundedness of the partial sums. Now Wick's theorem
({\cite{Janson1997}}, Theorem~1.28) gives
\begin{align*}
\tmop{Cov} (\hat{\xi} (k_1) \hat{\xi} (k_2), \hat{\xi} (k'_1) \hat{\xi}(k'_2)) & = \mathbb{E} [\hat{\xi} (k_1) \hat{\xi} (k_2) \hat{\xi} (k'_1) \hat{\xi} (k'_2)] -\mathbb{E} [\hat{\xi} (k_1) \hat{\xi} (k_2)] \mathbb{E} [\hat{\xi} (k'_1) \hat{\xi} (k'_2)] \\
& =\mathbb{E} [\hat{\xi} (k_1) \hat{\xi} (k_2)] \mathbb{E} [\hat{\xi}(k'_1) \hat{\xi} (k'_2)] +\mathbb{E} [\hat{\xi} (k_1) \hat{\xi} (k_1')] \mathbb{E} [\hat{\xi} (k_2) \hat{\xi} (k_2')] \\
&\hspace{10pt} + \mathbb{E} [\hat{\xi} (k_1) \hat{\xi} (k_2')] \mathbb{E} [\hat{\xi}(k_2) \hat{\xi} (k'_1)] -\mathbb{E} [\hat{\xi} (k_1) \hat{\xi} (k_2)] \mathbb{E} [\hat{\xi} (k'_1) \hat{\xi} (k'_2)] \\
& = (\delta_{k_1 + k_1' = 0} \delta_{k_2 + k'_2 = 0} + \delta_{k_1 + k'_2 = 0} \delta_{k_2 + k_1' = 0}),
\end{align*}
and therefore
\begin{align*}
\tmop{Var} (\Delta_{\ell} (P_t \xi \,\mathord{\circ}\, \xi) (x)) & = (2 \pi)^{- 4}
\sum_{k_1, k_2} \sum_{|i - j| \leqslant 1} \sum_{|i' - j' | \leqslant 1}
\mathbb{I}_{\ell \lesssim i} \mathbb{I}_{\ell \lesssim i'} \rho^2_{\ell}
(k_1 + k_2) \rho_i (k_1) \rho_j (k_2) \\
&\hspace{70pt} \times [\rho_{i'} (k_1) \rho_{j'} (k_2) e^{- 2 t|k_1 |^2} + \rho_{i'}
(k_2) \rho_{j'} (k_1) e^{- t|k_1 |^2 - t|k_2 |^2}] .
\end{align*}
Now there exists $c > 0$ such that $e^{- 2 t |k|^2} \lesssim e^{- tc 2^{2
i}}$ for all $k \in \tmop{supp} (\rho_i)$ and for all $i \ge - 1$. In the
remainder of the proof the value of this strictly positive $c$ may change
from line to line. If $|i - j| \leqslant 1$, then we also have $e^{- t
|k|^2} \lesssim e^{- tc 2^{2 i}}$ for all $k \in \tmop{supp} (\rho_j)$. Thus
\begin{align*}
& \tmop{Var} (\Delta_{\ell} (P_t \xi \,\mathord{\circ}\, \xi) (x)) \\
& \hspace{40pt} \lesssim \sum_{i, j, i', j'} \mathbb{I}_{\ell \lesssim i} \mathbb{I}_{i \sim j \sim i' \sim j'} \sum_{k_1, k_2} \mathbb{I}_{\tmop{supp} (\rho_{\ell})} (k_1 + k_2) \mathbb{I}_{\tmop{supp} (\rho_i)} (k_1) \mathbb{I}_{\tmop{supp} (\rho_j)} (k_2) e^{- 2 tc 2^{2 i}} \\
& \hspace{40pt} \lesssim \sum_{i : i \gtrsim \ell} 2^{2 i} 2^{2 \ell} e^{- tc 2^{2 i}} \lesssim \frac{2^{2 \ell}}{t} \sum_{i : i \gtrsim \ell} e^{- tc 2^{2 i}} \lesssim \frac{2^{2 \ell}}{t} e^{- tc 2^{2 \ell}}, &
\end{align*}
where we used that $t 2^{2 i} \lesssim e^{t (c - c') 2^{2 i}}$ for all $c' <
c$.
Consider now $X \,\mathord{\diamond}\, \xi (t) = \int_0^t \Xi_s \mathrm{d} s$. We have for all
$0 \leqslant s < t$
\[ \mathbb{E} [\| X \,\mathord{\diamond}\, \xi (t) - X \,\mathord{\diamond}\, \xi (s) \|_{B^{2 \gamma -
2}_{2 p, 2 p}}^{2 p}] = \sum_{\ell} 2^{2 p \ell (2 \gamma - 2)}
\int_{\mathbb{T}^2} \mathbb{E} [| \Delta_{\ell} (X \,\mathord{\diamond}\, \xi (t) - X
\,\mathord{\diamond}\, \xi (s)) (x) |^{2 p}] \mathrm{d} x. \]
Since the random variable $_{\ell} (X \,\mathord{\diamond}\, \xi (t) - X \,\mathord{\diamond}\, \xi (s))
(x)$ lives in the second non-homogeneous chaos generated by the Gaussian
white noise $\xi$, we may use Gaussian hypercontractivity
({\cite{Janson1997}}, Theorem 3.50) to bound
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E} [| \Delta_{\ell} (X \,\mathord{\diamond}\, \xi (t) - X \,\mathord{\diamond}\, \xi (s)) (x) |^{2 p}] & \lesssim \mathbb{E} [| \Delta_{\ell} (X \,\mathord{\diamond}\, \xi (t) - X \,\mathord{\diamond}\, \xi (s)) (x) |]^{2 p} \\
& \leqslant \Big( \int_s^t \mathbb{E} [| \Delta_{\ell} \Xi_r (x) |] \mathrm{d} r \Big)^{2 p}.
\end{align*}
But we just showed that
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E} [| \Delta_{\ell} \Xi_r (x) |] & \leqslant \mathbb{E} [| \Delta_{\ell} \Xi_r (x) |^2]^{1 / 2} = (\tmop{Var} (\Delta_{\ell} (P_r \xi \,\mathord{\circ}\, \xi) (x)))^{1 / 2} \\
& \lesssim r^{- 1 / 2} 2^{\ell} e^{- \frac{1}{2} r c 2^{2 \ell}} \leqslant r^{- 1 / 2} 2^{\ell} e^{- r c 2^{2 \ell}}
\end{align*}
(changing again the value of $c$), and therefore
\begin{align*}
\Big(\mathbb{E} \Big[\| X \,\mathord{\diamond}\, \xi (t) - X \,\mathord{\diamond}\, \xi (s) \|_{B^{2 \gamma - 2}_{2 p, 2 p}}^{2 p}\Big]\Big)^{1 / 2 p} & \lesssim \Big( \sum_{\ell} \Big( 2^{\ell (2 \gamma - 2)} \int_s^t r^{- 1 / 2} 2^{\ell} e^{- r c 2^{2 \ell}} \mathrm{d} r \Big)^{2 p} \Big)^{1 / 2 p} \\
& \leqslant \sum_{\ell} 2^{\ell (2 \gamma - 1)} \int_s^t r^{- 1 / 2} e^{-
r c 2^{2 \ell}} \mathrm{d} r \\
& \lesssim \Big( \int_s^t r^{- 1 / 2} \int_{- 1}^{\infty} (2^x)^{2 \gamma - 1} e^{- r c 2^{2 x}} \mathrm{d} x \mathrm{d} r \Big)^{2 p} .
\end{align*}
The change of variable $y = \sqrt{r} 2^x$ leads to
\[ \lesssim \Big( \int_s^t r^{- 1 / 2} r^{- (2 \gamma - 1) / 2} \int_0^{\infty} y^{2 \gamma - 2} e^{- c y^2} \mathrm{d} y \mathrm{d} r \Big)^{2
p} . \]
For $\gamma > 1 / 2$, the integral in $y$ is finite and we end up with
\[ \lesssim \Big( \int_s^t r^{- \gamma} \mathrm{d} r \Big)^{2 p} \lesssim | t
- s |^{2 p (1 - \gamma)} \]
provided that $\gamma \in (1 / 2, 1)$. So for large enough $p$ we can use
Kolmogorov's continuity criterion to deduce that $\mathbb{E} [\| X \,\mathord{\diamond}\,
\xi \|_{C_T B^{2 \gamma - 2}_{2 p, 2 p}}^{2 p}] < \infty$ for all $T > 0$.
The claim now follows from Besov embedding, Lemma~\ref{lem:besov embedding}.
\end{proof}
Combining Theorem~\ref{thm:pam} and Lemma~\ref{lem:pam area}, we are finally
able to solve~(\ref{eq:pam-eta}) driven by a space white noise.
\begin{corollary}
Let $\varepsilon > 0$ and let $F \in C^{2 + \varepsilon}_b$ and assume that
$u_0$ is a random variable that almost surely takes its values in $\mathscr{C}^{2
\gamma}$ for some $\gamma \in (2 / 3, 1)$ with $(2 + \varepsilon) \gamma >
2$. Let $\xi$ be a spatial white noise on $\mathbb{T}^2$. Then there exists
a unique solution $u$ to
\[ \mathscr{L} u = F (u) \,\mathord{\diamond}\, \xi, \hspace{2em} u (0) = u_0, \]
up to the (possibly finite) explosion time $\tau = \tau (u) = \inf \left\{ t
\geqslant 0 : \| u \|_{\mathscr{D}^{\gamma}_t} = \infty \right\}$ which is almost
surely strictly positive.
If $(\varphi_n)$ and $(\xi_n)$ are as described in Lemma~\ref{lem:pam area},
and if $(u_{0, n})$ converges in probability in $\mathscr{C}^{2 \gamma}$ to $u_0$,
then $u$ is the limit in probability of the solutions $u_n$ to
\[ \mathscr{L} u_n = F (u_n) \,\mathord{\diamond}\, \xi_n, \hspace{2em} u_n (0) = u_{n, 0} . \]
\end{corollary}
\begin{remark}
We even have a stronger result: We can fix a null set outside of which $X
\,\mathord{\diamond}\, \xi$ is regular enough, and once we dispose of that null set we can
solve all equations for any regular enough $u_0$ and $F$ simultaneously,
without ever having to worry about null sets again. This is for example
interesting when studying stochastic flows or when studying equations with
random $u_0$ and $F$.
The pathwise continuous dependence on the signal is also powerful in several
other applications, for example support theorems and large deviations. For
examples in the theory of rough paths see~{\cite{Friz2010}}.
\end{remark}
\section{The stochastic Burgers equation}\label{sec:rbe}
Let us now get to our main example, the ``KPZ family'' of equations. We
concentrate here on the stochastics Burgers equation {\tmname{sbe}}, but
essentially the same analysis works for the {\tmname{kpz}} equation. We can
also treat the heat equation with the same arguments, although in that case we
need to set up the equation in the right way by applying a suitable
transformation.
Recall that the stochastic Burgers equation {\tmname{sbe}} is
\begin{equation}
\mathscr{L} u = \partial_x u^2 + \partial_x \xi, \hspace{2em} u (0) = u_0,
\label{eq:sbe-theta}
\end{equation}
where $u : [0, \infty) \times \mathbb{T} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, $\xi$ is a
space-time white noise, and $\partial_x$ denotes the spatial derivative. As we
argued before, the solution $u$ cannot be expected to behave better than the
Ornstein--Uhlenbeck process $X$, the solution of the linear equation $\mathscr{L} X =
\partial_x \xi$, and as we saw in Section~\ref{sec:energy} $X (t)$ is for all
$t > 0$ a smooth function of the space variable plus a space white noise. By
Exercise~\ref{exo:wn besov}, the white noise in dimension $1$ has regularity
$\mathscr{C}^{- 1 / 2 -}$. Thus $X \in C \mathscr{C}^{- 1 / 2 -}$, and in particular $u^2$ is
the square of a distribution and a priori not well defined.
What raises some hope is that in Lemma~\ref{lem:OU square} we were able to
show that $\partial_x X^2$ exists as a space--time distribution. So as in the
previous examples there are stochastic cancellations going into $\partial_x
X^2$. The energy solution approach was designed to take those cancellations
into account in the full solution $u$, but while it allowed us to work under
rather weak assumptions which easily gave us existence of solutions, it did
not give us sufficient control to have uniqueness of solutions. On the other
side, a suitable paracontrolled ansatz for the solution $u$ will allow us to
transfer the cancellation properties of $X$ to $u$ and it will allow us to
construct $\partial_x u^2$ as a \tmtextit{continuous} bilinear map, from where
existence and uniqueness of solutions easily follows.
\subsection{Structure of the solution}
In this discussion we consider the case of zero initial condition and smooth
noise $\xi$, and we analyze the structure of the solution. Let us expand $u$
around the Ornstein--Uhlenbeck process $X$ with $\mathscr{L} X = \partial_x \xi$, $X
(0) = 0$. Setting $u = X + u^{\geqslant 1}$, we have
\[ \mathscr{L} u^{\geqslant 1} = \partial_x (u^2) = \partial_x (X^2) + 2 \partial_x
(Xu^{\geqslant 1}) + \partial_x ((u^{\geqslant 1})^2) . \]
Let us define the bilinear map
\[ B (f, g) = J \partial_x (fg) = \int_0^{\cdot} P_{\cdot - s} \partial_x (f
(s) g (s)) \mathrm{d} s. \]
Then we can proceed by performing a further change of variables in order to
remove the term $\partial_x (X^2)$ from the equation by setting
\begin{equation}
u = X + B (X, X) + u^{\geqslant 2} \label{eq:naive-exp} .
\end{equation}
Now $u^{\geqslant 2}$ satisfies
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{lll}
\mathscr{L} u^{\geqslant 2} & = & 2 \partial_x (XB (X, X)) + \partial_x (B (X, X)
B (X, X))\\
& & + 2 \partial_x (Xu^{\geqslant 2}) + 2 \partial_x (B (X, X)
u^{\geqslant 2}) + \partial_x ((u^{\geqslant 2})^2) .
\end{array} \label{eq:naive-exp-2}
\end{equation}
We can imagine to make a similar change of variables to get rid of the term
\[ 2 \partial_x (XB (X, X)) = \mathscr{L} B (X, B (X, X)) . \]
As we proceed in this inductive expansion, we generate a number of explicit
terms, obtained by various combinations of $X$ and $B$. Since we will have to
deal explicitly with at least some of these terms, it is convenient to
represent them with a compact notation involving binary trees. A binary tree
$\tau \in \mathcal{T}$ is either the root $\bullet$ or the combination of two
smaller binary trees $\tau = (\tau_1 \tau_2)$, where the two edges of the root
of $\tau$ are attached to $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$ respectively. For example
\[ (\bullet \bullet) =
\text{\resizebox{.8em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-1.eps}}} {,}
\hspace{1em} (\text{\resizebox{.8em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-1.eps}}}
\bullet) = \text{\resizebox{.8em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-2.eps}}} {,}
\hspace{1em} (\bullet
\text{\resizebox{.8em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-2.eps}}}) =
\text{\resizebox{1em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-3.eps}}} {,}
\hspace{1em} (\text{\resizebox{.8em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-1.eps}}}
\resizebox{.8em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-1.eps}}) =
\text{\resizebox{1.25em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-4.eps}}} {,}
\hspace{1em} \ldots \]
Then we define recursively
\[ X^{\bullet} = X, \hspace{2em} X^{(\tau_1 \tau_2)} = B (X^{\tau_1},
X^{\tau_2}), \]
giving
\[ X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-1.eps}}}} = B (X, X), \hspace{1em} X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-2.eps}}}} = B (X, X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-1.eps}}}}),
\hspace{1em} X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-3.eps}}}} = B (X, X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-2.eps}}}}), \hspace{1em} X^{\text{\resizebox{1em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-4.eps}}}} = B
(X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-1.eps}}}}, X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-1.eps}}}}), \]
and so on. In this notation the
expansion~(\ref{eq:naive-exp})--(\ref{eq:naive-exp-2}) reads
\begin{equation}
u = X + X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-1.eps}}}} + u^{\geqslant 2}, \label{eq:u-expansion}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
u^{\geqslant 2} = 2 X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-2.eps}}}} + X^{\text{\resizebox{1em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-4.eps}}}} + 2 B (X, u^{\geqslant 2}) + 2
B (X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-1.eps}}}}, u^{\geqslant 2}) + B (u^{\geqslant 2}, u^{\geqslant 2}) .
\label{eq:u-ge-2}
\end{equation}
\begin{remark}
We observe that formally the solution $u$ of {\tmname{sbe}} can be expanded
as an infinite sum of terms labelled by binary trees:
\[ u = \sum_{\tau \in \mathcal{T}} c (\tau) X^{\tau}, \]
where $c (\tau)$ is a combinatorial factor counting the number of planar
trees which are isomorphic (as graphs) to $\tau$. For example $c (\bullet) =
1$, $c \left( \text{\resizebox{.8em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-1.eps}}}
\right) = 1$, $c \left(
\text{\resizebox{.8em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-2.eps}}} \right) = 2$, $c
(\text{\resizebox{1em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-3.eps}}}) = 4$, $c \left(
\text{\resizebox{1.2em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-4.eps}}} \right) = 1$ and
in general $c (\tau) = \sum_{\tau_1, \tau_2 \in \mathcal{T}}
\mathbb{I}_{(\tau_1 \tau_2) = \tau} c (\tau_1) c (\tau_2)$. Alternatively,
we may truncate the summation at trees of degree at most $n$ and set
\[ u = \sum_{\tau \in \mathcal{T}, d (\tau) < n} c (\tau) X^{\tau} +
u^{\geqslant n}, \]
where we denote by $d (\tau) \in \mathbb{N}_0$ the degree of the tree
$\tau$, given by $d (\bullet) = 0$ and then inductively $d ((\tau_1 \tau_2))
= 1 + d (\tau_1) + d (\tau_2)$. For example $d \left(
\text{\resizebox{.8em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-1.eps}}} \right) = 1$, $d
\left( \text{\resizebox{.8em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-2.eps}}} \right) =
2$, $d (\text{\resizebox{1em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-3.eps}}}) = 3$, $d
\left( \text{\resizebox{1.2em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-4.eps}}} \right) =
3$. We then obtain for the remainder
\begin{align}\label{eq:truncated expansion} \nonumber
u^{\geqslant n} & = \sum_{\tmscript{\begin{array}{c} \tau_1, \tau_2 : d (\tau_1) < n, d (\tau_2) < n\\ d ((\tau_1 \tau_2)) \geqslant n \end{array}}} c (\tau_1) c (\tau_2) X^{(\tau_1 \tau_2)} \\
&\qquad + \sum_{\tau : d(\tau) < n} c (\tau) B (X^{\tau}, u^{\geqslant n}) + B (u^{\geqslant n}, u^{\geqslant n}) .
\end{align}
\end{remark}
Our aim is to control the truncated expansion under the natural regularity
assumptions in the white noise case, $X \in C \mathscr{C}^{- 1 / 2 -}$.
Since~(\ref{eq:truncated expansion}) contains the term $B (X, u^{\geqslant
n})$ which in turn contains the paraproduct $J \partial_x (u^{\geqslant n}
\,\mathord{\prec}\, X)$, the remainder $u^{\geqslant n}$ will be at best in $C \mathscr{C}^{1 / 2
-}$. But then the sum of the regularities of $X$ and $u^{\geqslant n}$ is
negative, and the term $B (X, u^{\geqslant n})$ is not well defined. We
therefore continue the expansion up to the point (turning out to be
$u^{\geqslant 3}$) where we can set up a paracontrolled ansatz for the
remainder, which will allow us to make sense of $\partial_x (X \,\mathord{\circ}\,
u^{\geqslant n})$ and thus of $B (X, u^{\geqslant n})$.
\subsection{Paracontrolled solution}
Inspired by the partial tree series expansion of $u$, we set up a
paracontrolled ansatz of the form
\begin{equation}
u = X + X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-1.eps}}}} + 2 X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-2.eps}}}} + u^Q, \hspace{2em} u^Q = u' \,\mathord{\prec}\, Q +
u^{\sharp}, \label{eq:paracontrolled-structure}
\end{equation}
where the functions $u', Q$ and $u^{\sharp}$ are for the moment arbitrary, but
we assume $u', Q \in \mathscr{L}^{\gamma}$ and $u^{\sharp} \in \mathscr{L}^{2 \gamma}$, where
from now on we fix $\gamma \in (1 / 3, 1 / 2)$. For such $u$, the nonlinear
term takes the form
\begin{align}\label{eq:u-square} \nonumber
\partial_x u^2 & = \partial_x (X^2 + 2 X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-1.eps}}}} X + (X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-1.eps}}}})^2 + 4 X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-2.eps}}}} X) + 2 \partial_x (u^Q X) \\
&\qquad + 2 \partial_x (X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-1.eps}}}} (u^Q + 2 X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-2.eps}}}})) + \partial_x ((u^Q + 2 X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-2.eps}}}})^2),
\end{align}
which gives us an equation for $u^Q$:
\begin{align}\label{eq:uQ-equation} \nonumber
\mathscr{L} u^Q & = \partial_x ((X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-1.eps}}}})^2 + 4 X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-2.eps}}}}X) + 2 \partial_x (u^Q X) + 2 \partial_x (X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-1.eps}}}} (u^Q + 2 X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-2.eps}}}})) + \partial_x ((u^Q + 2 X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-2.eps}}}})^2)\\
& = \mathscr{L} X^{\text{\resizebox{1em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-4.eps}}}} + 4 \mathscr{L} X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-3.eps}}}} + 2 \partial_x (u^Q X) + 2 \partial_x (X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-1.eps}}}} (u^Q + 2 X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-2.eps}}}})) + \partial_x ((u^Q + 2 X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-2.eps}}}})^2) .
\end{align}
If we formally apply the paraproduct estimate Theorem~\ref{thm:paraproduct}
(which is of course not possible since the regularity requirements for the
resonant term are not satisfied), we derive the following natural regularities
for the driving terms: $X \in C \mathscr{C}^{- 1 / 2 -}$, $X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-1.eps}}}} \in C \mathscr{C}^{0
-}$, $X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-2.eps}}}} \in \mathscr{L}^{1 / 2 -}$, $X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-3.eps}}}} \in \mathscr{L}^{1 / 2 -}$, and
$X^{\text{\resizebox{1em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-4.eps}}}} \in \mathscr{L}^{1 -}$. In terms of $\gamma $, we can encode this
as
\[ X \in C \mathscr{C}^{\gamma - 1}, \hspace{1em} X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-1.eps}}}} \in C \mathscr{C}^{2 \gamma - 1},
\hspace{1em} X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-2.eps}}}} \in \mathscr{L}^{\gamma}, \hspace{1em} X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-3.eps}}}} \in
\mathscr{L}^{\gamma}, \hspace{1em} X^{\text{\resizebox{1em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-4.eps}}}} \in \mathscr{L}^{2 \gamma} . \]
Under these regularity assumptions the term $2 \partial_x (X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-1.eps}}}} (u^Q +
X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-2.eps}}}})) + \partial_x ((u^Q + X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-2.eps}}}})^2)$ is well defined and the only
problematic term in~(\ref{eq:uQ-equation}) is $\partial_x (u^Q X)$. Using the
paracontrolled structure of $u^Q$, we can make sense of $\partial_x (u^Q X)$
as a bounded operator provided that $Q \,\mathord{\circ}\, X \in C \mathscr{C}^{2 \gamma - 1}$ is
given. In other words, the right hand side of~(\ref{eq:uQ-equation}) is well
defined for paracontrolled distributions.
Next, we should specify how to choose $Q$ and which form $u'$ will take for
the solution $u^Q$. We have formally
\begin{align*}
\mathscr{L} u^Q & = \mathscr{L} X^{\text{\resizebox{1em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-4.eps}}}} + 4 \mathscr{L} X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-3.eps}}}} + 2 \partial_x (u^Q X) + 2 \partial_x (X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-1.eps}}}} (u^Q + 2 X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-2.eps}}}})) + \partial_x ((u^Q + 2 X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-2.eps}}}})^2) \\
& = 4 \partial_x (X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-2.eps}}}} X) + 2 \partial_x (u^Q X) + C \mathscr{C}^{2 \gamma - 2}\\
& = 4 X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-2.eps}}}} \,\mathord{\prec}\, \partial_x X + 2 u^Q \,\mathord{\prec}\, \partial_x X + C \mathscr{C}^{2\gamma - 2},
\end{align*}
where we assumed that not only $\mathscr{L} X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-3.eps}}}} \in C \mathscr{C}^{\gamma - 2}$, but
that $\partial_x (X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-2.eps}}}} \,\mathord{\circ}\, X) \in C \mathscr{C}^{2 \gamma - 1}$ (which implies
$\mathscr{L} X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-3.eps}}}} \in C \mathscr{C}^{\gamma - 2}$, but also the stronger statement
$\mathscr{L} X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-3.eps}}}} - X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-2.eps}}}} \,\mathord{\prec}\, \partial_x X \in C \mathscr{C}^{2 \gamma - 2}$).
By Theorem~\ref{thm:schauder paracontrolled}, $u^Q$ is paracontrolled by $J
(\partial_x X)$, and in other words we should set $Q = J (\partial_x X)$. The
derivative $u'$ of the solution $u^Q$ will then be given by $u' = 4 X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-2.eps}}}}
+ 2 u^Q$.
Unlike for {\tmname{pam}}, here we do not need to introduce a renormalization.
This is due to the fact that we differentiate after taking the square: to
construct $u^2$, we would have to subtract an infinite constant and formally
consider $u^{\,\mathord{\diamond}\, 2} = u^2 - \infty$, or at the level of the approximation
$u_n^2 - c_n$. But then
\[ \partial_x u^{\,\mathord{\diamond}\, 2} = \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \partial_x (u_n^2 -
c_n) = \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \partial_x u_n^2 = \partial_x u^2 . \]
So we obtain the following description of the driving data for the stochastic
Burgers equation.
\begin{definition}
\label{def:burgers rough distribution}({\tmname{sbe}}--enhancement) Let
$\gamma \in (1 / 3, 1 / 2)$ and let
\[ \mathcal{X}_{\tmop{sbe}} \subseteq C \mathscr{C}^{\gamma - 1} \times C \mathscr{C}^{2
\gamma - 1} \times \mathscr{L}^{\gamma} \times \mathscr{L}^{2 \gamma} \times C \mathscr{C}^{2
\gamma - 1} \times C \mathscr{C}^{2 \gamma - 1} \]
be the closure of the image of the map $\Theta_{\tmop{sbe}} : C
(\mathbb{R}_+, C^{\infty} (\mathbb{T})) \rightarrow
\mathcal{X}_{\tmop{sbe}}$ given by
\begin{equation}
\Theta_{\tmop{sbe}} (\theta) = (X (\theta), X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-1.eps}}}} (\theta),
X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-2.eps}}}} (\theta), X^{\text{\resizebox{1em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-4.eps}}}} (\theta), (X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-2.eps}}}} \,\mathord{\circ}\, X) (\theta),
(Q \,\mathord{\circ}\, X) (\theta)), \label{eq:enhanced-theta}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{rll}
X (\theta) & = & J (\partial_x \theta),\\
X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-1.eps}}}} (\theta) & = & B (X (\theta), X (\theta)),\\
X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-2.eps}}}} (\theta) & = & B (X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-1.eps}}}} (\theta), X (\theta)),\\
X^{\text{\resizebox{1em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-4.eps}}}} (\theta) & = & B (X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-1.eps}}}} (\theta), X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-1.eps}}}}
(\theta)),\\
Q (\theta) & = & J (\partial_x X (\theta)) .
\end{array} \label{eq:pol-X}
\end{equation}
We will call $\Theta_{\tmop{sbe}} (\theta)$ the {\tmname{sbe}}--enhancement
of the driving distribution $\theta$. For $T > 0$ we define
$\mathcal{X}_{\tmop{sbe}} (T) =\mathcal{X}_{\tmop{sbe}} |_{[0, T]}$ and we
write $\| \mathbb{X} \|_{\mathcal{X}_{\tmop{sbe}} (T)}$ for the norm of
$\mathbb{X}$ in the Banach space $C_T \mathscr{C}^{\gamma - 1} \times C_T \mathscr{C}^{2
\gamma - 1} \times \mathscr{L}^{\gamma}_T \times \mathscr{L}_T^{2 \gamma} \times C_T \mathscr{C}^{2
\gamma - 1} \times C_T \mathscr{C}^{2 \gamma - 1}$. Moreover, we define the distance
$d_{\mathcal{X}_{\tmop{sbe}} (T)} (\mathbb{X}, \tilde{\mathbb{X}}) = \|
\mathbb{X}- \tilde{\mathbb{X}} \|_{\mathcal{X}_{\tmop{sbe}} (T)}$.
\end{definition}
For every $\mathbb{X} \in \mathcal{X}_{\tmop{sbe}}$, there is an associated
space of paracontrolled distributions:
\begin{definition}
Let $\mathbb{X} \in \mathcal{X}_{\tmop{sbe}}$. Then the space of
paracontrolled distributions $\mathscr{D}^{\gamma} (\mathbb{X})$ is defined as the
set of all $(u, u') \in C \mathscr{C}^{\gamma - 1} \times \mathscr{L}^{\gamma}$ with
\[ u = X + X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-1.eps}}}} + 2 X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-2.eps}}}} + u' \,\mathord{\prec}\, Q + u^{\sharp}, \]
where $u^{\sharp} \in \mathscr{L}^{2 \gamma}$. For $T > 0$ we define
\[ \| u \|_{\mathscr{D}^{\gamma}_T} = \| u' \|_{\mathscr{L}^{\gamma}_T} + \| u^{\sharp}
\|_{C_T \mathscr{C}^{2 \gamma}} . \]
If $\tilde{\mathbb{X}} \in \mathcal{X}_{\tmop{rbe}}$ and $(\tilde{u},
\tilde{u}') \in \mathscr{D}^{\gamma} (\tilde{\mathbb{X}}) $, then we also
write
\[ d_{\mathscr{D}^{\gamma}_T} (u, \tilde{u}) = \| u' - \tilde{u}'
\|_{\mathscr{L}^{\gamma}_T} + \|u^{\sharp} - \tilde{u}^{\sharp} \|_{C_T \mathscr{C}^{2
\gamma}_T} . \]
\end{definition}
We now have everything in place to solve {\tmname{sbe}} driven by $\mathbb{X}
\in \mathcal{X}_{\tmop{sbe}}$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:rbe}Let $\gamma \in (1 / 3, 1 / 2)$. Let $\mathbb{X} \in
\mathcal{X}_{\tmop{sbe}}$, write $\partial_x \theta = \mathscr{L} X$, and let $u_0
\in \mathscr{C}^{2 \gamma}$. Then there exists a unique solution $u \in \mathscr{D}^{\gamma}
(\mathbb{X})$ to the equation
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:rbe theorem} \mathscr{L} u = \partial_x u^2 + \partial_x \theta,
\hspace{2em} u (0) = u_0,
\end{equation}
up to the (possibly finite) explosion time $\tau = \tau (u) = \inf \left\{ t
\geqslant 0 : \| u \|_{\mathscr{D}^{\gamma}_t} = \infty \right\} > 0$.
Moreover, $u$ depends on $(u_0, \mathbb{X}) \in \mathscr{C}^{2 \gamma} \times
\mathcal{X}_{\tmop{sbe}}$ in a locally Lipschitz continuous way: if $M, T >
0$ are such that for all $(u_0, \mathbb{X})$ with $\| u_0 \|_{2 \gamma}
\vee \| \mathbb{X} \|_{\mathcal{X}_{\tmop{sbe}} (T)} \leqslant M$, the
solution $u$ to the equation driven by $(u_0, \mathbb{X})$ satisfies $\tau
(u) > T$, and if $(\tilde{u}_0, \tilde{\mathbb{X}})$ is another set of data
bounded in the above sense by $M$, then there exists $C (M) > 0$ for which
\[ d_{\mathscr{D}^{\gamma}_T} (u, \tilde{u}) \leqslant C (M) (\| u_0 - \tilde{u}_0
\|_{2 \gamma} + d_{\mathcal{X}_{\tmop{sbe}} (T)} (\mathbb{X},
\tilde{\mathbb{X}})) . \]
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
By definition of the term $\partial_x u^2$, the distribution $u \in
\mathscr{D}^{\gamma} (\mathbb{X})$ solves~(\ref{eq:rbe theorem}) if and only if
$u^Q = u - X - X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-1.eps}}}} - 2 X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-2.eps}}}}$ solves
\[ \mathscr{L} u^Q = \mathscr{L} X^{\text{\resizebox{1em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-4.eps}}}} + 4 \partial_x (X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-2.eps}}}} X) + 2 \partial_x
(u^Q X) + 2 \partial_x (X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-1.eps}}}} (u^Q + 2 X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-2.eps}}}})) + \partial_x
((u^Q + 2 X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-2.eps}}}})^2) \]
with initial condition $u^Q (0) = u_0$. This equation is structurally very
similar to {\tmname{pam}}~(\ref{eq:pam-eta}) and can be solved using the
same arguments, which we do not reproduce here.
\end{proof}
For this result to be of any use we still have to show that if $\xi$ is the
space-time white noise, then there is almost surely an element of
$\mathcal{X}_{\tmop{sbe}}$ associated to $\partial_x \xi$. While for
{\tmname{pam}} we needed to construct only one term, here we have to construct
five terms: $X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-1.eps}}}}, X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-2.eps}}}}, X^{\text{\resizebox{1em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-4.eps}}}}, X^{\text{\resizebox{.7em}{!}{\includegraphics{trees-2.eps}}}} \,\mathord{\circ}\, X, Q \,\mathord{\circ}\,
X$. For details we refer to~{\cite{Gubinelli2014}}. Alternatively we can
simply differentiate the extended data which Hairer constructed for the KPZ
equation in Chapter 5 of~{\cite{Hairer2013b}}.
The same approach allows us to solve the KPZ equation $\mathscr{L} h = (\partial_x
h)^{\,\mathord{\diamond}\, 2} + \xi$, and if we are careful how to interpret the product $w
\,\mathord{\diamond}\, \xi$, then also the linear heat equation $\mathscr{L} w = w \,\mathord{\diamond}\, \xi$. In
both cases the solution will depend continuously on some suitably extended
data that is constructed from $\xi$ in a similar way as described in
Definition~\ref{def:burgers rough distribution}. Moreover, the formal links
between the three equations that we discussed in Section~\ref{sec:rbe,kpz,she}
can be made rigorous. These results will be included
in~{\cite{Gubinelli2014}}.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{INTRODUCTION}
\IEEEPARstart{F}{ree-space} optical (FSO) communication enables wireless connectivity through atmosphere using laser transmitters at infrared bands. These systems provide high data rates comparable to fiber optics while they offer much more flexibility in (re)deployment. Since they operate in unregulated spectrum, no licensing fee is required making them also a cost-effective solution \cite{1,2,kashani2}. With their unique features and advantages, FSO systems have attracted attention initially as a “last mile” solution and can be used in a wide array of applications including cellular backhaul, inter-building connections in enterprise/campus environments, video surveillance/monitoring, fiber back-up, redundant link in disaster recovery and relief efforts among others.
A major performance limiting factor in FSO systems is atmospheric turbulence-induced fading (also called as scintillation) \cite{3}. Inhomogenities in the temperature and the pressure of the atmosphere result in variations of the refractive index and cause atmospheric turbulence. This manifests itself as random fluctuations in the received signal and severely degrades the FSO system performance particularly over long ranges.
In the literature, several statistical models have been proposed in an effort to model this random phenomenon. Historically, log-normal distribution has been the most widely used model for the probability density function (pdf) of the random irradiance over atmospheric channels \cite{4,5,6}. This pdf model is however only applicable to weak turbulence conditions. As the strength of turbulence increases, lognormal statistics exhibit large deviations compared to experimental data. Moreover, lognormal pdf underestimates the behavior in the tails as compared with measurement results. Since the calculation of detection probabilities for a communication system is primarily based on the tails of the pdf, underestimating this region significantly affects the accuracy of performance analysis.
In an effort to address the shortcomings of the lognormal distribution, other statistical models have been further proposed to describe atmospheric turbulence channels under a wide range of turbulence conditions. These include the Negative Exponential/Gamma model (also known widely as the K channel) \cite{7}, I-K distribution \cite{8}, log-normal Rician channel (also known as Beckman) \cite{9}, Gamma-Gamma \cite{10}, M distribution \cite{11} and Double-Weibull \cite{12}. Particularly worth mentioning is the Gamma-Gamma model \cite{10}, \cite{13} which has been widely used in the literature for the performance analysis of FSO systems, see e.g., \cite{14,15}, along with the log-normal model. This model builds upon a two-parameter distribution and considers irradiance fluctuations as the product of small-scale and large-scale fluctuations, where both are governed by independent gamma distributions. In a more recent work by Chatzidiamantis \emph{et al.} in \cite{12}, the Double-Weibull distribution was proposed as a new model for atmospheric turbulence channels. Similar to the Gamma-Gamma model, it is based on the theory of doubly stochastic scintillation and considers irradiance fluctuations as the product of small-scale and large-scale fluctuations which are both Weibull distributed. It is shown in \cite{12} that Double-Weibull is more accurate than the Gamma-Gamma particularly for the cases of moderate and strong turbulence.
In this paper, we propose a new and unifying statistical model, named Double Generalized Gamma (Double GG), for the irradiance fluctuations. The proposed model is valid under all range of turbulence conditions (weak to strong) and contains most of the existing statistical models for the irradiance fluctuations in the literature as special cases. Furthermore, we provide comparison of the proposed model with Gamma-Gamma and Double-Weibull models. For this purpose, we use the set of simulation data from \cite{16,17} for plane and spherical waves\footnote{The simulation data in \cite{16,17} was obtained through phase screen approach which consists of approximating a three-dimensional random medium as a collection of equally spaced, two-dimensional, random phase screens that are transverse to the direction of wave propagation. In \cite{16}, it was discussed in detail that such a numerical simulation approach contains all the essential physics for accurately predicting the pdf of irradiance (or, equivalently, log-normal irradiance), and shown that the simulation results provide an excellent match to known experimental measurements reported in \cite{exp} for both plane and spherical waves. The same set of simulation data was also used in \cite{10} and \cite{12} which respectively introduced Gamma-Gamma and Double-Weibull distributions as turbulence channel models.}. Our model demonstrates an excellent match to the simulation data and is clearly superior over the other two models which show discrepancy from the simulation data in some cases. In the second part of the paper, we use this new channel model to derive closed form expressions for the BER and the outage probability of single-input single-output (SISO) and single-input multiple-output (SIMO) FSO systems with intensity modulation and direct detection (IM/DD). Our performance results can be seen as a generalization of the results in \cite{18,19,20,21}.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: In Section II, we propose Double GG distribution to characterize turbulence-induced fading. In Section III, we confirm the accuracy of our model through comparisons with simulation data for plane and spherical waves. In Section IV, we present the derivation of bit error rate (BER) and outage probability for SISO FSO system over Double GG channel. In Section V, we present BER expressions for FSO links with multiple receiver apertures. Finally, Section VI concludes the paper.
\section{Double GG Distribution}\label{dgg}
The irradiance of the received optical wave can be modeled as \cite{10}, \cite{12} $I={{I}_{x}}{{I}_{y}}$, where ${{I}_{x}}$ and ${{I}_{y}}$ are statistically independent random processes arising respectively from large-scale and small scale turbulent eddies. We assume that both large-scale and small-scale irradiance fluctuations are governed by Generalized Gamma (GG) distributions [\citen{23}, Eq. (1)]. The pdfs of ${{I}_{x}}\sim GG\left( {{\gamma }_{1}},{{m}_{1}},{{\Omega }_{1}} \right)$ and ${{I}_{y}}\sim GG\left( {{\gamma }_{2}},{{m}_{2}},{{\Omega }_{2}} \right)$ are given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq1}
{{f}_{{{I}_{x}}}}\left( {{I}_{x}} \right)=\frac{{{\gamma }_{1}}I_{x}^{{{m}_{1}}{{\gamma }_{1}}-1}}{{{\left( {{{\Omega }_{1}}}/{{{m}_{1}}}\; \right)}^{{{m}_{1}}}}\Gamma \left( {{m}_{1}} \right)}\exp \left( -\frac{{{m}_{1}}}{{{\Omega }_{1}}}I_{x}^{{{\gamma }_{1}}} \right)
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq2}
{{f}_{{{I}_{y}}}}\left( {{I}_{y}} \right)=\frac{{{\gamma }_{2}}I_{y}^{{{m}_{2}}{{\gamma }_{2}}-1}}{{{\left( {{{\Omega }_{2}}}/{{{m}_{2}}}\; \right)}^{{{m}_{2}}}}\Gamma \left( {{m}_{2}} \right)}\exp \left( -\frac{{{m}_{2}}}{{{\Omega }_{2}}}I_{y}^{{{\gamma }_{2}}} \right)
\end{equation}
where ${{\gamma }_{i}}>0$ , ${{m}_{i}}\ge 0.5$ and ${{\Omega }_{i}}$ $i=1,2$ are the GG parameters. The pdf of $I$ can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{eq3}
{{f}_{I}}\left( I \right)=\int\limits_{0}^{\infty }{{{f}_{{{I}_{x}}}}\left( I|{{I}_{y}} \right){{f}_{{{I}_{y}}}}\left( {{I}_{y}} \right)d{{I}_{y}}}
\end{equation}
where ${{f}_{{{I}_{x}}}}\left( I|{{I}_{y}} \right)$ is obtained as
\begin{equation}
{{f}_{{{I}_{x}}}}\left( I|{{I}_{y}} \right)=\frac{{{\gamma }_{1}}{{\left( I/{{I}_{y}} \right)}^{{{m}_{1}}{{\gamma }_{1}}-1}}}{{{I}_{y}}{{\left( {{{\Omega }_{1}}}/{{{m}_{1}}}\; \right)}^{{{m}_{1}}}}\Gamma \left( {{m}_{1}} \right)}\exp \left( -\frac{{{m}_{1}}}{{{\Omega }_{1}}}{{\left( \frac{I}{{{I}_{y}}} \right)}^{{{\gamma }_{1}}}} \right)
\end{equation}
The integration in (\ref{eq3}) yields
\begin{align}\label{eq4}
&{{f}_{I}}\left( I \right)=\frac{{{\gamma }_{2}}p{{p}^{{{m}_{2}}-1/2}}{{q}^{{{m}_{1}}-1/2}}{{\left( 2\pi \right)}^{{1-\left( p+q \right)}/{2}\;}}{{I}^{-1}}}{\Gamma \left( {{m}_{1}} \right)\Gamma \left( {{m}_{2}} \right)}\\\nonumber
&\times G_{p+q,0}^{0,p+q}\left[ {{\left( \frac{{{\Omega }_{2}}}{{{I}^{{{\gamma }_{2}}}}} \right)}^{p}}\frac{{{p}^{p}}{{q}^{q}}\Omega _{1}^{q}}{m_{1}^{q}m_{2}^{p}}|\begin{matrix}
\Delta \left( q:1-{{m}_{1}} \right),\Delta \left( p:1-{{m}_{2}} \right) \\
- \\
\end{matrix} \right]
\end{align}
where $G_{p,q}^{m,n}\left[ . \right]$ is the Meijer’s G-function\footnote{Meijer’s G-function is a standard built-in function in mathematical software packages such as MATLAB, MAPLE and MATHEMATICA. If required, this function can be also expressed in terms of the generalized hypergeometric functions using [\citen{24}, Eqs.(9.303-304)].} defined in [\citen{24}, Eq.(9.301)], $p$ and $q$ are positive integer numbers that satisfy ${p}/{q}\;={{{\gamma }_{1}}}/{{{\gamma }_{2}}}\;$ and $\Delta (j;x)\triangleq {x}/{j}\;,...,{\left( x+j-1 \right)}/{j}\;$. We name this new distribution as Double GG. Employing [\citen{25}, Eq. (10)] and after some simplifications, the cumulative distribution function (cdf) of Double GG distribution can be obtained as
\begin{align}\label{eq5}
&{{F}_{I}}\left( I \right)=\frac{{{p}^{{{m}_{2}}-1/2}}{{q}^{{{m}_{1}}-1/2}}{{\left( 2\pi \right)}^{{1-\left( p+q \right)}/{2}\;}}}{\Gamma \left( {{m}_{1}} \right)\Gamma \left( {{m}_{2}} \right)}\\\nonumber
&\times G_{1,p+q+1}^{p+q,1}\left[ {{\left( \frac{{{I}^{{{\gamma }_{2}}}}}{{{\Omega }_{2}}} \right)}^{p}}\frac{m_{1}^{q}m_{2}^{p}}{{{p}^{p}}{{q}^{q}}\Omega _{1}^{q}}|\begin{matrix}
1 \\
\Delta \left( q:{{m}_{1}} \right),\Delta \left( p:{{m}_{2}} \right),0 \\
\end{matrix} \right]
\end{align}
The distribution parameters ${{\gamma }_{i}}$ and ${{\Omega }_{i}}$ $i=1,2$ of the Double GG model can be identified using the first and second order moments of small and large scale irradiance fluctuations. The latter are directly tied to the atmospheric parameters. Without loss of generality, we assume $E\left( I \right)=1$ or equivalently $E\left( {{I}_{x}} \right)=1$ and $E\left( {{I}_{y}} \right)=1$. The second moment of irradiance is expressed as
\begin{equation}\label{eq6}
E\left( {{I}^{2}} \right)=E\left( I_{x}^{2} \right)E\left( I_{y}^{2} \right)=\left( 1+\sigma _{x}^{2} \right)\left( 1+\sigma _{y}^{2} \right)
\end{equation}
where $\sigma _{x}^{2}$ and $\sigma _{y}^{2}$ are respectively normalized variances of ${{I}_{x}}$ and ${{I}_{y}}$. The $n^\text{th}$ moment of ${{I}_{x}}$ (similarly${{I}_{y}}$) is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq7}
E\left( I_{x}^{n} \right)={{\left( \frac{{{\Omega }_{1}}}{{{m}_{1}}} \right)}^{n/{{\gamma }_{1}}}}\frac{\Gamma \left( {{m}_{1}}+n/{{\gamma }_{1}} \right)}{\Gamma \left( {{m}_{1}} \right)}
\end{equation}
Therefore, by inserting the second order moment obtained from (\ref{eq7}) in (\ref{eq6}), and considering that $E\left( I \right)=1$, we have
\begin{align}\label{eq8a}
\newsubeqblock
\mysubeq &\sigma _{x}^{2}=\frac{\Gamma \left( {{m}_{1}}+{2}/{{{\gamma }_{1}}}\; \right)\Gamma \left( {{m}_{1}} \right)}{{{\Gamma }^{2}}\left( {{m}_{1}}+{1}/{{{\gamma }_{1}}}\; \right)}-1\\\label{eq8b}
\mysubeq &\sigma _{y}^{2}=\frac{\Gamma \left( {{m}_{2}}+{2}/{{{\gamma }_{2}}}\; \right)\Gamma \left( {{m}_{2}} \right)}{{{\Gamma }^{2}}\left( {{m}_{2}}+{1}/{{{\gamma }_{2}}}\; \right)}-1\\\label{eq9}
&{{\Omega }_{i}}={{\left( \frac{\Gamma \left( {{m}_{i}} \right)}{\Gamma \left( {{m}_{i}}+1/{{\gamma }_{i}} \right)} \right)}^{{{\gamma }_{i}}}}{{m}_{i}},~~i=1,2
\end{align}
where $m_i$ is a distribution shaping parameter and found using curve fitting on the simulated/measured channel data. Note that in (\ref{eq8a}) and (\ref{eq8b}), the variances of small- and large-scale fluctuations (i.e., $\sigma _{x}^{2}$ and $\sigma _{y}^{2}$) are directly tied to the atmospheric conditions. Particularly, assuming a plane wave when inner scale effects are considered, the variances for the large- and the small-scale scintillations are given by [\citen{3}, Eqs. 9.46 and 9.55]
\begin{align}\nonumber
& \sigma _{x}^{2}=\exp \left[ 0.16\sigma _{\text{Rytov}}^{2}{{\left( \frac{2.61{{\eta }_{l}}}{2.61+{{\eta }_{l}}+0.45\sigma _{\text{Rytov}}^{2}\eta _{l}^{7/6}} \right)}^{7/6}} \right.\\\nonumber
& \times \left( 1+1.753{{\left( \frac{2.61}{2.61+{{\eta }_{l}}+0.45\sigma _{\text{Rytov}}^{2}\eta _{l}^{7/6}} \right)}^{1/2}} \right.\\\label{R1}
&-\left.\left.0.252{{\left( \frac{2.61}{2.61+{{\eta }_{l}}+0.45\sigma _{\text{Rytov}}^{2}\eta _{l}^{7/6}} \right)}^{7/12}} \right) \right]-1
\end{align}
\begin{equation}\label{R2}
\sigma _{y}^{2}\cong \exp \left[ \frac{0.51\sigma _{\text{Rytov}}^{2}}{{{\left( 1+0.69\sigma _{\text{Rytov}}^{12/5} \right)}^{5/6}}} \right]-1
\end{equation}
where ${{\eta }_{l}}=10.89\left( {{R}_{0}}/{{l}_{0}} \right)$, and ${{R}_{0}}/{{l}_{0}}$ denotes the ratio of Fresnel zone to finite inner scale.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 8cm, height = 7.5cm]{1_weak.eps}
\caption{Pdfs of the scaled log-irradiance for a plane wave assuming weak irradiance fluctuations.}
\end{figure}
For spherical waves in the absence of inner scale, $\sigma _{x}^{2}$ and $\sigma _{y}^{2}$ are given by [\citen{3}, Eqs. 9.63 and 9.70]
\begin{align}\label{R3}
&\sigma _{x}^{2}\cong \exp \left[ \frac{0.49\beta _{\text{0}}^{2}}{{{\left( 1+0.56\beta _{\text{0}}^{12/5} \right)}^{7/6}}} \right]-1\\\label{R4}
&\sigma _{y}^{2}\cong \exp \left[ \frac{0.51\beta _{\text{0}}^{2}}{{{\left( 1+0.69\beta _{0}^{12/5} \right)}^{5/6}}} \right]-1
\end{align}
where $\beta _{0}^{2}$ is the Rytov scintillation index of a spherical wave given by
\begin{equation}\label{R5}
\beta _{0}^{2}=\sigma _{\text{Rytov}}^{2}/{{\tilde{\sigma }}^{2}}\left( {{l}_{0}}/{{R}_{0}} \right)
\end{equation}
In (\ref{R5}), ${{\tilde{\sigma }}^{2}}\left( {{l}_{0}}/{{R}_{0}} \right)$ is defined as
\begin{align}\nonumber
& {{{\tilde{\sigma }}}^{2}}\left( {{l}_{0}}/{{R}_{0}} \right)\cong 3.86\left[ {{\left( 1+9/\eta _{l}^{2} \right)}^{11/12}}\left( \sin \left( \frac{11}{6}{{\tan }^{-1}}\frac{{{\eta }_{l}}}{3} \right)\right. \right.\\\nonumber
&+\frac{2.61}{{{\left( 9+\eta _{l}^{2} \right)}^{1/4}}}\sin \left( \frac{4}{3}{{\tan }^{-1}}\frac{{{\eta }_{l}}}{3} \right)\\
& \left.\left. -\frac{0.518}{{{\left( 9+\eta _{l}^{2} \right)}^{7/24}}}\sin \left( \frac{5}{4}{{\tan }^{-1}}\frac{{{\eta }_{l}}}{3} \right) \right)-8.75\eta _{l}^{-5/6} \right]
\end{align}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 8cm, height = 7.5cm]{1.eps}
\caption{Pdfs of the scaled log-irradiance for a plane wave assuming moderate irradiance fluctuations.}
\end{figure}
In the presence of a finite inner scale, the small-scale scintillation is again described by (\ref{R4}) and the large-scale variance is given by [\citen{3}, Eq. 78]
\begin{align}\nonumber
& \sigma _{x}^{2}\cong \exp \left[ 0.04\beta _{\text{0}}^{2}{{\left( \frac{8.56{{\eta }_{l}}}{8.56+{{\eta }_{l}}+0.195\beta _{\text{0}}^{2}\eta _{l}^{7/6}} \right)}^{7/6}} \right. \\\nonumber
& \times\left( 1+1.753{{\left( \frac{8.56}{8.56+{{\eta }_{l}}+0.195\beta _{\text{0}}^{2}\eta _{l}^{7/6}} \right)}^{1/2}}\right.\\\label{R7}
&\left.\left.-0.252{{\left( \frac{8.56}{8.56+{{\eta }_{l}}+0.195\beta _{\text{0}}^{2}\eta _{l}^{7/6}} \right)}^{7/12}} \right) \right]-1
\end{align}
Therefore, the parameters of the Double GG distribution are readily deduced from these expressions using only values of the refractive index structure parameter and inner scale according to the atmospheric conditions. The scintillation index can be further calculated as
\begin{equation}\label{eq10}
\sigma _{I}^{2}=\frac{E\left( {{I}^{2}} \right)}{E{{\left( I \right)}^{2}}}-1=\left( 1+\sigma _{x}^{2} \right)\left( 1+\sigma _{y}^{2} \right)-1
\end{equation}
We should emphasize that this distribution is very generic since it includes some commonly used fading models as special cases. For ${{\gamma }_{i}}\to 0$, ${{m}_{i}}\to \infty $, Double GG pdf coincides with the log-normal pdf. For ${{\gamma }_{i}}=1$, ${{\Omega }_{i}}=1$, it reduces to Gamma-Gamma while for ${{m}_{i}}=1$, it becomes Double-Weibull. For ${{\gamma }_{i}}=1$, ${{\Omega }_{i}}=1$, ${{m}_{2}}=1$, it coincides with the K channel.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 8cm, height = 7.5cm]{2.eps}
\caption{Pdfs of the scaled log-irradiance for a plane wave assuming strong irradiance fluctuations.}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{quote}
\caption{NRMSE for different statistical models and turbulence conditions defined in Figs. 1-6}
\label{table2}
\end{quote}
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
&Gamma-Gamma \cite{10} &Double-Weibull\cite{12} &Double GG (Proposed)\\ \hline
Fig. 1 &2\% &7\% &0.6\% \\ \hline
Fig. 2 &2.8\% &1.2\% &0.8\% \\ \hline
Fig. 3 &1.2\% &1\% &0.8\% \\ \hline
Fig. 4 &0.3\% &10\% &0.3\% \\ \hline
Fig. 5 &19\% &8.7\% &1.5\% \\ \hline
Fig. 6 &4.8\% &2.4\% &1.7\% \\ \hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\section{Verification of the Proposed Channel Model}\label{ver}
In this section, we compare the Double GG distribution model with simulation data of plane and spherical waves provided respectively in \cite{16} and \cite{17}. In \cite{16}, Flatt{\'e} \emph{et al.} carried out exhaustive numerical simulations and published the results assuming plane wave propagation through homogeneous and isotropic Kolmogorov turbulence. In \cite{17}, Hill and Frehlich presented the simulation data for the propagation of a spherical wave through homogeneous and isotropic atmospheric turbulence. The turbulence severity is characterized by Rytov variance ($\sigma _{\text{Rytov}}^{2}$) which is proportional to the scintillation index \cite{3}. We emphasize that the same data set was also employed in \cite{10} and \cite{12} which have introduced the Gamma-Gamma and Double-Weibull fading models.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 8cm, height = 7.5cm]{4_weak.eps}
\caption{Pdfs of the scaled log-irradiance for a spherical wave assuming weak irradiance fluctuations.}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Plane Wave}\label{plane}
Figs. 1-3 compare the Gamma-Gamma, Double-Weibull and Double GG models under a wide range of turbulence conditions (weak to strong) assuming plane wave propagation. In these figures, the vertical axis of the figure represents the log-irradiance pdf multiplied by the square root of variance. The logarithm of irradiance was particularly chosen to illustrate the high and low irradiance tails \cite{16}. Thus, sensitivity to the small irradiance fades is increased, while sensitivity to large irradiance peaks is decreased. The pdf plots were also scaled by subtracting the mean value to center all distributions on zero and dividing by the square root of variance.
In Fig. 1, we assume weak turbulence conditions which are characterized by $\sigma _{\text{Rytov}}^{2}=0.1$ and ${{l}_{0}}/{{R}_{0}}=0.5$. The values of the variances of small and large scale fluctuations, ($\sigma _{x}^{2}$ and $\sigma _{y}^{2}$) are calculated from (\ref{R1}) and (\ref{R2}). Using (\ref{eq8a}), (\ref{eq8b}) and (\ref{eq9}), the Double-GG parameters are obtained as ${{\gamma }_{1}}=2.1$, ${{\gamma }_{2}}=2.1$, ${{m}_{1}}=4$, ${{m}_{2}}=4.5$, ${{\Omega }_{1}}=1.0676$ and ${{\Omega }_{2}}=1.06$ where $p=q=1$. We further employ normalized root-mean-square error (NRMSE) as a statistical goodness of fit test. Table I provides the NRMSE results for different statistical models. According to Table I and Fig. 1, both Gamma-Gamma and Double-Weibull distributions fail to match the simulation data. On the other hand, the proposed Double GG distribution follows closely the simulation data.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 8cm, height = 7.5cm]{3.eps}
\caption{Pdfs of the scaled log-irradiance for a spherical wave assuming moderate irradiance fluctuations.}
\end{figure}
In Fig.2, we assume moderate irradiance fluctuations which are characterized by $\sigma _{\text{Rytov}}^{2}=2$ and ${{l}_{0}}/{{R}_{0}}=0.5$. The parameters of the Double GG distribution for this case are obtained as ${{\gamma }_{1}}=2.1690$, ${{\gamma }_{2}}=0.8530$, ${{m}_{1}}=0.55$, ${{m}_{2}}=2.35$, ${{\Omega }_{1}}=1.5793$ and ${{\Omega }_{2}}=0.9671$. In the calculations, $p$ and $q$ are chosen as $p=28$ and $q=11$ in order to satisfy ${p}/{q}={{{\gamma }_{1}}}/{{{\gamma }_{2}}}$. Among the three distributions under consideration, the proposed Double GG model provides the best fit to the simulation data. It is apparent that Gamma-Gamma fails to match the simulation data particularly in the tails. As Table I demonstrates, the accuracy of Double Weibull is better than that of Gamma-Gamma, but slightly inferior to our proposed distribution.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 8cm, height = 7.5cm]{4.eps}
\caption{Pdfs of the scaled log-irradiance for a spherical wave assuming strong irradiance fluctuations.}
\end{figure}
In Fig. 3, we assume strong irradiance fluctuations which are characterized by $\sigma _{\text{Rytove}}^{2}=25$ and ${{{I}_{0}}}/{{{R}_{0}}=1}$. The parameters of the Double GG distribution are calculated as ${{\gamma }_{1}}=1.8621$, ${{\gamma }_{2}}=0.7638$, ${{m}_{1}}=0.5$, ${{m}_{2}}=1.8$, ${{\Omega }_{1}}=1.5074$ and ${{\Omega }_{2}}=0.9280$ where $p$ and $q$ are chosen as 17 and 7 respectively. The Double GG model again provides an excellent match to the simulation data and as it is clear from Table I, its accuracy is better than Gamma-Gamma and Double Weibull.
\subsection{Spherical Wave}
\begin{figure} \centering
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width = 6.8cm, height = 5cm]{9.eps}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width = 6.8cm, height = 5cm]{10.eps}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width = 6.8cm, height = 5cm]{11.eps}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width = 6.8cm, height = 5cm]{12.eps}}
\caption{Outage probability as a function of $\bar{\gamma }/{{\gamma }_{th}}$ for a) Plane wave - $\sigma _{^{Rytov}}^{2}=2$, ${{{l}_{0}}}/{{{R}_{0}}=0.5}$, b) Plane wave-$\sigma _{^{Rytov}}^{2}=25$, ${{{l}_{0}}}/{{{R}_{0}}=1}$, c) Spherical wave - $\sigma _{^{Rytov}}^{2}=2$, ${{{l}_{0}}}/{{{R}_{0}}=0}$, d) Spherical wave - $\sigma _{^{Rytov}}^{2}=5$, ${{{l}_{0}}}/{{{R}_{0}}=1}$}
\end{figure}
Figs 4-6 compare the Gamma-Gamma, Double-Weibull and Double GG models under weak, moderate and strong turbulence conditions assuming spherical wave propagation. These pdfs are plotted as a function of $(\ln I+0.5{{\sigma }^{2}})/\sigma$ \cite{17}, where $\sigma$ is the square root of the variance of $\ln I$. The y-axis depicts the log-irradiance pdf multiplied by $\sigma$.
In Fig. 4, we consider spherical wave propagation and assume weak turbulence which are characterized by $\sigma _{\text{Rytov}}^{2}=0.06$ and ${{l}_{0}}/{{R}_{0}}=0$. The parameters of Double GG are evaluated using the variances of small and large scale fluctuations, ($\sigma _{y}^{2}$ and $\sigma _{x}^{2}$) for spherical waves. The values of these variances are given by (\ref{R3}) , (\ref{R4}) and (\ref{R7}). Therefore, employing (9) and (\ref{eq9}) we obtain ${{m}_{1}}=34.24$, ${{m}_{2}}=32.79$, ${{\gamma }_{1}}={{\gamma }_{2}}={{\Omega }_{1}}={{\Omega }_{2}}=1$ where $p$ and $q$ are equal to 1. It can be noted that in this case, the Double GG coincides with the Gamma-Gamma distribution. It is apparent that both Gamma-Gamma and Double GG distributions provide an excellent match to the simulation data while the Double-Weibull distribution fails to match the simulation data.
In Fig. 5, we assume moderate irradiance fluctuations, which are characterized by $\sigma _{\text{Rytov}}^{2}=2$ and ${{{l}_{0}}}/{{{R}_{0}}=0}$. The parameters of the Double GG model for this case are calculated as ${{\gamma }_{1}}=0.9135$, ${{\gamma }_{2}}=1.4385$, ${{m}_{1}}=2.65$, ${{m}_{2}}=0.85$, ${{\Omega }_{1}}=0.9836$ and ${{\Omega }_{2}}=1.1745$ where $p$ and $q$ are selected as 7 and 11 respectively. It is clearly observed that the Double GG model provides a better fit with simulation data, especially for small irradiance values.
In Fig. 6, we assume strong irradiance fluctuations which are characterized by $\sigma _{\text{Rytov}}^{2}=5$ and ${{{l}_{0}}}/{{{R}_{0}}=1}$. The parameters of the Double GG model are calculated as ${{\gamma }_{1}}=0.4205$, ${{\gamma }_{2}}=0.6643$, ${{m}_{1}}=3.2$, ${{m}_{2}}=2.8$, ${\Omega_{1}}=0.8336$ and ${{\Omega }_{2}}=0.9224$ where $p$ and $q$ are chosen as 7 and 11 respectively. It is apparent from this figure and Table I that both Gamma-Gamma and Double-Weibull distributions fail to match the simulation data. On the other hand, the proposed Double GG distribution follows closely the simulation data.
\section{Performance Evaluation}
\subsection{Outage Probability Analysis of SISO FSO System}
Denote ${{R}_{t}}$ as a targeted transmission rate and assume ${{\gamma }_{th}}={{C}^{-1}}\left( {{R}_{t}} \right)$ as the corresponding signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) threshold in terms of the instantaneous channel capacity for a particular channel realization. Therefore, the outage probability is calculated by ${{P}_{out}}\left( {{R}_{t}} \right)=Pr\left( \gamma <{{\gamma }_{th}} \right)$ \cite{26,kashani}. If SNR exceeds $\gamma_{th}$, no outage happens and the receiver can decode the signal with arbitrarily low error probability. For the system under consideration, the instantaneous electrical SNR can be defined as $\gamma ={{\left( \eta I \right)}^{2}}/{{N}_{0}}$, while the average electrical SNR is obtained as $\bar{\gamma }={{{\eta }^{2}}}/{{{N}_{0}}}\;$ since $E\left( I \right)=1$. Therefore, $I$ can be expressed as $I=\sqrt{\gamma /\bar{\gamma }}$. After the transformation of the random variable, $I$, the cdf of $\gamma $ can be easily derived from (\ref{eq5}) and setting $\gamma ={{\gamma }_{th}}$ therein, we obtain the outage probability as in (\ref{eq11}) at the top of the next page.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{equation}\label{eq11}
{{P}_{out}}={{F}_{\gamma }}\left( {{\gamma }_{th}} \right)
=\frac{{{p}^{{{m}_{2}}-1/2}}{{q}^{{{m}_{1}}-1/2}}{{\left( 2\pi \right)}^{{1-\left( p+q \right)}/{2}\;}}}{\Gamma \left( {{m}_{1}} \right)\Gamma \left( {{m}_{2}} \right)}
G_{1,p+q+1}^{p+q,1}\left[ {{\left( \frac{{{\gamma }_{th}}}{{\bar{\gamma }}} \right)}^{p{{\gamma }_{2}}/2}}\frac{m_{1}^{q}m_{2}^{p}}{{{\left( {{\Omega }_{2}}p \right)}^{p}}{{\left( {{\Omega }_{1}}q \right)}^{q}}}|\begin{matrix}
1 \\
\Delta \left( q:{{m}_{1}} \right),\Delta \left( p:{{m}_{2}} \right),0 \\
\end{matrix} \right]
\end{equation}
\hrulefill
\end{figure*}
(\ref{eq11}) can be seen as a generalization of earlier outage analysis results in the literature. Specifically, if we insert ${{\gamma }_{i}}=1$ and ${{\Omega }_{i}}=1$ in (\ref{eq11}), we obtain the outage probability expression reported in [\citen{18}, Eq. (15)] for Gamma-Gamma channel. Setting ${{m}_{i}}=1$ in (\ref{eq11}), we recover Eq (16) of \cite{12} derived for Double-Weibull channel. Similarly, for ${{\gamma }_{i}}=1$, ${{\Omega }_{i}}=1$ and ${{m}_{2}}=1$, (\ref{eq11}) reduces to (3) of \cite{27} reported for the K channel.
\begin{figure} \centering
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width = 6.8cm, height = 5cm]{5.eps}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width = 6.8cm, height = 5cm]{6.eps}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width = 6.8cm, height = 5cm]{7.eps}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width = 6.8cm, height = 5cm]{8.eps}}
\caption{Average BER as a function of $\bar{\gamma }$ a) Plane wave - $\sigma _{^{Rytov}}^{2}=2$, ${{{l}_{0}}}/{{{R}_{0}}=0.5}$, b) Plane wave-$\sigma _{^{Rytov}}^{2}=25$, ${{{l}_{0}}}/{{{R}_{0}}=1}$, c) Spherical wave - $\sigma _{^{Rytov}}^{2}=2$, ${{{l}_{0}}}/{{{R}_{0}}=0}$, d) Spherical wave - $\sigma _{^{Rytov}}^{2}=5$, ${{{l}_{0}}}/{{{R}_{0}}=1}$}
\end{figure}
Based on the derived expression in (\ref{eq11}), Figs. 7.a-d present the outage probabilities of a SISO FSO system for different degrees of turbulence severity. We adopt the same parameters used in Figs 2-3 and 5-6 and consider the following four cases: a) Plane wave with $\sigma _{\text{Rytov}}^{2}=2$ and ${{{l}_{0}}}/{{{R}_{0}}=0.5}$, b) Plane wave with $\sigma _{\text{Rytov}}^{2}=25$ and ${{{l}_{0}}}/{{{R}_{0}}=1}$, c) Spherical wave with $\sigma _{\text{Rytov}}^{2}=2$ and ${{{l}_{0}}}/{{{R}_{0}}=0}$, d) Spherical wave with $\sigma _{\text{Rytov}}^{2}=5$ and ${{{l}_{0}}}/{{{R}_{0}}=1}\;$. It is observed from Fig. 7.a that an SNR of 37.8 dB is required to achieve a targeted outage probability of $10^{-2}$. As the turbulence strength gets stronger (see Fig. 7.b), the required SNR to maintain the same performance climbs up to 50.5 dB. Similarly, for spherical waves, SNRs of 36.8 dB and 50.9 dB are respectively required for moderate and strong turbulence conditions. In these figures, we further include the outage results for Double-Weibull and Gamma-Gamma for comparison purposes. As expected from the earlier comparisons of their pdfs, the outage performance over Double-Weibull and Double-GG for plane wave (See Figs. 7.a and 7.b) are similar while the Gamma-Gamma model overestimates the outage performance. On the other hand, the superiority of Double GG is more obvious for spherical wave (See Figs 7.c and 7.d), particularly for strong turbulence conditions, where the outage performance plots of Double-Weibull and Gamma Gamma significantly deviate.
\subsection{BER Analysis of SISO FSO System}
In this section, we present the BER performance analysis of an FSO system with on-off keying (OOK) over the proposed Double GG channel. The received optical signal is written as
\begin{equation}\label{eq12}
y=\eta Ix+n
\end{equation}
where $x$ represents the information bits and can be either 0 or 1, $n$ is the Additive White Gaussian noise (AWGN) term with zero mean and variance $\sigma _{n}^{2}={{N}_{0}}/2$ , $\eta$ is the optical-to-electrical conversion coefficient and $I$ is the normalized irradiance whose pdf follows (\ref{eq4}). Conditioned on the irradiance, the instantaneous BER for OOK is given by \cite{20}
\begin{equation}\label{eq13}
{{P}_{e,ins}}=0.5\operatorname{erfc}\left( \frac{\eta I}{2\sqrt{{{N}_{0}}}} \right)
\end{equation}
where $\operatorname{erfc}\left( . \right)$ stands for the complementary error function defined as
\begin{equation}\label{eq14}
\operatorname{erfc}(x)=\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi }}\int_{x}^{\infty }{{{e}^{-{{t}^{2}}}}}dt.
\end{equation}
The average BER can be then calculated by averaging (\ref{eq13}) over the distribution of $I$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{eq15}
{{P}_{e}}=\int_{0}^{\infty }{{{f}_{I}}\left( I \right)}\left[ 0.5\operatorname{erfc}\left( \frac{\eta I}{2\sqrt{{{N}_{0}}}} \right) \right]dI
\end{equation}
The above integral can be evaluated in closed form by expressing the $\operatorname{erfc}\left( . \right)$ integrand via a Meijer’s G-function using [\citen{28}, Eq. (8.4.14.2)], [\citen{28}, Eq. (8.2.2.14)] and [\citen{29}, Eq. (21)]. Thus, a closed-form solution is obtained as in (\ref{eq16}) at the top of the next page.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{equation}\label{eq16}
{{P}_{SISO}}=\frac{{{\gamma }_{2}}{{k}^{{{m}_{1}}+{{m}_{2}}}}{{p}^{{{m}_{2}}+1/2}}{{q}^{{{m}_{1}}-1/2}}}{{{2}^{\frac{3}{2}}}l\Gamma \left( {{m}_{1}} \right)\Gamma \left( {{m}_{2}} \right){{\left( 2\pi \right)}^{\frac{l+k\left( p+q \right)}{2}-1}}}
G_{2l,k\left( p+q \right)+l}^{k\left( p+q \right),2l}\left[ {{\left( \frac{m_{1}^{q}m_{2}^{p}}{{{p}^{P}}\Omega _{2}^{p}{{q}^{q}}\Omega _{1}^{q}} \right)}^{k}}\frac{{{\left( 4l \right)}^{l}}}{{{{\bar{\gamma }}}^{l}}{{k}^{k\left( p+q \right)}}}|\begin{matrix}
\Delta \left( l:1 \right),\Delta \left( l:\frac{1}{2} \right) \\
{{\operatorname{J}}_{k}}\left( q:1-{{m}_{1}} \right),{{\operatorname{J}}_{k}}\left( p:1-{{m}_{2}} \right),\Delta \left( l:0 \right) \\
\end{matrix} \right]
\end{equation}
\hrulefill
\end{figure*}
In (\ref{eq16}) $k$ and $l$ are positive integer numbers that satisfy ${p{{\gamma }_{2}}}/{2}\;={l}/{k}\;$ and ${{\operatorname{J}}_{\xi }}\left( y,x \right)$ is defined as
\begin{align}\label{eq17}
&{{\operatorname{J}}_{\xi }}\left( y,x \right)\\\nonumber
&=\Delta \left( \xi ,\frac{y-x}{y} \right),\Delta \left( \xi ,\frac{y-1-x}{y} \right),\ldots ,\Delta \left( \xi ,\frac{1-x}{y} \right)
\end{align}
The derived BER expression in (\ref{eq16}) can be seen as a generalization of earlier BER results in the literature. If we insert ${{\gamma }_{i}}=1$ and ${{\Omega }_{i}}=1$ in (\ref{eq16}), we obtain the BER expression derived in [\citen{19}, Eq. (9)] under the assumption of Gamma-Gamma channel. Setting ${{m}_{i}}=1$ in (\ref{eq16}), we obtain Eq (15) of \cite{12} derived for Double-Weibull channel. On the other hand, for ${{\gamma }_{i}}=1$, ${{\Omega }_{i}}=1$ and ${{m}_{2}}=1$, (\ref{eq16}) reduces to (12) of \cite{20} reported for the K-channel.
In an effort to have some further insights into system performance, we investigate the asymptotical BER performance in the following. For large SNR values, the asymptotic BER behavior is dominated by the behavior of the pdf near the origin, i.e. ${{f}_{I}}\left( I \right)$ at $I\to 0$ \cite{garcia}. Thus, employing series expansion corresponding to the Meijer’s G-function [\citen{wol}, Eq. (07.34.06.0006.01)], the Double GG distribution given in (\ref{eq4}) can be approximated by a single polynomial term as
\begin{equation}\label{app}
{{f}_{I}}\left( I \right)\approx A \prod\limits_{\begin{smallmatrix}
j=1 \\
j\ne k
\end{smallmatrix}}^{p+q}{\Gamma \left( {{b}_{j}}-{{b}_{k}} \right)}{{I}^{p{{\gamma }_{2}}\min \left\{ \frac{{{m}_{1}}}{q},\frac{{{m}_{2}}}{p} \right\}-1}}
\end{equation}
where $A$ is obtained as
\begin{align}\nonumber
&A =\frac{{{\gamma }_{2}}p{{p}^{{{m}_{2}}-1/2}}{{q}^{{{m}_{1}}-1/2}}{{\left( 2\pi \right)}^{{1-\left( p+q \right)}/{2}\;}}}{\Gamma \left( {{m}_{1}} \right)\Gamma \left( {{m}_{2}} \right)}\\\label{aa}
&\times{{\left( \frac{m_{1}^{q}m_{2}^{p}}{{{\left( q{{\Omega }_{1}} \right)}^{q}}{{\left( p{{\Omega }_{2}} \right)}^{p}}} \right)}^{\min \left\{ \frac{{{m}_{1}}}{q},\frac{{{m}_{2}}}{p} \right\}}}
\end{align}
In (\ref{app}), ${{b}_{k}}$ and ${{b}_{j}}$ are defined as
\begin{equation}
{{b}_{k}}=\min \left\{ \frac{{{m}_{1}}}{q},\frac{{{m}_{2}}}{p} \right\}
\end{equation}
\begin{align}
&{{b}_{j}}\in \\\nonumber
&\left\{ 1-\Delta \left( q:1-{{m}_{1}} \right),1-\Delta \left( p:1-{{m}_{2}} \right) \right\}\backslash \min \left\{ \frac{{m}_{1}}{q},\frac{{m}_{2}}{p} \right\}
\end{align}
Therefore, based on (\ref{eq15}), the average BER can be well approximated by
\begin{equation}\label{siso_sym}
{{P}_{SISO}}\approx A \prod\limits_{\begin{smallmatrix}
j=1 \\
j\ne k
\end{smallmatrix}}^{p+q}{\Gamma \left( {{b}_{j}}-{{b}_{k}} \right)}{{\left( \frac{2}{\sqrt{{\bar{\gamma }}}} \right)}^{p{{\gamma }_{2}}{{b}_{k}}}}\frac{\Gamma \left( \left( 1+p{{\gamma }_{2}}{{b}_{k}} \right)/2 \right)}{2\sqrt{\pi }p{{\gamma }_{2}}{{b}_{k}}}
\end{equation}
From (\ref{siso_sym}), it can be readily deduced that the diversity order of SISO FSO system is given by $0.5p{{\gamma }_{2}}\min \left\{ {{{m}_{1}}}/{q}\;,{{{m}_{2}}}/{p}\right\}$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 8cm, height = 7.5cm]{simo1.eps}
\caption{Comparison of the average BER between SISO and SIMO with optimal combing for plane wave as defined in Fig. 3.}
\end{figure}
It is observed from Fig.8.a that an SNR of 51.1 dB is required to achieve a BER of $10^{-3}$ for a plane wave in moderate turbulence conditions. For stronger turbulence conditions, the required SNR to achieve the same BER performance is 68.2 dB as seen from Fig. 8.b. For spherical waves, SNRs of 49.8 dB and 63.8 are respectively required for moderate and strong turbulence conditions. Comparison with the expressions presented for other channel models reveals that the Gamma-Gamma model significantly overestimates the performance. Similar to earlier observations on the outage analysis, the superiority of Double GG is more obvious for spherical wave. As observed from Figs 8.c and 8.d, the performance plots of Double-Weibull and Gamma Gamma considerably diverge particularly for strong turbulence conditions. Furthermore, it can be clearly seen that the asymptotic results are in excellent agreement with exact analytical results within a wide range of SNR showing the accuracy and usefulness of the derived asymptotic expression given in (\ref{siso_sym}).
\section{FSO Links with Receive Diversity}\label{div}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 8cm, height = 7.5cm]{simo2.eps}
\caption{Comparison of the average BER between SISO and SIMO with optimal combing for spherical wave as defined in Fig. 5.}
\end{figure}
As it can be noticed from Section IV, the performance of a SISO FSO link over moderate and strong atmospheric turbulence is quite poor. To address this issue, multiple transmit and/or receive apertures can be employed and the performance can be improved via diversity gains. In the following, we assume that multiple receive apertures are employed and present the BER derivations under the assumption that optimal gain combining is used.
The optimum decision metric for OOK is given by \cite{21}
\begin{equation}\label{eq18}
P\left( \mathbf{r}|\text{on,}{{\text{I}}_{n}} \right)\underset{\text{off}}{\overset{\text{on}}{\mathop{\lessgtr }}}\,P\left( \mathbf{r}|\text{off,}{{\text{I}}_{n}} \right)
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{r}=\left( {{r}_{1}},{{r}_{2}},...,{{r}_{N}} \right)$ is the received signal vector and ${{I}_{n}}$ is the fading channel coefficient which models the channel from the transmit aperture to the $n^{\text{th}}$ receive aperture. Following the same approach as \cite{20,21} the conditional bit error probabilities are given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq19}
{{P}_{e}}(\text{off }|{{I}_{n}})={{P}_{e}}(\text{on }|{{I}_{n}})=Q\left( \frac{1}{N}\sqrt{\frac{{\bar{\gamma }}}{2}\sum\limits_{n=1}^{N}{I_{n}^{2}}} \right)
\end{equation}
The average BER can be then obtained as
\begin{equation}\label{eq20}
{{P}_{\text{SIMO,OC}}}=\int\limits_{\mathbf{I}}{{{f}_{\mathbf{I}}}}\left( \mathbf{I} \right)Q\left( \sqrt{\frac{{\bar{\gamma }}}{2N}\sum\limits_{n=1}^{N}{I_{n}^{2}}} \right)d\mathbf{I}
\end{equation}
where ${{f}_{\mathbf{I}}}\left( \mathbf{I} \right)$ is the joint pdf of vector $\mathbf{I}=\left( {{I}_{1}},{{I}_{2}},\ldots ,{{I}_{N}} \right)$. The factor $N$ in (\ref{eq20}) is used to ensure that sum of the $N$ receive aperture areas is the same as the area of the receive aperture of the SISO link.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{equation}\label{eq24}
\Lambda \left( n,\upsilon \right)=\frac{{{\alpha }_{n}}l_{n}^{-0.5}k_{n}^{{{m}_{1,n}}+{{m}_{2,n}}}}{2{{\left( 2\pi \right)}^{0.5\left( {{l}_{n}}-1+\left( {{k}_{n}}-1 \right)\left( {{p}_{n}}+{{q}_{n}} \right) \right)}}}G_{{{l}_{n}},{{k}_{n}}\left( {{p}_{n}}+{{q}_{n}} \right)}^{{{k}_{n}}\left( {{p}_{n}}+{{q}_{n}} \right),{{l}_{n}}}\left[ \frac{{{\left( \upsilon N \right)}^{{{l}_{n}}}}\omega _{n}^{-{{k}_{n}}}l_{n}^{{{l}_{n}}}}{{{{\bar{\gamma }}}^{{{l}_{n}}}}k_{n}^{{{k}_{n}}\left( {{p}_{n}}+{{q}_{n}} \right)}}\left| \begin{matrix}
\Delta \left( {{l}_{n}},1 \right) \\
{{J}_{{{k}_{n}}}}\left( {{q}_{n}},1-{{m}_{1,n}} \right),{{J}_{{{k}_{n}}}}\left( {{p}_{n}},1-{{m}_{2,n}} \right) \\
\end{matrix} \right. \right]
\end{equation}
\hrulefill
\end{figure*}
Eq. (\ref{eq20}) does not yield a closed-form solution and requires N-dimensional integration. Nevertheless, the Q-function can be well-approximated as $Q(x)\approx {{{e}^{-\frac{{{x}^{2}}}{2}}}}/{12}\;+{{{e}^{-\frac{2{{x}^{2}}}{3}}}}/{4}\;$ \cite{30} and thus the average BER can be obtained as
\begin{align}\nonumber
{{P}_{\text{SIMO,OC}}}&\approx \frac{1}{12}\prod\limits_{n=1}^{N}{\int_{0}^{\infty }{{{f}_{{{I}_{n}}}}\left( {{I}_{n}} \right)}}\exp \left( \frac{-\bar{\gamma }}{4N}I_{n}^{2} \right)d{{I}_{n}}\\\label{eq21}
&+\frac{1}{4}\prod\limits_{n=1}^{N}{\int_{0}^{\infty }{{{f}_{{{I}_{n}}}}\left( {{I}_{n}} \right)}}\exp \left( \frac{-\bar{\gamma }}{3N}I_{n}^{2} \right)d{{I}_{n}}
\end{align}
The above integral can be evaluated by first expressing the exponential function in terms of the Meijer G-function presented in [\citen{29}, eq. (11)] as
\begin{equation}\label{eq22}
\exp \left( -x \right)=\operatorname{G}_{0,1}^{1,0}\left[ x\left| _{0}^{-} \right. \right]
\end{equation}
Then, a closed-form expression for (\ref{eq21}) is obtained using [\citen{29}, Eq. (21)] as
\begin{equation}\label{eq23}
{{P}_{\operatorname{SIMO},OC}}\approx \frac{1}{12}\prod\limits_{n=1}^{N}{\Lambda \left( n,4 \right)}+\frac{1}{4}\prod\limits_{n=1}^{N}{\Lambda \left( n,3 \right)}
\end{equation}
where $\Lambda \left( n,\upsilon \right)$ is defined in (\ref{eq24}) at the top of the page.
In (\ref{eq24}), ${{l}_{n}}$ and ${{k}_{n}}$ are positive integer numbers that satisfy ${{{p}_{n}}{{\gamma }_{2,n}}}/{2}\;={{{l}_{n}}}/{{{k}_{n}}}\;$, and ${{\alpha }_{n}}$ and ${{\omega }_{n}}$ $n\in \left\{ 1,2,\ldots ,N \right\}$ are defined as
\begin{align}\label{eq25}
&{{\alpha }_{n}}=\frac{{{\gamma }_{2,n}}p_{n}^{{{m}_{2,n}}+1/2}q_{n}^{{{m}_{1,n}}-1/2}{{\left( 2\pi \right)}^{{1-\left( {{p}_{n}}+{{q}_{n}} \right)}/{2}\;}}}{\Gamma \left( {{m}_{1,n}} \right)\Gamma \left( {{m}_{2,n}} \right)}\\\label{eq25b}
&{{\omega }_{n}}={{\left( {{\Omega }_{2,n}}{{p}_{n}}m_{2,n}^{-1} \right)}^{{{p}_{n}}}}{{\left( {{q}_{n}}{{\Omega }_{1,n}}m_{1,n}^{-1} \right)}^{{{q}_{n}}}}
\end{align}
The derived expression in (\ref{eq23}) includes the previously reported result in \cite{20} for K channel as a special case.
Based on the approximation in (\ref{app}), the corresponding closed-form asymptotic solution for (\ref{eq21}) can be obtained as
\begin{equation}\label{simo_asy}
{{P}_{\operatorname{SIMO},OC\_\text{asy}}}\approx \frac{1}{12}\prod\limits_{n=1}^{N}{{{\Lambda }_{\text{asy}}}\left( n,4 \right)}+\frac{1}{4}\prod\limits_{n=1}^{N}{{{\Lambda }_{\text{asy}}}\left( n,3 \right)}
\end{equation}
where ${{\Lambda }_{\text{asy}}}\left( n,\upsilon \right)$ is defined as
\begin{align}\nonumber
&{{\Lambda }_{\text{asy}}}\left( n,\upsilon \right)={{\alpha }_{n}}\prod\limits_{\begin{smallmatrix}
j=1 \\
j\ne k
\end{smallmatrix}}^{{{p}_{n}}+{{q}_{n}}}{\Gamma \left( {{b}_{j,n}}-{{b}_{k,n}} \right)}\\
&\times\Gamma \left( {{p}_{n}}{{\gamma }_{2,n}}{{b}_{k,n}} \right)\frac{{{\left( \sqrt{\upsilon N} \right)}^{{{p}_{n}}{{\gamma }_{2,n}}{{b}_{k,n}}}}}{2{{\left( \sqrt{{\bar{\gamma }}} \right)}^{{{p}_{n}}{{\gamma }_{2,n}}{{b}_{k,n}}}}}
\end{align}
Therefore, the diversity order of FSO links with $N$ receive apertures employing optimal gain combining is obtained as $0.5\sum\limits_{n=1}^{N}{{{p}_{n}}{{\gamma }_{2,n}}\min \left\{ {{{m}_{1}}_{,n}}/{{{q}_{n}}},{{{m}_{2,n}}}/{{{p}_{n}}}\right\}}$.
Figs. 9-10 illustrate the BER performance of the SIMO FSO system under consideration. We present approximate analytical results which have been obtained through (\ref{eq23}) and (\ref{simo_asy}) along with the Monte-Carlo simulation of (\ref{eq20}). As clearly seen from Figs. 9-10, our approximate expressions provide an excellent match to simulation results. As a benchmark, the BER of SISO FSO link is also included in these figures. It is observed that receive diversity significantly improve the performance. For instance, at a target bit error rate of ${{10}^{-3}}$, we observe performance improvements of 26.8 dB and 39.6 dB respectively for with $N=2$ and 3 with respect to the SISO transmission over Double GG turbulence channels defined in Fig.3. Similarly, for Double GG channels defined in Fig. 5, at a BER of ${{10}^{-3}}$, performance improvements of 19 dB and 25.1 dB are achieved for SIMO links with $N=2$ and 3 compared to the SISO deployment. It can be further observed that asymptotic bounds on the BER become tighter at high enough SNRs confirming the accuracy and usefulness of the asymptotic expression given in (\ref{simo_asy}).
\section{Conclusions}\label{Con}
In this paper, we have introduced a new channel model, so called Double GG, which accurately describes irradiance fluctuations over atmospheric channels under a wide range of turbulence conditions. It is based on the theory of doubly stochastic scintillation and considers irradiance fluctuations as the product of small-scale and large-scale fluctuations which are both Generalized Gamma distributed. We have obtained closed-form expressions for the pdf and cdf in terms of Meijer’s G-function. Comparisons with the Gamma Gamma and Double-Weibull have shown that the new model provides an accurate fit with numerical simulation data for both plane and spherical waves. Using the new channel model, we have obtained closed-form expressions for the BER and the outage probability of SISO and SIMO FSO systems. We have demonstrated that our derived expressions cover many existing results in the literature earlier reported for Gamma-Gamma, Double-Weibull and K channels as special cases. Based on the asymptotical performance analysis, we have further derived diversity gains for SISO and SIMO FSO systems under consideration.
\balance
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtr}
|
\section{Introduction}
Phase separation in gas mixtures goes against our intuitive notion of the entropy of mixing. However, at ultralow temperature where quantum physics rules, this possibility has been realized experimentally, in particular in binary mixtures of Bose-Einstein condensates (BECs). See, e.g., \cite{UBFG} for an overview. Let us recall briefly the state-of-the-art research in this field, paying special attention to experiments.
At the beginning of this century weakly phase-segregated binary Bose-Einstein systems have been observed experimentally~\cite{modugno,miesner,myatt,stamper2,hall,matthews}. More recently, strong phase separation has been realized by various research groups~\cite{mccarron,tojo,altin,papp2,xiong}. Moreover, also in an ultracold dual component gas of thermal atoms spatial separation of components has been achieved~\cite{baumer}, while many more degenerate Bose mixtures were produced in which phase separation is possible~\cite{stellmer,pilch,thalhammer}. The theoretical and experimental physics of multi-component condensates is well explained in Refs.~\cite{stamper3,malomed2}. The statics and dynamics of phase separated BECs have been extensively addressed in Refs.~\cite{ho,ejnisman,pu,alexandrov,timmermans,ao1998binary,svidzinsky,svidzinsky2,navarro,wen,ronen,pattinson,gautam}. The interfacial phenomomenology in Bose mixtures has been explored in Refs.~\cite{mazets,bezett,sasaki,ticknor,takeuchi,goldman,kadokura,pepe} and the phase diagram at finite temperature was investigated in Refs.~\cite{phat,BVS2,shi}.
Our focus in this paper is on the calculation of static interfacial properties of BEC binary mixtures within Gross-Pitaevskii (GP) theory \cite{GP}. Research on this problem, in particular on the interfacial tension of phase-separated mixtures of BECs \cite{ao1998binary}, has led to interesting results \cite{timmermans,BertVan}. In particular, in \cite{BertVan} accurate analytical approximations (e.g., series expansions) have been provided, covering certain ranges of condensate healing lengths and interparticle repulsive interaction strengths. While these results are useful, there is still a need for i) more exact solutions within GP theory, and ii) a simpler model which can provide a compact and insightful expression for the interfacial tension that can be used over the entire parameter range. Our aim is to contribute advances to meet both of these needs.
This paper is organized as follows. Section II deals with the frame-work of GP theory. Section III is concerned with exact solutions to the GP equations describing interfacial profiles and announces our exact solution for a special choice of physical parameters. Section IV defines our simpler model through the so-called double-parabola approximation (DPA) to the GP Lagrangian and presents the solutions for the interfacial profiles within this model. Section V treats the application of the DPA to the interfacial tension and presents our compact analytical expression for this quantity. Section VI is concerned with the application of the DPA to the wetting phase transition that can occur when the condensates are adsorbed at an optical wall. This section also clarifies how the exact solution announced in section II could be found by virtue of insights gained through the DPA. Finally, our conclusions and outlook are given in Section VII.
\section{Gross-Pitaevskii theoretical frame-work}
\subsection{Gross-Pitaevskii Lagrangian}
We start from the Lagrangian $L$ and action $S$ of a two-component BEC
\begin{equation}\label{eq:action}
S \left[\Psi_1,\Psi_2 \right]= \int \mathrm{d}t L =\int \mathrm{d}t \mathrm{d} \mathbf{r} \mathcal{L}
\end{equation}
with the mean-field Gross-Pitaevskii Lagrangian density \cite{pethick2002bose,PitaString}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:lagrangiandensity}
\mathcal{L} (\Psi_1,\Psi_2 )= \sum_{j=1}^{2} {\color{black}\frac{i\hbar}{2} \left(\Psi_j^{\ast} \partial_t \Psi_j -\Psi_j \partial_t \Psi_j^{\ast} \right)} - \mathcal{E}(\Psi_1,\Psi_2),
\end{equation}
in which the Hamiltonian density is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:hamiltoniandensity}
\mathcal{E} (\Psi_1,\Psi_2)= \sum_{j=1}^{2} \left[ {\color{black} \frac{\hbar^2}{2 m_j} \left|\nabla \Psi_j \right|^2 } + \frac{g_{jj}}{2} \lvert\Psi_j\rvert^4 \right] + g_{12} \lvert\Psi_1\rvert^2 \lvert\Psi_2\rvert^2,
\end{equation}
where, for species $j$, $\Psi_j=\Psi_{j}(\mathbf{r},t)$ is the wave function of the condensate playing the role of order parameter; $m_j$ is the atomic mass, $g_{jj}=4 \pi \hbar^2 a_{jj}/m_j >0$ is the strength of the repulsive intra-species interaction, $g_{12}=2 \pi \hbar^2 a_{12}(1/m_1 + 1/m_2)>0$ is the strength of the repulsive inter-species interaction and $a_{jj'}$ is the $s$-wave scattering length, relevant at low energies.
By introducing the following dimensionless quantities, $\mathbf{s}_j=\mathbf{r}/\xi_j$, with $\xi_j = \hbar/\sqrt{2m_jn_{j0}g_{jj}}$ the healing length and $n_{j0}$ the number density of condensate $j$ in bulk, $\tau_j=t/t_{j}$, $\psi_{j}=\Psi_{j}/\sqrt{n_{j0}}$, and $K=g_{12}/\sqrt{g_{11} g_{22}}$, where $t_{j}=\hbar/\mu_j$, and $\mu_j=g_{jj} n_{j0}$ the chemical potential of condensate $j$, we scale the Lagrangian density in \eqref{eq:lagrangiandensity} and Hamiltonian density in \eqref{eq:hamiltoniandensity} to
\begin{equation}\label{eq:dimensionlesslagrangiandensity}
\tilde{\mathcal{L}} (\psi_1,\psi_2) = \frac{\mathcal{L}}{2 P_0}= \sum_{j=1}^{2} {\color{black}\frac{i}{2} \left(\psi_j^{\ast} \partial_{\tau_j} \psi_j - \psi_j \partial_{\tau_j} \psi_j^{\ast} \right)} - \tilde{\mathcal{E}} (\psi_1,\psi_2),
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\mathcal{E}} (\psi_1,\psi_2)= \frac{\mathcal{E}}{2 P_0} = \sum_{j=1}^{2} \left[ {\color{black} \left| \nabla_{\mathbf{s}_j} \psi_j \right|^2 }+ \frac{\lvert\psi_j\rvert^4}{2} \right] + K \lvert\psi_1\rvert^2 \lvert\psi_2\rvert^2,
\end{equation}
where the pressure $P_0$ is given by $\mu_j^2/2 g_{jj}$, which takes one and the same value in both condensates at two-phase coexistence.
Next we make a transformation of the dimensionless Lagrangian density by writing
\begin{equation}
\psi_j (\mathbf{s}_j,\tau_j) \equiv \phi_j (\mathbf{s}_j,\tau_j)e^{- i\tau_j }.
\end{equation}
We then have a Lagrangian density in terms of the new order parameters $\phi_j$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:dimensionlesslagrangiandensityinphi}
\hat{\mathcal{L}} \left(\phi_1,\phi_2 \right) \equiv \tilde{\mathcal{L}} \left(\phi_1 e^{- i\tau_1}, \phi_2 e^{- i\tau_2} \right) = \sum_{j=1}^{2} \left[ {\color{black} \frac{i}{2} \left( \phi_j^{\ast} \partial_{\tau_j} \phi_j - \phi_j \partial_{\tau_j} \phi_j^{\ast} \right) - \left|\nabla_{\mathbf{s}_j} \phi_j \right|^2 } \right] - \hat{\mathcal{V}} (\phi_1,\phi_2),
\end{equation}
in which the potential $\tilde{\mathcal{V}}$ takes the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:potential}
\tilde{\mathcal{V}}(\phi_1,\phi_2)= \sum_{j=1}^{2} \left[-\lvert\phi_j\rvert^2 + \frac{\lvert\phi_j\rvert^4}{2} \right] + K \lvert\phi_1\rvert^2 \lvert\phi_2\rvert^2.
\end{equation}
We recall that when $K>1$, the two components are immiscible and a two-phase segregated BEC is formed \cite{ao1998binary}.
\subsection{GP Equations}
By considering a variation $\phi_j^{\ast} \rightarrow \phi_j^{\ast} + \delta \phi_j^{\ast}$ and requiring $\delta S/\delta \phi_j^{\ast} =0$, we obtain the Euler-Lagrange equations
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ELeq}
\frac{\partial\hat{\mathcal{L}}}{\partial \phi_j^{{\color{black}\ast}}} = \partial_{\tau_j} \frac{\partial\hat{\mathcal{L}}}{\partial (\partial_{\tau_j} \phi_j^{{\color{black}\ast}})};\, j=1,2,
\end{equation}
yielding the time-dependent GP equations
\begin{equation}
i \partial_{\tau_j} \phi_j = - \nabla^2_{\mathbf{s}_j} \phi_j + \frac{\partial \tilde{\mathcal{V}}}{\partial \phi_j^{\ast} };\, j=1,2
\end{equation}
or
\begin{equation}\label{eq:GPE}
i \partial_{\tau_j} \phi_j = \left[- \nabla_{\mathbf{s}_j}^2 -1 + \lvert\phi_j\rvert^2 + K \lvert\phi_{j'}\rvert^2 \right] \phi_j; \;\; j=1,2 \; (j \ne j').
\end{equation}
Note that these reduce to the time-independent GP equations (TIGPE) when the order parameter $\phi_j (\mathbf{s}_j,\tau_j) = \phi_{j0}(\mathbf{s}_j)$ is time-independent (so that $\psi_j (\mathbf{s}_j,\tau_j) = \phi_{j0}(\mathbf{s}_j)e^{- i\tau_j }$ is stationary), namely
\begin{equation}\label{eq:TIGPEgeneralV}
\nabla^2_{\mathbf{s}_j} \phi_{j0} = \frac{\partial \tilde{\mathcal{V}}}{\partial \phi_{j0}^{\ast} };\, j=1,2,
\end{equation}
which leads to
\begin{equation}\label{eq:TIGPE}
\left[- \nabla_{\mathbf{s}_j}^2 -1 + \lvert\phi_{j0}\rvert^2 + K \lvert\phi_{j'0}\rvert^2 \right] \phi_{j0} = 0; \;\; j=1,2 \; (j \ne j').
\end{equation}
\subsection{Boundary conditions for interface profiles}
For describing a static planar interface at $z=0$, separating bulk condensate 1 residing in the half-space $z \ge 0$ and bulk condensate 2 residing in the half-space $z \le 0$, we limit our attention to order parameters that are translationally invariant in the $x$ and $y$ directions. To keep the notation simple, we will not change the name of the function: $\phi_{j0}(\mathbf{s}_j) \rightarrow \phi_{j0}( \rho_j)$, where $\rho_j \equiv z/\xi_j$. For describing an interface the TIGPE must be solved with the boundary conditions
\begin{equation}\label{eq:planarbc}
\begin{split}
\phi_{10}(\rho_1\rightarrow \infty) &=\phi_{20}(\rho_2\rightarrow-\infty)=1 \\
\phi_{20}(\rho_2\rightarrow\infty) & =\phi_{10}(\rho_1\rightarrow-\infty) =0
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\section{Exact solutions for interfacial profiles}
\subsection{The strong segregation limit $K \rightarrow \infty$}
In the interesting limit of strong inter-species repulsion $K \rightarrow \infty$, the segregation (i.e., mutual exclusion in space) of the phases becomes complete. Numerical solution of the TIGPE indicates that the overlap of two order parameters becomes zero and that the interaction term $K \lvert\phi_1\rvert^2 \lvert\phi_2\rvert^2$ in the potential \eqref{eq:potential} becomes negligible. Consequently, the GP equations decouple in this limit (in spite of the divergence of $K$). In this limit the simple exact solution to the GP equations for the interface consists of a pair of adjacent ``tanh" profiles
\begin{equation}\label{eq:stationarysolutionsGPE}
\phi_{j0} (\rho_j) = \tanh\left[ (-1)^{j+1}\frac{\rho_j}{\sqrt{2}}\right]; \; j=1,2.
\end{equation}
The interface position is conveniently marked by the common point of vanishing of the two order parameters. Note that the interface consists simply of two adjacent ``hard wall" profiles \cite{Fetter}. It is noteworthy that a (single) condensate wave function at a hard wall is mathematically similar to the Ginzburg-Landau (GL) order parameter for a strongly type-I superconductor at a normal/superconducting interface in the limit $\kappa \rightarrow 0$, with $\kappa$ the GL parameter \cite{GL}.
At this point we make two remarks. Firstly, the fact that the interaction term $K \lvert\phi_1\rvert^2 \lvert\phi_2\rvert^2$ in the potential \eqref{eq:potential} becomes negligible, can be understood analytically using the DPA, which will be introduced in the next section. Secondly, the appearance of the ``tanh" function is not unique to the strong segregation limit. In the next subsections we will see two more examples of the occurrence of this function in exact solutions for finite $K$.
\subsection{The exact solution of Malomed {\em et al.}}
Interestingly, for $K=3$ and for the symmetric choice $\xi_1=\xi_2$, an exact solution to coupled differential equations mathematically identical to the GP equations was provided by Malomed {\em et al.} \cite{Malomed} in the physical context of domain boundaries in convection patterns. The solutions are surprisingly simple and again involve the ``tanh" function,
\begin{equation}\label{Malomed}
\phi_{10}= \frac{1}{2} \left[ 1+ \tanh \left( \frac{z}{\sqrt{2} \,\xi}\right) \right] ; \;\;\phi_{20}= \frac{1}{2} \left[ 1- \tanh \left( \frac{z}{\sqrt{2} \,\xi}\right ) \right].
\end{equation}
We will come back to this special case when we discuss the interfacial tension in section V. There it will become clear that the DPA can explain why we might have anticipated that the exact solution is simple for this special case $K=3$ and $\xi_1=\xi_2$.
\subsection{An exact solution for an asymmetric case ($\xi_1\neq \xi_2$)}
We have uncovered another exact solution. It applies to the case $\xi_2/\xi_1 = 1/2$ and $K=3/2$ (the roles of $\xi_1$ and $\xi_2$ can be interchanged). The solutions to the GP equations are now the following profiles, with $\xi_1=\xi$, and $\xi_2 =\xi/2$, once more involving the ``tanh" function,
\begin{equation}\label{serendipity}
\phi_{10}= \sqrt{\frac{1}{2} \left[ 1+ \tanh \left( \frac{z}{\sqrt{2}\, \xi} \right) \right] } ; \; \;\phi_{20}= \frac{1}{2} \left[ 1- \tanh \left( \frac{z}{\sqrt{2} \,\xi} \right) \right].
\end{equation}
The heuristic procedure through which this serendipitous solution could be found has been strongly guided by insights provided by the DPA. We will discuss this in detail in section VI when we treat the wetting problem within DPA. In this and the preceding two subsections we have disclosed that the DPA is useful for guessing exact results. We now turn to the precise definition of the DPA in the context of GP theory and to the study of the remarkable properties of the simple model defined through the DPA.
\section{Double-Parabola Approximation (DPA) for interfacial profiles}
The idea of approximating a double-well potential by a piece-wise parabolic function is old and generally dictated by the desire to work with piece-wise harmonic potentials that allow one to solve the equations of motion exactly using simple functions, the behavior of which is easy to interpret physically. In the context of surface and interfacial phenomena one of the first to implement this approximation for the bulk free-energy density was Hauge \cite{Hauge}. We follow this line of thought and expand the quartic potential $\hat{\mathcal{V}}$ in \eqref{eq:potential} about its (local) minima, which correspond to the bulk values for the order parameters. For obtaining the interface profile in the half-space $z <0$ we make use of the expansion about bulk condensate 2 and for the half-space $z >0$ we expand about condensate 1, in the following manner,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:DPA}
{\color{black}\left|\phi_j\right|}=1+\epsilon_j; \; {\color{black}\left|\phi_{j'}\right|} = \delta_{j'},
\; \mbox{with} \;
\begin{cases}
z \ge 0, & (j,j')=(1,2) \\
z \le 0, & (j,j')=(2,1)
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
in which the real numbers $\epsilon_j $ and $\delta_j $ are treated as small perturbations. We expand the potential up to second order in $\epsilon_j$ and $\delta_j$ and so arrive at two ``quadratic" potentials, each of which is to be used in the appropriate half-space,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:DPApotential}
\hat{\mathcal{V}}_{\mathrm{DPA}}(\phi_1,\phi_2) = 2\left(\left|\phi_j\right| -1\right)^2 + (K-1) \lvert \phi_{j'} \rvert^2 -\frac{1}{2},
\; \mbox{with} \;
\begin{cases}
z \ge 0, & (j,j')=(1,2) \\
z \le 0, & (j,j')=(2,1)
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
This defines the DPA for the potential energy density and can be interpreted as the potential for a model that is related to, but different from, the original GP theory and which we will call the DPA model. The following technical remark is in order: In view of the structure of the TIGPE we anticipate that, at the interface position $z=0$, it will (in general) be possible to preserve continuity of the order parameter functions {\em and} their first derivatives. Indeed, in view of \eqref{eq:TIGPEgeneralV}, continuity of the potential $\hat{\mathcal{V}}$ but discontinuity of one of its (partial) derivatives with respect to the order parameter(s), at $z=0$, will induce a {\em discontinuity in the second derivative} of the interface profile functions $\phi_{j0} (\rho_j)$; $j=1,2$. This is a mild singularity, often imperceptible to the eye in an interface plot. Experience has taught us that this singularity has little or no effect on the qualitative features of the phenomena under study, provided one stays away from bulk criticality or similar conditions, at which the (local) minima of the potential may merge or undergo some other drastic change.
\subsection{DPA for the GP equations}
The double-parabola-approximated GP equations are obtained by replacing the potential $\hat{\mathcal{V}}$ in the Lagrangian density \eqref{eq:dimensionlesslagrangiandensityinphi} by the $\hat{\mathcal{V}}_{\mathrm{DPA}}$ in \eqref{eq:DPApotential} and deriving the Euler-Lagrange equation \eqref{eq:ELeq}, which leads to
\begin{equation}\label{eq:DPAGPE}
\begin{split}
i \partial_{\tau_j} \phi_j & = - \nabla_{\mathbf{s}_j}^2 \phi_j + {\color{black}2\left( \phi_j -e^{i \theta_j}\right) } \\
i \partial_{\tau_{j'}} \phi_{j'} & = - \nabla_{\mathbf{s}_{j'}}^2 \phi_{j'} + (K-1){\color{black} \phi_{j'}}
\end{split} \;
\; \mbox{with} \;
\begin{cases}
z \ge 0, & (j,j')=(1,2) \\
z \le 0, & (j,j')=(2,1)
\end{cases}
\;\; (\mathbf{DPA}),
\end{equation}
{\color{black}where $\phi_j = \left| \phi_j\right| \exp(i\theta_j)$.} Note that, alternatively, these linearized equations can be obtained directly from the GP equations of \eqref{eq:GPE} by expanding the order parameters to first order in the perturbations about their bulk values, similarly to what was done in \cite{ao1998binary}. {\color{black} For studying the interface structure, it would be sufficient to limit our attention to real order parameters and real perturbations. Nevertheless, we insist on deriving the DPA in complex function space because we have the intention to apply our results in future work to dynamical properties such as dispersion of phonon excitations and capillary wave excitations using the Bogoliubov-de Gennes formalism.}
When the order parameters are stationary, namely $\phi_j (\mathbf{s}_j,\tau_j) = \phi_{j0} (\mathbf{s}_j)$, we obtain the DPA to the TIGPE,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:TIDPAGPE}
\begin{split}
- \nabla_{\mathbf{s}_j}^2 \phi_{j0} + {\color{black}2\left(\phi_{j0} -e^{i \theta_{j0}}\right) } =0 \\
- \nabla_{\mathbf{s}_{j'}}^2 \phi_{j'0} + (K-1){\color{black}\phi_{j'0} } =0
\end{split} \;
\; \mbox{with} \;
\begin{cases}
z \ge 0, & (j,j')=(1,2) \\
z \le 0, & (j,j')=(2,1)
\end{cases}
\;\; (\mathbf{DPA}),
\end{equation}
{\color{black} where $\phi_{j0}=\left| \phi_{j0} \right|\exp(i \theta_{j0})$.}
Note that the DPA equations appear decoupled in the order parameters. However, the form of the equations depends on which bulk phase is chosen as starting point for the expansion. Since the bulk boundary conditions are different on either side of the interface, the order parameters are implicitly coupled. Of course, the apparent decoupling greatly facilitates analytical calculations.
\subsection{DPA solutions}
For obtaining static interface profiles we can take all functions to be real, and independent of the coordinates $x$ and $y$ (translational invariance in the directions parallel to the interface) and independent of time. The solutions $\phi_j (\rho_j,\tau_j) = \phi_{j0} (\rho_j)$ that solve the TIGPE with the suitable boundary conditions \eqref{eq:planarbc} are simple exponentials. A unique interface is obtained by matching the solutions for $z \ge 0$ to the ones for $z \le 0$ at $z=0$ with the requirement that the functions and their first derivatives be continuous at $z=0$. This leads to
{\color{black}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:stationarysolutionsDPAGPE}
\begin{split}
\phi_{j0} (\rho_j) & = 1 - \frac{\beta}{\alpha + \beta} e^{- \alpha \left|\rho_j \right|} \\
\phi_{j'0} (\rho_{j'}) & = \frac{\alpha}{\alpha + \beta}e^{- \beta \left|\rho_{j'} \right|}
\end{split}
\; \mbox{with} \;
\begin{cases}
z \ge 0, & (j,j')=(1,2) \\
z \le 0, & (j,j')=(2,1)
\end{cases}
\;\; (\mathbf{DPA}),
\end{equation}
}
where $\alpha = \sqrt{2}$ and $\beta=\sqrt{K-1}$. Note that Ao and Chui \cite{ao1998binary} already discussed these functions in the frame-work of perturbation expansions and identified $\xi_j/\beta$ as the penetration depth of condensate $j$ into condensate $j'$ for $j \ne j'$.
In the following two figures we compare order parameter profiles calculated within the DPA model with numerically exact order parameter profiles solving the GPE \eqref{eq:TIGPE}. For the symmetric case $\xi_1 = \xi_2 = \xi$, Fig.1 shows the numerically exact order parameters together with their DPAs for $K=2$ (moderately weak segregation). For an asymmetric case $2\xi_1 = \xi_2$, Fig.2 shows the numerically exact order parameters together with their DPAs, also for $K=2$. Note how the DPA differs from the exact solution in featuring steeper profiles, corresponding to a smaller interface width. In spite of this quantitative difference the DPA appears to lead to a qualitatively correct interfacial structure.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.80\textwidth]{phiDPAkappa2s1.eps}
\caption{\label{fig1} (color online) Interface structure for weak segregation.
Reduced order parameter profiles $\phi_{j0}$, $j=1,2$, are plotted versus $z/\xi_1$ for $K =2$ and the symmetric case $\xi_1 = \xi_2 $. The numerically exact profiles (black lines; GP) and the double-parabola approximations (grey lines; DPA) are shown.
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.80\textwidth]{phiDPAkappa2s2.eps}
\caption{\label{fig2}(color online) Interface structure for weak segregation.
Reduced order parameter profiles $\phi_{j0}$, $j=1,2$, are plotted versus $z/\xi_1$ for $K =2$ and the asymmetric case $2\xi_1 = \xi_2$. The numerically exact profiles (black lines; GP) and the double-parabola approximations (grey lines; DPA) are shown.
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Validity conditions}
Ao and Chui \cite{ao1998binary} pointed out that, in order for these solutions \eqref{eq:stationarysolutionsDPAGPE} of the linearized GPE to be self-consistent within perturbation theory, a condition corresponding to (fairly) strong segregation must be fulfilled, which requires the penetration depth of condensate $j$ into condensate $i$ to be smaller than the healing length of condensate $i$, for $i=1,2$. This condition is
\begin{equation}\label{valid}
\xi_j / \sqrt{2(K-1)} < \xi_i; \; i \neq j
\end{equation}
When this condition is not satisfied, as can typically happen for weak segregation ($K \gtrsim 1$), a term quadratic in the penetrating condensate order parameter dominates a term of first order in the deviation of the penetrated condensate order parameter from its bulk value \cite{ao1998binary}. Under such circumstances it is recommended to go beyond the DPA as far as the computation of order parameter profiles is concerned. However, for energy and interfacial tension computations we find that including this nonlinear term brings only modest improvement over the interfacial tension calculated within our DPA model, when the result is compared with the (numerically) exact result in GP theory, even in the weak segregation regime.
Our strategy in this and forthcoming works is, and will be, to consider the DPA as a model in its own right, based on and defined by the specific potential energy density \eqref{eq:DPApotential}, and to explore its predictions. As a first example of this strategy we will, in the next section, calculate the interfacial tension within the DPA model and compare it with the interfacial tension within GP theory. As a second example we will, in section VI, apply the DPA model for the calculation of the wetting transition in adsorbed binary BEC mixtures, and compare it with the wetting transition in GP theory.
\subsection{Strong segregation limit}
In the limit of strong segregation $K \rightarrow \infty$, we have $\alpha/(\alpha + \beta) \rightarrow 0$ and $\beta/(\alpha + \beta) \rightarrow 1$. The order parameters become
{\color{black}
\begin{equation}
\phi_{j0} (\rho_j) = 1 - e^{- \alpha \left| \rho_j \right|} ; \;\;\phi_{j'0} (\rho_{j'}) = 0,
\; \mbox{with} \;
\begin{cases}
z \ge 0, & (j,j')=(1,2)\\
z \le 0, & (j,j')=(2,1)
\end{cases}
\;\; (\mathbf{DPA})
\end{equation}
}
and we notice that there is no overlap of the condensates (and also no gap in between them; they touch at $z=0$). Complete segregation is illustrated in Fig.3 for the symmetric case $\xi_1 = \xi_2$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.80\textwidth]{phiDPAkappaINFTYs1.eps}
\caption{\label{fig3} (color online) Interface structure in the limit of strong segregation, $K \rightarrow \infty$. Reduced order parameter profiles $\phi_{j0}$, $j=1,2$, are plotted versus $z/\xi_1$ for the symmetric case $\xi_1 = \xi_2$. The exact ``tanh" profiles (black lines; GP) and the double-parabola approximations (grey lines; DPA) are shown.
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
When we relax the strong segregation slightly so that the condensates incur a small but nonzero overlap, numerical analysis of the full GPE reveals that the interaction term $K \lvert \phi_{10} \rvert^2 \lvert \phi_{20} \rvert^2$ in the potential \eqref{eq:potential} of the Lagrangian density \eqref{eq:dimensionlesslagrangiandensityinphi} is negligible compared to the other terms. Indeed, in spite of the fact that $K$ is large, the density overlap is so small that the product concerned is small. Now, the DPA allows us to establish analytically in which manner the interaction term vanishes in the limit $K \rightarrow \infty$. Inserting the DPA solutions for the order parameters \eqref{eq:stationarysolutionsDPAGPE} in the interaction term and calculating its value at $z=0$, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{decoupling}
K \lvert \phi_{10} (0)\rvert^2 \lvert \phi_{20} (0)\rvert^2 = K \left( \frac{\alpha}{\alpha + \beta} \right)^4 \propto \frac{1}{K} \rightarrow 0
\;\; (\mathbf{DPA}),
\end{equation}
which quantifies the vanishing of the interaction term for strong segregation. It is therefore clear that, in spite of the diverging coupling constant, the interaction term can be safely ignored in calculations pertaining to totally segregated condensates. Consequently, the GPE decouple in this limit. Thus, as we announced in subsection III.A, the DPA solutions can provide us with an analytical result, \eqref{decoupling}, allowing us to gain physical insight into a interesting property of the GP theory.
\section{DPA model applied to the interfacial tension}
\subsection{Grand Potential and Interfacial Tension from the GP Lagrangian}
We define a dynamical grand potential as the grand potential in equilibrium but with time-dependent order parameters,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:grandpotential}
\Omega[\phi_1,\phi_2] = 2 P_0 \int \mathrm{d} \mathbf{r}\; \tilde{\mathcal{W}} (\phi_1,\phi_2),
\end{equation}
where the integration is over the volume $V$ of the system and the grand potential density is defined as minus the Lagrangian density in \eqref{eq:dimensionlesslagrangiandensityinphi}, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\mathcal{W}} (\phi_1,\phi_2) \equiv - \tilde{\mathcal{L}} \left(\phi_1,\phi_2 \right)
\end{equation}
Consider an infinite planar interface at $z=0$ and assume translational invariance along $x$ and $y$. Without loss of generality, we assume the order parameters $\phi_{j0}$ for stationary states to be real and arrive at the grand potential for the interface,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:omega0}
\Omega_0 = \Omega[\phi_{10},\phi_{20}]
=2 P_0 A \int \mathrm{d} z \left[\sum_{j=1}^{2} \left(\partial_{\rho_j} \phi_{j0} \right)^2 + \tilde{\mathcal{V}} (\phi_{10},\phi_{20})\right],
\end{equation}
where $A$ is the interfacial area.
To calculate $\Omega_0$, we first derive a ``constant of the motion". We multiply the TIGPE in \eqref{eq:TIGPE} by $\partial_{ z}\phi_{j0}$ and add up the two equations. We then integrate over $z$ and find
\begin{equation}\label{eq:constantmotion}
\sum_{j=1}^{2} \left[\left(\partial_{\rho_j} \phi_{j0} \right)^2 + \phi_{j0}^2 - \frac{1}{2} \phi_{j0}^4\right] - K \phi_{10}^2 \phi_{20}^2 =1/2,
\end{equation}
where the constant $1/2$ is obtained by considering the (bulk) boundary conditions for $\phi_{j0}$.
For order parameter profiles that satisfy the TIGPE we may substitute \eqref{eq:constantmotion} in \eqref{eq:omega0}. Then $\Omega_0$ reduces to
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Omega0reduced}
\Omega_0 = 4 P_0 A \sum_{j=1}^{2}\int \mathrm{d} z \left(\partial_{\rho_j} \phi_{j0} \right)^2 - P_0 V.
\end{equation}
The interfacial tension is defined as the excess grand potential per unit area,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:gamma12}
\gamma_{12} = \frac{\Omega_0-\Omega_b}{A}= 4 P_0 \sum_{j=1}^{2}\int \mathrm{d} z \left(\partial_{\rho_j} \phi_{j0} \right)^2,
\end{equation}
which remains after the bulk grand potential $\Omega_b=-P_0 V$ of a homogeneous phase has been subtracted. Note that at bulk two-phase coexistence the bulk grand potentials are the same for each condensate. Note that expression \eqref{eq:gamma12} is valid for solutions of the TIGPE. If we wish to evaluate (nonequilibrium) interfacial tensions in GP theory for profiles that do not necessarily satisfy the TIGPE we must use \eqref{eq:omega0}.
\subsection{Interfacial tension within the DPA model}
Expression \eqref{eq:gamma12} for the equilibrium interfacial tension is independent of the form of the potential $\hat{\mathcal{V}}$. Therefore, we obtain the same expression if we start from the model defined by the DPA potential \eqref{eq:DPApotential} {\em and} use profiles that satisfy \eqref{eq:TIDPAGPE}. Note that there is no simple relation between the value of the GP interfacial tension and that of the one defined within the DPA model. They are equilibrium interfacial tensions for two different models. Note that our approach is fundamentally different from a trial-function approach in GP theory. If we wish to consider the DPA solutions as trial functions wthin GP theory, we must use \eqref{eq:omega0} and may not use \eqref{eq:gamma12}. Doing so would lead to an approximation that is far less useful than our DPA model because, for example, it would lead to an interfacial tension that diverges in the limit $K \downarrow 1$, which is physically unacceptable.
In view of these considerations, an analytic expression for the interfacial tension within the DPA model is obtained by evaluating \eqref{eq:gamma12} in the DPA profiles \eqref{eq:stationarysolutionsDPAGPE}. We find
\begin{equation}\label{eq:gamma12DPA}
\gamma_{12}^{(\mathbf{DPA})} = 2 \sqrt{2} \frac{\sqrt{(K-1)/2}}{1+\sqrt{(K-1)/2}}P_0 (\xi_1 + \xi_2).
\end{equation}
This compact expression is insightful. It shows that, in the simplified model, the contribution from each condensate is proportional to its healing length. Furthermore, the expression interpolates between the strong and weak segregation limits by means of a function that depends only on $K$. How this DPA interfacial tension compares to the GP interfacial tension, is the question to which we now turn.
\subsection{Comparison with exact results in GP theory}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.80\textwidth]{gammaScaledDPAcompare.eps}
\caption{\label{fig4} (color online) The reduced interfacial tension $\gamma_{12}/P_0 \xi$ for the symmetric case ($\xi_1=\xi_2=\xi$) versus the inverse interaction strength $1/K$. Shown are the numerically exact solution (GP, black line), the double-parabola approximation (DPA, grey line) and the scaled DPA (red line) obtained by multiplying the DPA result by 2/3 to match the DPA and GP values at $1/K =0$.
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Strong Segregation}
In the strong segregation limit $K\rightarrow \infty$, $\gamma_{12}$ is the sum of the two wall tensions. It can be calculated directly by substituting the stationary solutions \eqref{eq:stationarysolutionsGPE} for the strong segregation limit into \eqref{eq:gamma12}, so we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:gamma12strong}
\gamma_{12} = \gamma_{W1} + \gamma_{W2} = \frac{4 \sqrt{2}}{3}P_0 (\xi_1 + \xi_2), \; \mbox{for}\; K \rightarrow \infty,
\end{equation}
where $\gamma_{Wj}$ is the wall tension for the $j$-th component \cite{Fetter}. Note that the wall tension (for a single condensate) is mathematically similar to the tension of a normal/superconducting interface in the limit of strongly type-I superconductors \cite{GL}.
Comparison with $\gamma_{12}^{(\mathbf{DPA})}$ given in \eqref{eq:gamma12DPA} is immediate since
\begin{equation}\label{eq:gamma12strongDPA}
\gamma_{12}^{(\mathbf{DPA})} = \gamma_{W1}^{(\mathbf{DPA})} + \gamma_{W2}^{(\mathbf{DPA})} = 2 \sqrt{2}P_0 ( \xi_1 + \xi_2), \; \mbox{for}\; K \rightarrow \infty,
\end{equation}
where $\gamma_{Wj}^{(\mathbf{DPA})} $ is the wall tension for $j$-th component. So, the ratio between the DPA and the GP result is
\begin{equation}
\frac{\gamma_{12}^{(\mathbf{DPA})}}{\gamma_{12}} = \frac{3}{2}, \; \mbox{for}\; K \rightarrow \infty.
\end{equation}
For large $K$ we can expand \eqref{eq:gamma12DPA},
\begin{equation}\label{eq:gamma12DPAexpand}
\gamma_{12}^{(\mathbf{DPA})} = 2 \sqrt{2} P_0\left(1 - \frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{K}}+ {\cal O} \left(\frac{1}{K}\right)\right)(\xi_1 + \xi_2),
\end{equation}
and observe that the interfacial tension approaches its limit with a square-root singularity (with diverging slope) in the variable $1/K$. We can compare this with the leading terms in the large-$K$ expansion of the GP interfacial tension, derived in \cite{BertVan},
\begin{equation}\label{eq:gamma12DPABertexpand}
\gamma_{12} = P_0 \left(\frac{4 \sqrt{2} }{3} - 2.056 \frac{\sqrt{\xi_1 \xi_2}}{\xi_1 + \xi_2} \frac{1}{K^{1/4}}+ {\cal O} \left (\frac{1}{K^{1/2}}\right)\right)(\xi_1 + \xi_2).
\end{equation}
It is noteworthy that the $K^{-1/4}$ singularity as well as its amplitude 2.056... are universal in the sense that they are to some extent independent of the details of the theory. In particular, these features are common to the GP theory of BEC \cite{GP} and the earlier Ginzburg-Landau (GL) theory of superconductivity \cite{GL}. In particular, the amplitude 2.056... was first obtained by Mishonov (1.03 in his units) using GL theory \cite{Mishon}. Subsequently this was confirmed and elaborated \cite{BI} and later applied to BEC \cite{BertVan} using GP theory.
The DPA result \eqref{eq:gamma12DPAexpand} does not capture the $K^{-1/4}$ singularity and displays a $K^{-1/2}$ singularity instead. The difference in the manner the slope diverges near $1/K=0$ can be appreciated in Fig.4, in which both the DPA and the GP interfacial tension are plotted as a function of $1/K$ for the symmetric case $\xi_1 = \xi_2$. In this figure we observe that the DPA curve is similar in shape to the GP interfacial tension. If we reduce the DPA by applying an overall prefactor of 2/3, we obtain the red curve, which follows the GP curve surprisingly well. Note that the reduced DPA intersects the GP curve in one internal point, to which we will return shortly, after discussing the other interesting limit, $K \downarrow 1$.
\subsubsection{Weak Segregation}
In the weak segregation limit $K \downarrow 1$, the two condensates tend to merge. The total density of the two condensates is nearly constant and displays a small depression around the interface. In this limit $\gamma_{12}$ was calculated by Barankov \cite{barankov2002boundary}, and before him by Malomed {\em et al.} \cite{Malomed} in a different physical context, who obtained
\begin{equation}\label{eq:gamma12weak}
\gamma_{12} = \frac{4 \sqrt{K-1}}{3} P_0 \frac{\xi_1^3-\xi_2^3}{\xi_1^2-\xi_2^2} = \frac{4 \sqrt{K-1}}{3} P_0 \frac{\xi_1^2 + \xi_1 \xi_2 + \xi_2^2}{\xi_1 + \xi_2}.
\end{equation}
When $\xi_j= \xi$, it simplifies to
\begin{equation}
\gamma_{12} = 2 \sqrt{K-1}P_0 \xi.
\end{equation}
Considering the DPA, when we take the limit $K \downarrow 1$, we find that $\gamma_{12}^{(\mathbf{DPA})}$ in \eqref{eq:gamma12DPA} approaches
\begin{equation}\label{eq:gamma12weakDPA}
\gamma_{12}^{(\mathbf{DPA})} = 2 \sqrt{K-1} P_0 (\xi_1 + \xi_2).
\end{equation}
Comparing the DPA with the GP result for the symmetric case $\xi_j =\xi$, we have
\begin{equation}
\frac{\gamma_{12}^{(\mathbf{DPA})}}{\gamma_{12}} = 2, \; \mbox{for} \; K \downarrow 1.
\end{equation}
We conclude that the DPA model describes the interfacial tension in the weak segregation regime qualitatively correctly, since it shares the correct square-root singularity at $K=1$ with the GP expression. This can also be appreciated in Figure 4.
\subsubsection{Half-segregation and the exact solution of Malomed {\em et al.}}
We already noted, when we discussed Fig. 4, that the reduced DPA for the interfacial tension intersects the GP curve in one internal point. This happens at $K=3$, for the symmetric case $\xi_1=\xi_2$. Interestingly, at this point in parameter space an exact solution to the GP equations was provided by Malomed {\em et al.} \cite{Malomed}. We have already recalled this solution in \eqref{Malomed}. Note that the order parameters are perfectly symmetric. Not only are the healing lengths equal but the healing length also equals the penetration depth since $\sqrt{2}= \sqrt{K-1}$. The profiles cross precisely half-way their bulk values, at $\phi_{j0} =1/2$. Therefore, we denote this special case by ``half-segregation".
It is instructive to observe that the DPA solutions \eqref{eq:stationarysolutionsDPAGPE} are also perfectly symmetric in this case and display half-segregation. The interfacial tension within the DPA model is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:gamma12DPAhalf}
\gamma_{12}^{(\mathbf{DPA})} = 2\sqrt{2} P_0 \xi,
\end{equation}
while the GP value is precisely two thirds of this,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:gamma12half}
\gamma_{12} = \frac{4\sqrt{2}}{3} P_0 \xi,
\end{equation}
\section{Application of the DPA model to wetting phenomena}
\subsection{Wetting phase boundary}
In this section we apply the DPA model to the wetting phase transition predicted for BEC mixtures adsorbed at an optical wall, using the GP theory at $T=0$ \cite{IVS,IVS2}. The wetting transition takes places when, e.g., a layer of condensate 2 intrudes between condensate 1 and the optical wall (evanescent wave emanating from a prism). The condition for a wetting transition is the following surface energy equality,
\begin{equation}\label{Antonov}
\gamma_{W1} = \gamma_{W2} + \gamma_{12}.
\end{equation}
The curve in the $(\xi_2/\xi_1,1/K)$-plane that solves this equation is the so-called wetting phase boundary. In the hard wall limit (for a vanishing order parameter at the wall), the wetting phase boundary was established numerically \cite{IVS} and an analytical solution was reported in the second paper of \cite{BertVan}. In this limit the wetting transition is of first order (discontinuity in the first derivative of the energy). The analytic solution for the phase boundary is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:wettinglinerelation}
\sqrt{K-1} =\frac{\sqrt{2}}{3} \left[ \frac{\xi_1}{\xi_2} - \frac{\xi_2}{\xi_1}\right].
\end{equation}
For the more physical case of a softer wall, the wetting transition was studied in \cite{IVS2}. It was found that first-order wetting as well as critical wetting are possible.
Our aim is to derive an approximate wetting phase boundary in the hard wall limit within the DPA model and to compare it with the GP result \eqref{eq:wettinglinerelation}. To this end we first give the DPA for the wall tensions,
\begin{equation}
\gamma_{Wj}^{(\mathbf{DPA})} = 2 \sqrt{2} P_0 \xi_j,
\end{equation}
as follows from \eqref{eq:gamma12DPA} in the limit $K \rightarrow \infty$.
Inserting these and our expression \eqref{eq:gamma12DPA} for $\gamma_{12}^{(\mathbf{DPA})}$ into \eqref{Antonov}, leads to the wetting phase boundary within the DPA model,
\begin{equation}
\sqrt{ K-1} =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2} } \left[ \frac{\xi_1}{\xi_2} -1\right],\; (\mathbf{DPA}).
\end{equation}
Figure 5 shows the GP wetting phase boundary together with the DPA. Clearly, the two curves are almost coincident. Moreover, the DPA reproduces the parabolic character of the GP phase boundary near both endpoints, at $1/K=0$ and $K=1$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.80\textwidth]{wettinglineDPA.eps}
\caption{\label{fig5} (color online) Phase boundary for the first-order wetting transition in adsorbed BEC mixtures, in the plane of inverse interaction strength and healing length ratio. The GP solution is shown (black curve) as well as the DPA (grey curve).
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{DPA-assisted design of an exact solution to the GP equations}
In this subsection we explain how we found the exact solution \eqref{serendipity} announced in section III.C and displayed in Fig. 6. We start by observing that the DPA intersects the GP curve precisely at $\xi_2/\xi_1 = 1/2$ and $K=3/2$ (see Fig. 5). The asymptotic behavior of the order parameters can be read off from the DPA solutions, provided conditions \eqref{valid} are satisfied. For $z>0$ we can rely on the DPA since $\xi_2/\xi_1 < \sqrt{2(K-1)}=1$. An ``up-down" symmetry occurs since $\xi_1/\sqrt{2}$ equals the penetration depth $\xi_2/\sqrt{K-1}$. For $z<0$ we cannot rely on the DPA for the approach of $\phi_{20}$ towards 1, since $\xi_1/\xi_2 >1$. In this case the approach towards the bulk density is governed by the decay length $\xi_1/(2\sqrt{K-1})$, which is longer than the length $\xi_2/\sqrt{2}$ predicted by the DPA.
This information, together with the graphical observation that $\phi_{10}$ takes a value of about $1/\sqrt{2}$ at the point in space where $\phi_{20}$ equals 1/2, suggest that the solutions to the GPE ought to be well approximated by the following skewed profiles presented in \eqref{serendipity}, {\em which happen to solve the GPE exactly}. Note that the $z$-coordinate can be shifted so as to provide the profile crossing at $z=0$, which facilitates comparison with the DPA which intrinsically features this position as the location of the interface. The required shift is $\delta=\text{arctanh} (2-\sqrt{5})$ in units of $\sqrt{2}\, \xi$. Fig.6 shows these GP solutions together with their DPA counterparts.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.80\textwidth]{phiDPAkappa15s05new.eps}
\caption{\label{fig6}(color online) Interface structure for an exactly solvable asymmetric case. Reduced order parameter profiles $\phi_{j0}$, $j=1,2$, are plotted versus $z/\xi_1$ for $K =3/2$ and $\xi_1 = 2\xi_2$. The numerically exact profiles (black lines; GP), the exact solution (red dashed lines; analytical) and the double-parabola approximations (grey lines; DPA) are shown.
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Incidentally, we note that the interfacial tension obtained for this exact solution
\begin{equation}
\gamma_{12}= \frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3} P_0 \xi.
\end{equation}
is 2/3 of the value found within the DPA model for the same condensate parameters $K =3/2$ and $\xi_1 = 2\xi_2 \equiv \xi$.
\section{Conclusion}
In this work we accomplished two goals: i) We added an exact solution to the GP theory for interfaces in BEC binary mixtures. To our knowledge this is the first exact solution for an asymmetric system (with unequal healing lengths) and at finite inter-species repulsion strength $K$. We have been able to find this solution guided by information gathered by solving a simpler but related model, the so-called DPA. ii) We defined and developed the ``DPA model". We first derived the DPA for the potential energy density in the Lagrangian by expanding the order parameters about their bulk values and keeping the deviations into account to second order. Locating the interface center at $z=0$, we next derived the DPA for the GP equations in each half-space, $z<0$ and $z>0$. The solutions and their first derivatives were then matched at $z=0$. This led to unique simple analytical solutions that can be used efficiently to uncover and understand properties of GP theory.
The power of the DPA model lies in its capacity to provide systematically analytical expressions for many physical quantities of two segregated BECs. We know of no other methods capable of doing this. Here, the excess surface energies at a hard wall and at the interface were evaluated within the DPA model. This provided a compact and useful expression for the interfacial tension. As an application we derived the wetting phase boundary within DPA and obtained good agreement with the GP solution. Moreover, the DPA provided crucial hints facilitating a successful guess of an exact solution to the GP equations for an asymmetric case $\xi_1 \neq \xi_2$. Clearly, the DPA model is a practical and broadly applicable tool for exploring the physics of a more complicated model. In the future we plan to use the DPA frame-work to derive, and to get physical insight in, an approximate dispersion relation for capillary waves on the interface, which takes into account the finite thickness and the structure of the interface.
\begin{acknowledgments}
N.V.T and T.H.P are supported by the Vietnam National Foundation for Science and Technology Development (NAFOSTED) and J.O.I. and C.-Y.L. by FWO Flanders under Grant Nr. FWO.103.2013.09 within the
framework of the FWO-NAFOSTED cooperation. J.O.I. and C.-Y.L. are furthermore supported by KU Leuven Grant OT/11/063. The authors thank Hans Hooyberghs, Mehran Kardar and Todor Mishonov for discussions.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Dynamic inconsistency}
\section{Introduction}
Savage \citeyear{Savage1951} and Anscombe and Aumann
\citeyear{AnscombeAumann1963} showed that a decision maker maximizing
expected utility with respect to a probability measure over the
possible states of the world is characterized by a set of arguably
desirable principles.
However, as Allais \citeyear{Allais1953} and Ellsberg \citeyear{Ellsberg1961}
point out using compelling examples, sometimes intuitive choices are
{incompatible} with maximizing expected utility.
One reason for this incompatibility is that there is often
\emph{ambiguity} in the problems we face;
we often lack sufficient information to capture all
uncertainty using a single probability measure\shortv{.} \fullv{over the possible
states.}
To this end, there is a rich literature offering alternative means of
making decisions
(see, e.g., \cite{Weinstein2009} for a survey).
For example, we might choose to represent uncertainty using a set of possible states of the world, but using no probabilistic information at all to represent how likely each state is.
With this type of representation, two well-studied rules for decision-making are \emph{maximin utility} and \emph{minimax regret}.
Maximin says that you should choose the option that maximizes the worst-case payoff, while minimax regret says that you should choose the option that minimizes the \emph{regret} you'll feel at the end, where, roughly speaking, regret is the difference between the payoff you achieved, and the payoff that you could have achieved had you known what the true state of the world was.
Both maximin and minimax regret can be extended naturally to deal
with other representations of uncertainty. For
example, with a set of probability measures over the possible states,
minimax regret becomes minimax expected regret (MER)
\cite{Hayashi2011,StoyeRegret}.
Other works that use a set of probablity measures include, for
example, \cite{CM95,CMW99,GilboaSchmeid93,Levi85,Walley91}.
In this paper, we consider a generalization of minimax expected regret
called minimax \emph{weighted} expected regret (MWER) that
we introduced in an earlier paper \cite{HalpernLeung2012}.
For MWER, uncertainty is represented by a
set of \emph{weighted} probability measures. Intuitively,
the weight represents how likely the
probability measure is to be the true distribution over the states,
according to the decision maker (henceforth DM).
The weights work much like a ``second-order'' probability on
the set of probability measures.
Similar ideas can be dated back to at least G\"ardenfors and Sahlin
\citeyear{GS82,GS83}; see also \cite{Good80} for discussion and
further references.
Walley \citeyear{Walley97} suggested putting a possibility measure
\cite{DP98,Zadeh1} on probability measures; this was also essentially
done by Cattaneo \citeyear{Cattaneo07}, Chateauneuf and Faro
\citeyear{ChateauneufFaro2009}, and de Cooman \citeyear{Cooman05}.
All of these authors and others (e.g., Klibanoff et
al. \citeyear{KMM05}; Maccheroni et al. \citeyear{MMR06}; Nau
\citeyear{Nau92}) proposed approaches to decision making using their
representations of uncertainty.
Real-life problems are often {dynamic}, with many stages where actions
can be taken; information can be learned over time.
Before applying regret minimization to dynamic decision problems, there is a
subtle issue that we must consider.
In static decision problems, the regret for each act is computed with
respect to a \emph{menu}.
That is, each act is judged against the other acts in the menu.
Typically, we think of the menu as consisting of the \emph{feasible
acts}, that is, the ones that the DM can perform.
The analogue in a dynamic setting would be the feasible \emph{plans},
where a plan is just a sequence of actions leading to a final outcome.
In a dynamic decision problem,
as more actions are taken, some plans become \emph{forgone opportunities}.
These are plans that were initially available to the DM,
but are no longer available due to earlier actions of the DM.
Since regret intuitively captures comparison of a choice against its
alternatives, it seems reasonable for the menu to include all the
feasible plans at the point of decision-making.
But should the menu include forgone opportunities?
\emph{Consequentialists} would
argue that it is irrational to care about forgone opportunities \cite{Hammond76,Machina1989}; we
should simply focus on the opportunities that are still available to
us, and thus not include forgone opportunities in the menu.
And, indeed, when regret has been considered in dynamic settings thus
far (e.g., by Hayashi \citeyear{Hayashi2011}), the menu has not included
forgone opportunities.
However, introspection tells us that we sometimes do take forgone
opportunities into account\shortv{.} \fullv{when we feel regret.} For example, when
considering
a new job, one might compare the available options to what
might have been available if one had chosen a different career path years
ago.
As we show, including forgone opportunities in the menu can make a big
difference in behavior.
Consider
procrastination: we tell ourselves
that we will start studying for an exam (or start exercising, or quit
smoking) tomorrow; and then tomorrow comes, and we again tell
ourselves that we will do it, starting tomorrow.
This behavior is hard to explain with standard decision-theoretic
approaches, especially when we assume that no new information about
the world is gained over time.
However, we give an example where, if forgone opportunities are not included in
the menu, then we get procrastination; if they are, then we do not get
procrastination.
This example can be generalized. Procrastination is an example of
\emph{preference reversal}: the DM's preference at time $t$ for what
he should do at time $t+1$ reverses when she actually gets to time
$t+1$. We prove in Section~\ref{sec:FO}
that if the menu includes forgone opportunities and
the DM acquires no new information over time (as is the case in the
procrastination problem), then a DM who uses regret to make her
decisions will not suffer preference reversals.
Thus, we arguably get more rational behavior when we include forgone
opportunities in the menu.
What happens if the DM does get information over time? It is well
known that, in this setting, expected utility maximizers are
guaranteed to have no preference reversals. Epstein and
Le Breton \citeyear{Epstein1993} have shown that, under minimal
assumptions, to avoid preference reversals, the DM must be an
expected utility maximizer. On the other hand, Epstein and Schneider
\citeyear{EpsteinSchneider2003} show that a DM using MMEU
never has preference reversals if her beliefs satisfy a condition they
call \emph{rectangularity}.
Hayashi \citeyear{Hayashi2011} shows that rectangularity also prevents
preference reversals for MER under certain assumptions.
Unfortunately, the rectangularity condition is often not satisfied in practice.
Other conditions have been provided that guarantee dynamic consistency
for ambiguity-averse decision rules (see, e.g., \cite{Weinstein2009}
for an overview).
We consider the question of
{preference reversal}
in the context of regret.
Hayashi \citeyear{Hayashi2011} has observed that, in dynamic decision
problems, both
changes in menu over time and updates to the DM's beliefs can result
in preference reversals.
In Section~\ref{sec:consistence}, we show that keeping forgone
opportunities in the menu is necessary in order
to prevent preference reversals.
But, as we show by example, it is not sufficient if
the DM acquires new information over time.
We then provide a condition
on the beliefs that is necessary and sufficient to guarantee that a DM making decisions
using MWER whose beliefs satisfy the condition
will not have preference reversals.
However, because this necessary and sufficient condition may not be easy to
check, we also give simpler sufficient condition,
similar in spirit to Epstein and Schneider's
\citeyear{EpsteinSchneider2003}
rectangularity condition.
\fullv{Since MER can be understood as a special case of MWER where all
weights are either $1$ or $0$, our condition for dynamic consistency
is also applicable to MER.
}
\commentout{
What can be done if the DM's beliefs do not satisfy our condition
and dynamic inconsistency occurs?
A standard approach to avoiding dynamic inconsistency is \emph{sophistication}.
A sophisticated DM is one that understands and plans
around her future preferences,
instead of naively believing that her future selves will carry out the
plan that she currently prefers.
A huge literature considers sophisticated decision
makers, going back to the work of Strotz \citeyear{Strotz1955}.
But once we consider sophistication in the context of regret, we need
to reconsider the issue of what the appropriate menu is.
Assuming sophistication affects what plans should be counted as
feasible. In particular, sophistication leads to \emph{unachievable plans},
plans that cannot be
carried out by the DM because future choices specified by
this plan involve choices that her future selves are unwilling to
make.
The impact of unachievable plans (and forgone
opportunities) on the menu has not been considered in previous work on
regret in a dynamic setting with sophisticated decision makers
\citeyear{Hayashi2009,KrahmerStone2005}.
}
\fullv{
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows.
Section~\ref{sec:MWER} discuss preliminaries.
Section~\ref{sec:FO} introduces forgone opportunities.
Section~\ref{sec:consistence} gives conditions under which consistent planning is not required.
We conclude in Section~\ref{sec:conclusion}.
We defer most proofs to the appendix.
}
\shortv{
\vspace{-5pt}
}
\section{Preliminaries}\label{sec:MWER}
\subsection{Static decision setting and regret}
Given a set $S$ of states and a set $X$ of outcomes,
an \emph{act} $f$ (over $S$ and $X$) is a function mapping $S$ to $X$.
We use $\mathcal{F}$ to denote the set of all acts.
For simplicity in this paper, we take $S$ to be finite.
Associated with each outcome $x\in X$ is a utility: $u(x)$ is the
utility of outcome $x$. We call a tuple $(S,X,u)$ a
\emph{(non-probabilistic) decision problem}.
To define regret, we need to assume that we are also given a set $M\subseteq \mathcal{F}$ of acts, called the \emph{menu}.
The reason for the menu is that, as is well known, regret can depend on the menu.
We assume that every menu $M$ has utilities bounded from
above. That is,
we assume that for all menus $M$, $\sup_{g\in M}u(g(s))$
is finite. This ensures that the regret of each act is well defined.
For a menu $M$ and act $f\in M$, the regret of $f$ with respect to
$M$ and decision problem
$(S,X,u)$
in state $s$ is
\fullv{
$$\regret_M(f,s) = \left(\sup_{g\in M}u(g(s))\right) - u(f(s)).$$
}
\shortv{
$\regret_M(f,s) = \left(\sup_{g\in M}u(g(s))\right) - u(f(s)).$
}
That is, the regret of $f$ in state $s$ (relative to menu $M$) is the
difference between $u(f(s))$ and the highest utility possible in state
$s$ among all the acts in $M$.
The regret of $f$ with respect to $M$ and decision problem $(S,X,u)$,
denoted $\regret_M^{(S,X,u)}(f)$,
is
the worst-case regret over all states:
\fullv{
$$
\regret_M^{(S,X,u)}(f) = \max_{s\in S}\regret_M(f,s).
$$
}
\shortv{
$\max_{s\in S}\regret_M(f,s).$
}
We typically omit
superscript $(S,X,u)$ in $\regret_M^{(S,X,u)}(f)$if it is clear from context.
The minimax regret decision rule chooses an act that minimizes
$\max_{s\in S}\regret_M(f,s).$
In other words, the minimax regret choice function is
\fullv{
$$C_{M}^{\regret}(M') = \argmin_{f \in M'} \max_{s\in S}\regret_M(f,s).$$
}
\shortv{
$C_{M}^{\regret,u}(M') = \argmin_{f \in M'} \max_{s\in S}\regret_M(f,s);$
}
\shortv{the}\fullv{The} choice function
returns the set of all acts in $M'$ that minimize regret with respect
to $M$.
Note that we allow the menu $M'$, the set of acts over which we are
minimizing regret, to be different from the menu $M$ of acts with
respect to which regret is computed.
For example, if the DM considers forgone opportunities, they would be
included in $M$, although not in $M'$.
If there is a probability measure $\Pr$ over the
$\sigma$-algebra $\Sigma$ on the set $S$ of
states, then we can
consider the \emph{probabilistic decision problem} $(S,\Sigma, X,u,\Pr)$.
The \emph{expected regret} of $f$ with respect to $M$ is
\fullv{
$$
\regret_{M}^{\Pr}(f) =
\sum_{s\in S}\Pr(s)\regret_M(f,s).
$$
}
\shortv{
$
\regret_{M}^{\Pr}(f) =
\sum_{s\in S}\Pr(s)\regret_M(f,s).
$
}
If there is a set $\cP$ of probability measures over the
$\sigma$-algebra $\Sigma$ on the set $S$ of states,
states, then we consider the $\cP$-decision problem $\cD = (S,\Sigma,X,u,\cP)$.
The maximum expected regret of $f\in M$ with respect to $M$ and
$\cD$ is
\fullv{
$$
\regret_{M}^{\cP}(f) = \sup_{\Pr\in \cP} \left( \sum_{s\in S}\Pr(s)
\regret_M(f,s) \right).
$$
}
\shortv{
$
\regret_{M}^{\cP}(f) = \sup_{\Pr\in \cP} \left( \sum_{s\in S}\Pr(s)
\regret_M(f,s) \right).
$
}
\noindent The minimax expected regret (MER) decision rule minimizes
$\regret_{M}^{\cP}(f)$.
In an earlier paper, we introduced another representation of
uncertainty, \emph{weighted set of probability measures}
\cite{HalpernLeung2012}.
A weighted set of probability measures generalizes a set of probability measures by associating each measure in the set with a weight, intuitively corresponding to the reliability or significance of the measure in capturing the true uncertainty of the world.
Minimizing {weighted} expected regret with respect to a weighted set of probability measures gives a variant of minimax regret, called Minimax Weighted Expected Regret (MWER).
A set $\cP^+$ of \emph{weighted
probability measures} on $(S,\Sigma)$ consists of pairs
$(\Pr,\alpha_{\Pr})$, where $\alpha_{\Pr} \in [0,1]$ and
$\Pr$ is a probability measure on $(S,\Sigma)$.
Let $\cP = \{\Pr: \exists \alpha (\Pr,\alpha) \in \cP^+\}$.
We assume that,
for each $\Pr \in \cP$, there is exactly one $\alpha$ such that
$(\Pr,\alpha) \in \cP^+$. We denote this number by $\alpha_{\Pr}$, and view
it as the \emph{weight of $\Pr$}.
We further assume for convenience that weights have
been normalized so that there is at least one
measure $\Pr \in \cP$ such that $\alpha_{\Pr} = 1$
If beliefs are modeled by a set $\cP^+$ of weighted probabilities, then
we consider the $\cP^+$-decision problem $\cD^+ = (S,X,u,\cP^+)$.
The maximum weighted expected regret of $f\in M$ with respect to
$M$ and $\cD^+ = (S,X,u,\cP^+)$ is
$$
\regret_{M}^{\cP^+}(f)
= \sup_{(\Pr,\alpha) \in \cP^+}\left( \alpha \sum_{s\in
S}\Pr(s)\regret_M(f,s) \right).
$$
If $\cP^+$ is empty, then $\regret_{M}^{\cP^+}$ is identically zero.
Of course, we can define the choice functions
$C^{\regret,\Pr}_{M}$, $C^{\regret,\cP}_{M}$, and $C^{\regret,\cP^+}_{M}$
using $\regret_{M}^{\Pr}$, $\regret_{M}^{\cP}$, and
$\regret_{M}^{\cP^+}$, by analogy with $C^{\regret}_M$.
\shortv{
\vspace{-5pt}
}
\subsection{Dynamic decision problems}
A \emph{dynamic decision problem} is a single-player extensive-form
game where there is some set $S$ of states, nature chooses $s \in S$ at the
first step, and does not make any more moves.
The DM then performs a finite sequence of actions until some
outcome is reached.
Utility is assigned to these outcomes.
A \emph{history} is a sequence recording the actions taken by nature
and the DM.
At every history $h$, the DM considers possible some other histories.
The DM's \emph{information set} at $h$, denoted $I(h)$, is the set of
histories that the DM considers possible at $h$.
Let $s(h)$ denote the initial state of $h$ (i.e., nature's first
move);
let $R(h)$ denote all the moves the DM made in $h$ after
nature's first move; finally, let $E(h)$ denote the set of states that the DM
considers possible at $h$; that is, $E(h) = \{s(h'): h' \in I(h)\}$.
We assume that the DM has \emph{perfect recall}:
this means that $R(h') = R(h)$ for all $h' \in I(h)$, and that if $h'$
is a prefix of $h$, then $E(h') \supseteq E(h)$.
A \emph{plan} is a (pure) strategy: a mapping from histories to
histories that result from taking the action specified by the plan.
We require that a plan specify the same action for all histories in an
information set; that is, if $f$ is a plan, then for all histories $h$
and $h' \in I(h)$, we must have the last action in $f(h)$ and $f(h')$
must be the same (so that $R(f(h)) = R(f(h'))$).
Given an initial state $s$, a plan determines a complete path to an
outcome. Hence, we can also view plans as acts: functions
mapping states to outcomes.
We take the acts in a dynamic decision problem to be the set of possible plans, and
evaluate them using the decision rules
discussed above.
A major difference between our model and that used by Epstein and
Schneider \citeyear{EpsteinSchneider2003} and Hayashi
\citeyear{Hayashi2009} is that the latter assume
a \emph{filtration}
information structure.
With a filtration information structure, the DM's knowledge is
represented by a fixed, finite sequence of partitions.
More specifically, at time $t$, the DM uses a partition $F(t)$ of
the state space, and if the true state is $s$, then all that the DM
knows is that the true state is in the cell of $F(t)$ containing $s$.
Since the sequence of partitions is fixed, the DM's knowledge
is independent of the choices that she makes,
and her options and preferences cannot depend on past choices.
This assumption significantly restricts the
types of problems that can be naturally modeled.
For example, if the DM prefers to have one apple over two oranges at
time $t$, then this must be her time $t$ preference, regardless of
whether she has already consumed five apples at time $t-1$.
Moreover, consuming an apple at time $t$ cannot preclude consuming an
apple at time $t+1$.
Since we effectively represent a decision problem as a single-player
extensive-form game, we can capture all of these situations in a
straightforward way.
The models of Epstein, Schneider, and Hayashi can be viewed
as a special case of our model.
\commentout{
Moreover,
Epstein, Schneider, and Hayashi focus on the ranking of different
choices at different times.
This focus has two main consequences.
Firstly, the DM's preferences at a certain time are assumed to be
independent of the choices made at different times.
Secondly, the model has no specification of the actual choice set at
time $t$, since the focus is only on the ranking between different
acts.
For example, while the DM may prefer one apple over two oranges at
time $t$, there is no specification on what bundles are actually
available to be chosen at time $t$.
Furthermore, the model does not capture the structure of a dynamic
decision problem, e.g., the fact that consuming an apple at time $t$
will preclude the opportunity of having apple juice at time $t+1$.
This modeling assumption is different from our pragmatic approach that represent a decision problem using a single-player extensive-form game.
In fact, the models of Eptein, Schneider, and Hayashi can be thought
of as special cases of our model, where the information structure is
fixed and independent of the DM's choices, and where the decision tree
has a structure such that past actions do not affect current and
future choices.
}
In a dynamic decision problem, as we shall see, two different menus
are relevant for
making a decision using regret-minimization: the menu with respect to
which regrets are computed, and the menu of feasible choices.
We formalize this dependence by considering \emph{choice functions}
of the form
$C_{M,E}$, where $E, M \ne \emptyset$. $C_{M,E}$ is a function
mapping a nonempty menu $M'$
to a nonempty subset of $M'$. Intuitively, $C_{M,E}(M')$ consists of
the DM's most preferred choices
from the menu $M'$ when she considers the
states in $E$ possible and
her decision are made relative to menu $M$. (So, for example, if the
DM is making her choices choices using regret minimization, the regret
is taken with respect to $M$.)
Note that there may be more than one plan in $C_{M,E}(M')$;
intuitively, this means that the DM does not view any of the plans in
$C_{M,E}(M')$ as strictly worse than some other plan.
What should $M$ and $E$ be when the DM makes a decision at
a history $h$? We always take $E = E(h)$. Intuitively, this says
that all that matters about a history as far as making a decision is
the set of states that the DM considers possible; the previous moves
made to get to that history are irrelevant. As we shall see, this
seems reasonable in many examples. Moreover, it is consistent with
our choice of taking probability distributions only on the state space.
The choice of $M$ is somewhat more subtle. The most obvious choice
(and the one that has typically been made in the literature, without
comment) is that $M$ consists of the plans that are still
feasible at $h$, where
a plan $f$ is \emph{feasible} at a history $h$ if,
for all strict prefixes $h'$ of $h$, $f(h')$ is also a
prefix of $h$. So $f$ is feasible at $h$ if $h$ is compatible with
all of $f$'s moves. Let $M_h$ be the set of plans feasible at $h$.
While taking $M=M_h$ is certainly a reasonable choice, as we shall
see, there are other reasonable alternatives.
Before addressing the choice of menu in more detail, we consider how
to apply regret
in a dynamic setting.
If we want to apply MER or MWER, we must update the probability
distributions.
Epstein and Schneider \citeyear{EpsteinSchneider2003} and Hayashi \citeyear{Hayashi2009}
consider \emph{prior-by-prior updating}, the most common way to update
a set of probability measures,
defined as follows:
\fullv{$$
\cP|^p E = \{\Pr | E: \Pr \in \cP, \Pr(E) > 0\}.
$$}
\shortv{$\cP|^p E = \{\Pr | E: \Pr \in \cP, \Pr(E) > 0\}.$}
\fullv{ We can also apply prior-by-prior updating to a weighted set of probabilities:
$$\cP^+|^p E = \{(\Pr | E, \alpha ): (\Pr,\alpha) \in \cP^+, \Pr(E) > 0\}.$$
}
Prior-by-prior updating can produce some rather
counter-intuitive outcomes.
For example, suppose we have a coin of unknown bias in $[0.25,0.75]$,
and flip it $100$ times.
We can represent our prior beliefs using a set of probability measures.
However, if we use prior-by-prior updating, then after each flip of the coin
the set $\cP^+$ representing the DM's beliefs does not change,
because the beliefs are independent.
Thus, in this example, prior-by-prior updating is not capturing the information provided by the flips.
We consider another way of updating weighted sets of
probabilities, called \emph{likelihood updating}
\cite{HalpernLeung2012}.
The intuition is that the weights are updated as if they were a
second-order probability distribution over the probability measures.
Given an event $E\subseteq S$,
define $\ucP(E) = \sup\{\alpha\Pr(E): (\Pr,\alpha) \in \cP^+\}$;
if $\ucP(E) > 0$, let $\alpha^l_{E}= \sup_{\{(\Pr',\alpha') \in\cP^+ :
\Pr'| E = \Pr|E\}} \frac{\alpha'\Pr'(E)}{\ucP(E)}$. Given a
measure $\Pr \in \cP$, there may be
several distinct measures $\Pr'$ in $\cP$ such that $\Pr'| E = \Pr
| E$. Thus, we take the weight of $\Pr | E$ to be the $\sup$ of the
possible candidate values of $\alpha^l_{E}$. By dividing by
$\ucP(E)$, we guarantee that $\alpha^l_{E} \in [0,1]$, and that
there is some weighted measure $(\Pr,\alpha)$ such that $\alpha^l_{E} = 1$,
as long as there is some pair $(\Pr,\alpha) \in \cP^+$ such that
$\alpha \Pr(E) = \ucP(E)$.
If $\ucP(E) > 0$,
we take $\cP^+ |^l E$, the result of applying likelihood updating by
$E$ to $\cP^+$, to be
$$\{(\Pr | E, \alpha^l_{E} ): (\Pr,\alpha) \in \cP^+, \Pr(E) > 0\}.$$
In computing $\cP^+ |^l E$, we update not just the probability
measures in $\Pr \in \cP$, but also their weights, which are updated to
$\alpha_{E}^{l}$.
Although prior-by-prior updating does not change the weights, for
purposes of exposition,
given a weighted probability measure $(\Pr,\alpha)$,
we use $\alpha_{E}^{p}$ to denote the
``updated weight'' of $\Pr| E \in \cP^+|^p E$; of course,
$\alpha_{E}^{p} = \alpha$.
Intuitively, probability measures that are supported by the new
information will get larger weights
using likelihood updating
than those not supported by the new information.
Clearly, if all measures in $\cP$
start off with the same weight and
assign the same probability to the
event $E$, then likelihood updating will give the same weight to each probability measure, resulting in measure-by-measure
updating.
This is not surprising, since such an observation $E$ does not give us
information about the relative likelihood of measures.
\commentout{
Using likelihood updating is appropriate only if
the measure generating the observations is
assumed to be stable.
This is because if the generating probability distribution changes
with time, then we cannot converge to a single generating
distribution.
For example, if observations of heads and tails are generated by coin
tosses, and a coin of possibly different bias is tossed in each round,
then likelihood updating would not be appropriate.
It is not obvious what kind of updating should be done in this more
general setting.
}
Let $\regret^{\cP^+|^l E}_M(f)$ denote the regret of act $f$ computed
with respect to menu $M$ and beliefs $\cP^+|^l E$.
If $\cP^+|^l E$ is empty
(which will be the case if $\ucP(E) = 0$)
then $\regret^{\cP^+|^l E}_M(f) = 0$ for all acts $f$.
We can similarly define $\regret^{\cP^+|^p E}_M(f)$ for beliefs updated using prior-by-prior updating.
Also, let $C^{\regret,\cP^+|^l E}_{M}(M')$ be the set of acts in $M'$ that minimize the weighted expected regret $\regret^{\cP^+|^l E}_M$.
If $\cP^+|^l E$ is empty, then $C^{\regret,\cP^+|^l E}_{M}(M') = M'$.
We can similarly define \fullv{$C^{\regret,\cP^+|^p E}_{M}$,}
$C^{\regret,\cP|E}_{M}$ and $C^{\regret,\Pr|E}_{M}$.
\shortv{
\vspace{-5pt}
}
\section{Forgone opportunities}\label{sec:FO}
\shortv{
\begin{wrapfigure}{r}{0.50\textwidth}
\vspace{-60pt}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{procrastination}
\caption{An explanation for procrastination.}\label{fig:procrastination}
\vspace{-20pt}
\end{wrapfigure}
}
As we have seen, when making a decision at a history $h$ in a dynamic
decision problem, the DM must decide what menu to use. In this
section we focus on one choice. Take a \emph{forgone opportunity} to
be a plan that was initially available to the DM, but is no longer
available due to earlier actions. As we observed in the introduction,
while it may seem irrational to consider forgone opportunities, people
often do. Moreover, when combined with regret, behavior that results
by considering forgone opportunities may be arguably \emph{more}
rational than if forgone opportunities are not considered.
Consider the following example.
\begin{example}\label{xam:student}
Suppose that
a student has an exam in two days.
She can either start studying today, play today and then study tomorrow, or just play on both days and never study.
There are two states of nature: one where the exam
is difficult, and one where the exam is easy.
The utilities reflect a combination of the amount of pleasure that the
student derives in the next two days, and her score on the exam
relative to her classmates.
Suppose that the first day of play gives the student $p_1>0$ utils,
and the second day of play gives her $p_2>0$ utils.
Her exam score affects her utility only in the case where the exam is
hard and she studies both days, in which case she gets an
additional $g_1$ utils for doing much better than everyone else, and
in the case where the exam is hard and she never studies, in which
case she loses $g_2 > 0$ utils for doing much worse than everyone
else.
Figure~\ref{fig:procrastination} provides a graphical representation
of the decision problem.
Since, in this example, the available actions for the DM
are independent of
nature's move,
for compactness, we omit nature's initial move (whether the exam is
easy or hard).
Instead, we describe the payoffs of the DM as a pair $[a_1,a_2]$,
where $a_1$ is the payoff if the exam is hard, and $a_2$ is the payoff
if the exam is easy.
\fullv{
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{procrastination}
\caption{An explanation for procrastination.}\label{fig:procrastination}
\end{figure}
}
Assume that $2p_1 + p_2 > g_1 > p_1 + p_2$ and $2p_2 > g_2 > p_2$.
That is, if the test were hard, the student would be happier studying and doing well on the test
than she would be if she played for two days,
but not too much happier; similarly, the penalty for doing badly in
the exam if the exam is hard and she does not study is greater than
the utility of playing the second day, but not too much greater.
Suppose that the student uses minimax regret to make her decision.
On the first day, she observes that playing one day and then
studying the next day has a worst-case regret of $g_1 - p_1$, while
studying on both days has a worst-case regret of $p_1 + p_2$.
Therefore, she plays on the first day.
On the next day,
suppose that she does not consider forgone opportunities and just
compares her two available options, studying and playing.
Studying has a worst-case regret of $p_2$, while playing has a
worst-case regret of $g_2-p_2$, so, since $g_2 < 2p_2$,
she plays again on the second day.
On the other hand, if the student had included the forgone opportunity
in the menu on the second day, then studying would have regret $g_1 -
p_1$, while playing would have regret $g_1 + g_2 - p_1 - p_2$.
Since $g_2 > p_2$, studying minimizes regret.
\hfill \wbox
\end{example}
Example~\ref{xam:student} emphasizes the roles of the menus $M$ and
$M'$ in $C_{M,E}(M')$. Here we took $M$, the menu relative to which
choices were evaluated, to consist of all plans, even
the ones that were no longer feasible, while $M'$ consisted of only
feasible plans.
In general, to determine the menu component $M$ of the choice function
$C_{M,E(h)}$ used at a history $h$, we use a \emph{menu-selection
function} $\mu$. The menu $\mu(h)$ is the menu relative to which
choice are computed at $h$.
We sometimes write $C_{\mu,h}$ rather than $C_{\mu(h),E(h)}$.
We can now formalize the notion of \emph{no preference reversal}.
\noindent
\commentout{
There is \emph{no preference reversal} if, for all histories $h$ and
$h'$ such that $h$ precedes $h'$ and all plans $f$, if
is one of the best plans at $h$ and it is still feasible at history $h'$,
then $f$ is one of the best plans at $h'$; that is, if $f \in
C_{\mu,E(h)}(M(h))$ and $f \in M(h')$, then $f \in C_{\mu,E(h')}(M(h'))$.}
\commentout{No preference reversal implies that any plan initially considered
among the best plans will
be one of the best plans whenever it is feasible.
If the DM moves according to the plan starting from the beginning,
then the plan always remains feasible.
Therefore, the DM will be able to carry out the plan,
even if we require that, at each step the DM always takes the first
step of a plan currently considered among the best.
}
\fullv{Roughly speaking, this says that if a plan $f$ is considered one of
the best at history $h$ and is still feasible at an extension $h'$
of $h$, then $f$ will still be considered one of the best plans at $h'$.}
\commentout{
\begin{definition}
A plan $f$ is \emph{ex ante optimal} if $f \in
C_{\mu,\langle s\rangle}(M_{\langle s\rangle})$, where $s$ is the initial state chosen by nature
(i.e., nature's first move).
\end{definition}
}
\shortv{
\vspace{-5pt}
}
\begin{definition}[No preference reversal]
A family of choice functions $C_{\mu, h}$ has \emph{no preference reversals}
if, for all histories $h$ and all histories $h'$ extending
$h$, if $f \in C_{\mu,h}(M_h)$
and $f \in M_{h'}$, then $f \in C_{\mu, h'}(M_{h'})$.
\end{definition}
The fact that we do not get a preference reversal in
Example~\ref{xam:student} if we take forgone
opportunities into account here is not just an artifact of this example.
As we now show, as long as we do not get new information and also use
a constant menu (i.e., by keeping all forgone opportunities in the
menu),
then there will be no preference reversals if we
minimize (weighted) expected regret in a dynamic setting.
\begin{proposition}
\label{pro:noprefrev}
If, for all histories $h, h'$, we have $E(h) = S$ and $\mu(h) =
\mu(h')$, and decisions are made according to MWER
(i.e., the agent has a set $\cP^+$ of weighted probability
distributions and a utility function $u$, and
$f \in C_{\mu,h}(M_h)$ if $f$ minimizes weighted expected regret with respect
to $\cP^+|^lE(h)$\fullv{ or $\cP^+|^p E(h)$}),
then no preference reversals occur.
\end{proposition}
\fullv{
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $f \in C_{\mu,\langle s \rangle}$, $h$
is a history
extending $\langle s \rangle$, and $f \in M_h$.
Since $E(h) = S$ and $\mu(h) = \mu(\langle s \rangle)$ by assumption,
we have $C_{\mu(h),E(h)} = C_{\mu(\langle s \rangle),E(\langle s \rangle)}$.
By assumption, $f \in C_{\mu(\<s\>, M_{\<s\>}}(M_{\<s\>}) =
C_{\mu(h),E(h)}(M_{\<s\>})$.
It is easy to check that MWER satisfies what is known in decision
theory as \emph{Sen's $\alpha$ axiom} \citeyear{Kreps}: if $f \in M'
\subseteq M''$ and $f \in C_{M,E}(M'')$, then $f \in C_{M,E}(M')$.
That is, if $f$ is among the most preferred acts in menu $M''$,
if $f$ is in the smaller menu $M'$, then it must also be among the most
preferred acts in menu $M'$.
Because $f \in M_h \subseteq M_{\langle s \rangle}$ and $f \in
C_{\mu,\langle s \rangle}(M_{\langle s \rangle})$, we
have $f \in C_{\mu(h),E(h)}(M_h)$, as required.
\end{proof}
}
\fullv{
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline
& \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Hard} & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Easy} \\ \hline
& Short & Long & Short & Long \\ \hline
${\Pr}_1$ & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
${\Pr}_2$ & 0 & $0.2$ & $0.2$ & $0.2$ \\ \hline
play-study & 1 & 0 & 5 & 0 \\
play-play & 0 & 3 & 0 & 3 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{$\alpha_{\Pr_1} = 1, \alpha_{\Pr_2} = 0.6$.}
\label{tab:reversalex}
\end{table}
}
\shortv{
\begin{wraptable}{l}{5.2cm}
\vspace{-20pt}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline
& \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Hard} & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Easy} \\ \hline
& Short & Long & Short & Long \\ \hline
${\Pr}_1$ & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
${\Pr}_2$ & 0 & $0.2$ & $0.2$ & $0.2$ \\ \hline
play-study & 1 & 0 & 5 & 0 \\
play-play & 0 & 3 & 0 & 3 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{$\alpha_{\Pr_1} = 1, \alpha_{\Pr_2} = 0.6$.}
\label{tab:reversalex}
\vspace{-40pt}
\end{wraptable}}Proposition~\ref{pro:noprefrev} shows that we cannot have preference
reversals if the DM does not learn about the world.
However, if the DM learns about the world, then we can have preference reversals.
Suppose, as is depicted in Table~\ref{tab:reversalex},
that in addition to being hard and easy, the exam can also be short or long.
The student's beliefs are described by the set of weighted
probabilities $\Pr_1$ and $\Pr_2$, with weights $1$ and
$0.6$, respectively.
We take the option of studying on both days out of the picture by
assuming that its utility is low enough for it to never be preferred, and for it to never affect the regret computations.
After the first day, the student learns whether the exam will be hard
or easy.
One can verify that the ex ante regret of playing then studying is
lower than that of playing on both days, while after the first day,
the student prefers to play on the second day, regardless of whether
she learns that the exam is hard or easy.
\shortv{
\vspace{-5pt}
}
\section{Characterizing no preference reversal}\label{sec:consistence}
\label{sec:dc}
\shortv{
\begin{wrapfigure}{r}{0.58\textwidth}
\vspace{-30pt}
\includegraphics[width=0.58\textwidth]{lostcause}
\caption{\label{fig:lostcause}}
\vspace{-20pt}
\end{wrapfigure}
}
We now consider conditions under which there is no preference reversal
in a more general setting, where
the DM can acquire new information.
While including all forgone opportunities is no longer a sufficient
condition to prevent preference reversals, it is necessary, as the
following example shows:
Consider the two similar decision problems depicted in
Figure~\ref{fig:lostcause}.
\fullv{
\begin{figure}[htb]
\vspace{-10pt}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.80\textwidth]{lostcause}
\caption{Two decision trees.}
\label{fig:lostcause}
\vspace{-10pt}
\end{figure}
}
Note that at the node after first playing $L$, the utilities and
available choices are identical in the two problems. If we ignore
forgone opportunities, the DM necessarily makes the same decision in
both cases if his beliefs are the same.
However, in the tree to the left, the ex ante optimal plan is $LR$, while in the tree to the right, the
ex ante optimal plan is $LL$.
If the DM ignores forgone opportunities, then after the first step, she cannot tell whether she is in the decision tree on the left side, or the one on the right side.
Therefore, if she follows the ex ante optimal plan in one of the trees, she
necessarily is not following the ex ante optimal plan in the other tree.
In light of this example, we now consider what happens if the DM
learns information over time.
Our no preference reversal condition is implied by a well-studied notion called \emph{dynamic consistency}.
One way of describing dynamic consistency is that a plan considered
optimal at a given point in the decision process is also optimal at
any preceding point in the process, as well as any future point
that is reached with positive probability \cite{Siniscalchi2011}.
For menu-independent preferences, dynamic consistency is
usually captured axiomatically by variations of an axiom called \emph{Dynamic
Consistency} (DC) or the \emph{Sure Thing Principle} \cite{Savage1954}.
We define a \emph{menu-dependent} version of DC relative to events $E$ and $F$ using the following axiom.
The second part of the axiom implies that if $f$ is strictly preferred
conditional on $E \cap F$ and at least weakly preferred on $E^c \cap F$, then $f$ is also strictly preferred on $F$.
An event $E$ is \emph{relevant to a dynamic decision problem $\cD$} if
it is one of the events that
the DM can potentially learn in $D$, that is,
if there exists a history $h$ such that $E(h) = E$.
A dynamic decision problem $\cD = (S,\Sigma,X,u,\cP)$ is ``proper'' if $\Sigma$ is generated by the subsets of $S$ relevant to $\cD$.
Given a decision problem $D$, we take the \emph{measurable sets} to be
the $\sigma$-algebra generated by the events relevant to $D$.
The following axioms hold for all measurable sets $E$ and $F$, menus $M$ and $M'$, and acts $f$ and $g$.
\shortv{\vspace{-5pt}}
\begin{axiom}[DC-M] \label{axiom:DC-M}
If $f \in C_{M_{},E \cap F }(M') \cap C_{M_{},E^c \cap F}(M')$, then $f\in
C_{M_{},F}(M')$.
If, furthermore, $g \notin C_{M_{},E \cap F }(M')$, then $g \notin C_{{M},F}(M')$.
\end{axiom}
\commentout{
If there exists a history $h$ such that $E(h) = E$,
$f$ and $g$ are plans such that $f$ and $g$
agree at all histories $h$ where (1) $f$ is feasible and (2) $E(h)
\supseteq E$ or $E(h) \supseteq E^c$, then we let $fEg$ denote
the plan that follows the plan $f$ at all histories $h$ where $E(h)
\subseteq E$,
but follows the plan $g$ at all other histories;
otherwise $fEg$ is undefined.
If $fEg$ is defined, the $fEG$ gives the outcome of $f$ on states in
$E$ and the outcome of $g$ on states in $E^c$.
}
\shortv{\vspace{-10pt}}
\begin{axiom}[Conditional Preference]\label{axiom:offE}
If $f$ and $g$, when viewed as acts, give the same
outcome on all states in $E$, then
$f \in C_{M,E}(M')$ iff $g \in C_{M,E}(M')$.
\end{axiom}
\fullv{
The next two axioms put some weak restrictions on choice functions.}
\shortv{\vspace{-10pt}}
\begin{axiom}\label{axiom:nonempty}
$C_{M,E}(M') \subseteq M'$ and
$C_{M,E}(M') \neq \emptyset$ if $M' \ne \emptyset$.
\end{axiom}
\shortv{\vspace{-10pt}}
\begin{axiom}[Sen's $\alpha$]\label{axiom:sens}
If $f \in C_{M,E}(M')$ and $M'' \subseteq M'$, then $f \in C_{M,E}(M'')$.
\end{axiom}
\begin{theorem}\label{prop:norev}
For a dynamic decision problem $D$, if
Axiom~\ref{axiom:DC-M}--\ref{axiom:sens} hold
and $\mu(h)=M$ for some fixed menu $M$,
then there will be no preference reversals in $D$.
\end{theorem}
We next provide a representation theorem that characterizes
when Axioms~\ref{axiom:DC-M}--\ref{axiom:sens} hold for a MWER decision maker.
The following condition says that the unconditional regret can
be computed by separately computing the regrets conditional on
measurable events
$E \cap F$ and on $E^c \cap F$.
\begin{definition}[SEP]
The weighted regret of $f$ with respect to $M$ and $\cP^+$ is
\shortv{
\emph{separable} with respect to $|^l$ if for all measurable sets $E$
and $F$,
\vspace{-3pt}
\begin{align*}
\regret_{M}^{\cP^+|^lF} (f) & =
\sup_{(\Pr,\alpha) \in \cP^+} \alpha \left( \Pr(E \cap F)
\regret_{M}^{\cP^+|^l(E \cap F)}(f)
+ \Pr(E^c \cap F) \regret_{M}^{\cP^+|^l(E^c \cap F)}(f)\right),
\end{align*}
\vspace{-3pt}
and if $\regret_{M}^{\cP^+|^l(E \cap F)}(f) \neq 0$, then
\begin{align}\label{equ:sep2}
\regret_{M}^{\cP^+|^lF} (f) & > \sup_{(\Pr,\alpha) \in \cP^+} \alpha \Pr(E^c\cap F) \regret_{M}^{\cP^+|^l(E^c \cap F)}(f).
\end{align}
}
\fullv{
\emph{separable} with respect to $|^{\chi}$ ($\chi \in \{p,l\}$) if
for all measurable sets $E$ and $F$ such that
$\ucP(E \cap F) > 0$ and $\ucP(E^c \cap F) > 0$,
\begin{align*}
\regret_{M}^{\cP^+|^{\chi}F} (f) & =
\sup_{(\Pr,\alpha) \in \cP^+} \alpha \left( \Pr(E \cap F)
\regret_{M}^{\cP^+|^{\chi}(E \cap F)}(f)
+ \Pr(E^c \cap F) \regret_{M}^{\cP^+|^{\chi}(E^c \cap F)}(f)\right),
\end{align*}
and if $\regret_{M}^{\cP^+|^{\chi}(E \cap F)}(f) \neq 0$, then
$$
\regret_{M}^{\cP^+|^{\chi}F} (f) > \sup_{(\Pr,\alpha) \in \cP^+} \alpha
\Pr(E^c\cap F) \regret_{M}^{\cP^+|^{\chi}(E^c \cap F)}(f).
$$
}
\end{definition}
We now show that
Axioms~\ref{axiom:DC-M}--\ref{axiom:sens} characterize SEP.
Say that a decision problem $\cD$ is \emph{based on} $(S,\Sigma)$ if
$\cD = (S,\Sigma,X,u,\cP)$ for some $X,u$, and $\cP$.
In the following results, we will also make use of an alternative interpretation of weighted probability measures.
Define a \emph{subprobability measure} ${p}$ on $(S,\Sigma)$ to be like a
probability measure, in that it is a function mapping measurable subsets of
$S$ to $[0,1]$ such that ${p}(T \cup T') = {p}(T) + {p}(T')$ for
disjoint sets $T$ and $T'$, except that it may not satisfy the
requirement that ${p}(S) = 1$.
We can identify a weighted probability distribution $(\Pr, \alpha)$
with the subprobability measure $\alpha \Pr$. (Note that given a
subprobability measure ${p}$, there is a unique pair $(\alpha,\Pr)$
such that ${p} = \alpha \Pr$: we simply take $\alpha = {p}(S)$ and
$\Pr = {p}/\alpha$.)
Given a set $\cP^+$ of weighted probability measures, we let $C(\cP^+) = \{ p \geq \vec{0}: \exists c, \exists \Pr, (c,\Pr) \in \cP^+ \text{ and } p \leq c\Pr \}$.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:equivalence}
If $\cP^+$ is a set of weighted distributions
on $(S,\Sigma)$ such that $C(\cP^+)$ is closed, then the following are
equivalent for $\chi \in \{p,l\}$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(a)] For all decision problems $D$ based on $(S,\Sigma)$ and all menus
$M$ in $D$, Axioms~\ref{axiom:DC-M}--\ref{axiom:sens} hold for
the family $C_M^{\regret, \cP^+|^{\chi}E}$ of choice functions.
\item[(b)] For all decision problems $D$ based on $(S,\Sigma)$,
states $s \in S$, and acts $f\in M_{\< s \>}$, the
weighted regret of
$f$ with respect to $M_{\< s \>}$ and $\cP^+$ is separable with
respect to $|^{\chi}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\fullv{Note that Theorem~\ref{thm:equivalence} says that to check
that Axioms 1--4 hold, we
need to check only that separability holds
for initial menus $M_{\<s\>}$.}
It is not hard to show that SEP holds
if the set $\cP$ is a singleton.
But, in general, it is not obvious when a set of probability measures
is separable.
We thus provide a characterization of separability, in the spirit of
Epstein and LeBreton's \citeyear{Epstein1993} rectangularity condition.
\fullv{
We actually provide two conditions, one for
the case of prior-by-prior updating, and another for the case of
likelihood updating.
These definitions use the notion of \emph{maximum weighted expected
value of $\theta$},
defined as $\overline{E}_{\cP^+}(\theta) = \sup_{(\Pr,\alpha) \in \cP^+} \sum_{s \in S} {\alpha \Pr(s)}\theta(s).$
We use $\overline{X}$ to denote the closure of a set $X$.
}
\fullv{
\begin{definition}[$\chi$-Rectangularity]\label{def:rectangular}
A set $\cP^+$ of weighted probability measures is \emph{$\chi$-rectangular} ($\chi \in \{ p,l\}$) if
for all measurable sets $E$ and $F$,
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(a)] if
$(\Pr_1,\alpha_1), (\Pr_2,\alpha_2), (\Pr_3,\alpha_3) \in \cP^+$,
$\Pr_1( E\cap F) > 0 $, and $\Pr_2( E^c \cap F) > 0$, then
$$
\alpha_3 {\Pr}_3( E \cap F) \alpha^{\chi}_{1,E\cap F} {\Pr}_1|(E \cap
F) + \alpha_3 {\Pr}_3(E^c\cap F)
\alpha^{\chi}_{2, E^c \cap F} {\Pr}_2|(E^c\cap F) \in \overline{C(\cP^+ \mid^{\chi} F)},
$$
\item[(b)] for all $\delta > 0$, if $\ucP(F) > 0$, then there
exists $(\Pr,\alpha) \in \cP^+ |^{\chi} F$ such that
$\alpha( \delta \Pr(E \cap F) + \Pr(E^c \cap F)) >
\sup_{(\Pr',\alpha') \in \cP^+} \alpha' \Pr'(E^c \cap F)$, and
\item[(c)] for all nonnegative real vectors $\theta \in \R^{|S|}$,
$$\begin{array}{ll}
&\sup_{(\Pr,\alpha) \in \cP^+|^{\chi}F} \alpha \left( \Pr(E \cap F ) \overline{E}_{\cP^+|^{\chi}(E \cap F)}(\theta) + \Pr(E^c\cap F) \overline{E}_{\cP^+|^{\chi}(E^c \cap F)}(\theta) \right) \geq \overline{E}_{\cP^+|^{\chi}F}(\theta).
\end{array}$$
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
Recall that Epstein and Schneider proved that rectangularity is a
condition that guarantees no preference reversal in the case of MMEU
\cite{EpsteinSchneider2003}, and Hayashi proved a similar result for
MER \cite{Hayashi2009}.
With MMEU and MER, only unweighted probabilities are considered.
Definition~\ref{def:rectangular} essentially gives the generalization
of Epstein and Schneider's condition to weighted probabilities.
Part (a) of $\chi$-rectangularity is analogous to the rectangularity condition of Epstein and Schneider.
Part (b) of $\chi$-rectangularity corresponds to the assumption that
$(E\cap F)$ is non-null, which is analogous to Axiom~5 in Epstein and
Schneider's axiomatization.
Finally, part (c) of $\chi$-rectangularity holds for MMEU when weights
are in $\{ 0,1 \}$, and thus is not necessary for Epstein and
Schneider.
}
\commentout{
In a previous version of this paper, we considered only the case where
$F = S$, and proposed the condition that if $(\alpha,\Pr) \in \cP^+$,
then $(\alpha_{\Pr,E},\Pr|E) \in \cP^+$ and
$(\alpha_{\Pr,E^c},\Pr|E^c) \in \cP^+$,
as a definition of richness.
It is not hard to see that when $F=S$, this older condition implies
condition (a) of our current definition of richness.
The natural extension of the older condition to general sets $F$ also implies condition (a) of our current definition of richness.
Condition (b) is a fairly mild technical assumption, so the only
significant restriction that we have added is condition (c).}
It is not hard to show that we can replace condition (a) above by the
requirement that $\cP^+$ is closed under conditioning,
in the sense that if $(\Pr,\alpha) \in \cP^+$, then so
are $(\Pr|(E \inter F),\alpha)$ and $(\Pr|(E^c \inter F),\alpha)$.
\fullv{
As the following result shows, $\chi$-rectangularity is indeed sufficient to give us
Axioms~\ref{axiom:DC-M}--\ref{axiom:sens} under prior-by-prior updating and likelihood updating.
}
\shortv{
As the following result shows, richness is indeed sufficient to give us Axioms~\ref{axiom:DC-M}--\ref{axiom:sens} under likelihood updating.
}
\shortv{
}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:rich}
If $C(\cP^+)$ is closed and convex, then Axiom~\ref{axiom:DC-M} holds
for the family of choices $C_{M}^{\regret,\cP^+ |^{\chi} E}$ if and
only if $\cP^+$ is $\chi$-rectangular.
\end{theorem}
\fullv{
The proof that $\chi$-rectangularity implies Axiom~\ref{axiom:DC-M}
requires only that $C(\cP^+)$ be closed (i.e., convexity is not
required).
Hayashi \citeyear{Hayashi2011} proves an analogue of
Theorem~\ref{thm:rich} for MER using prior-by-prior updating. He also
essentially assumes that the menu includes forgone opportunities, but his
interpretation of forgone opportunities is quite different from ours.
He also shows that if forgone opportunities are not included in the
menu, then the
set of probabilities representing the DM's uncertainty at all but the
initial time must be a singleton.
This implies that the DM must behave like a Bayesian at all but the
initial time, since MER acts like expected utility maximization
if the DM's uncertainty is described by a single probability measure.
Epstein and Le Breton \citeyear{Epstein1993} took this direction even further and prove that, if a few
axioms hold, then only Bayesian beliefs can be dynamically
consistent.
While Epstein and Le Breton's result was stated in a menu-free
setting, if we use a constant menu throughout the decision problem,
then our model fits into their framework.
At first glance, their impossibility result may seem to contradict our
sufficient conditions for no preference reversal.
However, Epstein and Le Breton's impossibility result does not apply
because one of their axioms,
$P4^c$, does not hold for MER (or MWER).
\shortv{
We discuss this in more detail in the full paper.
}
\fullv{
For ease of exposition, we give $P4^c$ for static decision problems.
Given acts $f$ and $g$ and a set $T$ of states, let $fTg$ be the act
that agrees with $f$ on $T$ and agrees with $g$ on $T^c$. Given an
outcome $x$, let $x^*$ be the constant act that gives outcome $x$ at all states.
\begin{axiom}[Conditional weak comparative probability]\label{axiom:cwcp}
For all events $T,A,B$, with $A \cup B \subseteq T$, outcomes $w, x,
y$, and $z$, and acts $g$,
if $ w^*Tg \succ x^*T g,$ $z^*T g \succ y^*T g$, and
$(w^*A x^*)T g \succeq (w^*B x^*)T g$, then $(z^*A y^*)T g \succeq
(z^*B y^*)T g$.
\end{axiom}
$P4^c$ implies Savage's $P4$, and does not hold for
MER and MWER in general.
For a simple counterexample, let
$S=\{s_1,s_2,s_3\}$,
$X = \{o_1, o_5, o_7, o_{10}, o_{20}, o_{23}\}$,
$A=\{s_1\}$, $B=\{s_2\}$, $T=A\cup B$,
$u(o_k) = k$,
$g$ is the act such that $g(s_1) = o_{20}$, $g(s_2) = o_{23}$, and
$g(s_3) = o_5$.
Let $\cP = \{p_1, p_2, p_3\}$, where
\begin{itemize}
\item $p_1(s_1) = 0.25$ and $p_1(s_2)=0.75$;
\item $p_2(s_3) = 1$;
\item $p_3(s_1)=0.25$ and $p_3(s_3)=0.75$.
\end{itemize}
Let the menu $M = \{o_1^*, o_7^*, o_{10}^*, o_{20}^*,g\}$.
Let $\succeq$ be the preference relation determined by MER.
The regret of $o_{10}^*Tg$ is $15$ (this is the regret with respect to
$p_2$), and the
regret of $o_7^*Tg$ is $15.25$ (the regret with respect to
$p_1$), therefore
$o_{10}^*T g \succ o_7^*T g$.
It is also easy to see that the regret of $o_{20}^*Tg$ is $15$ (the
regret with respect to $p_2$), and the regret of $o_1^*T g$ is $21.25$
(the regret with respect to $p_1$), so $o_{20}^*T g \succ o_1^*T g$.
Moreover, the regret of $(o_{10}^* A o_7^*) T g$ is $15$ (the regret
with respect to $p_2$),
and the regret of $(o_{10}^* B o_1^*)T g$ is $15$ (the regret with
respect to $p_2$), so $(o_{10}^*A o_7^*)T g \succeq (o_{10}^*B o_1^*)T g$.
However, the regret of $(o_{20}^*A o_1^*)T g$ is $16.5$ (the regret with
respect to $p_1$),
and the regret of $(o_{20}^*B o_1^*)T g$ is $16$ (the regret with with
respect to $p_3$), therefore $(o_{20}^*A o_1^*)T g \not\succeq
(o_{20}^*B o_1^*)T g$.
Thus, Axiom~\ref{axiom:cwcp} does not hold (taking $y=o_1,x=o_7,w=o_{10},z=o_{20}$).
}
Siniscalchi \citeyear[Proposition 1]{Siniscalchi2011} proves that his
notion of dynamically consistent conditional preference systems
must essentially have beliefs that are updated by Baysian updating.
However, his result does not apply in our case either,
because it assumes consequentialism: that the conditional
preference system treats identical subtrees equally, independent of
the greater decision tree within which the subtrees belong.
This does not happen if, for example, we take forgone opportunities
into account.
\commentout{
We show by example that if a DM's beliefs satisfy the richness
condition, then he may not be an expected-utility maximizer.
\begin{example}
It is not difficult to verify that the set of beliefs depicted in
Table~\ref{tab:ambiguityaverserich} is rich.
Consider the choices shown in Table~\ref{tab:ambiguityaverserich}.
A DM with beliefs $\{{p}_1, {p}_2\}$ using the decision rule MWER
would chooses $A$ from
$\{A,B\}$, $A'$ from $\{A',B'\}$, and $C$ from $\{C,D\}$.
It is not hard verify that no probability distribution over $\{s_1,s_2,s_3\}$
that can result in these preferences for a decision maker using SEU.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}\hline
& $s_1$ & $s_2$ & $s_3$ \\ \hline
${p}_1$ & $\frac{2}{3}$ & 0 & $\frac{1}{3}$ \\
${p}_2$ & 0 & $\frac{2}{3}$ & $\frac{1}{3}$ \\ \hline
$A$ & 0 & 0 & $\epsilon$ \\
$B$ & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ \hline
$A'$ & 0 & 0 & $\epsilon$ \\
$B'$ & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ \hline
$C$ & 1 & 1 & 0 \\
$D$ & 0 & 0 & 1 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Example showing that richness does not force preferences to be expected-utility maximizing. }
\label{tab:ambiguityaverserich}
\end{table}
\hfill \wbox
\end{example}
}
\fullv{
\commentout{
\section{Consistent planning and unachievable plans} \label{sec:cp}
We assume that at each history, the decision maker's choice is defined
by a choice function $C_{M,E}$.
Our discussion applies to any menu-dependent decision rule, including
minimax regret, MER, and MWER.
To determine $M$, our version of consistent planning also depends on
a function $\mu$ that maps each history to a menu to be used
in that history.
Recall that in Section~\ref{sec:FO}, to determine the menu component
$M$ of the choice function
$C_{M,E}$ used at a history $h$, we used a \emph{menu-selection function} $\mu$.
The menu $\mu(h)$ is the menu relative to which choice are computed at $h$.
Here, we still require a menu-selection function.
However, unlike in the earlier sections, the menu-selection function
$\mu$ here requires more input.
This is because a sophisticated DM can potentially use a menu that
depends not only on what has been done and what is known about
nature's state, but also depends on what will be done in the future.
As a result, in addition to the history $h$, here
$\mu$ also takes as input a set of plans for each successor of $h$.
Intuitively, this set represents the consistent planning solutions at
these subsequent histories;
we may want $\mu(h)$ to exclude plans that are not
part of the consistent planning solutions at subsequent histories.
We sometimes refer to $\mu$ as a \emph{menu attitude}.
For example, $\mu$ could be a menu attitude that always return the
initial menu: i.e., $\mu(h) = \mu(M_{\< s \>})$ for all histories $h$.
We emphasize that a menu attitude is viewed as a fixed attribute of
the DM that cannot be changed; but a sophisticated DM can plan around
her own menu attitude.
We now describe how the DM computes a consistent planning solution for
a dynamic decision problem.
Recall that a dynamic decision problem is an extensive-form game $T$.
The consistent planning solution, $CP_T$, is computed by backward induction.
At the \emph{terminal histories}, or leaves in the decision tree,
there are no choices to be made.
If we move up one level to a non-terminal history $h$, then the DM can
choose from a set $A(h)$ of \emph{actions} (recall that a plan
maps a history to a successor history, which implicitly determines the
action taken).
Let $CP_T(h)$ denote the (set of) consistent planning solutions (i.e.,
optimal plans) at history $h$.
$CP_T(\< s\>)$ is the (set of) consistent planning solutions for $T$.
\begin{definition}[Menu-Dependent Consistent Planning]
Given a dynamic decision problem $T$ and a menu attitude $\mu$, we define
$CP_{T}$ inductively.
For all terminal histories $h$,
define
$$CP_{T}(\mu,h) = C_{M, E(h) }(M_h),
\mbox{ where $M = \mu(h, M_h)$.}
$$
\noindent Inductively, for all histories $h=\langle s,a_1,\ldots,a_k
\rangle$ for which $CP_{T}(\langle s,a_1,\ldots,a_{k+1} \rangle)$ is
defined for all $a_{k+1} \in A(h)$, we define
$$CP_{T}(h) = C_{M, E(h) }(M_h \cap M),
\mbox{ where $M = \mu(h, \{CP_{T}(\langle s,a_1,\ldots,a_{k+1}
\rangle): a_{k+1} \in A(h)\})$}.
$$
\end{definition}
\noindent Note that in the inductive step, $\langle s,a_1,\ldots,a_k
\rangle$ is always an history.
The menu, $M = \mu(h, \{CP_{T}(\langle
s,a_1,\ldots,a_{k+1}\rangle): a_{k+1} \in A(h)\})$, depends on the
already-computed consistent planning solutions $CP_T$ at the child
nodes.
The specific menu that will be used depends on the menu attitude
function $\mu$.
In the next section, we examine several candidates for $\mu$.
}
\commentout{
In general, there are two types of plans that the DM may or may not take into consideration when computing regret:
\begin{itemize}
\item plans that have been rendered infeasible by previous steps: \emph{forgone opportunities}.
\item plans that are not forgone but nonetheless cannot be committed to: \emph{unachievable plans}.
\end{itemize}
We define unachievable plans more formally below.
By definition, the set of forgone opportunities is disjoint from the set of unachievable plans.
Moreover, once the set of forgone opportunities and the set of unachievable plans are removed, all remaining plans are feasible plans that can actually be carried out.
Therefore, the largest reasonable set of plans that can be ignored is the union of the forgone opportunities and the unachievable plans.
Although it is possible to consider arbitrary subsets of all plans in
the mother decision tree, some natural classes of menus are
particularly interesting, namely, those generated by a systematically
eliminating
an entire class of
plans.
Thus, we examine four approaches to choosing menus, depending on how we deal with forgone opportunities and unachievable plans, and we characterize the implications of using each of these approaches, under the assumption of sophistication.
We consider four {menu attitudes}, determined by whether the menu
includes or excludes forgone opportunities, and whether it
includes or excludes unachievable plans.
We denote these four {menu attitudes} by $(FO,UP)$, $(\overline{\mbox{FO}},UP)$,
$(FO,\overline{\mbox{UP}})$, and $(\overline{\mbox{FO}},\overline{\mbox{UP}})$, respectively.
These menu attitudes yield possibly different menus at each information node.
We show that each menu attitude results in a different behavioral pattern.
The climate change example depicted in Figure~\ref{fig:climateChangeExample} illustrates how the four different menu attitudes result in four different plans being chosen for the same decision problem.
Figure~\ref{fig:climateChangeExample} is a compact representation of the decision problem.
There are four actions that nature can choose from: ``low sensitivity and technology is not ready'', ``high sensitivity and technology is not ready'', ``low sensitivity and technology is ready'', and ``high sensitivity and technology is ready''.
In this case, the true state does not affect the available actions in
each stage, so we draw only one of the four subtrees, listing all
four outcomes for each terminal node.
We do not include nature's action.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics{climateChangeExample}
\caption{Climate change example illustrating four different
choices depending on which menu is used for backward
induction. The four possible states, from left to right, are
$ls\overline{r}$, $hs\overline{r}$, $ls r$, and $hs r$,
respectively. The four different menu attitudes
result in four different choices.}
\label{fig:climateChangeExample}
\end{figure}
The payoffs in the climate change example depend on whether the
technology for eco-friendly alternatives is ready or not, the amount
of time that the governments wait before taking action, as well as the
intrinsic sensitivity of the Earth.
A high-sensitivity Earth punishes waiting because the impact of climate change will be severe.
On the other hand, if the technology is not yet ready, the costs of implementing drastic measures will be high.
In this example, ignoring forgone opportunities makes one content to wait longer than if forgone opportunities are included in regret computations.
This is expected, since waiting reduces the number of alternatives that one can feel regret about.
}
\commentout{
We now explore in more detail the implications of the different menu
attitudes; that is, we try to answer the question ``what does the menu
attitude tell us about a decision maker?''.
To ensure that the axioms of interest are nontrivial, we need the underlying preferences over plans to be \emph{nontrivially menu-dependent}.
That is, there should be a menu where the addition of an unchosen plan changes the choice.
\begin{definition}
A family of menu-dependent preferences $C$ is \emph{nontrivially
menu-dependent} if there exists a decision problem with distinct plans $f_1,f_2,f_3$, and a
menu $M$ containing $f_1,f_2$, such that $C_{M \cup \{f_3\}}(M) = C_{M \cup \{f_3\}}(M\cup \{f_3\}) = f_1$
and $C_{M}(M) = f_2$.
\end{definition}
It is easy to see that when there is a nonconstant utility function
and at least two states,
regret-minimization satisfies nontrivial menu dependency.
Suppose there are three outcomes $o_1$, $\ldots, o_5$, with $u(o_j) =
u_j$, and $u_j > u_{j-1}$, and $o_5 - o_3 > o_3 - o_2 > o_4 - o_3$, and at least two states, $s_1$ and $s_2$.
Consider three acts $f_1$, $f_2$, and $f_3$. Suppose that for all states
$s \ne s_1, s_2$, $f_j(s) = o_1$, for $j=1,\ldots 5$. In addition:
\begin{itemize}
\item $f_1(s_1) = o_2$ and $f_1(s_2) = o_4$;
\item $f_2(s_1) = o_3$ and $f_2(s_2) = o_3$;
\item $f_3(s_1) = o_1$ and $f_3(s_2) = o_5$.
\end{itemize}
The minimax regret decision rule would choose $f_1$ from the menu
$\{f_1,f_2,f_3\}$ since its maximum regret is $o_3 - o_2$ while $f_2$ has a maximum regret of $o_5 - o_3$.
However it chooses $f_2$ from the menu $\{f_1,f_2\}$ since $f_1$ has a maximum regret of $o_3 - o_2$ while $f_2$ has a maximum regret of only $o_4 - o_3$.
If forgone opportunities are not included in the computation of
regret, then it is easy to see that the choices at a particular point
in the decision problem will be independent of what the original
decision tree was.
This can be captured by the following axiom.
For two dynamic decision problems $T$ and $T'$,
let $T \sim_{h,h'} T'$ if $T$ restricted to $h$ and its descendents
is identical up to relabeling to $T'$ restricted to $h'$ and its descendents.
For consistent planning solutions $CP_T(h)$ and $CP_{T'}(h')$, let
$CP_T(h)\sim CP_{T'}(h')$ if the two sets of plans, restricted to $h$
and $h'$, respectively,
are identical up to relabeling.
\begin{axiom}[Context Independence]
For all dynamic decision problems $T$ and $T'$, if $T \sim_{h,h'} T'$
then $CP_T(h)
\sim CP_{T'}(h')$.
\end{axiom}
}
There may be reasons to exclude forgone opportunities from the menu.
\emph{Consequentialism}, according to Machina
\citeyear{Machina1989}, is `snipping' the decision tree at the current
choice node, throwing the rest of the tree away, and calculating
preferences at the current choice node by applying the original
preference ordering to alternative possible continuations of the tree.
With this interpretation, consequentialism implies that forgone opportunities should be removed from the menu.
Similarly, there many be reasons to exclude unachievable plans from the menu.
Preferences computed with unachievable plans removed from the menu would be independent of these unachievable plans.
This quality might make the preferences suitable for iterated elimination of suboptimal plans as a way of finding the optimal plan.
In certain settings, it may be difficult to rank plans or find the most preferred plan among a large menu.
For instance, consider the problem of deciding on a career path.
In these settings, it may be relatively easy to identify bad plans, the elimination of which simplifies the problem.
Conversely, computational benefits may motivate a decision maker to ignore unachievable plans.
That is, a decision maker may choose to ignore unachievable plans because doing so simplifies the search for the preferred solution.
\commentout{
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:contextindep}
A family $CP$ of choice functions resulting from consistent planning using a nontrivially menu-dependent set of preferences on plans satisfies context independence if and only if the menu attitude excludes forgone opportunities.
\end{proposition}
We now characterize the impact of including unachievable plans in the
menu.
Recall that unachievable plans are plans that are {not forgone
opportunities} but cannot be carried out because they are not part
of the consistent planning solution. More precisely:
\begin{definition}[Unachievable Plan]
At a terminal history $h$, there are no unachievable plans.
Inductively, for all non-terminal histories $h$, a plan $f$ is unachievable at history $h$
if $f \in M_h$ and $f \notin CP_{T}(h)$.
\end{definition}
The property we discuss is an analog of the Independence of Irrelevant
Alternatives (IIA) axiom from choice theory.
The intuition is that if a consistent planning process ignores plans that cannot be carried out, then adding such plans to a decision tree will not affect the consistent planning solution.
Note that a plan $f$, along with a state $s$, determines a complete
history in the decision problem.
For any plan $g$ that is distinct from plan $f$, there must exist at
least one state $s$ and a penterminal (i.e., its sucessor is terminal)
history $h$ where $g(h) \neq f(h)$.
TODO
For any decision problem $T$, history $h$, and a plan $f$ that is unachievable at $h$,
let $T \backslash_h \{f\}$ denote the decision problem that is the same as $T$, except that at history $h$ and any prefix of $h$, the set of feasible plans is $M_h
\backslash \{f\}$, instead of $M_h$.
Thus, $f$ does not enter into any regret computations or consistent
planning computations at any prefix of $h$.
\begin{axiom}[Independence of Unachievable Plans (IUP)]
For all dynamic decision problems $T$, for all $s\in S$, if $f$ is unachievable at $h$ then
$CP_{T}(\langle s \rangle) = CP_{T \backslash_h \{f\}}(\langle s \rangle)$.
\end{axiom}
}
\commentout{
We conclude this section by showing that procrastination can occur even with
sophisticated decision makers,
though, in this case, the sophisticated decision makers knowingly
decide to procrastinate,
in the sense that the sophisticated decision makers know that they
will not study on the second day, and yet they choose to play on the
first day.
Consider the decision problem in Figure~\ref{fig:commitment}, which is a variation on the decision problem in Figure~\ref{fig:procrastination}.
The scenario is the same as before, with the only difference being that there is now a third state, where the exam is of intermediate difficulty.
In this third state, studying for one day gives the student an additional $45$ utils.
Assume that the student ignores forgone opportunities.
As before, after playing on the first day, the student would decide to play for another day, which has a worst-case regret of $20$, instead of studying, which has a worst-case regret of $25$.
Therefore, playing on the first day and then studying on the second
day is an unachievable plan.
If the student were to ignore unachievable plans in regret
computation, then studying both days has a worst-case regret of
$50$, while playing on both days has a worst-case regret of $60$.
Therefore, the student would start studying on the first day.
However, if the student takes unachievable plans into account when
computing regret, then studying both days has a worst-case regret of
$70$, while the worst-case regret of playing on both days remains at
$60$.
Therefore, the student would play on both days instead.
This example illustrates the fact that, when using regret, one can
often justify any
arbitrary decision by making up irrelevant alternatives. Therefore,
when modeling a decision problem, it is not only important to have a
good set of states and outcomes and acts, but the set of available
choices must also be chosen carefully. Of course, this problem applies
equally well to static decision problems.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics{commitmentExample}
\caption{\label{fig:commitment}Procrastination example. In the first state, the exam is difficult; in the second state, the exam is easy.}
\label{fig:commitmentExample}
\end{figure}
\commentout{
Table~\ref{tab:props} summarizes the properties of each of the menu attitudes.
Note that context independence and IUP together identify the four menu
attitudes.
In other words, these are a subset of the axioms characterizing the different choice behavior.
This is true for all forms of regret minimization, as well as
arbitrary choice functions.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}\hline
& Context independence& IUP \\ \hline
$FO,UP$ & No & No \\ \hline
$FO,\lnot UP$ & No & Yes \\ \hline
$\lnot FO,UP$ & Yes & No \\ \hline
$\lnot FO,\lnot UP$ & Yes & Yes \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Properties of the different menu attitudes.}
\label{tab:props}
\end{table}
}
}
\fullv{
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}
In dynamic decision problems, it is not clear which menu should be used to compute regret.
However, if we use MWER with likelihood updating, then in order to avoid preference reversals, we need to include all initially feasible plans in the menu, as well as richness conditions on the beliefs.
Another, well-studied approach to circumvent preference reversals is \emph{sophistication}.
A sophisticated agent is aware of the potential for preference
reversals, and thus uses backward induction to determine the \emph{achievable plans}, which are the plans that can
actually be carried out.
In the procrastination example, a sophisticated agent would know that
she would not study the second day.
Therefore, she knows that playing on the first day and then studying on the second day is an unachievable plan.
Siniscalchi \citeyear{Siniscalchi2011} considers a specific type of sophistication, called
\emph{consistent planning}, based on earlier definitions of Strotz \citeyear{Strotz1955} and Gul and Pesendorfer \citeyear{GP2005}.
Assuming a filtration information
structure, Siniscalchi axiomatizes behavior resulting
from consistent planning using any menu-independent decision rule
\footnote{Siniscalchi considers a more general
information structure where the information that the DM receives can
depend on her actions in an unpublished version of his paper
\cite{Siniscalchi2009}.}
With a menu-dependent decision rule, we need to consider the choice of menu when using consistent planning.
Hayashi \citeyear{Hayashi2009} axiomatizes sophistication using regret-based choices, including MER and the smooth model of anticipated regret, under the fixed filtration information setting.
However, in his models of regret, Hayashi assumes that the menu that the DM uses to compute regret includes only the achievable plans.
In other words, forgone opportunities and those plans that are not achievable are excluded from the menu.
It would be interesting to investigate the effect of including such
in the menus of a sophisticated DM.
A sophisticated decision maker who takes unachievable plans into
account when computing regret can be understood as being
``sophisticated enough'' to understand that her preferences may change
in the future, but not sophisticated enough to completely ignore the
plans that she cannot force herself to commit to when computing regret.
On the other hand, a sophisticated decision maker who ignores
unachievable plans does not feel regret for not being able to commit
to certain plans.
\commentout{
Hanany and Klibanoff provide an alternative method to consistent
planning that achieves dynamic consistency.
For maxmin expected utility, Hanany and Klibanoff \citeyear{HK07} propose applying Bayes' rule to subsets of the set of priors, ``where the specific subset depends on the preferences, the conditioning event, and the choice problem.''
In \cite{HananyKlibanoff2009}, they expand this approach to general ambiguity averse, including regret-based preferences.
}
Finally, we have only considered ``binary'' menus in the sense that an act is either in the menu and affects regret computation, or it is not.
A possible generalization is to give different weights to the acts in the menu, and multiply the regrets computed with respect to each act by the weight of the act.
For example, with respect to forgone opportunities, ``recently forgone'' opportunities may warrant a higher weight than opportunities that have been forgone many timesteps ago.
Such treatment of forgone opportunities will definitely affect the behavior of the DM.
}
}
|
\section{Introduction}
Circularly polarized light has been used in various applications, ranging from the determination of protein structures with circular dichroism spectroscopy \cite{riehl1986,*bohm1992} and stereoscopic image projection in a polarized three-dimensional (3D) system to spin-dependent electronics (spintronics) and quantum computation \cite{zutic2004,*dyakonov2008,*awschalom2013}. Lasing in semiconductors is generally independent of the spins of electrons and holes, which constitute the gain medium. In semiconductors, spin-polarized electrons (holes) are generated in the conduction (valence) band upon absorption of circularly polarized light above the band-gap, as determined by the optical selection rules \cite{meier1984,*dyakonov1984}. At low photoexcited densities, the photoluminescence (PL) usually comes from spontaneous transitions that do not react back on the electron system. In this case, the degree of circular polarization ($DoCP \equiv \rho_c$) of PL reflects the spin polarization in electrons and holes before radiative recombination \cite{meier1984,*dyakonov1984}. When the spin relaxation rate is fast compared with the radiative recombination, the spin polarization in photoexcited carriers (optical orientation) is typically lost during the absorption--cooling cycle, and unpolarized PL results. Similarly, the $\rho_c$ of the emission in spin-controlled light emitting diodes (spin-LEDs) \cite{fiederling1999,*ohno1999a} is limited by electrical spin injection efficiency. However, in a few spin-controlled lasers, highly circularly polarized radiation can result from partially spin-polarized carriers, provided that radiation from a spin-dependent stimulated process dominates \cite{bresler1987,ando1998,*iba2011,*iba2012,rudolph2003,*rudolph2005,hovel2005,*gerhardt2006,*gerhardt2011,*gerhardt2012,*hopfner2014,holub2005,*holub2007,*holub2007a,*basu2009,*saha2010,blansett2005,adams2009,*schires2012,gothgen2008,*zutic2011,*lee2012,*lee2014,frougier2013,chen2014}.
In this study, we demonstrate room-temperature spin-polarized ultrafast pulsed lasing in a highly photoexcited planar semiconductor microcavity. The spin-polarized lasing is attributed to a spin-dependent stimulated process of correlated electron-hole pairs formed near the Fermi edge in a high-density electron-hole plasma coupled to the cavity light. The spin-polarized laser studied here has a structure similar to vertical-cavity surface-emitting lasers (VCSELs) \cite{iga1988,*michalzik2013} and microcavities used for studies of exciton-polariton condensates \cite{deng2002,kasprzak2006,balili2007,lai2007,*utsunomiya2008,lagoudakis2008,*lagoudakis2009,*sanvitto2010,*nardin2011,*roumpos2011,bajoni2007,*bajoni2008,*assmann2011,*kammann2012,christmann2012a,schneider2013,*bhattacharya2013,deng2010,*keeling2011,*deveaud-pledran2012,*carusotto2013,*bloch2013,*byrnes2014}. In VCSELs, the lasing energy is typically determined by the bare cavity resonance and has limited energy shifts \cite{chang-hasnain2000,*koyama2006} and linewidth broadening \cite{henry1982,*henry1986,*arakawa1985} with increasing carrier density. The polarization properties of VCSELs are typically affected by crystalline anisotropies \cite{panajotov2013,*ostermann2013}, except for a few spin-controlled lasers \cite{ando1998,*iba2011,rudolph2003,*rudolph2005,hovel2005,*gerhardt2006,*gerhardt2011,*gerhardt2012,*hopfner2014,holub2005,*holub2007,*holub2007a,*basu2009,*saha2010,blansett2005,adams2009,*schires2012,gothgen2008,*zutic2011,*lee2012,*lee2014,frougier2013,chen2014}. On the other hand, exciton-polariton condensates are typically studied in a low photoexcited density regime below the Mott transition \cite{manzke2012,*kappel2005,*klingshirn2012ch20,*klingshirn2012ch21,*klingshirn2012ch22} at cryogenic temperatures. Exciton-polariton condensates generally display considerable spectral blueshifts and broadening with increasing photoexcited density as a result of polariton-polariton interactions, as well as decoherence and fluctuations induced by interactions \cite{wouters2008,*schwendimann2008,*haug2010,*haug2012}. Furthermore, exciton--polariton condensates exhibit diverse polarization properties and spin-dependent phenomena depending on the excitation conditions and materials involved \cite{martin2002,deng2003,*shelykh2004,*cao2008,ballarini2007,baumberg2008,*ohadi2012,vina1996,*vina1999,*ciuti1998,*de-leon2003,*vladimirova2010,*lecomte2014,*sich2014,*takemura2014,kammann2012a,*sekretenko2013,cerna2013,*manni2013,*wouters2013,fischer2014,kavokin2004,*shelykh2006,*shelykh2010,kavokin2012,*kavokin2013,*rubo2013,*flayac2013}.
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\includegraphics[width=0.48 \textwidth]{fig1_energy_diagram.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:energy_diagram} (a) Laser energy diagram. (b) Schematic of the microcavity structure. The sinusoidal red curves represent the amplitude of the cavity light field. The $z$-axis is the growth direction and is parallel to the wavevector of the pump laser. (c) Pictorial representation of the high-density \emph{e--h} plasma in the quantum wells embedded in the microcavity. Correlated \emph{e--h} pairs are formed near the Fermi edge of the \emph{e--h} plasma as a result of effective coupling to the cavity light field.}
\end{figure}
In contrast to conventional spin-controlled lasers (spin lasers) \cite{ando1998,*iba2011,*iba2012,rudolph2003,*rudolph2005,hovel2005,*gerhardt2006,*gerhardt2011,*gerhardt2012,*hopfner2014,holub2005,*holub2007,*holub2007a,*basu2009,*saha2010,blansett2005,adams2009,*schires2012,gothgen2008,*zutic2011,*lee2012,*lee2014,chen2014}, the spin-polarized lasing presented in this study displays (1) substantial \emph{energy blueshifts} of more than 10 meV with increasing photoexcited density, (2) spin-dependent energy splittings in the absence of an external magnetic field, (3) ultrafast \emph{sub-10-ps} pulsed lasing, and (4) a high external quantum efficiency of $\sim10\%$, which matches the fraction of carriers photoexcited in the MQWs. In particular, the lasing energy is largely determined by the chemical potential $\mu$ of the \emph{e--h} plasma coupled to the cavity light field: the lasing energy is not locked to the \emph{bare} cavity resonance.
The room-temperature \emph{e--h} system explored in this work consists mainly of free carriers and high-density \emph{e--h} plasmas as a result of thermal ionization \cite{chemla1984,*chemla1985,schmitt-rink1985a,knox1985,*colocci1990a}. Nevertheless, the presence of a cavity ensures the emergence of correlated \emph{e--h} pairs near the Fermi edge (Fig.~\ref{fig:energy_diagram}) and consequent spin-dependent stimulation that result in ultrafast pulsed lasing with high quantum efficiency. The transient chemical potential $\mu$ can reach the second quantized energy levels in QW ($e2hh2$ transition, $E_g'' \approx$ 1.41 eV), which is more than 80 meV above the QW bandgap ($e1hh1$ transition, $E_g' \approx$ 1.33 eV) and approaches the cavity resonance ($E_c \sim$1.41 eV). At a low photoexcited density, $\mu$ is far off-resonant with respect to $E_c$ (Appendix Fig.~\ref{fig:sample}b--c), and the radiative recombination of \emph{e--h} carriers is largely suppressed. $\mu$ advances toward $E_c$ with increasing photoexcited density, so nonlinearly enhanced luminescence efficiency and lasing eventually result. Moreover, the lasing polarization can be effectively controlled by optical pumping because of a negligible TE-TM mode energy splitting at $k_\parallel$ = 0 (Appendix Fig.~\ref{fig:sample}a). Spin-polarized carriers are optically injected by \emph{nonresonant} ps circularly pump pulses. Below the threshold, luminescence is unpolarized because of sub-10 ps electron-spin ($\tau_s^e$) and hole-spin ($\tau_s^h$) relaxation times \cite{damen1991,*sham1993,tackeuchi1997,amand1994,*hilton2002} that are short compared with the carrier lifetime $\tau_n \gtrsim 1$ ns. Above a critical photoexcited density, laser action commences with a high degree of circular polarization, close to unity ($\rho_c>$0.98) (Fig. \ref{fig:kr_images}). When excited by a \emph{nonresonant elliptically} polarized pump, the $\rho_c$ of the circularly polarized laser radiation can even exceed that of the pump in the limited photoexcited density regime.
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{fig2_kimg_ek.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:kr_images}\textbf{Spin-polarized lasing at room temperature.} (a) Angle-resolved [k-space $(k_X,k_Y)$] luminescence images at the lasing threshold ($P$ = $P_{th}$) for co-circular ($\sigma^+/\sigma^+$, left panel) and cross-circular ($\sigma^+/\sigma^-$, right panel) components. Here, $\sigma^\pm/\sigma^\pm$ represents the polarization of pump/luminescence, respectively. $P_{th}\,\approx$ $2.5\times10^8$ photons \emph{per pulse} (over an area of 80 $\mu$m$^2$), resulting in a photoexcited density $n_{th}\approx 3 \times 10^{12}$ cm$^{-2}$ per QW \emph{per pulse} for an estimated absorption of 10\% for nine QWs. Insets are the corresponding real space (r-space) luminescence images. (b) Energy ($E$) vs. in-plane momentum ($k_\parallel$) dispersions along the $k_Y$ axis ($k_X=0, k_Y=k_\parallel$).
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\includegraphics[width=0.38\textwidth]{fig3_lasing.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:lasing}\textbf{Photoexcited density dependence.} (a) Emission flux integrated over $|k_\parallel| < 3$ $\mu$m$^{-1}$ under a circularly polarized $\sigma^+$ pump. (b) The degree of circular polarization $DoCP$ ($\bar{\rho}_c$), determined from the luminescence integrated near $k_\parallel \approx 0$ ($|k_\parallel|<0.3$ $\mu$m$^{-1}$) under a $\sigma^+$ or $\sigma^-$ circularly polarized pump. The dashed lines are the calculated emission flux and the $\bar{\rho}_c$, with a spin-dependent stimulated process assumed (see Appendix: Rate-equation Model).}
\end{figure}
\section{Results}
The $\lambda$ GaAs/AlAs distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) microcavity examined in this study has three stacks of three InGaAs/GaAs MQWs each, embedded at the antinodes of the cavity light field. We optically pump the sample nonresonantly by using 2 ps Ti:Sapphire laser pulses at $E_p$ = 1.579 eV ($\lambda_p = 785$ nm), which is near a reflectivity minimum (reflectance $\approx$40\%) of the microcavity and about 170 meV above the lasing energy. To investigate laser action in a highly optically pumped microcavity, we vary the laser pump flux by two orders of magnitude and create a photoexcited density ranging from approximately $5\times10^{11}$ to $10^{13}$ cm$^{-2}$ per QW \emph{per pulse}, corresponding to a 2D density parameter $r_s = 1/ (a_0 \sqrt{\pi n_{th}}) \approx$ 5.3--1.2 for $a_0\approx$15 nm in InGaAs QWs \cite{atanasov1994}. To control carrier heating and diffusion, we temporally modulate pump intensity and spatially shape the pump laser beam into a flat-top, respectively (see also the Appendix~\ref{sec:methods}: Methods).
\begin{figure*}[htb!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.85 \textwidth]{fig4_spec.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:spec}\textbf{Time-integrated polarized spectra.} (a) 2D false-color images of microcavity luminescence/lasing spectra vs. the pump flux for co-circular ($\sigma^+/\sigma^+$, left panel) and cross-circular ($\sigma^+/\sigma^-$, right panel) components. Spectra are normalized with respect to the co-circular component ($\sigma^+/\sigma^+$) for each pump flux. Note that the intensities of the $\sigma^+/\sigma^-$ spectra for 0.8 $P_{th}$ $<$ $P$ $<$ 1.3 $P_{th}$ (shaded area) are scaled up by a factor of 10. (b) Spectral linewidths $\Delta$E (FWHM) and peak energies determined from the emission spectra in (a). (c) Selected co-circular time-integrated polarized spectra for $P =$ 0.8 (black), 1.0 (red) and 3.3 (blue) $P_{th}$. Spectral blueshifts and linewidth broadening with the increasing pump flux can be readily identified in these selected spectra. (d) Polarized time-integrated spectra (blue solid line: co-circular; blue dashed line: cross-circular) and spectral $DoCP$ [$\bar{\rho}(E)$, black line] for $P =$ 3.5 $P_{th}$. The time-integrated spectra reveal an apparent spin-dependent energy splitting of 1--2 meV.}
\end{figure*}
First, we characterize the laser in terms of the angular distribution and energy as functions of the in-plane momentum [angle-resolved (k-space) images and $E$ vs. $k_\parallel$ dispersions] (Fig. \ref{fig:kr_images}). At the threshold, the emission of the microcavity investigated in this study becomes angularly and spectrally narrow for the co-circular $\sigma^+/\sigma^+$ component, where $\sigma^+/\sigma^+$ is the helicity of the pump/emission, respectively. An intense radiation mode emerges within an angular spread $\Delta\theta<3^\circ$, corresponding to a standard deviation $\Delta k = 0.3$ $\mu$m$^{-1}$ in k-space. Approximating such a partially coherent beam as a Gaussian Schell-model source \cite{friberg1982}, we can determine a spatial coherence length of 4 $\mu$m, which is close to the spatial dimension of the lasing mode (Fig.~\ref{fig:kr_images}a inset). On the contrary, no lasing action occurs for the cross-circular $\sigma^+/\sigma^-$ component, which exhibits an angularly broad intensity distribution and a parabolic $E$ vs. $k_\parallel$ dispersive spectrum. Accordingly, the radiation at the threshold has a unity circular polarization.
Next, we describe the nonlinear input-output and polarization characteristics with varying pump flux. Fig. \ref{fig:lasing}a shows the emission flux (output) vs. the pump flux (input) under a circularly ($\sigma^+$) polarized excitation. The pump flux, $P$, is the photon flux per pulse transmitted into the microcavity within a circular 10 $\mu$m diameter area. The output nonlinearly increases by one order of magnitude for an increase in the input by less that 20\% near the critical photoexcited density. The onset of such a nonlinear output for the co-circular component ($\sigma^+/\sigma^+$) is defined as the threshold $P_{th}$ (indicated by an arrow in the figure). For $P \gtrsim 1.5\,P_{th}$, the cross-circularly polarized component also lases. Under a linearly polarized pump, the laser action commences at a slightly higher pump flux ($P = 1.05 \, P_{th}$) (not shown, see Ref. \cite{hsu2013a}). This 5$\%$ threshold reduction with the optical injection of the spin-polarized carriers is small but significant compared with the $<$1$\%$ reduction predicted for an InGaAs-MQW-based VCSEL \cite{oestreich2005}. In general, such a threshold reduction is less than 5$\%$ in most locations and samples studied in this work.
The total emission under a circularly polarized pump is close to that under a linearly polarized one. The overall efficiency (the ratio of the emission flux emanating from the front surface [output] to the pump flux transmitted into the microcavity [input]) reaches a plateau of $\sim10\%$ at $P\gtrsim3\,P_{th}$. In the plateau regime, the output linearly increases with the input and resembles the characteristics of a conventional semiconductor laser. The maximal efficiency ranges from $3\%$ to $11\%$. An efficiency greater than $10\%$ can be obtained. Absorption in the nine 6-nm thick In$_{0.15}$Ga$_{0.85}$As/GaAs MQWs in the cavity is $12\%$ at $\lambda_p=785$ nm at room temperature. Therefore, an efficiency greater than $10\%$ implies that essentially all of the carriers photoexcited in the MQWs can recombine radiatively and contribute to laser action.
The spontaneous build-up of the circularly polarized radiation at a critical photoexcited density can be quantified by the $DoCP$ ($\bar{\rho}_c$) (Fig.~\ref{fig:lasing}b) deduced from the normalized Stokes vector $s = \{s_1, s_2, s_3\}$ (see Appendix: Methods). Below the threshold, the radiation is unpolarized ($\bar{\rho_c} \approx$ 0). Slightly above the threshold ($P_{th} < P <1.2 \ P_{th}$), the radiation is highly circularly polarized ($\bar{\rho}_c >$ 0.95). For $P>1.5\,P_{th}$, the radiation becomes elliptically polarized with reduced $\bar{\rho_c}$ as a result of increasing radiation with an opposite helicity. When the helicity of the circularly polarized pump is switched, $\bar{\rho_c}$ changes in sign but maintains the same magnitude, i.e., the polarization state is symmetric with respect to the helicity of the pump. The pump flux-dependent $DoCP$ is quantitatively reproduced (dashed lines in Fig.~\ref{fig:lasing}b) by a rate-equation model assuming a spin- and density-dependent stimulated process, as described in the Appendix.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:spec}, we study the spectral characteristics. When the pump flux is increased from $P$ = 0.5 $P_{th}$ toward the threshold, luminescence blueshifts by $\approx$5 meV, whereas the linewidth $\Delta E$ decreases from about 10 meV to 0.3 meV. The linewidth $\Delta E$ [full width at half maximum (FWHM)] of the spectral distribution and the peak energy of the co- and cross-circularly polarized spectra at $k_\parallel=0$ under a circularly polarized ($\sigma^{+}$) pump are plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:spec}b. Slightly above the threshold ($P_{th}<P<1.5\,P_{th}$), spectrally narrow ($\Delta E \approx$ 0.3 -- 1.0 meV) radiation emerges with a nonlinear growth in magnitude, whereas the peak energy remains constant. Far above the threshold ($P >1.5\,P_{th}$), the spectral linewidth increases to more than 2 meV. The overall emission energy shifts with the increasing pump flux are more than 10 meV (Fig.~\ref{fig:spec}c), which is significantly larger than the corresponding energy shift of the cavity stop band ($<$2 meV) (Appendix Fig.~\ref{fig:ref}). In addition, far above the threshold, co- and cross-circular components both lase with the rising peak energy while retaining an energy splitting of $\approx$1--2 meV (Fig.~\ref{fig:spec}d).
\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics[width=0.35\textwidth]{fig5_spin_amp.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:spin_amp}\textbf{Spin amplification under an elliptically polarized pump.} (a) Representation of polarization states (Stokes vectors) in a Poincar\'e sphere. The pump polarization is varied along the meridian in the $s_1$-$s_3$ ($x$-$z$) plane. (b) The time-integrated $DoCP$ ($\bar{\rho}_c$) of the spin-polarized laser radiation as a function of pump $DoCP$ ($\rho_c^{p}$) (blue line) at 0.8 (black dots), 1.0 (magenta dots), and 1.2 $P_{th}$ (red dots). (c) External quantum efficiency ($\eta_{ex}$) vs. pump $DoCP$ ($\rho_c^{p}$, represented by the altitude $\phi$) at 1.2, 1.0, and 0.8 $P_{th}$. The pump flux is maintained at a constant when $\rho_c^{p}$ is varied. For a specific $\phi$, only the $\eta_{ex}$ of the majority polarized emission component is shown ($\sigma^+$ for $0^\circ \leq \phi < 180^\circ$ and $\sigma^-$ for $180^\circ \leq \phi < 360^\circ$). $\eta_{ex}$ of the minority component is not shown because of a low signal-to-noise ratio for $\rho_c^p \sim \pm1$. Error bars represent the standard deviation of $\eta_{ex}$ over five measurements.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics[width=0.36\textwidth]{fig6_dynamics.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:dynamics}\textbf{Dynamics and energy relaxation.} (a) Polarized time-dependent luminescence at $k_\parallel$ = 0 for $P$ = 1.0 $P_{th}$ under a circular polarized ($\sigma^+$) pump. Blue (red) curves represent the co-circular $I^+(t)$ [cross-circular $I^-(t)$] components. Note that the cross-circular component shown at $P = P_{th}$ is multiplied by a factor of 100. The time zero is determined from the instrument response (black dashed curve), which is measured via pump laser pulses reflected off the sample surface. The time traces are spectrally integrated (temporal resolution $\approx 5$ ps). (b) Same as (a) but for $P$ = 0.8 $P_{th}$. (c) Temporally and spectrally resolved streak spectral images of the co-circular component $I^+(\delta E,t)$ at $P$ = 1.0, 2.0, and 4.0 $P_{th}$. The y-axis ($\delta E$) is offset with respect to $1.408$ eV, the lasing energy at $P_{th}$. The temporal resolution is $\approx$30 ps because of the grating-induced dispersion.}
\end{figure}
Another manifestation of the spin-dependent process is highly circularly polarized lasing even under a nonresonant elliptically polarized optical excitation (Fig. \ref{fig:spin_amp}). Here, the pump flux transmitted into the microcavity sample is kept constant with varying pump circular polarization ($\rho_c^{p}$, represented by the pump Stokes vector tracing a meridian at the Poincar\'e sphere shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:spin_amp}a). When the initial spin-dependent population imbalance is controlled by variation of $\rho_c^{p}$, the $DoCP$ of the lasing radiation ($\bar{\rho}_c$) can exceed that of the pump for $1.0 \, P_{th}< P < 1.5 \,P_{th}$ (Fig. \ref{fig:spin_amp}b). Such a spin amplification arises from the ``gain" anisotropy in the presence of two threshold pump fluxes for two helicities of laser radiation, typically denoted as $JT1$ and $JT2$ in the literature on spin-controlled VCSELs \cite{gothgen2008,*zutic2011,*lee2012,*lee2014}. Highly circularly polarized lasing ($\bar{\rho}_c >$ 0.8) occurs even when the $\rho_c^{p}$ is as low as 0.5 (altitude $\phi$ = 30$^\circ$). Next, we consider a polarization-dependent external efficiency ($\eta_{ex}^\pm$) (Fig.~\ref{fig:spin_amp}c), which is defined as the ratio of the polarized emission flux emanating from the front surface (output) to the pump flux transmitted into the microcavity of the same polarization (input). The external efficiency $\eta_{ex}$ of the majority polarized emission component is less than $10^{-3}$ below the threshold, and increases by two orders of magnitude at 1.2 $P_{th}$. In both cases, $\eta_{ex}$ is insensitive to $\rho_c^{p}$. At the threshold, $\eta_{ex}$ exceeds $10^{-2}$ for $\rho_c^{p} \approx$ 1 ($\phi$ = 90$^\circ$, 270$^\circ$), whereas it remains $\sim10^{-3}$ for $\rho_c^{p} \approx$ 0 ($\phi$ = 0$^\circ$, 180$^\circ$). The low $\eta_{ex}$ below the threshold is due to significant loss through nonradiative recombination, reabsorption, and emissions into other nonlasing modes. With the increasing pump flux, a stimulated process dominates over the loss and yields a dramatic increase in $\eta_{ex}$ above the threshold. A competition between loss and spin-dependent stimulation can result in the observed ``spin amplification" ($\bar{\rho_c} > \rho_c^p$) effect under elliptically polarized pumping, which is qualitatively reproduced by the aforementioned model (Appendix Fig.~\ref{fig:sim}).
To understand the mechanism of the spin-polarized laser action, studying the polarization dynamics through time-resolved polarimetry and spectroscopy is needed. Fig. \ref{fig:dynamics} shows the selected time-resolved co- and cross-circularly polarized luminescence [$I^\pm(t)$] under a $\sigma^+$ circularly polarized pump. Below the threshold, the time-dependent $\rho_c(t)$ reaches $\sim$0.1 when the luminescence reaches its peak, and then it decays with a time constant less than 10 ps, as demonstrated by the minimal transient difference between $I^+(t)$ and $I^-(t)$ at $P$ = 0.8 $P_{th}$ (Fig. \ref{fig:dynamics}b). At the threshold, the co-circular component commences the pulsed laser action within 30 ps, whereas the cross-circular component remains negligible [$I^{+}(t)/I^{-}(t)>100$] (Fig. \ref{fig:dynamics}a). Such a high $\rho_c(t) > 0.9$ is indicative of a spin-dependent stimulated process through which spin polarization is amplified \cite{bresler1987,hovel2005,*gerhardt2006,*gerhardt2011,*gerhardt2012,*hopfner2014,adams2009}.
We further conduct temporally and spectrally resolved measurements, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:dynamics}c. At the threshold, the radiation remains spectrally narrow, with a peak energy that is nearly constant with time. Above the threshold, the radiation expands spectrally when the laser action commences, and it gradually redshifts with time. In addition, polarimetric measurements reveal a circularly polarized high-energy component during the initial 10--20 ps pulsed radiation, followed by an unpolarized low-energy one for $P > 1.5 \ P_{th}$ (Appendix Fig.~\ref{fig:trsr}). The co- and cross-circular components have the same transient spectral peak energy depending on the \emph{total} carrier, and this indicates a spin-independent chemical potential $\mu$.
\section{Discussion}
We now distinguish the present room-temperature system from exciton-polariton condensates at cryogenic temperatures \cite{deng2002,kasprzak2006,balili2007,lai2007,*utsunomiya2008,lagoudakis2008,*lagoudakis2009,*sanvitto2010,*nardin2011,*roumpos2011,bajoni2007,*bajoni2008,*assmann2011,*kammann2012,christmann2012a,schneider2013,*bhattacharya2013,deng2010,*keeling2011,*deveaud-pledran2012,*carusotto2013,*bloch2013,*byrnes2014}. A laser is typically characterized by its coherence and spectral properties, whereas a macroscopic condensate exhibits unique energy and momentum distributions. Figs.~\ref{fig:kr_images} and \ref{fig:lasing} present data on the increase of spatial coherence, nonlinear growth of macroscopic occupation in a state in energy and momentum space, and the spontaneous increase in circular polarization. We note that some exciton-polariton condensates exhibit linearly polarized radiation. This polarized radiation is a result of an energy splitting of the order of $100$ $\mu$eV between two linearly polarized modes ($\sigma^X$ and $\sigma^Y$) induced by structural disorder and strain \cite{kasprzak2006}. The angular and spectral distributions of radiation from the polariton laser studied here resemble those observed in the condensates of exciton-polaritons at cryogenic temperatures \cite{kasprzak2006,lai2007}. However, the room-temperature microcavity system presented here is a plasma laser with dynamics and spectral characteristics affected by the many-body effects at high photoexcited densities rather than the stimulation of exciton-polaritons in the strong coupling regime \cite{weisbuch1992,*houdre2002,*weisbuch2005a}.
The highly photoexcited microcavity studied in this work is one of the coupled electron-hole-photon (\emph{e--h-$\gamma$}) systems that are becoming a platform for studies on non-equilibrium collective quantum states. A many-body state near the Fermi edge in a degenerate high-density \emph{e--h} system can result in unusual optical properties. For example, Fermi-edge superfluorescence \cite{kim2013} has been observed in a degenerate \emph{e--h} system, whereas Fermi-edge polaritons \cite{gabbay2007,*smolka2014} or Mahan excitons \cite{noyes1965,*mahan1967,plochocka-polack2007} have been observed in a microcavity containing a 2D electron gas. Theoretically, it has been predicted that BCS-like states have been predicted to arise from a high-density coupled \emph{e--h-$\gamma$} system \cite{keldysh1968,*keldysh1995,*keldysh1995a,comte1982,*nozieres1982,*nozieres1985,schmitt-rink1985,*haug1984,zhu1996,*littlewood1996,*eastham2001,*keeling2005,kamide2010,*kamide2011,kamide2012,yamaguchi2012,*yamaguchi2013}.
To understand the spin-dependent polarization and spectral characteristics, we propose that when the chemical potential ($\mu$) of the degenerate \emph{e--h} plasma ($M_{eh}$) advances toward the cavity resonance ($E_c$), a fraction of the \emph{e--h} pairs near the Fermi edge can couple effectively to the cavity light field and form a coherent state ($n_0$). When the conversion from $M_{eh}$ into $n_0$ overcomes the decay of $n_0$, the occupation number in $n_0$ approaches unity. Subsequently, a stimulated process ($\propto M_{eh} n_0$) prevails and results in a nonlinear population increase in $n_0$ and in laser radiation with an increasing $M_{eh}$.
In this microcavity, the lasing polarization is determined by $n_0$ as a result of spin-preserved stimulation. The cooling time of nonresonantly photoexcited carriers is comparable to the spin relaxation time ($\tau_s$) (Appendix Fig.~\ref{fig:dynamics}b). Consequently, under a circularly polarized $\sigma^+$ pump, a sizable spin-imbalanced population is built up when carriers are cooled down to $M_{eh}$. In the absence of stimulation (below the threshold), radiation from $n_0$ is long-lived because of the relatively long population decay time of $M_{eh}$ ($\sim100 \ \tau_s$). Therefore, the time-integrated circular polarization $\bar{\rho}_c$ is close to zero (unpolarized). In this regime, the nonradiative loss dominates because of inefficient conversion from $M_{eh}^\pm$ to radiative $n_0^\pm$. As a result, the overall radiative efficiency of the \emph{e--h} system is low. When the stimulation condition is satisfied for $M_{eh}^+$ but not $M_{eh}^-$, the conversion rate from $M_{eh}^+$ to radiative $n_0^+$ increases rapidly and yields a macroscopic population in $n_0^+$ and a high overall radiative efficiency. By contrast, the overall radiative efficiency for $n_0^-$ remains minimal. Therefore, the resulting \emph{pulsed} laser radiation is circularly polarized with near unity $\bar{\rho}_c$. Such fully circularly polarized lasing only occurs in a limited photoexcited regime, which is determined by the finite spin-imbalance between $M_{eh}^+$ and $M_{eh}^-$ when carriers are cooled down. When both $M_{eh}^+$ and $M_{eh}^-$ reach the stimulation condition at a high photoexcited density, the laser radiation displays a reduced $\bar{\rho}_c$. Temporally, the decreasing $\mu$ manifests in radiation redshifts (Fig.~\ref{fig:dynamics}c), which partially contribute to the observed linewidth broadening in the time-integrated spectra (Fig.~\ref{fig:spec}a). The temporal evolution of $\mu$ and the spin population imbalance also account for an apparent spin-dependent energy splitting of about 1--2 meV (Fig.~\ref{fig:spec}d). Initially, the lasing from $n_0^+$ at a high energy dominates because the spin-flipping from $M_{eh}^+$ to $M_{eh}^-$ is minimal. With an increasing time delay, the spin-flipping from $M_{eh}^+$ to $M_{eh}^-$ becomes significant, and the laser radiation from both $n_0^+$ and $n_0^-$ appear at a lower energy.
In the Appendix, we provide a phenomenological rate-equation model that includes spin-dependent stimulation and loss. The model reproduces quantitatively the spin-polarized lasing as a function of photoexcited density and pump polarization. In principle, the high-density \emph{e--h}-plasma lasing described in this study can be modeled by a self-consistent numerical analysis based on Maxwell-Bloch equations beyond a phenomenological spin-flip model \cite{san-miguel1995,*martin-regalado1997,*van-exter1998} developed for conventional semiconductor lasers \cite{schmitt-rink1986a,*koch1995,*sarzala2012,*debernardi2013}; however, the strong optical nonlinearities induced by the coupling of the \emph{e--h} plasma and the cavity light field should considered. For example, an index-induced cavity resonance shift can be considered a mechanism for the observed density- and time-dependent lasing energy shift. The cavity resonance shift ($\delta E_c$) is related to the change in the refractive index ($\delta n_c$) approximately through $\delta E_c/E_c = - \delta n_c/n_c$, where $n_c$ is the effective refractive index averaged over the longitudinal cavity photon mode. Therefore, a cavity resonance shift $\delta E \sim$10 meV (Fig.~\ref{fig:spec}) requires a sizable reduction of the refractive index, i.e., $|\delta n_c/n_c| \sim$ 0.7\%. Such a significant $\delta n_c$ is probable with resonance-enhanced optical nonlinearity, which is consistent with the aforementioned framework based on the formation of cavity-induced correlated \emph{e--h} paris near the Fermi edge. Nonetheless, analyzing the polarized spectral characteristics and dynamics of lasers with highly interacting carriers in the gain media is important to further understand Coulomb many-body effects, such as screening, bandgap renormalization, and phase-space filling \cite{comte1982,*nozieres1982,*nozieres1985,schmitt-rink1985,*haug1984,schmitt-rink1985a,jahnke1995,*kira1997,*kira2006,*koch2006} in high-density coupled \emph{e--h}-photon systems \cite{keeling2005,kamide2010,*kamide2011,kamide2012,yamaguchi2012,*yamaguchi2013}.
In the present studied spin-polarized microcavity laser, the spontaneous emission factor \cite{baba1991,*baba1992,bjork1993,*bjork1994} is $\sim10^{-2}$ and the external quantum efficiency can reach 10\%, which matches that of the carriers absorbed in the QW gain media. Moreover, the lasing threshold carrier density is nearly the same as that in conventional VCSELs even when the cavity resonance is far detuned from the bandgap of the QWs ($E_c-E_g' \sim 80$ meV). Theoretically, the threshold density is expected to increase with the increasing detuning, except when many-body interactions in the photoexcited carriers are considered \cite{kamide2012}. We attribute the high quantum efficiency at a high photoexcited density and the low threshold under a sizable detuning to the stimulation of correlated \emph{e--h} pairs formed near the Fermi edge of the high-density plasmas as a result of the coupling to the cavity light field. Moreover, the lasing energy is largely determined by the chemical potential of the plasmas rather than by bare cavity resonance; as a result, tuning the laser energy for more than 10 meV with an increasing photoexcited density is possible. Specifically, the emission energies blueshift more than $\gtrsim 10$ meV when the photoexcited density increases from $2\times 10^{12}$ cm$^{-2}$ to $\sim10^{13}$ cm$^{-2}$ per pulse. Our results suggest potential applications for wavelength tunable lasers \cite{chang-hasnain2000,coldren2004}, with polarization controlled by an external stimulus rather than being fixated to static structures. The sub-10 ps pulsed laser action commencing within 10 ps after pulse excitation suggests that a high-speed operation ($>$100 GHz) is feasible \cite{chang2013}. In addition, the studied microcavity structure with the cavity resonance tuned to the excited quantized levels of QWs can be used for spin-controlled high-speed VCSELs with electrical injection of spin-polarized carriers via ferromagnetic contacts \cite{kioseoglou2004,frougier2013,chen2014}.
In summary, we have described a spin-polarized laser that exhibits nonlinear energy shifts, spin-dependent energy splittings, and linewidth broadening with an increasing photoexcited density. The ultrafast (sub-10 ps) room-temperature spin-polarized lasing occurs in a highly photoexcited microcavity in which correlated \emph{e--h} pairs are formed near the Fermi edge. The spin-dependent stimulation and high optical nonlinearities arising from cavity-induced many-body states play an important role in facilitating the observed spin-polarized lasing presented in this study. Our results should stimulate activities that exploit spin and many-body effects for fundamental studies of light-matter interactions, as well as facilitate developments of spin-dependent optoelectronic devices.
\begin{acknowledgements}
We thank Jack Bass, Mark Dykman, Brage Golding, John A. McGuire, Carlo Piermarocchi, Y. Ron Shen, and Hailin Wang for the discussions. This work was supported by the NSF DMR-0955944 and J. Cowen Endowment at Michigan State University.
\end{acknowledgements}
\begin{figure*}[htb!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width= 0.9 \textwidth]{fig8_sample_tetm_womirrors}
\caption{\label{fig:sample}\textbf{Microcavity sample characterization.} (a) $E$ vs. $k_\parallel$ dispersions for the TE (left) and TM (right) modes under a circularly polarized pump at 1.579 eV and $P$ = 0.6 $P_{th}$. The photoexcited density at $P_{th}$ is $\sim2-3 \times 10^{12}$ cm$^{-2}$ per quantum well \emph{per pulse}. The simulated TE and TM dispersions are shown as magenta and black curves, respectively. The TE-TM energy splitting is less than 50 $\mu$eV at $k_\parallel = 0$, allowing the effective control of lasing polarization by optical pumping. (b) To determine the density-dependent spectral characteristics of PL in the InGaAs/GaAs MQWs, we measure the time-integrated and time-resolved PL in the sample, with the top DBR mirror layers removed, by selective wet etching \cite{desalvo1992}. PL spectra at $P =$ 0.2 (blue), 0.6 (magenta), and 1 $P_{th}$ (green) in the absence of the top DBR mirrors. Here, PL is attributed to the spontaneous radiative recombination of photoexcited carriers in the InGaAs/GaAs MQWs. The dual PL spectral peaks are attributed to the first and second quantized energy levels in the MQWs, respectively. The QW bandgap ($E_g'$) corresponds to the ground state, the transition between the first quantized energy levels of the electron and the heavy-hole ($e1hh1$). $E_g'$ can decrease with the increasing photoexcited density (band gap renormalization). $\mu$ can be deduced from PL from the excited state (second quantized levels, $e2hh2$ transition). With an increasing density, ${E_g'}$ redshifts slightly because of band gap renormalization, whereas $\mu$ blueshifts considerably ($\sim$ 10 meV) as a result of phase space filling (Pauli blocking) at a high photoexcited density ($\gtrsim 10^{12}$ cm$^{-2}$ per QW). (c) Normalized PL spectra near 1.40 eV, which displays a significant spectral blueshift of 15--20 meV with the increasing photoexcited density (0.1 to 2 $P_{th}$).
}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width= 0.34\textwidth]{fig9_ref_pl_lasing.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:ref}\textbf{Reflectance and laser spectral characteristics.} (a) Reflectance spectrum at $k_\parallel = 0$ from the front surface of a microcavity sample with 1.405 eV lasing energy at the threshold: measured (black solid line) and simulated (orange solid line). This sample is an as-grown sample not subject to a rapid thermal annealing process. The simulation is performed via a transfer matrix method, including the optical absorption in the GaAs layers, but excluding the complex dielectric constant of excitons (\emph{e-h} pairs) in MQWs. The cavity resonance ($E_c$) is about 1.41 eV. (b) Emission spectra at $k_\parallel = 0$ at at pump $P$ = 0.3 and 1.0 $P_{th}$. Above the threshold, luminescence is dominated by the lasing mode (red curve). (c) Spectral peak energy as a function of pump flux (photoexcited density) for emission peaks I, II, and III as indicated in (b). The vertical black and red dashed lines indicate $P =$ 0.3 and 1.0 $P_{th}$, respectively. Emission peak I and peak III correspond to a reflection minimum with energy below and above the reflection stop band, whereas peak II is near the cavity resonance. Peak I and peak III experience less than 2 meV spectral shifts with an increasing pump flux. By contrast, peak II blueshifts more than 10 meV for the same density range, a resulting indicating a strong optical nonlinearity induced by the coupling between the high-density \emph{e--h} plasma and the cavity light field.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{fig10_trsr_traces.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:trsr}\textbf{Transient lasing spectra at $P = 4 \, P_{th}$.} Cross-sectional transient spectra at specified time delays extracted from the temporally and spectrally resolved streak images of the sample. Transient spectra are averaged over 5 ps and normalized to the maximal peak intensity of the co-circular component. The spectra are equally scaled but offset vertically by 1. Red lines represent the co-circular ($\sigma^{+}/\sigma^{+}$) component, whereas blue lines represent the cross-circular ($\sigma^{+}/\sigma^{-}$) one. The energy scale is measured with respect to 1.408 eV, which is the peak lasing energy at the threshold $P_{th}$. In the initial time delay of a few ps after pulse excitation, the emission is spectrally broad and blueshifts by about 5 meV. For delays less than 20 ps, the co- and cross-circular components have the same spectral peak energy (vertical dashed lines), and this suggests that carrier interactions with the same spins and opposite spins are in a comparable magnitude. The spectral peak energy is determined by the total carrier density instead of individual spin-up or spin-down population. On the other hand, the intensity of the co-circular component is higher than that of the cross-circular component within 20 ps after pulse excitation because the ineffective spin-flipping in the reservoir results in an imbalanced spin population. The emission spectrum reaches a maximum at about 10 ps, and then gradually decreases in overall magnitude and redshifts with time. The temporal energy redshift in spectra is attributed to a descending chemical potential $\mu$ with a decreasing carrier density.}
\end{figure}
|
\section{To mention}
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}
The generation of computational mesh models plays a key role in numerical simulation. The
quality of meshes strongly affects the computational efficiency and
the accuracy of numerical results. In general, mesh models are needed to be
optimized to improve the mesh quality after initially creating. There are
typically two categories of mesh optimization methods: (1) the first one is
mesh clear-up / modification, which changes the topology of meshes to
improve the mesh quality \cite{2zegard,3damato,4chen}; and (2) the other one is the mesh smoothing,
which leaves the mesh connectivity unchanged but to relocate the position of
mesh nodes to enhance the mesh quality \cite{5damato2013,6dahal,7vartz}. A number of mesh smoothing
methods have been introduced and widely used in various applications. Among
the mesh smoothing methods, the Laplacian-based and the optimization-based
methods are the two types of the most frequently used mesh smoothing
approaches in practice \cite{9canann,10vartz}.
The basic idea behind the Laplacian mesh smoothing is quite simple. In each
iteration, the new nodal position of each smoothed points is directly the
geometric center of those of its adjacent / neighboring nodes \cite{11field1988}.
There are no other complex smoothing operations. Thus, the Laplacian mesh
smoothing is computationally non-intensive, and frequently used in various
applications.
However, when smoothing large meshes consisting of a large number of nodes
and elements, the computational cost is still too high. To improve the efficiency, an effective strategy is
to perform the mesh smoothing in parallel. For example, Mei, et al. \cite{1mei2014} developed a generic paradigm for accelerating the
Laplacian-based mesh smoothing on the GPU. Dahal and Newman \cite{6dahal}
described efficient GPU-accelerated implementations of three triangular 2D
mesh smoothing algorithms. In addition, D'Amato and Venere \cite{5damato2013} presented an implementation of a non-Laplacian smoothing method on the
GPU to optimize tetrahedral meshes in parallel. Other recent efforts
attempting at parallelizing mesh smoothing include those work presented in \cite{13beniterz,14benitez,Gorman2012}.
In this paper, we presents an efficient GPU-accelerated implementation of
two-dimensional Smart Laplacian smoothing. The presented implementation is
developed under the guideline of our previously proposed paradigm for
accelerating Laplacian-based mesh smoothing \cite{1mei2014}. Two types of
commonly used data layouts, Array-of-Structures (AoS) and
Structure-of-Arrays (SoA), are also used to represent triangular meshes in
our implementation. Furthermore, the feature CUDA Dynamic Parallelism (CDP)
is employed to realize the nested parallelization in Smart Laplacian
Smoothing. The feature CDP is an extension to the CUDA programming model which enables a
CUDA kernel to create and synchronize with new kernel(s) directly on the GPU \cite{24nvidaia}. We finally carry out several experimental tests to evaluate the
performance of our GPU-accelerated implementation by comparing to the
corresponding CPU implementation.
\section{Background}
\label{sec:background}
\subsection{Laplacian Smoothing}
Laplacian smoothing is one of the most commonly used mesh smoothing
algorithms \cite{15herman1976}. The basic idea behind Laplacian smoothing is to relocate
each node in a mesh to the geometric center of its neighboring nodes; see
Figure \ref{fig:fig1}.
Laplacian smoothing is computationally straightforward but does not always
produces enhancements in mesh quality. In practical applications, inverted or
even invalid elements in concave regions are probably created. To deal with
the above problem, some variations such as the \textit{Weighted} Laplacian smoothing \cite{16blacker1991,17vollmer} and \textit{Constrained} / \textit{Smart} Laplacian smoothing \cite{9canann,18wei} have
been designed.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale = 0.85]{Fig1}
\caption{An illustration of Laplacian smoothing}
\label{fig:fig1}
\end{figure}
The basic idea behind Smart Laplacian smoothing is also simple. For a node
being smoothed such as the one $v_0 $ presented in Figure \ref{fig:fig1}, the mesh
quality of its incident elements (those elements that share this node, e.g.,
the triangles $T_1 $, $T_2 $, $T_3 $, $T_4 $, and $T_5 $ in Figure \ref{fig:fig1}) is
first evaluated; Then a newly smoothed position of this node is calculated
according to the Laplacian smoothing operations. The quality of all the
incident elements is evaluated again using the new nodal position. If the
mesh quality is increased, then the new nodal position will be accepted;
otherwise, the node will not be repositioned.
\subsection{Iteration Forms}
When calculating the smoothed coordinates of vertices according to the
smoothing operation, there are typically two forms in terms of selecting the
coordinates of neighboring nodes \cite{1mei2014}. These two forms can be simply
illustrated using the following formulations.
Form A :
\begin{equation}
\label{eq2}
\overline {x_i^{q+1} } =\frac{1}{N}\sum\limits_{j=1}^N {x_j^q },
\end{equation}
where~$N$~is the number of neighboring nodes to node~$i$~and~$\overline
{x_i^{q+1} } $~is the new position for node~$i$ in the iteration pass ($q$ + 1).
Form B:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq3}
\overline {x_i^{q+1} } =\frac{1}{N}\left( {\sum\limits_{j=1}^{N_q } {x_j^q }
+\sum\limits_{k=1}^{N_{q+1} } {x_k^{q+1} } } \right),\mbox{ }\left\{
{{\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{\mbox{0}\le N_q \le N} \\
{\mbox{0}\le N_{q+1} \le N} \\
{N_q +N_{q+1} =N} \\
\end{array} }} \right.,
\end{equation}
where~$N$~is the number of neighboring nodes to node~$i$~and~$\overline
{x_i^{q+1} } $~is the new position for node~$i$ in the iteration pass ($q$ + 1).
$N_q$ and $N_{q+1}$ are numbers of neighboring nodes derived from the
iteration passes $q$ and ($q$+1), respectively. Obviously, the Form A is a special
case of the Form B where $N_{q+1} =0$.
\subsection{Data Layouts}
In GPU-accelerated applications there are typically two commonly used data
layouts, including the Array-of-Structures (AoS) and Structure-of-Arrays
(SoA); see a simple illustration in Figure \ref{fig:fig2}. Arranging data in AoS layout
leads to coalescing issues as the data are interleaved. Arranging data as
the SoA layout makes full use of the memory bandwidth even when individual
elements of the structure are utilized. In practical applications, it is unable to determine which data layout can
always achieve better efficiency. In general, the selecting of the proper
data layout is application-specific.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\subfigure[AoS]{
\label{fig:fig2:a}
\includegraphics[scale = 0.8]{Fig2_AoS}
}
\hspace{3em}
\subfigure[SoA]{
\label{fig:fig2:b}
\includegraphics[scale = 0.8]{Fig2_SoA}
}
\caption{The data layouts: Array-of-Structures (AoS) and Structure-of-Arrays (SoA)}
\label{fig:fig2}
\end{figure}
\section{Our Implementation}
\label{sec:implement}
\subsection{Overview}
Our implementation of the Smart Laplacian smoothing is mainly divided
into four sub-procedures, including the initiating procedure, the finding of
neighbors, the determining of constraints, and the iterative procedure to
obtain the smoothed positions. The initiating
procedure is to set several values for each vertex and calculate the
mesh quality for each triangle. The finding of
neighbors is to identify the neighboring vertices / nodes
and to find the incident elements / triangles for each vertex. The determining of constraints is to identify
which vertices are needed to be fixed or free. Finally, the iterating procedure is to
iteratively calculate the positions of smoothed points.
\subsection{Data Structures}
We design two sets of mesh data structures according to the two layouts AoS
and SoA, respectively. Corresponding
implementations are also developed
according to these mesh data structures. Due to the limit of the paper length, we only list the data structures represented with the SoA layout; see Listing \ref{code:soa}.
\begin{lstlisting}[
frame = tb,
caption = Mesh data structures represented with the SoA layout,
label = code:soa
]
struct cuVert_SOA_ST {
float *x, *y; // Coordinates of a node
int *nNeig, *neig; // Number, and indices of neighboring nodes
int *nLoca, *loca; // Number, and indices of incident elements
bool *bBoundary; // Whether nodes are boundary vertices
float *minQuality; // Qalities of the worst incident elements
};
struct cuTrgl_SOA_ST {
int *vIDs; // Indices of vertices of triangles
float *Quality; // Qualities of triangles
};
struct cuMesh_SOA_ST {
int nVert, nTrgl; // Number of vertices and triangles
cuVert_SOA_ST verts; cuTrgl_SOA_ST trgls;
};
\end{lstlisting}
\subsection{Implementation Details}
\subsubsection{The Initiating Procedure}
This procedure is to (1) calculate the mesh quality metric of each triangle
for the first time, and (2) initiate several values to prepare for the
subsequent calculations. We adopt the mesh quality metric,
\textit{$\alpha $, }proposed by Lee and Lo \cite{25lee} to measure the quality of triangular elements.
We design a simple CUDA kernel to calculate the qualities of all triangular
elements, where each thread is responsible for computing the quality of a
single triangle. The element quality is stored in the component
\texttt{float *Quality} in the structure
\texttt{cuTrgl{\_}SOA{\_}ST}.
We also design another simple kernel to initiate the values of the
components \texttt{nNeig}, \texttt{nLoca}, and \texttt{bBoundary} as 0, 0, and \texttt{false}, respectively.
Each thread within this kernal / grid is responsible for initiating the
values for only one points. The above set values mean that:
currently there are no found adjacent points and incident triangles for any vertex. In
addition, any vertex of the mesh is initially set to be free point that can
be relocated in smoothing.
\subsubsection{The Finding of Neighbors}
The finding of neighbors is to find: (1) the adjacent / neighboring nodes
and (2) the incident triangles for each vertex. As described in our previous
work \cite{1mei2014}, the finding of neighbors can be quite easily performed
according to the topology of the mesh. More specifically, for a triangle the
second and the third vertices must be the adjacent points of the first
vertex; similarly, the first and the third vertices are definitely the
adjacent points of the second vertex. And obviously, each triangle is the
incident triangle of its three vertices.
As also explained in our previous work \cite{1mei2014}, due to the data
dependencies, we allocate only one thread block and a single thread within
the thread block to perform the finding of neighbors. The only one thread
takes the complete responsibilities to finding the adjacent points and
incident triangles for all vertices. In fact, this procedure carried out on
the GPU is the same as the corresponding version performed on the CPU.
\subsubsection{The Determining of Constraints}
The determining of constraints is to identify which vertices of a mesh can
be relocated in smoothing and which cannot be. For planar polygonal meshes, the
constraints include the boundary vertices and other specifically-defined
points such as some feature points. In our implementation, we only consider
the boundary vertices as constraints.
We also adopt the method introduced in \cite{1mei2014} to
determine the boundary vertices. More specifically, by taking advantage of
the indices of the adjacent points, it is quite easy to check whether or not
a vertex is a boundary one. The basic idea behind determining the boundary
vertices is straightforward: if all the neighbors of a vertex, e.g., the
node $v_0$ in Figure \ref{fig:fig1}, have been recorded twice, then the vertex is internal;
otherwise, it is a boundary vertex.
We develop a specific kernel to carry out this determine of boundary
vertices. Each thread within the thread grid is invoked to check whether a points is
a boundary one, i.e., to check whether all the neighbors / adjacent points
of a vertex has been recorded twice. If not, then update the corresponding
flag value \texttt{bool bBoundary} from being \texttt{false} to \texttt{true}.
\subsubsection{The Iterating Procedure}
The final and key procedure is to iteratively calculate the smoothed
positions of all vertices. The main feature of this procedure is that: only
one thread block is allocated because of the data dependencies. In Smart
Laplacian smoothing, the calculating of the positions of all smoothed points
in the ($i+1$)$^{th}$ iteration depends on the positions of all smoothed points
in the $i^{th}$ iteration. In other words, there exist data dependencies
between the ($i+1$)$^{th}$ iteration and the $i^{th}$ iteration.
Due to the data dependencies existing in different passes of iterations,
only one thread block is allocated. Each thread within the thread block is
invoked to calculate the smoothed positions of \texttt{(n + BLOCK{\_}SIZE - 1) /
BLOCK{\_}SIZE} vertices in one iterative step, where \texttt{n} is the number of all
vertices and \texttt{BLOCK{\_}SIZE} denotes the number of threads within the only one
thread block. The barrier of synchronization \texttt{{\_}{\_}syncthreads()} is used
to guarantee all threads within the only one block finishing calculating one
pass of all smoothed positions.
In Smart Laplacian smoothing it is ``Smart''
to determine whether or not a non-constrained vertex should be relocated.
This ``Smart'' determination is typically carried out by comparing the mesh
quality of the original mesh before relocating the vertex and the mesh
quality after the relocating. In other words, when using the new nodal
coordinates after relocating, if the mesh quality of the local mesh (i.e.,
all the incident triangles) of the vertex being smoothed definitely
improves, for example, if the min value of the mesh quality metric of all
the incident triangles is increased, then this vertex should be
repositioned; otherwise, the position of the vertex will be leaved unchanged.
Therefore, after obtaining the new position of a smoothed vertex, it is
needed to temporarily re-evaluate the mesh quality of the local mesh, and
then compare the mesh qualities.
After completely obtaining all the smoothed positions in one iteration step,
the mesh quality of all triangles is needed to be updated using all of the
new nodal coordinates. The qualities of all triangles updated in $i^{th}$
iteration will be used to ``Smart'' calculate the new smoothed positions in
the ($i+1$)$^{th}$ iteration.
We implement the above updating of mesh quality in each iteration step by
with or without the use of the feature, CUDA Dynamic Parallelism (CDP).
\textit{``GPU-'' versions}: In this version, the feature CDP is not
adopted. Alternatively, in this kernel of iterating, each thread within the
only thread block is responsible for: (1) calculating the quality of all of
its incident triangles, and (2) finding the min value of the qualities of
the incident triangles. The min quality is then stored in the component
\texttt{float minQuality} of the data structure
\texttt{cuVert{\_}SOA{\_}ST}.
\textit{``CDP-'' versions}: In this version, the feature CDP is used. We
design a child kernel specifically for updating the quality of all triangles
by using new nodal coordinates. Within this child kernel, each
thread is invoked to evaluate the quality of only one triangle. We also
develop another child kernel for finding the min quality of the incident
triangles for all vertices. Each thread in this kernel is responsible for
finding the min values of the quality of the incident triangles. Note that the above two
child kernels are only invoked once in the parent kernel of iterating.
\section{Results}
\label{sec:results}
To evaluate the performance of our GPU implementations, we perform the
experimental tests on the GeForce GT640 (GDDR5) graphics cards with CUDA 6.5. The CPU experiments are performed on Windows 7 SP1 with a dual Intel i5 3.2 GHz processor and 8GB of RAM memory.We perform the
experimental tests for both the GPU- and CDP- versions of our
implementation.
Each version of our implementation is tested in two cases where the
iteration Form A and Form B are adopted.
The test data includes 5 planar triangular meshes which are composed of 1, 5, 10, 50, and 100K vertices, respectively. The original unsmoothed
triangular meshes are generated according to the standard Delaunay
triangulation algorithm. First, five sets of uniformly distributed points in
2D are randomly generated using the generator provided by Qi, et al.
\cite{26qi}; and then Delaunay meshes are created for these sets of discrete points
using the library Triangle \cite{27shewchuk}.
We evaluate our implementation on the single precision. For the GPU-version,
the running time and corresponding speedups achieved when using the Form A
and Form B are listed in Table \ref{tab:tab6} and Table \ref{tab:tab7}, respectively. Similarly, For the CDP-version, the running time and corresponding
speedups obtained when iterating in the Form A and Form B are presented in
Table \ref{tab:tab8} and Table \ref{tab:tab9}, respectively.
We find that the highest speedup is up to 44.76x; see Table \ref{tab:tab8}.
\begin{table}[!h]
\caption{Performance of the GPU-version developed in the iteration Form A}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{p{50pt}p{50pt}p{50pt}p{50pt}p{5pt}p{50pt}p{50pt}}
\toprule
\raisebox{-1.50ex}[0cm][0cm]{Size}&
\multicolumn{3}{c}{Running time (/ms)} &
\multicolumn{3}{c}{Speedup} \\
\cmidrule(r){2-4}
\cmidrule(r){6-7}
&
CPU& GPU-AoS& GPU-SoA&& GPU-AoS& GPU-SoA \\
\midrule
1K& 218& 16.0& 18.8&& 13.63& 11.60 \\
5K& 1217& 72.2& 86.0&& 16.86& 14.15 \\
10K& 2012& 117.6& 138.1&& 17.11& 14.57 \\
50K& 14383& 530.5& 618.0&& 27.11& 23.27 \\
100K& 33836& 802.8& 932.8&& 42.15& 36.27 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:tab6}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[!h]
\caption{Performance of the GPU-version developed in the
iteration Form B}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{p{50pt}p{50pt}p{50pt}p{50pt}p{5pt}p{50pt}p{50pt}}
\toprule
\raisebox{-1.50ex}[0cm][0cm]{Size}&
\multicolumn{3}{c}{Running time (/ms)} &
\multicolumn{3}{c}{Speedup} \\
\cmidrule(r){2-4}
\cmidrule(r){6-7}
&
CPU& GPU-AoS& GPU-SoA&& GPU-AoS& GPU-SoA \\
\midrule
1K& 171& 14.9& 17.7&& 11.48& 9.66 \\
5K& 1139& 52.4& 76.6&& 21.74& 14.87 \\
10K& 1888& 79.3& 115.0&& 23.81& 16.42 \\
50K& 11918& 424.5& 513.1&& 28.08& 23.23 \\
100K& 26021& 776.1& 896.3&& 33.53& 29.03 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:tab7}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[!h]
\caption{Performance of the CDP-version developed in the iteration Form A}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{p{50pt}p{50pt}p{50pt}p{50pt}p{5pt}p{50pt}p{50pt}}
\toprule
\raisebox{-1.50ex}[0cm][0cm]{Size}&
\multicolumn{3}{c}{Running time (/ms)} &
\multicolumn{3}{c}{Speedup} \\
\cmidrule(r){2-4}
\cmidrule(r){6-7}
&
CPU& GPU-AoS& GPU-SoA&& GPU-AoS& GPU-SoA \\
\midrule
1K& 218& 14.1& 16.5&& 15.46& 13.21 \\
5K& 1217& 59.2& 66.8&& 20.56& 18.22 \\
10K& 2012& 96.1& 107.7&& 20.94& 18.68 \\
50K& 14383& 477.7& 532.4&& 30.11& 27.02 \\
100K& 33836& 755.9& 832.5&& 44.76& 40.64 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:tab8}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[!h]
\caption{Performance of the CDP-version developed in the iteration Form B}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{p{50pt}p{50pt}p{50pt}p{50pt}p{5pt}p{50pt}p{50pt}}
\toprule
\raisebox{-1.50ex}[0cm][0cm]{Size}&
\multicolumn{3}{c}{Running time (/ms)} &
\multicolumn{3}{c}{Speedup} \\
\cmidrule(r){2-4}
\cmidrule(r){6-7}
&
CPU& GPU-AoS& GPU-SoA&& GPU-AoS& GPU-SoA \\
\midrule
1K&
171&
13.5&
15.4&&
12.67&
11.10 \\
5K&
1139&
50.0&
58.1&&
22.78&
19.60 \\
10K&
1888&
74.8&
82.8&&
25.24&
22.80 \\
50K&
11918&
404.4&
424.8&&
29.47&
28.06 \\
100K&
26021&
750.2&
801.7&&
34.69&
32.46 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:tab9}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:discuss}
We have investigated the related work involving the accelerating of mesh
smoothing on the GPU, and have found that currently there are only several
recent efforts \cite{1mei2014,5damato2013,6dahal}. Among the above efforts, the work presented in \cite{5damato2013} focused on smoothing tetrahedral meshes, while in \cite{1mei2014}
and \cite{6dahal} the work aimed at developing the GPU-accelerated mesh
smoothing for planar meshes.
The GPU-accelerated implementations of 2D Laplacian mesh
smoothing were both introduced in \cite{1mei2014} and \cite{6dahal}. However, the
above implementations are only developed for the original Laplacian
smoothing, rather than the Smart Laplacian smoothing. To the best of the
authors' knowledge, the work presented in this paper is the first attempt at
accelerating Smart Laplacian smoothing on the GPU.
\subsection{Impact of Data Layouts (AoS and SoA)}
We have observed that: the version of our implementation that is
developed using the data layout AoS is slightly faster than that is
developed using the layout SoA. This behavior has previously been
observed in our previous work \cite{1mei2014}. As also explained in our previous work,
the better performance obtained by the GPU version based upon the AoS data
structures is due to the use of the aligned global memory accesses. Therefore, in
practical applications, we recommend the developers to use the data layout
AoS to implement the Smart Laplacian smoothing. However, it is should be also noted that: the design of the AoS format mesh data structures is much more complex than that of the SoA formant.
\subsection{Impact of Iteration Forms}
By comparing the absolute running time of two variations developed using the
two iteration forms, i.e., the Form A and the Form B, we have found that:
the variation with the Form B is a little faster than the variation with the
Form A in the cases whenever which data layour (AoS or SoA) is adopted or
whether the feature CDP is used; see Figure \ref{fig:fig7} for a groups of performance
comparison.
The causes to the above results have been also described in our previous
work \cite{1mei2014}. The first cause is that: the Form A needs more
calculations due to swapping intermediate nodal coordinates during
iterating. The other cause is that: the convergence speed of the Form A is
much lower than that of the Form B; and thus the Form A needs much more
iterations for converging. Therefore, the Form B is suggested in practical
applications.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\subfigure[AoS]{
\label{fig:fig7:a}
\includegraphics[scale = 0.45]{Fig7_GT640_FormA_vs_FormB_AoS_GPU}
}
\hspace{1em}
\subfigure[SoA]{
\label{fig:fig7:b}
\includegraphics[scale = 0.45]{Fig7_GT640_FormA_vs_FormB_SoA_GPU}
}
\caption{Comparison of the running time of two variations implemented in
the Form A and Form B}
\label{fig:fig7}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Performance of the Use of CUDA Dynamic Parallelism}
We have observed that: the ``CDP'' version is slightly faster than the
``GPU'' version. This is perhaps leaded by the following causes. In the GPU
version, only a thread block is allocated; and after obtaining the new
positions of interior points, the quality of local mesh for each point is
needed to be re-evaluated. Within this only one thread block, a single
thread takes the responsibilities for re-calculating the quality of local
meshes for several points, rather than only one point. In this case, the
power of massively parallel computing is not fully exploited. The second
reason is that: when re-evaluating the quality of the local mesh for a
single point, each of the incident elements is needed to evaluate it quality once. Due to the fact that a
triangle has three vertices, it is thus needed to evaluate its quality three
times. Obviously, there exists redundancies in the calculating of the quality of
triangles.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\subfigure[Using the layout SoA in Form A]{
\label{fig:fig8:soa:FormA}
\includegraphics[scale = 0.45]{Fig8_GT640_CPU_vs_CDP_FormA_SoA}
}
\hspace{1em}
\subfigure[Using the layout AoS in Form A]{
\label{fig:fig8:aos:FormA}
\includegraphics[scale = 0.45]{Fig8_GT640_CPU_vs_CDP_FormA_AoS}
}
\caption{Comparison of the speedups of the GPU-version and CDP-version of
our implementation}
\label{fig:fig8}
\end{figure}
In the CDP version, we first design a specific kernel to re-calculate the
quality of all triangles after obtaining the new positions in each
iteration. Each thread within this kernel is responsible for computing the
quality metric of only one triangle. We also develop another kernel to find
the worst triangle with the lowest quality of the local mesh for each point. For that the quality of
each of the incident elements (i.e., triangles) have been calculated, it is
quite easy to find the worst triangle that has the lowest quality among the
incident elements. In this kernel, each thread is designed to find the worst
incident element for only one point. Obviously, in this CDP version, the
power of the massively parallel computing in the above two child kernels /
grids can be efficiently exploited. However, the computing capability of the
parent kernel is not fully exploited since only one thread (typically the first
thread within the thread grid) is needed to invoke the above two child
kernels. This is probably the reason why the CDP version is slightly
rather than significantly faster than the GPU version.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}
We have presented an efficient GPU-accelerated implementation of the Smart
Laplacian smoothing for optimizing planar triangular meshes. We have
developed our implementation by using two data layouts, Array-of-Structures
(AoS) and Structure-of-Arrays (SoA), and employing two iteration forms (Form
A and Form B). The feature CDP is also adopted to realize the nested
parallelization to iteratively determine the smoothed vertices' positions.
We have evaluated the performance of our implementation using five randomly
created triangular meshes on the GPU GT640. Experimental results
have indicated that: our implementation can achieve the speedups of up to 44x. We have also found
that: the data layout AoS can obtain better efficiency than the SoA layout.
It has been demonstrated that: the Form A that needs to swap intermediate
nodal coordinates is always slower than the Form B that does not
swap data.We have also observed that: the version of our
implementation with the use of the feature CDP is slightly faster than
the version where the CDP is not adopted.
\vspace*{10pt}
\textbf{Acknowledgments}
The authors are grateful to the anonymous referee
for helpful comments that improved this paper. This research was supported
by the Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 40602037 and
40872183).
\label{sect:bib}
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction and main results}
\ni
Let $T(a)$ denote the boundary of the disc of area $a>0$ in~$\RR^2$
centred at the origin.
Let $\ba \.=\.(a_1,\ldots,a_n)$ be a vector with positive components.
We call the $n$-torus
$$
T(\ba) \,=\, T(a_1) \times \dots \times T(a_n) \subset \RR^{2n}
$$
a {\it product torus}.
Product tori are Lagrangian with respect to the standard symplectic form
$\.\.\go_n=\sum_{j=1}^n dx_j \wedge dy_j$, that is,
the restriction of~$\go_n$ to each product torus vanishes.
Let $(M,\go)$ be a symplectic manifold.
We assume throughout the paper that $M$ is connected.
Denote by $B^{2n}(b)$ the closed ball of radius $\sqrt{b/\pi}$ in
$\RR^{2n}$ centred at the origin.
The torus $T(\ba)$ lies on the boundary of the ball~$B^{2n}(|\ba|)$.
By a {\it symplectic chart\/} we understand a symplectic embedding
$\gf \colon B^{2n}(b)\to (M,\go)$.
Given a symplectic chart $\gf \colon B^{2n}(b) \to (M,\go)$
and a torus $T(\ba) \subset B^{2n}(b)$,
we write $T_\gf(\ba) = \gf \left( T(\ba) \right)$.
A Lagrangian torus in $(M,\go)$ is called a {\it product torus}\/
if it is of the form $T_\gf(\ba)$ for some symplectic chart~$\gf$.
We study the classification problem for product Lagrangian tori
with respect to the action of the group
$\Symp (M,\go)$ of {\it symplectomorphisms\/} of~$M$
(diffeomorphisms preserving the symplectic form~$\go$)
as well as the group $\Ham (M,\go)$
of {\it Hamiltonian symplectomorphisms}.
Hamiltonian symplectomorphisms are defined as follows.
Let $\{H_t\}$ be a family of smooth functions on $M$
smoothly depending on the parameter $t\in[0,1]$.
This family
defines a family of Hamiltonian vector fields $\{X_{t}\}$
by $\go (X_{t}, \cdot \.) = dH_t (\.\cdot\.)$.
Assume that the time $t$ flow $\Psi_t$ of $\{X_{t}\}$
is a well-defined diffeomorphism for each $t\in[0,1]$.
Then each $\Psi_t$ is a symplectomorphism.
The family $\{\Psi_t\}$ is then called a {\it Hamiltonian isotopy};
symplectomorphisms $\Psi_t$ arising in this way
form the subgroup $\Ham (M,\go) \subset \Symp (M,\go)$.
Given Lagrangian submanifolds $L, L'$
in a symplectic manifold~$(M,\go)$,
we write
$L \sim L'$ (resp.~$L \approx L'$)
if there is a symplectomorphism (resp.~a Hamiltonian symplectomorphism)
of $(M,\go)$ that maps $L$ to~$L'$.
In the particular case where $(M,\go)=(\RR^{2n},\go_n)$,
we say that~$L$ is Hamiltonian isotopic to~$L'$
in the ball~$B^{2n}(b)$
if there is a Hamiltonian isotopy $\{\Phi_s\}$, $s \in [0,1]$,
of~$\RR^{2n}$
such that $\Phi_0 = \id$, $\Phi_1(L) = L'$, and
$\Phi_s(L) \subset B^{2n}(b)$ for all $s \in [0,1]$.
Given a vector $\ba \.=\.(a_1,\ldots,a_n)$ with positive components, denote
\[
\ua = \min_{1\le i \le n} (a_i),
\,\,\,
m (\ba) = \# \left\{ i \mid a_i = \ua \right\},
\,\,\,
|\ba| = \textstyle\sum\limits_{i=1}^n a_i,
\,\,\,
\|\ba\| = |\ba| + \ua.
\]
Let $\Gamma (\ba)$ denote the subgroup of $\RR$ formed by all
integer combinations of the numbers $a_1-\ua, \dots, a_n-\ua$.
We write $\ba\simeq \ba'$ when the following holds:
$\ua=\ua'$, $m (\ba)=m (\ba')$, and $\Gamma (\ba)=\Gamma (\ba')$.
It was proved in \cite{Ch-tori} that for product tori
in $\RR^{2n}$ the conditions $T(\ba)\sim T(\ba')$, $T(\ba)\approx T(\ba')$,
$\ba\simeq \ba'$ are equivalent one to another.
The following theorem gives an upper bound on the size of the support of
a Hamiltonian isotopy between product tori when
such an isotopy exists.
\begin{theorem} \label{t:t1}
{\rm (i)}
If $\ba$ and $\ba'$ are related by a permutation of the components,
then the tori $T(\ba)$ and $T(\ba')$
are Hamiltonian isotopic in the ball $B^{2n}(|\ba|)$.
\s
{\rm (ii)}
If $\ba\simeq\ba'$, then the tori $T(\ba)$ and $T(\ba')$
are Hamiltonian isotopic in the ball $B^{2n}\bigl(\max(\|\ba\|,\|\ba'\|)\bigr)$.
\end{theorem}
Assertion~(i) of the theorem is, of course, rather obvious.
It seems likely that Theorem~\ref{t:t1} gives a sharp bound for the ball size.
However, we can only prove the sharpness under the
additional assumption that $|\ba|\ne|\ba'|$:
\begin{theorem} \label{t:t1+}
If $\,b<\max(\|\ba\|,\|\ba'\|)$ and $\,|\ba| \ne |\ba'|$,
then the tori $T(\ba)$ and $T(\ba')$
are not Hamiltonian isotopic in the ball~$B^{2n}(b)$.
\end{theorem}
\m
It will sometimes be necessary to assume that the geometry of the symplectic
manifold $\left( M,\go \right)$ is not too wild.
Following~\cite{Gr,Si,ALP}, we say that $\left( M,\go \right)$
is {\it tame}\/
if $M$ admits an almost complex structure $J$ and a complete
Riemannian metric $g$ satisfying the following conditions:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(T1)]
$J$ is uniformly tame, i.e.,
there are positive constants $C_1$ and $C_2$ such that
\[
\go \left( X, JX \right) \ge C_1 \left\| X \right\|_g^2
\quad \text{ and } \quad
\left| \.\.\go \left( X,Y \right) \right| \le C_2 \left\| X \right\|_g
\left\| Y \right\|_g
\]
for all tangent vectors $X$ and $Y $ on~$M$.
\s
\item[(T2)]
The sectional curvature of $\left(M,g\right)$ is bounded from above and
the injectivity radius of $\left(M,g\right)$ is bounded away from zero.
\end{itemize}
\ni
Some examples of tame symplectic manifolds are as follows:
\,(1) closed symplectic manifolds;
\,(2) cotangent bundles
over arbitrary manifolds;
\,(3) twisted cotangent bundles over closed manifolds;
\,(4) symplectic manifolds such that
the complement of a compact subset is symplectomorphic to
the convex end of the symplectization of a closed contact manifold.
The class of tame symplectic manifolds is closed under taking
products and coverings.
\m
Recall that $(M,\go)$ is called {\it symplectically aspherical}\/ if
$[\go] |_{\pi_2(M)} =0$ and $c_1 |_{\pi_2(M)}=0$.
Here, $c_1 = c_1(\go)$ is the first Chern class of~$TM$ with
respect to an (arbitrary) almost complex structure $J$ taming~$\go$ as in~(T1),
and the restriction to $\pi_2(M)$ is understood as the restriction to
the image of the natural map $\pi_2(M) \to H_2(M;\ZZ) \subset H_2(M;\RR)$.
Given a symplectic chart $\gf \colon B^{2n}(b) \to (M,\go)$,
we write $b_\gf=b$.
The following theorem shows that the invariants
of product tori in $\RR^{2n}$ extend to
certain other symplectic manifolds:
\begin{theorem} \label{t:tame}
Assume that $T_\gf(\ba)\sim T_{\gf'}(\ba')$,
where $T_\gf(\ba), T_{\gf'}(\ba')\subset (M,\go)$.
\s
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)]
If $(M,\go)$ is symplectically aspherical, then
$\Gamma (\ba)=\Gamma (\ba')$.
\s
\item[(ii)]
If $(M,\go)$ is tame, $\|\ba\| \le b_{\gf}$, and $\|\ba'\| \le b_{\gf'}$,
then $\ua = \ua'$ and $m(\ba) = m(\ba')$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\m
A symplectic manifold $(M,\go)$ is called a {\it Liouville manifold}\/
if it admits a vector field~$X$ such that $\cl_X \go = \go$
(where $\cl_X$ is the Lie derivative with respect to~$X$).
If $X$ can be chosen in such a way that its time $t$ flow map is
well-defined for each $t \ge 0$, we call $(M,\go)$ {\it forward complete}.
Examples of tame forward complete Liouville manifolds are cotangent bundles and,
more generally, Stein manifolds, see~\cite{EG}.
Product tori in such manifolds can be completely classified:
\begin{theorem} \label{t:Liouville}
Let $T_\gf(\ba)$, $T_{\gf'}(\ba')$ be Lagrangian product tori
in a tame forward complete Liouville manifold~$(M,\go)$.
Then the conditions $\ba\simeq\ba'$, $T_\gf(\ba)\sim T_{\gf'}(\ba')$,
$T_\gf(\ba)\approx T_{\gf'}(\ba')$ are equivalent one to another.
\end{theorem}
The assumption $\| \ba \| \le b_\gf$, $\| \ba' \| \le b_{\gf'}$ in Theorem~\ref{t:tame}~(ii)
cannot be omitted, as the following simple example shows.
Let~$S^2$ be the round $2$-sphere, endowed with the Euclidean area form of
total area~$2$.
Let $p_N, p_S \in S^2$ be the north pole and the south pole.
Choose $\gve \in \;]0,\frac 12[$, and let $\gf, \gf' \colon B^2(2-\gve) \to S^2$
be Darboux charts such that $\gf(0) = p_N$, $\gf'(0) = p_S$, and such that
concentric circles are mapped to circles of latitude.
Then $T_{\gf}(\frac 12) = T_{\gf'}(\frac 32)$, but $\ua = \frac 12 \neq \frac 32 = \ua'$.
Note that $\| \ba' \| =3 >2-\gve = b_{\gf'}$.
\s
The assumption in Theorem~\ref{t:tame}~(i) that $(M,\go)$ is symplectically aspherical
cannot be omitted either, as the next theorem shows.
Recall that the cohomology class $[\go]$ of the symplectic form
gives rise to the homomorphism
$\gs \colon \pi_2(M) \to \RR$,
and the first Chern class~$c_1 $ gives rise
to the homomorphism $c_1 \colon \pi_2(M) \to \ZZ$.
Given $a>0$, define the homomorphism
$$
\gs_a \colon \pi_2(M) \to \RR, \quad
S \mapsto \gs(S) - c_1(S) a .
$$
With $a>0$
and a symplectic manifold $(M,\go)$ we associate
the group
$$
G_a\.=\.G_a(M,\go)\.:=\.\gs_a(\pi_2(M))\. \subset\. \RR.
$$
Note that $(M,\go)$ is symplectically aspherical if and only if~$G_a$
is trivial for all~$a>0$.
We call the symplectic manifold $(M,\go)$ {\it special}
if the rank of the group $\sigma\bigl(\pi_2(M)\bigr)\subset \RR$ is~$1$
and $c_1$ is not proportional to~$\sigma$.
We associate with each $S_0\in \pi_2(M)$ and each $a>0$
the subgroup $G_a(S_0)=G_a(S_0,M,\go)$ of $G_a$ which is the image
under $\gs_a$ of the subgroup generated by~$S_0$.
\begin{theorem} \label{t:shift}
Let $(M,\go)$ be a symplectic manifold;
if $(M,\go)$ is special, we also fix an element $S_0\in \pi_2(M)$.
Let $\gf \colon B^{2n}(b) \to (M,\go)$ be a symplectic chart.
For every real number~$c>0$ there exists $A>0$ such that
for all $a \in \:]0,A]$ the following holds.
If
$d_1, \dots, d_k$ and $e_1, \dots, e_k$ for all $j\in \{1, \dots, k\} $ satisfy
the conditions
$d_j \ge c$, $e_j \ge c$,
$$
d_j-e_j \,\in\,
\begin{cases}
G_a (S_0)\,\,\,&\mbox{if $(M,\go)$ is special,}\\
G_a \,\,\,&\mbox{otherwise},
\end{cases}
$$
and the tori $T_\gf (a, \dots, a, a+d_1, \dots, a+d_k )$,
$T_\gf (a, \dots, a, a+e_1, \dots, a+e_k )$ are contained in $B_\gf(b)$,
then
\[
T_\gf (a, \dots, a, a+d_1, \dots, a+d_k )
\,\approx\,
T_\gf (a, \dots, a, a+e_1, \dots, a+e_k ) .
\]
\end{theorem}
\begin{example*}
{\rm
Given $v>0$, we denote by $S^2(v)$ the $2$-sphere of area~$v$.
There exists a symplectic embedding
$B^{4}(b) \to S^2(v_1) \times S^2(v_2)$
whenever $b < \min ( v_1, v_2 )$.
The homomorphism~$c_1$ on
$\pi_2(S^2(v_1) \times S^2(v_2)) = \ZZ \oplus \ZZ$ is given by
$(m_1,m_2) \mapsto 2 (m_1+m_2)$.
For $S_0=(1,-1)$ we have
$$
G_a\bigl(S_0, S^2(v_1) \times S^2(v_2)\bigr) \,=\,
(v_1-v_2) \.\.\ZZ .
$$
(Note that $S^2(v_1) \times S^2(v_2)$ is special if and only if
$v_1/v_2\in\QQ$ and $v_1\ne v_2$.)
Theorem~\ref{t:shift} implies, in particular,
that in $S^2(3) \times S^2(4)$
the tori $T(a,a+1)$ and $T(a,a+2)$ are Hamiltonian isotopic for
all sufficiently small $a$, whereas $(a, a+1) \not \simeq (a, a+2)$.
\diam
}
\end{example*}
The paper is organized as follows.
In Section~\ref{s:inv}, we describe the invariants that are used in the
proof of Theorems~\ref{t:t1+} and~\ref{t:tame}, and derive Theorem~\ref{t:tame}.
In Section~\ref{s:t1+} we proof a version of Theorem~\ref{t:tame} for generalized Clifford tori
in~$\CP^n$, and use it to prove Theorem~\ref{t:t1+}.
In Section~\ref{s:con} we
construct Hamiltonian isotopies that provide a proof of Theorem~\ref{t:t1}.
In Sections~\ref{s:Liouville} and~\ref{s:shift}, we prove finer versions of
Theorems~\ref{t:Liouville} and~\ref{t:shift}, respectively.
Appendix~\ref{a:annulus} provides a refinement of Lelong's inequality for the area of
holomorphic curves passing through the centre of a ball, that we use in Section~\ref{s:inv}.
Appendix~\ref{a:path} proves an algebraic result used in~Section~\ref{s:con}.
\b
\ni
{\bf Acknowledgments.}
The first draft of this paper was written in Spring~2005, when the first author visited Max Planck Institute Leipzig
and the second author was a PostDoc at Leipzig University.
The paper was finalized during our stay at FIM of ETH Z\"urich in 2008 and~2010
and during the first author's stay at Universit\'e de Neuch\^atel in 2009 and~2011.
We wish to thank these institutions and in particular Dietmar Salamon and Matthias Schwarz
for their warm hospitality.
The present work is part of the author's activities within CAST,
a Research Network Program of the European Science Foundation.
\section{Symplectic invariants} \label{s:inv}
\subsection{Displacement energy and $J$-holomorphic discs}
The first Ekeland--Hofer capacity
was a key tool used in~\cite{Ch-tori} for
the classification of product tori in~$\RR^{2n}\?\?$.
This capacity is defined only for subsets of the standard
symplectic space~$\RR^{2n}$.
We shall work with the displacement energy capacity instead,
which is defined for all symplectic manifolds.
In the process of computing the displacement energy for Lagrangian tori,
we bring $J$-holomorphic discs into play, and it is here
that we need the assumption that $(M,\go)$ be tame.
Consider the set $\ch(M)$ of compactly supported smooth
functions $H \colon [0,1] \times M \to \RR$.
Denote by $\Phi_{\?\?H}$ the time 1 map of the Hamiltonian flow generated by~$H$.
Following \cite{Hofer90}, we define a norm on $\ch$ by
\[
\| H \| \,=\, \int_0^1 \left( \max_{x \in M} H(t,x) - \min_{x \in M} H(t,x) \right) dt ,
\]
and the displacement energy of a compact subset $A \subset M$ by
\[
e \left( A,M \right) \,=\, \inf_{H \in \ch}
\Bigl\{ \| H \|
\mid \Phi_H (A) \cap A = \varnothing \Bigr\} ,
\]
assuming $\inf(\varnothing)=\infty$.
Assume that $(M,\go)$ is tame.
Denote by $D$ the closed unit disc in the complex plane~$\CC$,
and by $\cj=\cj(M,\go)$ the set of almost complex structures~$J$ on
$M$ for which there exists a complete Riemannian metric $g$ such
that $J$ and $g$ satisfy (T1) and~(T2).
Let $L$ be a closed Lagrangian submanifold of~$(M,\go)$.
Given $J \in \cj$, we define $\gs (L,M;J)$ to be the minimal symplectic area $\int_D u^*\go$
of a non-constant $J$-holomorphic map
$u \colon (D, \pp D) \to (M,L)$ if such maps exist, and set $\gs (L,M;J)=\infty$ otherwise.
Since $(M,\go)$ is tame, Gromov's compactness theorem implies
that the minimal area is indeed attained and thus positive~\cite{MSa}.
Define
\[
\gs\left (L,M\right) \,=\, \sup_{J \in \cj} \.\gs (L,M;J) ,
\]
allowing $\gs (L,M)$ to be infinite as well.
It was proved in \cite{Ch-energy} that
\begin{equation} \label{e:energy}
\gs \left(L,M\right) \le e \left(L,M\right).
\end{equation}
Recall that $\ua = \min_{1\le i \le n} (a_i)$,
$ \|\ba\| = \ua + \sum_{i=1}^n \?a_i$.
\begin{proposition} \label{p:e=}
If $(M,\go)$ is tame and $\|\ba\| \.\le b_\gf$, then
$\,e \left( T_\gf (\ba),M \right) = \ua$.
\end{proposition}
\proof
First we prove that $\,e \left( T_\gf (\ba),M \right) \le \ua$.
We can assume that $a_1 = \ua$.
We write $D(\ba)$ for the polydisc $B^2(a_1) \times \dots \times B^2(a_n)$.
Let~$U$ be a neighbourhood of $B^{2n}(b)$ such that $\gf \colon U \to M$
is well defined.
Choose $\gve >0$ such that $B^{2n}\bigl( \| \ba +n\gve \|\bigr) \subset U$.
The torus~$T(\ba)$ can be displaced
from itself by the time 1 flow map of a Hamiltonian function
$H \in \ch\left(D \left( 2 a_1 +\gve,
a_2+\gve, \ldots, a_n+\gve \right) \right) $
such that $\| H \| < \ua +\gve$,
see e.g.~\cite[p.\hskip.1em 171]{HZ}.
The polydisc $D \left( 2 a_1 +\gve, a_2+\gve, \ldots, a_n+\gve\right)$
is contained in the ball $B^{2n} ( \.\|\ba\| + n\.\eps)$ and hence in~$U$.
Transferring $H$ to $(M,\go)$ by means of the chart~$\gf$,
we obtain a Hamiltonian function $H^\gf \!\in\ch(M)$
such that $\| H^\gf \| < \ua +\gve$ and the time 1 flow generated by~$H^\gf$
disjoins the torus $T_\gf(\ba)$ from itself.
Since $\gve$
can be chosen arbitrarily small, it follows that
$\,e \left( T_\gf (\ba),M \right) \le \ua$.
Denote by $J_0$ the standard complex structure on~$\CC^{n}$.
\begin{lemma} \label{l:sigma}
Let $L$ be a closed Lagrangian submanifold in~$B^{2n}(b_-)\subset\CC^{n}$,
and let $\gf$ be a symplectic chart such that~$b_\gf \? > b_-$.
Then
\[
\gs \bigl( \gf (L),M \bigr) \.\. \ge
\.\.\min \.\bigl(\gs \.( L,\CC^{n}\?\?; J_0), \.b_\gf \? - b_- \bigr).
\]
\end{lemma}
\proof
It suffices to find an almost complex complex structure $J \in \cj$
such that the symplectic area of each non-constant \text{$J$-holomorphic} map
$u \colon (D, \pp D) \to \left(M, \gf(L) \right)$ is at least
$\.\min \.\bigl(\gs \.( L,\CC^{n}\?\? ; J_0), \.b_\gf \? - b_- \bigr)$.
We construct such a~$J$ as follows.
Transferring the complex structure $J_0$ by means of the chart~$\gf$,
we obtain a complex structure $J_0^{\gf}$ on~$B_\gf$.
We claim that $J_0^{\gf}$ extends to an almost complex structure $J \in \cj$ on~$M$.
Indeed, pick an arbitrary~$J_1 \in \cj$.
For each $x\in M$, the space of complex structures $J_{(x)}$ on
the tangent space $T_x M$ satisfying $\go (\xi, J_{(x)} \xi) >0$ for all
$\xi \in T_x M\setminus\{0\}$ is contractible~\cite{MS}.
Thus there is an almost complex structure $J$ on~$M$ that coincides
with $J_0^{\gf}$ on~$B_\gf$, and with $J_1$ outside a relatively compact
neighbourhood of~$B_\gf$. Then~$J \in \cj$.
Let $u \colon (D, \pp D) \to \left(M, \gf(L) \right)$
be a non-constant \text{$J$-holomorphic} map.
If the image of $u$ is contained in~$B_\gf $, then
$u_\gf\?=\gf^{-1} \circ u \colon (D, \pp D) \to \left( \CC^n, L \right)$
is a non-constant holomorphic map.
Hence $\int_D u^* \omega = \int_D u_\gf^* \.\omega_n \ge \gs \.( L,\CC^{n}\?\? ; J_0)$.
If the image of $u$ is not contained in~$B_\gf $, then
the set $V_\gf=\gf^{-1}(u(D))$ is a real analytic subvariety in
$B(b_\gf)$ intersecting the sphere~$\partial B(b_-)$.
Applying Theorem~\ref{t::a} from Appendix~A
(with $b_-=\pi r^2_-$, $b_\gf=\pi r^2_+$),
we infer that the Riemannian area of $V_\gf$ is at least~$b_\gf \? - b_-$.
Since the Riemannian area of a holomorphic curve in $\CC^{n}$
equals its symplectic area, and the symplectic area of $u$
is not less than the symplectic area of~$V_\gf$,
it follows that the symplectic area of $u$
is at least~$b_\gf \? - b_-$.
\proofend
We claim that $\gs \.( T(\ba),\CC^{n}\?\? ; J_0) \ge \ua$.
Let $u \colon (D, \pp D) \to \left(\CC^{n}\?\?, T(\ba) \right)$ be
a non-constant holomorphic map.
Write $u=(u_1,\ldots,u_n)$, where each
$u_j \colon (D, \pp D) \to \left(\CC, T(a_j) \right)$
is a holomorphic map.
The symplectic area of~$u$ is positive, and it equals the sum of
the symplectic areas of the maps~$u_j$.
Since the symplectic area of~$u_j$ is a non-negative integer
multiple of~$a_j$, the symplectic area of~$u$ is at least~$\ua$.
The torus $T(\ba)$ is contained in the ball $B^{2n} ( |\ba| )$.
By Lemma~\ref{l:sigma},
$\,\gs\left( T_\gf (\ba),M \right) \ge \| \ba \| - |\ba| = \ua$.
In view of~\eqref{e:energy}, we conclude that
$\,e\left( T_\gf (\ba),M \right) \ge \ua$.
This completes the proof of Proposition~\ref{p:e=}.
\proofend
\subsection{Deformations}
Let $(M,\go)$ be a symplectic manifold.
Denote by $\cl$ the space of closed embedded Lagrangian submanifolds
in $(M,\go)$ endowed with the $C^\infty$-topology.
Given a $\Ham(M,\go)$-invariant function $f$ on $\cl$ taking values in a set~$X$,
we associate with each $L \in \cl$ a function germ
$ S^f_L \colon H^1(L;\RR)\to X $ at the point $0\in H^1(L;\RR)$ following~\cite{Ch-tori}.
This construction provides additional invariants of Lagrangian submanifolds.
We use it to prove Theorem~\ref{t:tame}~(ii).
By Weinstein's Lagrangian Neighbourhood Theorem, there is a symplectomorphism~$g$
from a neighbourhood of $L$ in $M$ to
a fibrewise convex neighbourhood of the zero section of~$T^*\?\?L$
such that the image of $L$ is the zero section~\cite{W-71}.
There is a neighbourhood $V$ of the point $L$ in the space
$\cl$ such that each $L'\in V$ is mapped to the graph
of a closed 1-form $\alpha_{L'}$ on~$L$.
Consider the mapping $w_{L,V}\colon V\to H^1(L;\RR)$ that sends
$L'\in V$ to the cohomology class of the form $\alpha_{L'}$.
This mapping is locally surjective at~$L$. Denote
by~$w_L$ the germ of $w_{L,V}$ at~$L$.
If two Lagrangian submanifolds $L_0,L_1\in V$ are mapped by $w_{L,V}$ to the same
cohomology class $\zeta\in H^1(L;\RR)$, then they are Hamiltonian isotopic.
Indeed, consider the family of Lagrangian submanifolds $\{L_t\}$
such that $g(L_t)$ is the graph of the 1-form
$\alpha_t=t \alpha_{L_1} + (1-t)\alpha_{L_0}$ for each $t\in \left[0,1\right]$.
Since $[\alpha_t]= \zeta$ for all~$t$, the family $\{L_t\}$
is a Hamiltonian isotopy between $L_0$ and~$L_1$.
Therefore, one can define a mapping germ
$S^f_L \colon H^1(L;\RR)\to X $ at the point $0\in H^1(L;\RR)$
by $S^f_L (\zeta)=f(L')$, where $w_{L}(L')=\zeta$.
In order to prove that the definition of $ S^f_L$ does not depend
on the choice of the symplectomorphism~$g$,
it suffices to give a description of the mapping germ $w_L$
that does not use~$g$.
This description goes as follows: the evaluation of $w_{L}(L')$ on
a 1-homology class $\lambda\in H_1(L;\ZZ)$ equals
$\int_{[0,1]\times S^1} h^*\omega$, where $h\colon [0,1]\times S^1\to M$ is a
smooth map with image in a tubular neighbourhood of~$L$ such that $h(\{0\}\times S^1)$
is a loop in $L$ representing the class $\lambda$ and $h(\{1\}\times S^1)\subset L'$.
It immediately follows from the definition that $S^f_L$ is $\Ham(M,\go)$-invariant
in the following sense: for each $\psi \in \Ham(M,\go)$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{e:Sfl}
S^f_{\psi(L)} \,=\, S_L^f \circ \left( \psi {\mid}_{L}\right)^*,
\end{equation}
and if, moreover, $f$ is $\Symp (M,\go)$-invariant,
then~\eqref{e:Sfl} holds for each $\psi \in \Symp (M,\go)$.
The displacement energy function $e \left( L \right)=e \left(L,M\right)$
takes values in $\left[ 0, \infty \right[ \cup \{\infty \}$
and is $\Symp (M,\go)$-invariant.
\begin{proposition} \label{p:Se}
Let $L=T_\gf (\ba)$ be a product Lagrangian torus in a tame symplectic
manifold. Assume that $\| \ba \| \le b_\gf$.
Then
\[
S_L^e (\zeta) \,=\, e(L) + \min \bigl( l_1(\zeta), \dots, l_{m(\ba)}(\zeta) \bigr),
\]
where $l_1, \dots, l_{m(\ba)} $ are independent linear functions on $H^1(L;\RR)$.
\end{proposition}
\proof
Consider the mapping germ $\theta \colon (\RR^n,0)\to (\cl,L)$, $\bs\mapsto T_\gf (\ba+ \bs)$.
The composition $A=w_L\circ\theta \colon (\RR^n,0)\to (H^1(L;\RR),0)$
is a linear isomorphism germ.
Choose $\gve >0$ so small that $\gf \colon B^{2n}(b_\gf +\gve) \to M$ is defined.
For $\bs$ small enough, we have $\|\ba+\bs\| \le b_\gf + \gve$ and hence,
by Proposition~\ref{p:e=},
\begin{equation}
\label{e:e1}
e\left( T_\gf (\ba + \bs) \right) \,=\, \min \bigl ( a_1+s_1, \dots, a_n+s_n \bigr).
\end{equation}
We can assume, after reordering the coordinates, that
\[
\ua = a_1 = \dots = a_{m(\ba)} < a_{m(\ba)+1} \le \dots \le a_n.
\]
For $\bs$ sufficiently small (say, such that the absolute values of all
its components do not exceed $\tfrac{1}{2}(a_{m(\ba)+1} - a_{m(\ba)})$),
in view of~\eqref{e:e1} we have
\begin{equation} \label{e:e2}
e\left( T_\gf (\ba + \bs) \right) \,=\,
\ua + \min \bigl ( s_1, \dots, s_{m(\ba)} \bigr)
\,=\, e(L) + \min \bigl ( \pi_1(\bs), \dots, \pi_{m(\ba)}(\bs) \bigr),
\end{equation}
where $\pi_i \colon \RR^n \to \RR$ is the projection
onto the $i$-th coordinate axis, $\pi_i(\bs)=s_i$.
Since $S_L^e (\zeta)= e\bigl( T_\gf (\ba + A^{-1}(\zeta)) \bigr)$,
it follows~from~\eqref{e:e2} that
\[
S_L^e (\zeta) \,=\, e(L) + \min \bigl( l_1(\zeta), \dots, l_{m(\ba)}(\zeta) \bigr)
\]
where $l_1=\pi_1\circ A^{-1}, \dots, l_{m(\ba)}=\pi_{m(\ba)}\circ A^{-1}$
are independent linear functions on~$H^1(L;\RR)$.
\proofend
\proofof{Theorem~\ref{t:tame}~(ii)}
Denote $L=T_\gf(\ba)$, $L'=T_{\gf'}(\ba')$.
It follows from Proposition~\ref{p:e=} and symplectic invariance of
displacement energy that
\[ \ua\,=\,e \left(L,M \right) \, = \,
e \left( L',M \right) \,=\, \ua'.\]
According to Proposition~\ref{p:Se},
the cohomology classes $\zeta\in H^1(L;\RR)$ such that $S_L^e(\zeta)=\ua$
form a vector space germ $W$ of dimension~$n-m(\ba)$,
and the cohomology classes $\zeta'\in H^1(L';\RR)$ such that $S_{L'}^e(\zeta')=\ua$
form a vector space germ $W'$ of dimension~$n-m(\ba')$.
If $L'= \psi (L)$ for some $\psi \in \Symp (M,\go)$, then
$S^e_{L'} = S_L^e \circ A_\psi$, where
$A_\psi= \left( \psi {\mid}_{L}\right)^*$
is a linear isomorphism between $H^1(L;\RR)$ and $H^1(L';\RR)$.
Hence $A_\psi (W) = W'$, and therefore $m(\ba)=m(\ba')$.
\proofend
\subsection{Symplectic area class and Maslov class}
Given a Lagrangian submanifold~$L$ of a symplectic manifold~$(M,\go)$,
one can consider two relative cohomology classes:
the symplectic area class
$\gs_L \in H^2(M,L;\RR)$ represented by the 2-form~$\omega$,
and the Maslov class $\mu_L\in H^2(M,L;\ZZ)$, defined as in~\cite{V-87}.
Both $\gs$ and $\mu$ are symplectically invariant
in the sense that $\gs_{\psi (L)} = \psi^*\gs_L$ and $\mu_{\psi (L)} = \psi^* \mu_L$
for each symplectomorphism~$\psi$.
These classes define homomorphisms from $\pi_2(M,L)$ to $\RR$ that
we shall also denote by $\gs_L$ and~$\mu_L$.
Define the subgroup $\Gamma (L)\subset \RR$ to be
the image of the subgroup $\ker (\mu_L) \subset \pi_2(M,L)$
under the homomorphism $\gs_L \colon \pi_2(M,L) \to \RR$.
Since $\gs_L$ and $\mu_L$ are symplectically invariant, so is~$\Gamma (L)$:
\begin{lemma} \label{l:gammaL}
Let $L,L'$ be Lagrangian submanifolds of ~$(M,\go)$.
If $L\sim L'$, then $\Gamma (L)=\Gamma (L')$.
\end{lemma}
Theorem~\ref{t:tame}~(i) is a corollary of
Lemma~\ref{l:gammaL} and the following assertion:
\begin{lemma} \label{l:gamma}
Let $T_{\gf}(\ba)$ be a product Lagrangian torus in a symplectically
aspherical symplectic manifold~$(M,\go)$.
Then $\Gamma \bigl(T_{\gf}(\ba)\bigr)=\Gamma (\ba)$.
\end{lemma}
\proof
For $i \in \{ 1, \dots, n \}$, let $D_i$ be a disc in $\RR^{2n}$
with boundary on $T(\ba)$ such that the projection of~$D^i$
to the $i$-th factor in $\RR^{2}\times \cdots \times\RR^{2}=\RR^{2n}$
is the disc in $\RR^2$ bounded by the circle $T(a_i)$,
and the projections to other factors are points.
Denote by $\hat D_i$ the element of
$\pi_2 \left( \RR^{2n},T(\ba) \right)$ represented by~$D_i$.
The classes $\hat D_1,\ldots,\hat D_n$ generate
the free Abelian group $\pi_2 \left( \RR^{2n},T(\ba) \right)$.
Denote $\tilde D_i=\gf_*\hat D_i \in \pi_2 ( M,L )$ where $L := T_\gf(\ba)$.
For each~$i$, we have $\gs_{\.T(\ba)}\?(\hat D_i)=a_i$, $\mu_{\.T(\ba)}\?(\hat D_i) = 2$,
and hence $\gs_{L}(\tilde D_i)=a_i$, $\mu_{L}(\tilde D_i) = 2$.
The group $\pi_2 \left( M,L \right)$ is the direct sum of $\pi_2(M)$
and the subgroup generated by the elements~$\tilde D_i$.
Since $(M,\go)$ is symplectically aspherical and $\mu_L|^{\vphantom1}_{H_2(M;\ZZ)} = 2\.c_1 (\go)$
(see~\cite{V-87}),
both $\gs_L$ and $\mu_L$ vanish on~$\pi_2(M)$.
The kernel of $\mu_L$ is the direct sum of $\pi_2(M)$
and the subgroup generated by the differences~$\tilde D_i-\tilde D_j$,
where $i,j \in \{1,\ldots,n\}$ and $j$ is such that $\ua=a_j$.
Therefore, $\gs_L (\ker \mu_L)$ consists of all integer combinations
of the numbers $a_i-\ua=\gs(\tilde D_i-\tilde D_j)$.
\proofend
\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{t:t1+}} \label{s:t1+}
\subsection{Generalized Clifford tori in $\CP^n$} \label{s:clifford}
We consider a certain class of product Lagrangian tori in
the complex projective space, the so-called {\it generalized Clifford tori}.
Identify the symplectic space $(\RR^{2n},\go_n)$ with~$\CC^{n}\?$,
the complex coordinates being $z_1=x_1\?+i\.y_1, \ldots, z_n = x_n\?+i\.y_n$.
Consider the diagonal action of the Lie group $U(1)$ on the space~$\CC^{n}\?$.
For each $b>0$, the sphere $S^{2n-\?1\?}(b)=\partial B^{2n}(b)$ is
invariant under this action.
Denote by $\CC P^{\.n-\?1\?}(b)$ the quotient $S^{2n-\?1\?}(b)/U(1)$.
The restriction of the symplectic form $\go_n$ to ${S^{2n-\?1\?}(b)}$
is the pullback of a certain symplectic form
$ \go_{n-\?1}^b$ on~$\CC P^{\.n-\?1\?}(b)$.
This form is a multiple of the Fubini--Study form.
If $\ba\in\RR_+^{n}$ and $|\ba|=b$, then the torus $T(\ba)$
is contained in the sphere~$ S^{2n-\?1\?}(b)$.
Moreover, $T(\ba)$ is invariant under the action of~$U(1)$.
Therefore, the quotient $\T(\ba)=T(\ba)/U(1)$ is a
Lagrangian $(n-\?1)$-torus in~$\CC P^{\.n-\?1\?}(b)$.
It is called a generalized Clifford torus.
Denote by $Z_n(b)$ the complex hypersurface
$$
\bigr(S^{2n-\?1\?}(b)\cap\{z_n\?=\?0\}\bigl)/U(1) \cong \CC P^{\.n-\?2\?}
$$
in~$\,\CC P^{\.n-\?1\?}(b)$,
and by $\Bcirc^{2n-2}(b)$ the open ball~$\mathrm{Int} (B^{2n-2}(b))$.
The tori $\T(\ba)$ are product tori:
\begin{proposition} \label{p:cpn}
There is a symplectomorphism
$$
\gf^b_{n-\?1} \colon
\bigl(\Bcirc^{2n-2}(b),\go_{n-\?1}\bigr)
\,\to\,
\bigl(\CC P^{\.n-\?1\?}(b)\setminus Z_n(b),
\go_{n-\?1}^b\bigr)
$$
that maps each product torus $T(a_1,\dots,a_{n-\?1})$
contained in $\Bcirc^{2n-2}(b)$ to the torus
$\T(a_1,\dots,a_n)$,
where $a_n= b - a_1- \dots - a_{n-\?1}$.
\end{proposition}
\proof
Denote by $W$ the subset of $S^{2n-\?1\?}(b)$ formed
by points with $z_n$ coordinate positive real.
Consider the projection of $ \CC^n$ onto $\CC^{\.n-\?1\?}$
defined by forgetting the last coordinate.
Restricting this projection to $W$ be obtain a
diffeomorphism $\psi \colon W \to \Bcirc^{2n-2}\?\?(b)$.
We claim that $\psi$ is a symplectomorphism from
$(W, \go_n|^{\vphantom1}_W)$ onto
$\bigl(\Bcirc^{2n-2}\?\?(b),\go_{n-\?1}\bigr)$.
This statement is equivalent to the assertion that
the restriction of the 2-form $dx_n\wedge dy_n$ to $W$ vanishes.
The latter follows since $y_n$ vanishes on~$W$.
The manifold $S^{2n-\?1\?}(b)\setminus \{z_n\?=\?0\}$
is foliated by the orbits of the $U(1)$-action.
Each of these orbits intersects $W$ exactly once,
and the intersection is transverse.
Therefore, symplectic reduction gives rise to a canonical
symplectomorphism $\psi'$ from
$(W, \go_n|^{\vphantom1}_W)$ onto
$\bigl(\CC P^{\.n-\?1\?}(b)\setminus Z_n(b), \go_{n-\?1}^b\bigr)$.
The composition $\gf^b_{n-\?1\?}=\psi'\circ\psi^{-1}$
is the required symplectomorphism.
To prove the assertion concerning Lagrangian tori,
it suffices to observe that the image of
$T(a_1,\dots,a_{n-\?1})$ under the symplectomorphism $\psi^{-1}$ is
the torus $T(a_1,\dots,a_{n-\?1})\times \sqrt{a_n/\pi}$,
and that the $U(1)$-orbits passing through the latter torus
form the torus $T(a_1,\dots,a_n)$.
\proofend
\begin{proposition} \label{p:cpn2}
Let $\ba,\.\ba'\in\RR_+^{n}$ be such that $|\ba|=|\ba'|$.
Consider the Lagrangian tori $\,\T(\ba)$, $\T(\ba')$ in $\,\CC P^{\.n-\?1\?}(|\ba|)$.
If $\,\T(\ba)\sim \T(\ba')$, then $\ba\simeq\ba'$.
\end{proposition}
\proof
By Theorem~\ref{t:tame}~(ii) we have $\ua = \ua'$ and $m(\ba)=m(\ba')$.
In view of Lemma~\ref{l:gammaL},
it remains to show that $\Gamma(\T(\ba))=\Gamma(\ba)$.
Let $\hat D_1,\ldots,\hat D_{n-\?1}$
be the elements of the group
$\pi_2 \left( \RR^{2n-2},T(a_1,\ldots,a_{n-\?1}) \right)$
defined as in the proof of Lemma~\ref{l:gamma}.
The symplectomorphism $\gf^{|\ba|}_{n-1}$
sends these classes
to the classes $\tilde D_1,\ldots,\tilde D_{n-\?1}$
in $\pi_2(\CC P^{\.n-\?1\?}(|\ba|), \T(\ba))$.
For each~$i$, we have $\gs_{\t(\ba)}\?(\tilde D_i)=a_i$,
$\mu_{\t(\ba)}\?(\tilde D_i) = 2$.
The free Abelian group $\pi_2(\CC P^{\.n-\?1\?}(|\ba|), \T(\ba))$
is generated by the classes $\tilde D_1,\ldots,\tilde D_{n-\?1}$,
and the class $[\CC P^1]$ represented by a complex line in
the complex projective space.
We have $\mu_{\t(\ba)}\?\?\bigl(\.[\CC P^1]\.\bigr) = 2n$,
since the value of the Maslov class on $\CC P^1$
is twice the value of~$c_1(T\.\CC P^{\.n-\?1\?})$.
We claim that $\gs_{\t(\ba)}\?\?\bigl(\.[\CC P^1]\.\bigr)=|\ba|$.
Indeed, let $\CC P^1 \subset \CP^{n-1}$ be the quotient
of the sphere $\{z_2=\dots=z_{n-\?1}=0\} \cap
S^{2n-1}(|\ba|)$
by the diagonal action of~$U(1)$.
The symplectomorphism
$\gf_{n-1}^{|\ba|}$
identifies the complement of a
point
in $\CC P^1$ with the open symplectic disc
$\Bcirc^{2n-2}\?\?(|\ba|)\cap \{z_2=\dots=z_{n-\?1}=0\}$.
This disc has area~$|\ba|$, and
hence the integral of the symplectic form
$ \go_{n-\?1}^{\?|\ba|}$ over $\CC P^1$ equals~$|\ba|$.
Define $\tilde D_n=[\CC P^1]-\sum_{i=1}^{n-\?1} \tilde D_i$.
The group $\pi_2(\CC P^{\.n-\?1\?}(|\ba|), \T(\ba))$
is generated by the classes $\tilde D_1,\ldots,\tilde D_n$,
and we have
$\gs_{\t(\ba)}\?(\tilde D_n)=a_n$,
$\mu_{\t(\ba)}\?(\tilde D_n) = 2$.
The kernel of $\mu_{\t(\ba)}$ is generated by the
differences~$\tilde D_i-\tilde D_j$,
where $i,j\in\{1,\ldots,n\}$ and $j$ is such that $\ua=a_j$.
Therefore, $\gs_{\t(\ba)} (\ker \mu_{\t(\ba)})$
consists of all integer combinations
of the numbers $a_i-\ua=\gs(\tilde D_i-\tilde D_j)$.
\proofend
\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{t:t1+}}
Arguing by contradiction, we suppose that $T(\ba) \approx T(\ba')$ in $B^{2n}(b)$.
By Theorem~\ref{t:tame}~(ii), with $(M,\go)$ a large ball and $\gf, \gf'$ the identity embeddings,
we have $\ua = \ua'$.
We can assume that $\| \ba \| \ge \| \ba' \|$.
Since $\ua = \ua'$ and, by hypothesis, $| \ba | \neq | \ba' |$,
we have $\| \ba \| - \| \ba' \| = |\ba | - |\ba' | >0$.
By hypothesis we have $|\ba| \le b < \| \ba \|$.
Thus $|\ba' | < |\ba| \le b < |\ba|+\ua$.
Choose $c'<c$ such that
$$
b < c' < c < |\ba|+\ua .
$$
Define $a_{n+1} := c-|\ba|$ and $a_{n+1}' := c-|\ba'|$.
Then $a_{n+1} < a_{n+1}'$ and $a_{n+1} = c-|\ba| < \ua$.
Therefore,
\begin{equation} \label{e:ineq}
\min \{ a_1, \dots, a_n, a_{n+1} \} \,=\,
a_{n+1} < \min \{ \ua, a_{n+1}' \} \,=\,
\min \{ a_1', \dots, a_n', a_{n+1}' \} .
\end{equation}
Recall that $T(\ba) \approx T(\ba')$ in $B^{2n}(b)$.
Cutting off the Hamiltonian function that generates this isotopy,
we construct a Hamiltonian isotopy supported in $B^{2n}(c')$ that moves
$T(\ba)$ to~$T(\ba')$.
The symplectomorphism $\gf_{n}^c$ from Proposition~\ref{p:cpn}
transfers this isotopy to a Hamiltonian isotopy of $\CP^n(c)$.
It moves $\T(a_1, \dots, a_n,a_{n+1})$ to $\T(a_1', \dots, a_n',a_{n+1}')$.
By Proposition~\ref{p:cpn2},
$\min \{ a_1, \dots, a_n, a_{n+1} \} = \min \{ a_1', \dots, a_n', a_{n+1}' \}$,
in contradiction to~\eqref{e:ineq}.
\proofend
\section{Constructions of Hamiltonian isotopies} \label{s:con}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{t:t1}~(i)}
The unitary group $U(n)$ acts on $\CC^n$ preserving the symplectic form~$\omega_n$.
Since a permutation of coordinates $z_1,\ldots, z_n$ is a unitary map and
the group $U(n)$ is path-connected, there is a smooth family $\{\Phi_t\}$,
$t\in[0,1],$ of unitary maps such that $\Phi_0={\tt id}$ and
$\Phi_1(T(\ba))=T(\ba')$. The flow $\{\Phi_t\}$ is Hamiltonian because $\CC^n$
is simply-connected.
\proofend
\subsection{}
The proof of Theorem~\ref{t:t1}~(ii) relies on
the following lemma, which represents a special case of Theorem~\ref{t:t1}~(ii).
\begin{lemma} \label{l:step1}
For each positive $a$, $c$, and $d$,
the tori $T(a,a+c,a+d)$ and $T(a,a+c+d,a+d)$ are
Hamiltonian isotopic in the ball $B^6 (4a+ c+2d)$.
\end{lemma}
\proof
Let $\. W= \bigl\{ (z_1,z_2) \?\?\in \?\CC^2 \?\bigm| |z_1|\?<\?|z_2|\.\.\bigr\} $.
Consider the map
\[
\Psi \colon W \to \CC^2, \quad (z_1,z_2) \mapsto
\left(\frac{z_1 z_2}{|z_2|} ,\frac{z_2 \sqrt{|z_2|^2 \?\?-|z_1|^2} }{|z_2|}\right).
\]
It is injective, and
its image is the complement of the complex line $\{\.z_2=0\.\}$.
We claim that $\Psi$ preserves the symplectic form
$\omega_2= dx_1\wedge dy_1 + dx_2\wedge dy_2$.
Indeed, write $z_1= e^{2\pi i\.\.\theta_1\!}\sqrt{\rho_1/\pi} $,
$z_2= e^{2\pi i\.\.\theta_2\!}\sqrt{\rho_2/\pi} $,
with $\theta_1,\theta_2$ in $S^1=\RR/\ZZ$ and $\rho_1,\rho_2$ nonnegative real.
For nonzero values of $z_2$, we have
$\omega_2= d\rho_1\wedge d \theta_1 + d\rho_2\wedge d \theta_2$ and
\[
\Psi (\rho_1, \theta_1, \rho_2, \theta_2) =
(\rho_1, \theta_1+\theta_2, \rho_2- \rho_1, \theta_2).
\]
Clearly, $\Psi$ is symplectic outside the complex line $\{\.z_2=0\.\}$, and hence,
by continuity, on the whole of~$W$.
A product torus $T(a_0, a_0+b_0)\subset W$ is mapped by
$\Psi$ to the torus $T(a_0, b_0)$.
The torus $T(a,a+c+d,a+d)$ is Hamiltonian isotopic, through a unitary isotopy,
to the torus $T(a+d,a+c+d,a)$ in the ball $B^6(3a+ c+2d)$.
Therefore, it suffices to prove that the tori $T(a,a+c,a+d)$ and $T(a+d,a+c+d,a)$
are Hamiltonian isotopic in~$B^6 (4a+ c+2d)$.
Consider the map
$\Psi_{\!+}=\Psi\times {\tt id} \colon W\?\times\?\CC\to\CC^3$.
We have $\Psi_{\!+}(T(a,a+c,a+d))= T(a,c,a+d)$ and
$\Psi_{\!+}(T(a+d,a+c+d,a))= T(a+d,c,a)$.
The Hamiltonian function $H=\frac{\pi}{2}(x_1 y_3 -x_3 y_1)$
gives rise to a unitary Hamiltonian flow $\{\Phi_t\}$
that does not change the complex coordinate $z_2$.
We have $\Phi_1(z_1,z_2,z_3)=(z_3,z_2,-z_1)$.
In particular, $\Phi_1$ maps $T(a,c,a+d)$ to $T(a+d,c,a)$.
Multiplying $H$ by an appropriate cutoff function, we construct a Hamiltonian~$H'$,
compactly supported in $\CC^3\setminus \{\.z_2=0\.\}$, whose
flow $\{\Phi'_t\}$ moves the torus $ T(a,c,a+d)$ in exactly the same way as the flow~$\{\Phi_t\}$.
Consider the Hamiltonian flow $\{\Phi^+_t\}$ on $\CC^3$ generated by the
Hamiltonian function $H'\circ\Psi_{\!+}$.
This flow is compactly supported in $W \times \CC$, where
$\Phi_t^+ = \Psi_+^{-1} \circ \Phi_t' \circ \Psi_+$.
In particular,
$\Phi^+_t(T(a,a+c,a+d))= \Psi_{\!+}^{{-}1}(\Phi_t(T(a,c,a+d)))$ for all values of~$t$,
and $\Phi^+_1(T(a,a+c,a+d))= T(a+d,a+c+d,a)$.
It remains to show that each torus $\Phi^+_t(T(a,a+c,a+d))$ is contained in $B^6 (4a+ c+2d)$.
Let $(z_1,z_2,z_3)\in \Phi^+_t(T(a,a+c,a+d))$.
We are to prove that $\pi\.(\.|z_1|^2\?+|z_2|^2\?+|z_3|^2)\le 4a+c+2d$.
The point $\Psi_{\!+}(z_1,z_2,z_3)= (z'_1,z'_2,z_3)$ belongs to the
torus~$\Phi_t(T(a,c,a+d))$.
Since $T(a,c,a+d)$ is contained in the sphere $\partial B^6 (2a+ c+d)$ and $\Phi_t$ is unitary,
it follows that $(z'_1,z'_2,z_3)\in \partial B^6 (2a+c+d)$.
Hence $\pi\.(\.|z'_1|^2\?+|z'_2|^2\?+|z_3|^2)= 2a+c+d$.
By the construction of $\Phi_t$, we have $\pi|z'_2|^2=c$.
The definition of the map $\Psi_{\!+}$
implies that $|z'_1| =|z_1|$ and $|z_2|^2= |z'_1|^2\?+ |z'_2|^2$.
Therefore,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\pi\.(\.|z_1|^2\?+|z_2|^2\?+|z_3|^2) &=& 2a+c+d+ \pi |z'_1|^2 \\
&=&
4a+2c+2d-\pi|z'_2|^2 - \pi|z_3|^2 \\
&=&
4a+c+2d - \pi|z_3|^2 \,\le\, 4a+c+2d ,
\end{eqnarray*}
as we wished to show.
\proofend
\begin{lemma} \label{l:step2}
Let $\bc=(c_1,\dots,c_k)$ and $\bc'=(c'_1,\dots,c'_k)$ be vectors in~$\RR_+^k$, $k \ge 2$,
such that, for some different indices $i,j\in \{1,\ldots,k\}$,
we have $c_i'=c_i+c_j$, and $c_l'=c_l$ for $l\ne i$.
For each $n>k$ and each positive~$a$,
the $n$-dimensional tori
$T(\bp)=T(a,\dots,a, a+c_1,\ldots, a+c_k)$ and
$T(\bp')=T(a,\dots,a, a+c'_1,\ldots, a+c'_k)$
are Hamiltonian isotopic in the ball $B^{2n} (\|\bp'\|)$.
\end{lemma}
\proof
We may assume that $i=1$ and $j=2$
after applying to the tori $T(\bp)$ and $T(\bp')$ unitary isotopies
that swap the complex coordinates $z_{n-k+1}$ and~$z_{n-k+i}$,
$z_{n-k+2}$ and~$z_{n-k+j}$.
By Lemma~\ref{l:step1}, there is a Hamiltonian isotopy on $\CC^3$ that moves
the torus $L_0=T(a,a+c_1,a+c_2)$ to $L_1=T(a,a+c_1+c_2,a+c_2)$
through tori $L_t$ belonging to $B^6(4a+c_1+2 c_2)$.
The tori $L'_0=T(\bp)$ and $L'_1=T(\bp')$ are Hamiltonian isotopic
through the family $L'_t= T(a,\ldots,a)\times L_t \times T(a+c_3,\ldots,a+c_k)$.
All the tori $L'_t$ are contained in the ball
$$
B^{2n}\bigl((n+1)\.a+|\bc|+c_2 \bigr) = B^{2n} \bigl(\|\bp'\|\bigr).
$$
\proofend
\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{t:t1}~(ii)}
After applying appropriate unitary isotopies to the tori $T(\ba)$ and $T(\ba')$,
we may assume that the first
$m(\ba)$ components of both $\ba$ and $\ba'$ equal~$\ua$.
Let $k=n-m(\ba)$.
Write
\[
T(\ba)=T(\ua,\dots,\ua, \ua+d_1,\ldots, \ua+d_k),\quad
T(\ba')=T(\ua,\dots,\ua, \ua+e_1,\ldots, \ua+e_k),
\]
where $\bd=(d_1,\dots,d_k)$ and
$\be=(e_1,\ldots,e_k)$ are vectors in~$\RR_+^k$.
If $k$ equals~$1$, then the hypothesis
$\Gamma(\ba)=\Gamma(\ba')$ implies that $\ba = \ba'$,
and there is nothing to prove.
Assume that $k\ge2$.
Suppose that there is a sequence
$\bd = \bd^0, \bd^1, \bd^2, \ldots, \bd^{\ell} = \be$
of vectors in $\RR_+^k$ with the following property:
for each $s\in \{1,\dots,\ell\}$,
the vector $\bd^s=(d^s_1,\ldots,d^s_k)$ is obtained from the vector $\bd^{s-1}$
either by swapping two of the components, or by
adding to the $i$-th component the $j$-th component, or by
subtracting from the $i$-th component the $j$-th component.
For $s\in\{0,\ldots,\ell\}$, define $\ba^s=(\ua,\dots,\ua, \ua+d^s_1,\ldots, \ua+d^s_k)$.
Consider the sequence of tori
$ T(\ba)=T(\ba^0),T(\ba^1),\ldots,T(\ba^\ell)= T(\ba')$.
For each $s\in\{1,\ldots,\ell\}$, the tori $T(\ba^{s-1})$ and $T(\ba^{s})$
are Hamiltonian isotopic inside the ball $B^{2n} \bigl(\max(\|\ba^{s-1}\|,\|\ba^s\|)\bigr)$.
Indeed, if $\bd^{s-1}$ and $\bd^{s}$ are related by a swap of components, then there is
a unitary isotopy; otherwise, we
apply Lemma~\ref{l:step2} with either $\bc=\bd^{s-1}$, $\bc'=\bd^{s}$,
or $\bc=\bd^{s}$, $\bc'=\bd^{s-1}.$
It thus suffices to show that such a sequence $\bd^s$ indeed exists
and that, moreover,
we have $\|\ba^{s}\|\le \|\ba\|$ or $\|\ba^{s}\|\le \|\ba'\|$ for all~$s$.
To this end, we apply Theorem~\ref{t:low} from Appendix~B
(we refer the reader to the definitions therein).
The theorem is applicable because the condition $\Gamma(\ba)=\Gamma(\ba')$
means exactly $\langle \bd \.\rangle = \langle \be \rangle$.
Consider the sequence (path) $\bd = \bd^0, \bd^1, \bd^2, \ldots, \bd^{\ell} = \be$
whose existence is guaranteed by Theorem~\ref{t:low}.
Since it is low, it follows that, for each~$s$,
we have $|\bd^s|\le |\bd|$ or $|\bd^s|\le |\be|$, and
hence $\|\ba^s\|\le \|\ba\|$ or $\|\ba^s\|\le \|\ba'\|$.
Thus, this sequence has the required properties and
the proof of Theorem~\ref{t:t1} is complete.
\proofend
\section{Spaces of symplectic charts and product tori}
\label{s:Liouville}
Given $b>0$, denote by $\Emb \left( B^{2n}(b),M,\go \right)$
the space of symplectic charts
$\gf \colon B^{2n}(b) \to (M,\go)$, endowed with the $C^\infty$-topology.
By Darboux's theorem, this space is nonempty
at least for sufficiently small~$b$.
The {\it Gromov radius}\/ $\rho (M,\go)$ of $(M,\go)$ is defined as
the supremum of all $b$ such that $\Emb \left( B^{2n}(b),M,\go \right)$
is nonempty (we allow $\rho (M,\go)=\infty$).
For computations and estimates of $\rho \.(M,\go)$
we refer to~\cite{Sch-book} and the references therein.
It has been conjectured that the space $\Emb \left( B^{2n}(b),M,\go \right)$
is connected for all closed symplectic manifolds and all~$b>0$.
This has been proved for certain closed $4$-manifolds
and also for the symplectic $4$-ball~$\Bcirc(c)$,
see~\cite{McDuff-96}.
\begin{theorem} \label{t:rho}
Let $T_\gf(\ba)$ and $T_{\gf'}(\ba')$
be two Lagrangian product tori
in a symplectically aspherical tame symplectic manifold~$(M,\go)$.
\s
{\rm (i)}
Let $b_- = \min \left\{ b_\gf, b_{\gf'} \right\}$ and
$b_+ = \max \left\{ b_\gf, b_{\gf'} \right\}$.
Assume that the space
$\Emb \left( B^{2n}(b_-),M,\go \right)$ is path-connected and that
$ \max \bigl\{ \| \ba \|, \|\ba'\| \bigr\} \le b_+$.
Then the conditions $\ba \simeq \ba'$, $T_\gf(\ba) \sim T_{\gf'}(\ba')$,
$T_\gf(\ba)\approx T_{\gf'}(\ba')$ are equivalent one to another.
\s
{\rm (ii)}
Assume that the space
$\Emb \left( B^{2n}(b),M,\go \right)$ is path connected
for all values of~$b$
and that $ \max \bigl\{ \| \ba \|, \|\ba'\| \bigr\} < \rho (M,\go)$.
Then the conditions $\ba\simeq\ba'$, $T_\gf(\ba)\sim T_{\gf'}(\ba')$,
$T_\gf(\ba)\approx T_{\gf'}(\ba')$ are equivalent one to another.
\end{theorem}
\proof
First we prove statement~(i).
If $T_\gf(\ba)\approx T_{\gf'}(\ba')$, then
$T_\gf(\ba)\sim T_{\gf'}(\ba')$ by definition.
If $T_\gf(\ba)\sim T_{\gf'}(\ba')$, then $\ba\simeq\ba'$
by Theorem~\ref{t:tame}.
Let~$\ba\simeq\ba'$.
We can assume that $b_- = b_\gf$ and $b_+ = b_{\gf'}$.
It follows from Theorem~\ref{t:t1} that
$T_{\gf'}(\ba)\approx T_{\gf'}(\ba')$.
Since $\Emb \left( B^{2n}(b_-),M,\go \right)$ is path-connected,
there exists a smooth family $\{\gf_s\}$, $s \in [0,1]$,
of symplectic embeddings $B^{2n}(b_-) \to (M,\go)$ such that
$\gf_0 = \gf$ and $\gf_1$ coincides with $\gf'$ on~${B^{2n}(b_-)}$.
Then there is a Hamiltonian isotopy
$\{\Psi_s\}$, $s \in [0,1]$, of~$(M,\go)$ such that
$\Psi_s\circ\gf=\gf_s$ for all~$s$.
We have $\Psi_1(T_\gf(\ba))=T_{\gf'}(\ba)$.
Therefore, $T_{\gf}(\ba)\approx T_{\gf'}(\ba)\approx T_{\gf'}(\ba')$.
The statement~(ii) will follow from the statement~(i)
if we show that, for each $b,b'$ satisfying
$0<b<b'<\rho (M,\go)$, every symplectic embedding
$\gf \colon B^{2n}(b) \to (M,\go)$
extends to a symplectic embedding
$\colon B^{2n}(b') \to (M,\go)$.
Pick $\gf_+\in\Emb \left( B^{2n}(b'),M,\go \right)$.
Denote by $\gf'_+$ the restriction of $\gf_+$ to~$\gf \colon B^{2n}(b)$.
Since $\Emb \left( B^{2n}(b),M,\go \right)$ is path-connected,
we conclude, arguing as above, that there is $\Psi\in \Symp(M,\go)$
such that $\Psi\circ \gf = \gf'_+$.
Then $\Psi^{-1}\circ \gf_+\in \Emb \left( B^{2n}(b'),M,\go \right)$ is
an extension of~$\gf$.
\proofend
\begin{proposition} \label{p:emb}
For a forward complete Liouville manifold~$(M,\go)$,
the space $\Emb \left( B^{2n}(b),M,\go \right)$
is nonempty and path-connected for each~$b>0$.
\end{proposition}
\proof
Let $X$ be a forward complete Liouville field on $(M,\go)$.
Denote by $\{f_t\}$, $t \ge 0$, its forward flow.
Assume that the space $\Emb\left( B^{2n}(b),M,\go \right)$
is nonempty and pick $\gf\in\left( B^{2n}(b),M,\go \right)$.
Since $\left( f_t \right)^* \go = e^t \go$ for all $t \ge 0$,
the map
\[ B^{2n}(e^{2t} b)\to M, \quad x\mapsto f_{2t} ( \gf (e^{-t} x) ) \]
is a symplectic embedding, and hence the space
$\Emb\left( B^{2n}(b_+),M,\go \right)$ is nonempty for all $b_+>b$.
Let $\gf, \gf' \colon B^{2n}(b) \to (M,\go)$.
We prove that $\gf$ and $\gf'$ are homotopic through symplectic embeddings.
After composing $\gf'$ with an appropriate Hamiltonian symplectomorphism
of $(M,\go)$, we can assume that $\gf (0) = \gf' (0)$.
Since each element of the linear symplectic group $\Sp (2n;\RR)$
can be realized as linearization of a Hamiltonian symplectomorphism
preserving the point~$\gf (0)$,
we can also assume that $d \gf (0) = d \psi (0)$.
There is a symplectic isotopy
$\{F_t\}$, $t \in [0,1]$, of $B^{2n}(b)$
such that $F_0 = \id$ and $\psi \circ F_1$ coincides with $\gf$ on
$B^{2n}(b')$ for some $b'\in\left]\.0,b\.\right[$,
see~e.g.\ Appendix~A.1 of \cite{HZ} or the proof of Lemma~2.2 in~\cite{RS}.
Therefore, we may assume that $\gf=\psi$ on~$B^{2n}(b')$.
Consider smooth families $\{\Phi_t\}, \{\Psi_t\}$, $t \ge 0$,
of embeddings $ B^{2n}(b) \to (M,\go)$ defined by
$$
\Phi_t (x) = \left( f_{2t} \circ \gf \right) (e^{-t} x),
\quad
\Psi_t (x) = \left( f_{2t} \circ \psi \right) (e^{-t} x) .
$$
Since $\left( f_t \right)^* \go = e^t \go$,
the embeddings $\Phi_t, \Psi_t$ are symplectic.
Moreover, $\Phi_0 = \gf$ and $\Psi_0 = \psi$.
For $T>0$ so large that $e^{-T} B^{2n}(b) \subset B^{2n}(b')$,
we have $\Phi_T = \Psi_T$.
Concatenating the path of embeddings $\Phi_t$, $t \in [0,T]$,
from $\gf$ to $\Phi_T$
with the path of embeddings $\Psi_{T-t}$, $t \in [0,T]$,
from $\Phi_T = \Psi_T$ to~$\psi$,
we obtain a required path of symplectic charts from
$\gf$ to~$\psi$.
\proofend
{\ni \it Remark.}
In the case where $(M^{2n},\go)$ is a cotangent bundle
$\left( T^*Q, d\gl\right)$,
a parametric version of the above argument gives a description of
the homotopy type of the space $\Emb \left( B^{2n}(b), T^*Q \right)$:
the map $\Emb \left( B^{2n}(b), T^*Q \right)\to Q$
defined by projecting the center of the ball to the base
is a Serre fibration with fibre homotopy equivalent to~$U(n)$.
\m
\proofof{Theorem~\ref{t:Liouville}}
If we prove that~$(M,\go)$ is symplectically aspherical,
then the theorem will follow from Proposition~\ref{p:emb} and
Theorem~\ref{t:rho}.
Let $X$ be a forward complete Liouville field on~$(M,\go)$.
Denote by $\{f_t\}$, $t \ge 0$, its forward flow.
Let $g \colon S^2\to M$ be a smooth map.
Denote $g_t=f_t\circ g$.
Since $\go$ is closed and all maps $g_t$ are homotopic, we have
\[
\int_{S^2} g^*\go \, =
\int_{S^2} g_t^*\go \,= \int_{S^2} g^* (f^*_t\go)\,= e^t \int_{S^2} g^*\go
\]
for each $t>0$. Thus $\int_{S^2} g^*\go$ vanishes,
and $(M,\go)$ is symplectically aspherical.
\proofend
If the space $\Emb \left( B^{2n}(b), M,\go \right)$ is not connected,
the classification of product tori
can be more complicated:
\begin{example} \label{ex:camel}
{\rm
The {\it camel space}\/ with eye of size~$c>0$ is the open subset
$$
\cc^{2n}(c) \,=\, \{ x_1<0\} \cup \{ x_1>0\} \cup \Bcirc^{2n}(c)
$$
of $(\RR^{2n},\go_n)$.
Fix $b>0$ and define the symplectic embeddings
$\gf_{\pm} \colon B^{2n}(b) \to \cc^{2n}(c)$
by
$$
\gf_{\pm} (x_1,y_1, \dots,x_n,y_n) \,=\, \left( x_1 \pm \sqrt{b/\pi},y_1, \dots, x_n,y_n \right) .
$$
If $b \ge c$, then the maps $\gf_{\pm}$ are not
homotopic through symplectic embeddings,
see~\cite{EG,MT,V},
and hence $\Emb \left( B^{2n}(b), \cc^{2n}(c),\go_n \right)$ has at least $2$~components.
Let $\ba\in \RR_+^{2n}\?$ be such that $T(\ba) \subset B^{2n}(b)$.
The symplectomorphism
$$
\left( x_1,y_1,\dots,x_n,y_n \right) \,\mapsto\, \left( -x_1,-y_1, x_2,y_2,\dots,x_n,y_n \right)
$$
maps $\gf_- \bigl( T(\ba) \bigr)$ to
$\gf_+ \bigl( T(\ba) \bigr)$,
and hence
$\gf_- \bigl( T(\ba) \bigr) \sim \gf_+ \bigl( T(\ba) \bigr)$.
However, if $\ba$ is such that $\ua \ge c$, then
$\gf_- \bigl( T(\ba) \bigr) \not\approx \gf_+ \bigl( T(\ba) \bigr)$
by the Lagrangian Camel Theorem of~\cite{Th-99}.
Therefore, the connectedness requirement cannot be omitted in Theorem~\ref{t:rho}.
The classification of product tori in $\cc^{2n}(c)$ up to
Hamiltonian isotopy may be difficult.
Indeed, there might exist a symplectic embedding
$\gf \colon B^{2n}(b) \to \cc^{2n}(c)$ whose image is so tangled up
in the eye of $\cc^{2n}(c)$ that $\gf \bigl( T(\ba) \bigr)$
is Hamiltonian isotopic to neither of
$\gf_{\pm} \bigl( T(\ba) \bigr)$.
}
\end{example}
\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{t:shift}} \label{s:shift}
\subsection{}
Consider symplectic polar coordinates $(\rho,\theta)$
on $\dot \RR^2 := \RR^2 \setminus \{0\}$
defined by
$$
(x,y) \,=\, \left( \sqrt{\rho/\pi} \cos 2\pi \theta, \sqrt{\rho/\pi} \sin 2\pi \theta \right),
\quad \rho>0,\,\, \theta \in S^1 = \RR/\ZZ.
$$
For $s \in \RR$ and $m \in \ZZ$, define the domain
\begin{equation*} \label{e:dms}
\cd_{m,s} \.=\. \left\{ \.(\rho_1,\theta_1,\rho_2,\theta_2) \mid \rho_2+s > m \rho_1\. \right\}
\.\subset\.\RR^4
\end{equation*}
and the map
$\Psi_{\?\?m,s} \colon \cd_{m,s} \to \RR^4$,
\begin{equation*} \label{e:psims}
\Psi_{\?\?m,s} (\rho_1,\theta_1,\rho_2, \theta_2) \.=\.
( \rho_1, \.\theta_1 + m \theta_2, \.\rho_2 + s - m \rho_1, \theta_2) .
\end{equation*}
The map $\Psi_{\?\?m,s}$ is a smooth symplectic embedding
(for the same reasons as the map $\Psi$ in the proof of Lemma~\ref{l:step1}).
Let $(M,\go)$ be a symplectic manifold,
and let $\gf \colon B^{2n}(b_+) \to (M,\go)$ be a symplectic chart.
We denote by~$0_{2j}$ the origin in~$\RR^{2j}$.
The key step in the proof of Theorem~\ref{t:shift} is the following proposition.
\begin{proposition} \label{p:shear}
Let $k\ge1$, $d_1,\ldots,d_k, b_+ >0$.
Let $S \in \pi_2(M)$ be such that $s:=\gs(S)$ is positive and
$$
d_1+\dots +d_k +s < b_+.
$$
Then there exist a neighbourhood~$U_k$ of the isotropic $k$-torus
$$
T^k_{\mathtt{i}}(d_1,\dots,d_k):=0_{2n-2k-2}\times T(d_1,\ldots,d_{k-\?1})\times 0_2 \times T(d_k)
$$
in the open ball $\Bcirc^{2n}(b_+\?)$
and a Hamiltonian symplectomorphism~$\psi_k$ of $(M,\go)$ such that
$(\psi_k \circ \gf)(U_k) \subset \Bcirc_\gf^{2n}(b_+\?)$
and the map $\psi^\gf_k := \gf^{-1} \circ \psi_k \circ \gf$ coincides with
$\id_{2n-4}\times \Psi_{\?\?m,s} $ on~$U_k$, where $m = c_1(S)$.
\end{proposition}
We will need the following lemma.
\begin{lemma} \label{l:squeeze}
Given positive numbers $d_1, \dots,d_{k-\?1}$,
for each $\eps>0$
there is a Hamiltonian flow $\{\Xi_t\}$, $t\in [0,1]$, on $\RR^{2k}$
such that $\.\.\Xi_1$ maps the torus
$$
T=T(d_1,\dots,d_{k-1})\times 0_{2}
$$
into $\bigl(\Bcirc^{2}(\eps)\bigr)^k$
and $\.\.\Xi_t$ maps $T$ into
$
\Bcirc^2(d_1+\eps)\times\dots \times \Bcirc^2(d_{k-\?1}+\eps)\times \Bcirc^{2}(\eps)$
for all~$t$.
\end{lemma}
\proof
We start with the following
\begin{lemma} \label{l:squeeze'}
Given a positive number $d>0$,
for each $\eps_0>0$
there exist $\delta= \delta(d,\eps_0)>0$ and
a Hamiltonian flow $\{\Xi\.^{d,\eps_0}_t\}$, $t\in [0,1]$, on $\RR^{4}$
with the following properties:
$\Xi\.^{d,\eps_0}_t\?\?$ maps
$ T(d)\times \Bcirc^2(\delta) $
into
$\Bcirc^{2}(d+ \eps_0)\times \Bcirc^{2}(\eps_0)$ for all~$t\in [0,1]$;
$\Xi\.^{d,\eps_0}_1\?\?$ maps
$T(d)\times \Bcirc^2(\delta) $
into $\Bcirc^{2}(\eps_0)\times \Bcirc^{2}(\eps_0)$.
\end{lemma}
\proof
For each $t \in [0,1]$
and for $\ell \in \NN$,
define the map $E_{t,\ell} \colon S^1 \to\CC^2 =\RR^4$ by
$$
E_{t,\ell}(\theta) \,=\,\Bigl(\,\sqrt{(1-t)\.d/\pi} \,\, e^{2\pi i \. \theta},\,
\sqrt{t\.d/(\ell \pi)}\, \,e^{2\pi i \ell\.\theta}
\Bigr).
$$
Then $E_{0,\ell}$ is a diffeomorphism onto~$T(d)\times 0_2$.
For $t <1$, the map $E_{t,\ell}$ is an embedding because its first component is.
The integral over $S^1$ of the $1$-form $E_{t,\ell}^*\lambda$,
where $\lambda=x_1\.dy_1 + x_2\.dy_2$ is a primitive of~$\go_2$,
does not depend on~$t$ because
$$
\int_{S^1} E_{t,\ell}^*\lambda
\,=\,
\int_{S^1} E_{t,\ell}^*(x_1\. dy_1) + \int_{S^1} E_{t,\ell}^*(x_2\. dy_2)
\,=\, (1-t)\.d + t\.d \,=\, d.
$$
It follows that for each $q\in\left]0,1\right[$ there is a Hamiltonian flow
$\{\Phi^{q,\ell}_t\}$, $t\in [0,1]$, such that
$\Phi^{q,\ell}_t (T(d) \times 0_2) =E_{q\. t,\ell}( T(d)\times 0_2)$
for all $t\in [0,1]$.
The absolute value of the first component of the map $E_{t,\ell}$ is
decreasing with respect to~$t$;
the second component of $E_{t,\ell}$ tends uniformly to zero as $\ell \to\infty$.
Therefore, after choosing $\ell$ large enough, we can assume that
the tori $E_{t,\ell}(T(d)\times 0_2)$ are contained in
$B^{2}(d)\times \Bcirc^{2}(\eps_0)$ for all $t\in [0,1]$
and that the torus $E_{1,\ell}(T(d)\times 0_2)$
is contained in~$\Bcirc^{2}(\eps_0)\times \Bcirc^{2}(\eps_0)$.
Then, after choosing $q$ sufficiently close to~$1$, we can achieve that the torus
$E_{{q},\ell}(T(d)\times 0_2) =\Phi^{q,\ell}_1 (T(d)\times 0_2)$ is contained in
$\Bcirc^{2}(\eps_0)\times \Bcirc^{2}(\eps_0)$ as well.
Let $\{\Xi^{\.d,\eps_0}_t=\Phi^{q,\ell}_t\}$.
By continuity, there exists $\delta= \delta (d,\eps_0)>0$ such that
$\Xi\.^{d,\eps_0}_t$ maps $T(d)\times \Bcirc^{2}(\delta)$ into
$\Bcirc^{2}(d+ \eps_0)\times \Bcirc^{2}(\eps_0)$ for all~$t\in [0,1]$, and
$\Xi\.^{d,\eps_0}_1\?\?$ maps
$T(d)\times \Bcirc^2(\delta) $
into $\Bcirc^{2}(\eps_0)\times \Bcirc^{2}(\eps_0)$.
\proofend
\ni
If $k=2$, then Lemma~\ref{l:squeeze} immediately follows from Lemma~\ref{l:squeeze'}.
Otherwise, applying Lemma~\ref{l:squeeze'} $k-1$ times,
we construct positive numbers
$$
\eps_1=\min\bigl(\delta(d_{k-\?1}, \eps),\eps\bigr),
\,\,\eps_2=\min\bigl(\delta(d_{k-\?2}, \eps_1),\eps\bigr),
\,\dots,\,\, \eps_{k-\?1}=\min\bigl(\delta(d_1, \eps_{k-\?2}),\eps\bigr)
$$
and Hamiltonian flows
$\{\Xi\.^{d_{k-\?1},\.\.\eps}_t\},\{\Xi\.^{d_{k-\?2},\.\.\eps_1}_t\},
\dots, \{\Xi\.^{d_1,\.\. \eps_{k-\?2}}_t\}$ with the prescribed properties.
Consider the Hamiltonian flows $\{\Phi^1_t\}, \{\Phi^2_t\}, \dots,\{\Phi^{k-\?1}_t\}$
on $\RR^{2k}$ such that
$$
\Phi^1_t=\id_{2k-4}\times \.\.\Xi\.^{d_{k-\?1},\.\.\eps}_t \?,\,\,
\Phi^2_t=\id_{2k-6}\times \.\.\Xi\.^{d_{k-\?2},\.\.\eps_1}_t\!\?\times \id_{2},\.\dots\.,\.
\Phi^{k-\?1}_t\?\?= \.\.\Xi\.^{d_1,\.\. \eps_{k-\?2}}_t\!\?\times \id_{2k-4} .
$$
For each $j\in\{1, \dots,k-\?1\}$, we have
$$
\Phi^j_t \bigl( T(d_1,\dots,d_{k-j})\?\times \?\?\Bcirc^2(\eps_j) \bigr) \?\times \?\?\bigl(\Bcirc^2(\eps)\bigr)^j \subset
T(d_1,\dots, d_{k-j-\?1})\times \Bcirc^2(d_{k-j}+\eps_{j-\?1})\times \bigl(\Bcirc^2(\eps)\bigr)^j
$$
for all~$t\in [0,1]$,
and
$$
\Phi^j_1 \bigl(T(d_1,\dots,d_{k-j})\?\times \?\?\Bcirc^2(\eps_j) \bigr) \?\times \?\?\bigl(\Bcirc^2(\eps)\bigr)^j \subset
T(d_1,\dots, d_{k-j-\?1})\times \Bcirc^2(\eps_{j-\?1})\times \bigl(\Bcirc^2(\eps)\bigr)^j,
$$
where $\eps_0=\eps$.
Concatenating the flows $\{\Phi^1_t\}, \{\Phi^2_t\}, \dots,\{\Phi^{k-\?1}_t\}$
(and reparametrizing the result to make it smoothly depending on~$t$),
we obtain the required flow~ $\{\Xi_t\}$.
\proofend
\subsection{}{\it Proof of Proposition~\ref{p:shear} for $k=1$.\ }
Denote $\cd=\RR^{2n-4}\times \cd_{m,s}$,
$$
\Psi\,=\,\id_{2n-4}\times \Psi_{\?\?m,s}\colon \cd\to \RR^{2n}.
$$
Let $e_1=d_1+s$.
Consider the maps $f_0,f_1\colon S^1\to \RR^{2n},$
$$
f_0(\zeta)= 0_{2n-2}\times \bigl(\rho=d_1, \.\theta=\zeta\bigr),
\,\,\,\,
f_1(\zeta)= 0_{2n-2}\times \bigl(\rho=e_1, \.\theta=\zeta\bigr).
$$
We have $T^1_{\mathtt{i}}(d_1)=f_0(S^1)$, $T^1_{\mathtt{i}}(e_1)=f_1(S^1)$,
and $\Psi\circ f_0=f_1$.
Let $f^{\gf}_0=\gf\circ f_0$, $f^{\gf}_1=\gf\circ f_1$.
First we prove that there is
$\hat\psi_1\in \Ham(M,\go)$ such that $\hat\psi_1\circ f^{\gf}_0=f^{\gf}_1$.
Denote $Z=[0,1] \times S^1$.
Consider the map $F\colon Z\to \RR^{2n},$
$$
F(v,\zeta)= 0_{2n-2}\times \bigl(\rho=d_1+ v\.s, \.\theta=\zeta\bigr).
$$
We have $f_0= F(0,\cdot\.)$, $f_1= F(1,\cdot\.)$, and
$$
\int_{Z} (\varphi\circ F)^*\omega
\, =
\int_{Z} F^*\omega_n
\, =
\int_{S_1} \!f_1^* (\rho\. d \theta) - \int_{S_1} \!f_0^* (\rho\. d \theta) \,=\, s.
$$
Taking the connected sum of $\varphi\circ F$ with a map $S^2\to M $
representing the class $-S$, we obtain a smooth map
$\widehat F\colon Z\to M$ such that $\widehat F$
coincides with $\varphi\circ F$ at the boundary of $Z$
(that is, $f^{\gf}_0= \widehat F(0,\cdot\.)$, $f^{\gf}_1= \widehat F(1,\cdot\.)$) and
$$
\int_Z \widehat F^*\omega =0.
$$
Then, according to~\cite[Appendix A]{LO}, there exists a Hamiltonian flow
$\{\hat\psi_t\}$ on $(M,\go)$ such that the map
$$
\widetilde F \colon Z\to M, \,\,\,\, (v,\zeta) \mapsto \hat\psi_v (f^{\gf}_0(\zeta))
$$
is homotopic to $\widehat F$ relative to the boundary.
In particular, this implies
$$
\hat\psi_1\circ f^{\gf}_0=f^{\gf}_1=\gf\circ\Psi\circ f_0,
$$
as required.
It follows that
$\gf^{-1}\?\?\circ\hat\psi_1\circ \gf|_{T^1_{\mathtt{i}}(d_1)} =\Psi|_{T^1_{\mathtt{i}}(d_1)}$.
Pick a neighbourhood $W\subset \Bcirc^{2n}(b_+\?)$ of the circle $T^1_{\mathtt{i}}(d_1)$
such that the maps
$\psi_W:= \gf^{-1}\circ\hat\psi_1\circ \gf|_W^{\vphantom1} $
and $\Psi |_W^{\vphantom1} $ are well defined.
We shall prove that there is a Hamiltonian symplectomorphism $\Phi$ with support in $W$
and a neighbourhood
$U_1$ of the circle $T^1_{\mathtt{i}}(d_1)$ in $W$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{e:Phi}
\Phi|_{U_1}^{\vphantom1} \,=\,\psi_W^{-1}\?\?\circ \Psi|_{U_1}^{\vphantom1} .
\end{equation}
Then the symplectomorphism $\psi_1\in \Ham(M,\go)$ that coincides with
$\hat\psi_1\circ \gf\circ\Phi\circ\gf^{-1}$
on $\gf(W)$ and coincides with $\hat\psi_1$ outside $\gf(W)$ will
satisfy $\gf^{-1} \circ \psi_1 \circ \gf|_{U_1}^{\vphantom1} =\Psi|_{U_1}^{\vphantom1}$
as required.
Trivialize the tangent bundle of $\RR^{2n-2}\times\dot \RR^2$ using the symplectic frame
$$
\xi =
\bigl(\partial _{x_1},\partial _{y_1}, \dots,
\partial _{x_{n-\?1}},\partial _{y_{n-\?1}},\partial _{\rho_n},\partial _{\theta_n}
\bigr).
$$
Denote by
$$
\eta_w\colon \RR^{2n}\?\?\to T_w\bigl(\RR^{2n-2}\times\dot \RR^2\bigr),\,\,\,\,
w\in \RR^{2n-2}\?\?\times\dot \RR^2
$$
the corresponding trivialization maps.
Let $\Sp(2n)$ denote the group of linear symplectomorphisms of~$\RR^{2n}$.
Consider the loop
$$
g\colon S^1 \to \Sp(2n), \,\,\,\,
g(\zeta) \,=\,
\eta_{f_0(\zeta)}^{-1}\circ d\.\bigl(\psi_W^{-1}\?\?\circ \Psi \Bigr)
\circ \eta_{f_0(\zeta)}^{\vphantom1}.
$$
Recall that the fundamental group of $\Sp(2n)$ is isomorphic to~$\ZZ$;
this gives rise to a function $\mu$ called the {\it Maslov index\/} assigning
to each continuous map $ S^1 \to \Sp(2n)$ an integer (see~\cite[p.\hskip.1em 48]{MS}).
\begin{lemma} \label{l:maslov}
The Maslov index of $g$ vanishes.
\end{lemma}
\proof
Define the maps $g_0,g_1\colon S^1 \to \Sp(2n)$,
$$
g_0(\zeta) \,=\, \eta_{f_1(\zeta)}^{-1}\circ d \Psi \circ \eta_{f_0(\zeta)}^{\vphantom1},
\,\,\,\,
g_1(\zeta) \,=\, \eta_{f_1(\zeta)}^{-1}\circ d \psi_W \circ \eta_{f_0(\zeta)}^{\vphantom1}.
$$
Since $\mu$ is additive with respect to the multiplication in $\Sp(2n)$~\cite[Theorem~2.29]{MS},
we have $\mu(g)= \mu(g_0)-\mu(g_1)$.
By the definition of~$\Psi$, we have $g_0(\zeta)=\id_{2n-4}\times A_\zeta \times \id_{2}$,
where $A_\zeta$ acts on $\CC=\RR^2$ as complex multiplication by $e^{2\pi i m \zeta}$.
Hence, according to \cite[p.\hskip.1em 49]{MS}, $\mu(g_0)=m$.
In order to compute the Maslov index of $g_1$,
consider the torus $K$ constructed from two copies, $\Sigma_1$ and $\Sigma_2$, of the annulus $Z=[0,1] \times S^1$
by gluing together the respective boundary components.
Define the map $u\colon K\to M$ that coincides with $\varphi\circ F$ on $\Sigma_1$,
and with $\widehat F$ on~$\Sigma_2$.
Orient $K$ by the volume form $dv\wedge d\zeta$ on~$\Sigma_2$.
Then the homology class of $u(K)$ is~$S$.
Consider the symplectic vector bundle $u^*TM$ over~$K$.
Trivialize it over $\Sigma_1$ by means of the frame $\varphi_*\xi$,
and over $\Sigma_2$, at the point $(v,\zeta)$, by means of the frame $(\hat\psi_v\circ\varphi)_*\xi$.
Then it follows from \cite[p.\hskip.1em 75]{MS} that $\mu(g_1)= c_1(u(K))=m$.
Hence $\mu(g)=0$.
\proofend
Denote by $\Sp_1(2n)$ the subgroup of the group $\Sp(2n)$ consisting of the maps sending the
vector $(0,\ldots,0,1)$ to itself.
The loop $g$ takes values in~$\Sp_1(2n)$.
By Lemma~\ref{l:maslov}, $g$ is contractible in~$\Sp(2n)$.
We claim that it is also contractible in~$\Sp_1(2n)$.
Indeed, the inclusion $i\colon\Sp_1(2n)\hookrightarrow \Sp(2n)$ is the fiber of the smooth fibration
$$
\pi\colon \Sp(2n) \to \RR^{2n}\?\?\setminus\?\?\{0\}, \,\,\,\, A \mapsto A (0,\ldots,0,1) .
$$
It follows from the long exact sequence of $\pi$ that $i$ induces an isomorphism of fundamental groups when $n\ge2$.
Thus there is a smooth family of maps $g^t\colon S^1 \to \Sp_1(2n)$, $t\in [0,1]$, such that
$g^0=\id$ and $g^1=g$.
There is a linear isomorphism $I$ from the space of quadratic forms on
$\RR^{2n}$ to the Lie algebra $\mathtt{sp}(2n)$ of the Lie group $\Sp(2n)$
that assigns to a quadratic form $h$ the Hamiltonian vector field generated by~$h$.
The quadratic forms that vanish on the line $\{(0,\ldots,0,{\cdot})\}$
are isomorphically mapped by $I$ to the Lie algebra $\mathtt{sp}_1(2n)$ of~$\Sp_1(2n)$.
From the family $\{g^t\}$ we construct a smooth family of Hamiltonian functions $\{H_t\}$ with support in $W$
such that
$$
\eta_w^{-1}\left(\.d^{\.\.2}\.(H_t)\right)= I^{-1} \?\?\left(\dot g^t(\theta_n)\right)
$$
for all
$w=(x_1,y_1, \dots, x_{n-\?1},y_{n-\?1},\rho_n,\theta_n) \in T^1_{\mathtt{i}}(d_1)$, $t\in[0,1]$.
Then the time 1 flow $\Phi_+$ generated by $\{H_t\}$ fixes each point $w\in T^1_{\mathtt{i}}(d_1)$ and
has the same differential as $\psi_W^{-1}\?\?\circ \Psi$ at~$w$.
The symplectomorphism
$\Upsilon:= \Phi_+^{-1}\?\?\circ\psi_W^{-1}\?\?\circ \Psi$
fixes $T^1_{\mathtt{i}}(d_1)$ pointwise and
satisfies $d\Upsilon(w)=\id$ for all $w\in T^1_{\mathtt{i}}(d_1)$.
We shall prove that
there is a Hamiltonian symplectomorphism $\Phi_1$
with support in $W$ coinciding with $\Upsilon$ near~$T^1_{\mathtt{i}}(d_1)$.
Then
$\Phi= \Phi_+\circ\Phi_1\?$
is as required.
To construct $\Phi_1$, we use generating functions (cf.~\cite[Section~48]{Arnold}, \cite[Appendix~A.1]{HZ}).
Consider the graph $\Gamma\subset\RR^{2n}\?\?\times\RR^{2n}$ of the map~$\Upsilon$.
Denote by $T^{\times}\subset \Gamma$ the circle consisting of the points $(w,w)$, where $w\in T^1_{\mathtt{i}}(d_1)$.
Denote by $p=(p_1,\dots,p_n)$, $q=(q_1,\dots,q_n)$ the symplectic coordinates on the first copy of~$\RR^{2n}$,
and by $p'=(p'_1,\dots,p'_n), q=(q'_1,\dots,q'_n)$ those on the second copy.
By construction, $\Gamma$ is tangent to the diagonal $\Delta\subset \RR^{2n}\?\?\times\RR^{2n}$ along~$T^{\times}$.
Hence there is a tubular neighbourhood~$V$ of $T^{\times}$ in~$\Gamma$ such that
the map
$$
\tau\colon V \to \RR^{2n}, \quad (p,q,p',q') \mapsto (p',q)
$$
is a diffeomorphism onto a neigbourhood $U$ of $T^1_{\mathtt{i}}(d_1)$ in~$W$.
Since $\Upsilon$ is symplectic, $V$ is Lagrangian with respect to the symplectic form
$$
\Omega=-dp\wedge dq + dp'\?\wedge dq' = dq\wedge dp + dp'\?\wedge dq'.
$$
The $1$-forms $\alpha= -p\.dq + p' dq'$, $\alpha'= q\.dp + p' dq'$ satisfy
$d\alpha=d\alpha'=\Omega$ and $\alpha=\alpha'-d(pq)$.
Thus the restrictions of $\alpha$ and $\alpha'$ to~$V$ are closed.
They are exact because the restriction of~$\alpha$ to the diagonal~$\Delta$,
and hence to the circle $T^{\times}\subset V\cap \Delta$, vanishes.
Let $h\colon V\to \RR$ be a primitive of $\alpha'$.
Define $F\colon \tau(V) \to \RR$, $F= h\circ \tau^{-1}$.
Then $F$ is a generating function for~$V$, namely, $V$ is given by the equations
$$
q = \frac{\partial F(p',q)}{\partial p'}, \quad
p' = \frac{\partial F(p',q)}{\partial q}.
$$
Note that $p'q$ is a generating function for~$\Delta$.
Since $\Gamma$ is tangent to~$\Delta$ along~$T^{\times}$,
the functions $F(p',q)$ and $p'q$ have the same respective first and second
partial derivatives at the points of the circle $T^1_{\mathtt{i}}(d_1)=\tau(T^{\times})$.
Thus the function
$f(p',q) := F(p',q)-p'q$ is $C^2$ small near $T^1_{\mathtt{i}}(d_1)$, and
there exists a family of $C^\infty$ smooth functions $f_\delta\colon \RR^{2n}\to \RR$,
defined for sufficiently small positive~$\delta$,
such that the function $f_\delta$ has support in the $\delta$-neighbourhood $W_\delta$ of~$T^1_{\mathtt{i}}(d_1)$,
coincides with $f$ on a smaller neighbourhood of~$T^1_{\mathtt{i}}(d_1)$, and
tends to zero in the $C^2$ topology as $\delta$ tends to zero.
(To explicitly construct such a family, we can proceed as follows.
Pick a family of smooth compactly supported functions $\lambda_\delta \colon \left[ 0,\delta\right [ \to \left[ 0,\delta\right [$
such that $\lambda_\delta$ is identity near~$0$ and its first and second derivatives are bounded uniformly over~$\delta$.
Given $x \in W_\delta$, denote by $x_0$ the point of~$T^1_{\mathtt{i}}(d_1)$ closest to~$x$ and
draw the ray starting at $x_0$ and passing through~$x$.
Let $G_\delta\colon W_\delta\to W_\delta$ be the map
that sends $x$ to the point $y$ such that $y$ lies on this ray and $\mathrm{dist} (y,x_0)
=\lambda_\delta\left( \mathrm{dist} (x,x_0)\right )$.
Define $f_\delta$ to coincide with $f\circ G_\delta$ on~$W_\delta$.)
Denote by $L_\delta^t$ the Lagrangian submanifold
in $\RR^{2n}\?\?\times\RR^{2n}$ defined
by the generating function $p'q + t f_\delta (p',q)$.
Picking $\delta$ sufficiently small, we can assume that each
of the manifolds $L_{\delta}^t$ is sufficiently $C^1$ close to $\Delta$
and hence is a graph of a compactly supported symplectomorphism~$\Phi_t$.
The symplectomorphism $\Phi_1$ is Hamiltonian because
$\Phi_0=\id$ and $H^1(\RR^{2n})=0$.
Making $\delta$ smaller if necessary, we can assume that each $\Phi_t$ has support in~$W$.
Since $p'q + f_\delta (p',q)$ coincides with $F$ near~$T^1_{\mathtt{i}}(d_1)$,
the
symplectomorphisms
$\Phi_1$ and $\Upsilon$ also coincide near~$T^1_{\mathtt{i}}(d_1)$.
Thus $\Phi_1$ is as required, which concludes the proof of Proposition~\ref{p:shear} for $k=1$.
\proofend
\subsection{}{\it Proof of Proposition~\ref{p:shear} for $k>1$.\ }
Applying Proposition~\ref{p:shear} for $k=1$ to the circle
$T^1_{\mathtt{i}}(d_k)$, we obtain a neighbourhood $U_1$ of
$T^1_{\mathtt{i}}(d_k)$ and a Hamiltonian symplectomorphism $\psi_1$
such that $\psi_1^\varphi |_{U_1}^{\vphantom1}= \Psi |_{U_1}^{\vphantom1}$.
We shall construct a neighbourhood $U_k\subset \cd$ of
the torus $T^k_{\mathtt{i}}:=T^k_{\mathtt{i}}(d_1,\dots,d_k)$
and Hamiltonian symplectomorphisms $\Theta,\Theta_{\?\star}$
with support in $\Bcirc^{2n}(b_+\?)$ such that
\[
\Theta(U_k)\subset U_1,\quad \,\,
\Psi \circ \Theta|_{U_k}=\.\.\Theta_{\?\star} \circ \Psi|_{U_k}.
\]
Denote by $\Theta^{\varphi}$ (resp.~$\Theta_{\?\star}^{\varphi}$)
the Hamiltonian symplectomorphism of $(M,\omega)$
that coincides with $\varphi \circ \Theta \circ \varphi^{-1}$
(resp.~$\varphi \circ \Theta_{\?\star} \circ \varphi^{-1}$) on $B^{2n}_\varphi(b_+\?)$
and with the identity elsewhere.
The symplectomorphism
$\psi_k=(\Theta_{\?\star}^{\varphi})^{-1}\circ \psi_1 \circ \Theta^{\varphi}$
will then have the required property since
\[
\varphi^{-1}\circ \psi_k \circ \varphi|_{U_k}^{\vphantom1}
\,=\,
\Theta_{\?\star}^{-1}\circ \psi_1^\varphi \circ \Theta|_{U_k}^{\vphantom1}
\,=\,
\Theta_{\?\star}^{-1}\circ \Psi \circ \Theta|_{U_k}^{\vphantom1}
\,=\,
\Psi|_{U_k}^{\vphantom1}.
\]
It remains to construct $\Theta$ and~$\Theta_{\?\star}$.
Let $\eps>0$.
Applying Lemma~\ref{l:squeeze}, we obtain a Hamiltonian flow $\{\Xi_t\}$
on $\RR^{2n}$ such that $\Xi_1$ maps the torus $T=T(d_1,\dots,d_{k-1})\times 0_{2}$
into $\bigl(\Bcirc^{2}(\eps)\bigr)^k$ and
\begin{equation}\label{e:Xit}
\Xi_t(T)\subset \Bcirc^2(d_1+\eps)\times\dots \times \Bcirc^2(d_{k-\?1}+\eps)\times \Bcirc^{2}(\eps) \,\,\,
\mbox{for all} \, \,\,t\in [0,1].
\end{equation}
Consider the Hamiltonian flow
$$
\left\{\.\mathrm{P\?\?}_{t}=\id_{2n-2k-2}\times \.\.\.\Xi_t\?\?\times \id_{2} \right\}, \,\, t\in [0,1],
$$
on~$\RR^{2n}$.
Let $b'=b_+\?\?\? - s$.
Clearly, the torus $T^k_{\mathtt{i}}$ is contained in $\cd \cap \Bcirc^{2n}(b')$.
We claim that by choosing $\eps$ sufficiently small
we can achieve that $\mathrm{P\?\?}_{t}$ maps $T^k_{\mathtt{i}}$
into $\cd \cap \Bcirc^{2n}(b')$ for all~$t\in [0,1]$,
and that $\mathrm{P\?\?}_{1}$ maps $T^k_{\mathtt{i}}$ into~$U_1$.
Indeed, if $m\.\eps< d_k$, then the set
$$
\Bcirc^{2}(\eps) \times T(d_k)= \left\{\rho_1<\eps,\.\. \rho_2=d_k\right\}
$$
is contained in~$\cd_{m,s}$.
It follows from~(\ref{e:Xit}) that
for all $t$ the torus $\mathrm{P\?\?}_{t}(T^k_{\mathtt{i}})$ is contained in
$\RR^{2n-4}\times \Bcirc^{2}(\eps) \times T(d_k)$, and hence in~$\cd$.
If $d_1+\dots+d_k+k\.\eps<b'$, then it follows from~(\ref{e:Xit}) that
$\mathrm{P\?\?}_{t}(T^k_{\mathtt{i}}) \subset \Bcirc^{2n}(b')$ for all~$t$.
Finally, for $\eps $ such that $0_{2n-2k-2}\times\bigl(\Bcirc^{2}(\eps)\bigr)^k \times T(d_k)$
is a subset of~$U_1$,
we have $\mathrm{P\?\?}_{1}(T^k_{\mathtt{i}}) \subset U_1$.
It follows from the definition of the map $\Psi$ that
$\Psi(\mathrm{P\?\?}_{t}(T^k_{\mathtt{i}}))$ is contained in
$\Bcirc^{2n}(b_+\?)$ for all $t\in [0,1]$.
Therefore, there is an open set $W\subset \cd \cap \Bcirc^{2n}(b')$
that contains all the tori $\Psi(\mathrm{P\?\?}_{t}(T^k_{\mathtt{i}}))$
and satisfies $\Psi(W) \subset \Bcirc^{2n}(b_+\?)$.
Then there exists a neighbourhood $U_k$ of the torus $T^k_{\mathtt{i}}$
such that $\mathrm{P\?\?}_{t}(U_k)\subset W$ for all~$t$,
and $\mathrm{P\?\?}_{1}(U_k)\subset U_1$.
Applying to $\{\mathrm{P\?\?}_t\}$ an appropriate cut-off,
we construct a Hamiltonian flow $\{\mathrm{P}'_{\?\?t}\}$, $t\in [0,1]$,
with support in $W$ such that
$\mathrm{P}'_{\?\?t}\.|_{U_k}^{\vphantom1}=\mathrm{P\?\?}_t\.|_{U_k}^{\vphantom1}$
for all~$t$ and $\mathrm{P}'_{\?\?1}(U_k)\subset U_1$.
Define the Hamiltonian flow
$\{\mathrm{P}^\star_{\?\?t}\}$, $t\in [0,1]$,
with support in $\Psi(W)\subset \Bcirc^{2n}(b_+\?)$
by $\mathrm{P}^\star_{\?\?t}= \Psi\circ \mathrm{P}'_{\?\?1} \circ \Psi^{-1}.$
Then $\Theta= \mathrm{P}'_{\?\?1}$ and~$\Theta_{\?\star}=\mathrm{P}^\star_{\?\?1}$
are as required.
\proofend
\subsection{}{\it Proof of Theorem~\ref{t:shift}.}
It suffices to prove the theorem
under the additional assumption that $d_j=e_j$ for $j<k$.
Indeed, in view of Theorem~\ref{t:t1}~(i), the claim will then also hold for vectors
that differ at only one component; after that the general case follows
by changing one component at a time.
We extend the symplectic chart~$\gf$ from $B^{2n}(b)$ to a larger ball $B^{2n}(b_+)$
with $b_+\?\?>b$, and keep the letter~$\gf$ for this extension.
For $\bd'=(d'_1,\dots,d'_k)$, we abbreviate
$T_\varphi (a,\dots,a,a+d'_1,\dots,a+d'_k)$ to $ T_{\varphi\?,a}(\bd')$.
Given $\tau\in \bigl[0,\min(c,b_+\?\?-b)\bigr[$,
denote by $\cv_\tau$ the subset of $\RR^k$ formed by vectors $(d_1,\dots,d_k)$
such that $d_1+\dots +d_k \le b+\tau$ and $d_j\ge c-\tau$ for all $j\in\{1,\dots,k\}$.
Pick $\delta\in \bigl ]0,\min(c,b_+\?\?-b)\bigr[$.
Recall that $\gs_a(S)=\gs(S) - c_1(S) a$.
\begin{lemma} \label{l:shift}
Let $S \in \pi_2(M)$.
There exists $A_S>0$
such that for each $a\in\left]\.0,A_S\right]$
and for each pair of vectors
$$
\bd=\left(d_1,\dots,d_{k-\?1},d_k\right), \,\,\,\,
\bd_S=\left(d_1,\dots,d_{k-\?1},d_k+\gs_a(S)\.\right)
$$
belonging to $\cv_\delta$, we have
$T_{\varphi,a}(\bd)\approx T_{\varphi,a}(\bd_S)$.
\end{lemma}
\proof
Denote $s=\sigma(S)$, $m=c_1(S)$.
Assume first that $s\ge0$.
It follows from Proposition~\ref{p:shear}
and the definition of the map $\Psi_{\?\?m,s}$
that for each $\bd\in\cv_\delta$ there exist
a neighbourhood~$U$ of the isotropic $k$-torus
$T^k_{\mathtt{i}}(\bd)$ in $\Bcirc^{2n}(b_+)$
and a map $\psi\in \Ham(M,\go)$ such that
for every torus $T(a_1,\dots,a_n)$ contained in $U$
we have
$$
\psi \bigl( T_\varphi (a_1,\dots, a_{n-\?1},a_n) \bigr)\.=\.
T_\varphi(a_1,\dots, a_{n-\?1},a_n + s - m\.a_{n-\?1}).
$$
Therefore, by Theorem~\ref{t:t1}~(i), for each $\bd\in\cv_\delta$ there are
a positive number $A_{S\?,\.\bd}$ and a neighbourhood
$W_{S\?,\.\bd}$ of $\bd$ in $\cv_\delta$
such that for each $\bd'\in W_{S\?,\.\bd}$ and each $a\in\left]\.0,A_{S\?,\.\bd}\right]$
we have $T_{\varphi,a}(\bd')\approx T_{\varphi,a}(\bd'_S)$.
Since $\cv_\delta$ is compact, there are $\bd^{(1)},\dots, \bd^{(l)}\in \cv_\delta$
such that the sets $W_{S\?,\.\bd^{(j)}}$ cover $\cv_\delta$.
Let $A_S$ be the smallest of the numbers $A_{S\?,\.\bd^{(j)}}$.
Then $T_{\varphi,a}(\bd)\approx T_{\varphi,a}(\bd_S)$
for each $\bd\in \cv_\delta$ and each $a\in\left]\.0,A_S\right]$.
In particular, $T_{\varphi,a}(\bd)\approx T_{\varphi,a}(\bd_S)$
for each $a\in\left]\.0,A_S\right]$ when $\bd,\bd_S\in \cv_\delta$.
The latter statement is invariant under changing the sign of~$S$,
and therefore we can drop the assumption that $s\ge0$.
\proofend
\m
Assume first that $(M,\go)$ is not special.
Let $S_1, \dots, S_r$ be elements of $\pi_2(M)$
such that their classes form the basis of the free Abelian group
$\pi_2(M)/ \bigl( \ker \gs \cap \ker c_1 \bigr)$.
We can assume that $r\ge1$,
otherwise there is nothing to prove.
Consider the free Abelian group $\sigma\left(\pi_2(M)\right)$.
If it is trivial, then $r=1$.
If its rank is $1$, then $r=1$ (otherwise $(M,\go)$ would be special).
If the rank of this group is greater than~$1$,
then $r\ge 2$ and we can choose $S_1, \dots, S_r$ such that for all $j\in\{1,\dots,r\}$
the numbers $ s_j=\sigma(S_j)$ satisfy the inequality~$|s_j|<\delta$.
Denote $m_j=c_1(S_j)$.
Pick $A>0$ such that for all $j\in\{1,\dots,r\}$ we have
\begin{equation*} \label{e:A}
A \le A_{S_j}, \,\,\,\, | s_j-m_j A | < \delta .
\end{equation*}
If $(M,\go)$ is special, we set $r=1$, $S_1=S_0$ (or $S_1=-S_0$), and $A=A_{S_1}$.
Let $a\in\left]\.0,A\right]$.
Let
$$
\bd=\left(d_1,\dots,d_{k-\?1},d_k\right), \,\,\,\,
\be=\left(d_1,\dots,d_{k-\?1},e_k\right)
$$
be vectors in $\cv_\delta$.
We assume that the difference $d_k-e_k$
is an element of $G_a=\gs_a(\pi_2(M))$ if $(M,\go)$ is not special,
and an element of $G_a(S_0)=\gs_a(\langle S_0\rangle)$) if $(M,\go)$ is special.
Hence there are $n_1,\dots,n_r\in \ZZ$ such that
$$
e_k-d_k\,=\, \sum_{j=1}^r n_j\.\gs_a(S_j)\,=\, \sum_{j=1}^r n_j\.(s_j-m_j a).
$$
After changing the signs of $S_j$ if necessary, we can assume that all
coefficients $n_j$ are nonnegative.
We need to prove that $T_{\varphi,a}(\bd)\approx T_{\varphi,a}(\be)$.
Let $u_1,\dots,u_N$ be a sequence of numbers such that for each
$j\in\{1,\dots,r\}$ exactly $n_j$ of them equal $s_j-m_j a$.
It gives rise to the sequence $q_0,q_1,\dots,q_N$,
where $q_0=d_k$, $q_l=d_k+\sum_{i=1}^l u_i$ for all $l\in\{1,\dots,N\}$
(and hence $q_N=e_k$).
Without loss of generality, we can assume that $d_k<e_k$.
If
\begin{equation} \label{e:int}
\ q_l\in[\.d_k-\delta, e_k +\delta\.] \,\,\,
\mbox{for all} \,\,\, l\in\{1,\dots,N\} ,
\end{equation}
then each of the vectors $\bq_l=(d_1,\dots,d_{k-\?1},q_l)$
belongs to~$\cv_\delta$.
Since $a\le A_{S_j}$ for all $j$, it then follows from Lemma~\ref{l:shift} that
\begin{equation*}
T_{\varphi,a}(\bd) =T_{\varphi,a}(\bq_0) \approx T_{\varphi,a}(\bq_1)\approx
\dots
\approx T_{\varphi,a}(\bq_{N-1}) \approx T_{\varphi,a}(\bq_N) = T_{\varphi,a}(\be).
\end{equation*}
It remains to show that the sequence $u_1,\dots,u_N$
can be chosen to satisfy~(\ref{e:int}).
For $r=1$, there is no choice involved in the construction of the sequence,
and all $q_l$ belong to $[\.d_k, e_k ]$.
Let $r>1$.
Then $|s_j-m_j a|<\delta$ for all $j$ since $|s_j|<\delta$ and $|s_j-m_j A|<\delta$.
We choose the numbers $u_l$ in succession,
using the following rule: if $q_{l-1}>e_k$, then $u_l<0$,
and if $q_{l-1}<d_k$, then $u_l>0$.
Then (\ref{e:int}) will hold true.
This completes the proof of Theorem~\ref{t:shift}
\proofend
|
\section{Introduction}
Distributed localization of sensor networks is a core problem in many multi-agent coordination tasks.
\emph{Network localizability} and \emph{distributed protocols} are two fundamental problems for any network localization problems.
Network localizability characterizes whether or not a network can be possibly localized given the anchor locations and inter-neighbor relative measurements, whereas distributed protocols are used for localizing the network in a distributed manner if the network is localizable.
According to the types of the relative measurements used for localization, the existing works can be divided into three classes: distance-based, bearing-based, and position-based.
Distance-based network localization has been studied extensively so far (see \cite{AspnesTMC2006,Mao2007NetworkLocalization,Khan2009TSP,LinZhiyun2014TSP} and the references therein).
The analysis of the localizability in distance-based network localization relies heavily on the distance rigidity theory. It has been shown that a network in an $n$-dimensional space can be uniquely localized if the network is globally rigid and has at least $n+1$ anchors in a general position \cite{AspnesTMC2006}.
More recently, bearing-based network localization has also attracted extensive research attention \cite{BishopTAES2009,Niculescu2003AOA,ErenTurkishJournal2007,Piovan2013Automatica,Shames2013TAC,ZhuGuangwei2014Automatica,LinZhiyun2014ICCA}.
The analysis of the localizability in bearing-based network localization relies on the analogous bearing rigidity theory \cite{bishopconf2011rigid,Eren2012IJC,zelazo2014SE2Rigidity,zhao2014TACBearing}.
Finally, position-based network localization, where the inter-neighbor distance and local bearing measurements are used together for network localization, has been studied in \cite{LinZhiyun2015TSP} by using a complex graph Laplacian.
Although bearing-based network localization has been studied by many researchers, the two fundamental problems, network localizability and distributed protocols, have not yet been fully explored.
It was shown in \cite{ErenTurkishJournal2007,Piovan2013Automatica,Shames2013TAC,ZhuGuangwei2014Automatica} that a network is localizable when the network is bearing rigid and has at least two anchors.
This condition is, however, sufficient but not necessary when the number of anchors is greater than two \cite[Cor~10]{ZhuGuangwei2014Automatica}.
A necessary and sufficient condition for network localizability was proposed in \cite[Thm~15]{ZhuGuangwei2014Automatica} based on the notion of a stiffness matrix.
This condition is, however, applicable only to networks in two-dimensional spaces.
In fact, the localizability of a network is jointly determined by many factors such as its topological and Euclidean structure, as well as the selection of the anchors.
The relationship between the localizability and these factors have not been fully understood yet up to now.
Moreover, the existing bearing-based localization protocols are mainly applicable to networks in two-dimensional ambient spaces \cite{ErenTurkishJournal2007,Piovan2013Automatica,Shames2013TAC,ZhuGuangwei2014Automatica}.
General results of localizability or distributed protocols for bearing-based network localization in three and higher dimensional spaces are still lacking.
This paper studies the localizability and distributed protocols for bearing-based network localization in arbitrary dimensional spaces.
It is assumed that the anchors' locations and inter-neighbor bearings measured in a global reference frame are already given.
The main contributions of this work are summarized below.
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item We first show that the bearing-based network localization problem can be formulated as a linear least-squares optimization problem.
A special matrix termed the \emph{bearing Laplacian}, which can be viewed as a matrix-weighted graph Laplacian, emerges as a key part in the least-squares formulation and plays important roles in the subsequent analysis.
\item Based on the least-squares formulation, we propose necessary and sufficient conditions for network localizability with both algebraic and rigidity theoretic interpretations.
These conditions not only provide numerical ways to examine the localizability of a given network but also provide intuitions on what a localizable network looks like.
\item We then propose a distributed linear localization protocol.
It is proved that the protocol can globally localize a network if and only if the network is localizable.
The sensitivity of the protocol to constant measurement errors is also analyzed.
\end{enumerate}
Finally, it is worth noting that the localizability analysis presented in this paper is independent to whether the sensing graph is directed or undirected. The convergence analysis of the proposed localization protocol, however, relies on the assumption of undirected sensing graphs. The convergence analysis of the protocol in the directed case is considered in \cite{zhao2015CDC}.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows.
Section~\ref{section_problemStatement} presents the linear least-squares formulation of the bearing-based network localization problem.
Section~\ref{section_propertiesOfBearingLaplacian} analyzes the properties of the bearing Laplacian and its connection to the bearing rigidity theory.
Section~\ref{section_localizabilityAnalysis} presents necessary and sufficient conditions for network localizability.
Section~\ref{section_distributedProtocol} proposes and analyzes a linear distributed localization protocol.
Conclusions are drawn in Section~\ref{section_conclusion}.
\paragraph*{Notations:} Given $A_i\in\mathbb{R}^{p\times q}$ for $i=1,\dots,n$, denote $ \mathrm{diag}(A_i)\triangleq\mathrm{blkdiag}\{A_1,\dots,A_n\}\in\mathbb{R}^{np\times nq}$.
Let $\|\cdot\|$ be the Euclidian norm of a vector or the spectral norm of a matrix, and $\otimes$ be the Kronecker product.
Denote $I_d\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times d}$ as the identity matrix, and $\mathbf{1}_d\triangleq[1,\dots,1]^\mathrm{T}\in\mathbb{R}^d$.
Let $\mathrm{Null}(\cdot)$ and $\mathrm{Range}(\cdot)$ be the null space and range space of a matrix, respectively.
\section{Problem Formulation of Bearing-Based Network Localization}
\label{section_problemStatement}
In this section, the problem of bearing-based network localization is formally stated and then formulated as a linear least-squares problem.
Central to this problem is the notion of localizability, which is formally defined here.
\subsection{Problem Statement}
Consider a network of $n$ stationary nodes in $\mathbb{R}^d$ ($n\ge2$ and $d\ge2$).
Assume no two nodes are collocated.
Let $p_i \in \mathbb{R}^d$ be the location of node $i$ ($i=1,\dots,n$).
Define the \emph{edge vector} and the \emph{bearing} between nodes $i$ and $j$ as
\begin{align*}
e_{ij}\triangleq p_j-p_i, \quad g_{ij}\triangleq \frac{e_{ij}}{\|e_{ij}\|}.
\end{align*}
The unit vector $g_{ij}$ represents the relative bearing of $p_j$ with respect to $p_i$.
Note $e_{ij}=-e_{ji}$ and $g_{ij}=-g_{ji}$.
Suppose the locations of $n_a$ \emph{anchor} nodes are already given and the locations of the remaining $n_f$ \emph{follower} nodes are to be estimated ($n_a+n_f=n$).
Denote $\mathcal{V}_a=\{1,\dots,n_a\}$, $\mathcal{V}_f=\{n_a+1,\dots,n\}$, and $\mathcal{V}=\mathcal{V}_a\cup\mathcal{V}_f$.
Denote $p_a=[p_1^\mathrm{T} ,\dots,p_{n_a}^\mathrm{T}]^\mathrm{T}\in\mathbb{R}^{dn_a}$, $p_f=[p_{n_a+1}^\mathrm{T} ,\dots,p_{n}^\mathrm{T} ]^\mathrm{T}\in\mathbb{R}^{dn_f}$, and $p=[p_a^\mathrm{T} ,p_f^\mathrm{T}]^\mathrm{T}\in\mathbb{R}^{dn}$.
Suppose each node has the bearing-only sensing capabilities.
The sensing topology of the network defines a graph $\mathcal{G}=(\mathcal{V},\mathcal{E})$ where $\mathcal{E}\subset\mathcal{V} \times \mathcal{V}$.
Denote $(i,j)$ as the directed edge with node $i$ as the tail and node $j$ as the head.
The directed edge $(i,j)\in\mathcal{E}$ indicates that node $i$ can ``see'' node $j$; that is node $i$ can measure the relative bearings $g_{ij}$ of node $j$.
Node $j$ is called the neighbor of node $i$ if $(i,j)\in\mathcal{E}$, and $\mathcal{N}_i\triangleq\{j \in \mathcal{V}| (i,j)\in \mathcal{E}\}$ is the neighbourhood of node $i$.
We assume a {global orientation} that can be sensed by all the nodes, and thus all measured bearings can be expressed with respect to this common orientation.
The global orientation means a common north for the two-dimensional space, and a common north-east-down reference for the three-dimensional space.
Finally, let $\mathcal{G}(p)$ denote the network that is the graph $\mathcal{G}$ with each vertex $i \in \mathcal{V}$ mapped to the point $p_i$.
The problem of bearing-based network localization is formally stated below.
\begin{problem}[Bearing-Based Network Localization]\label{problem_bearingbasednetworkLocalization}
Consider a network $\mathcal{G}(p)$ in $\mathbb{R}^d$, the bearing-based network localization problem is to determine the locations of the follower nodes, $\{p_i\}_{i \in \mathcal{V}_f}$, given the inter-neighbor bearings, $\{g_{ij}\}_{(i,j)\in\mathcal{E}}$, and the locations of the anchor nodes, $\{p_i\}_{i\in\mathcal{V}_a}$.
Mathematically, the problem is to retrieve the true network location $p$ by solving the system of nonlinear equations,
\begin{align}\label{eq_networkLocalization_nonlinearConstraint}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{\frac{\hat{p}_j-\hat{p}_i}{\|\hat{p}_j-\hat{p}_i\|}=g_{ij}}, & \forall (i,j)\in\mathcal{E}, \\
\hat{p}_i=p_i, & \forall i\in\mathcal{V}_a, \\
\end{array}
\right.
\end{align}
where $\hat{p}_i$ is the estimated location of node $i$.
\end{problem}
The true network location is always a solution to the nonlinear equations in \eqref{eq_networkLocalization_nonlinearConstraint}, but the nonlinear equations may admit many other solutions that do not correspond to the true network location.
Thus we need to study when the true network location is the \emph{unique} solution to \eqref{eq_networkLocalization_nonlinearConstraint}, which motivates the following notion.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\def0.4{0.45}
\include{figure_tikz_equivNotCongru}
\caption{An illustration of the notion of localizability.
Black dots represent the anchors and white dots for the followers.
Suppose the true network is (a).
The networks in (a) and (b) both satisfy the nonlinear equations in \eqref{eq_networkLocalization_nonlinearConstraint}.
The networks in (a), (b), and (c) all satisfy the linear equations in \eqref{eq_networkLocalization_linearConstraint}.}
\label{fig_example_illustrateLocalizability}
\end{figure}
\begin{definition}[Bearing-Based Network Localizability]\label{definition_networkLocalizability}
A network $\mathcal{G}(p)$ is called \emph{bearing-based localizable} if the true network location $p$ is the unique solution to \eqref{eq_networkLocalization_nonlinearConstraint}.
\end{definition}
Localizability is a fundamental property of bearing-based networks.
A network must be localizable in order to be localized with either distributed or centralized protocols.
The notion of localizability is illustrated by an example in Figure~\ref{fig_example_illustrateLocalizability}.
In this example, the network in Figure~\ref{fig_example_illustrateLocalizability}(a) is the true network.
The network in Figure~\ref{fig_example_illustrateLocalizability}(b) has the same bearings and anchor locations as the true network.
As a result, both of the networks in Figure~\ref{fig_example_illustrateLocalizability}(a)-(b) are solutions to \eqref{eq_networkLocalization_nonlinearConstraint} and hence the networks are \emph{not} localizable by Definition~\ref{definition_networkLocalizability}.
For the sake of simplicity, we assume that the graph $\mathcal{G}$ is \emph{undirected}, which means $(i,j)\in\mathcal{E}\Leftrightarrow (j,i)\in\mathcal{E}$.
If the graph is directed, suppose $(i,j)\in\mathcal{E}$ but $(j,i)\notin\mathcal{E}$.
We can always add the edge $(j,i)$ into $\mathcal{E}$ to convert the directed graph to an undirected one.
The directed edges $(i,j)$ and $(j,i)$ imply two equations ${(\hat{p}_j-\hat{p}_i)}/{\|\hat{p}_j-\hat{p}_i\|}=g_{ij}$ and ${(\hat{p}_i-\hat{p}_j)}/{\|\hat{p}_i-\hat{p}_j\|}=g_{ji}$, respectively.
The two equations are equivalent because $g_{ji}=-g_{ij}$.
As a result, adding the edge $(j,i)$ does not affect the solutions to \eqref{eq_networkLocalization_nonlinearConstraint}.
\subsection{Reformulation as a Least-Squares Problem}
In order solve the nonlinear equations in \eqref{eq_networkLocalization_nonlinearConstraint}, we derive a companion system of linear equations.
In this direction, we first introduce a useful orthogonal projection operator.
For any nonzero vector $x\in\mathbb{R}^d$ ($d\ge2$), define the orthogonal projection operator $P: \mathbb{R}^d\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{d\times d}$ as
\begin{align*}
P(x) \triangleq I_d - \frac{x}{\|x\|}\frac{x^\mathrm{T} }{\|x\|}.
\end{align*}
For notational simplicity, denote $P_x \triangleq P(x)$.
The matrix $P_x$ geometrically projects any vector onto the orthogonal compliment of $x$.
It can be easily verified that $P_x^\mathrm{T} =P_x$, $P_x^2=P_x$, $\mathrm{Null}(P_x)=\myspan{x}$, and the eigenvalues of $P_x$ are $\{0,1^{(d-1)}\}$.
Consider now the projection matrix, $P_{g_{ij}}= I_d-g_{ij}g_{ij}^\mathrm{T}$, associated with the bearing $g_{ij}$. By multiplying $P_{g_{ij}}$ on both sides of the first equation in \eqref{eq_networkLocalization_nonlinearConstraint}, the nonlinear algebraic problem \eqref{eq_networkLocalization_nonlinearConstraint} is converted to a system of linear equations,
\begin{align}\label{eq_networkLocalization_linearConstraint}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
P_{g_{ij}}(\hat{p}_j-\hat{p}_i)=0, & \forall (i,j)\in\mathcal{E}, \\
\hat{p}_i=p_i, & \forall i\in\mathcal{V}_a. \\
\end{array}
\right.
\end{align}
System \eqref{eq_networkLocalization_linearConstraint} is {not} equivalent to system \eqref{eq_networkLocalization_nonlinearConstraint} in general.
But we have the exact relation between \eqref{eq_networkLocalization_nonlinearConstraint} and \eqref{eq_networkLocalization_linearConstraint} as described in the following lemma.
\newcommand{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma_nonlinearLinearConstraintsEquivalent}
Let $\mathcal{X}_1$ and $\mathcal{X}_2$ denote the set of all solutions satisfying \eqref{eq_networkLocalization_nonlinearConstraint} and \eqref{eq_networkLocalization_linearConstraint}, respectively. Then
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item $\{p\}\subseteq\mathcal{X}_1 \subseteq \mathcal{X}_2$;
\item $\{p\}=\mathcal{X}_1$ if and only if $\{p\}=\mathcal{X}_2$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{pf}
(a)~Since the true network location $p$ is always a solution to \eqref{eq_networkLocalization_nonlinearConstraint} and \eqref{eq_networkLocalization_linearConstraint}, we know $\mathcal{X}_1$ and $\mathcal{X}_2$ are nonempty and $\{p\}\subseteq\mathcal{X}_1$ and $\{p\} \subseteq \mathcal{X}_2$.
Since \eqref{eq_networkLocalization_linearConstraint} is obtained by multiplying \eqref{eq_networkLocalization_nonlinearConstraint} by $P_{g_{ij}}$, we know any solution to \eqref{eq_networkLocalization_nonlinearConstraint} is also a solution to \eqref{eq_networkLocalization_linearConstraint}, showing $\mathcal{X}_1\subseteq \mathcal{X}_2$.
(b)~(\emph{Sufficiency}) Suppose $\{p\}=\mathcal{X}_2$.
It then follows from $\{p\}\subseteq\mathcal{X}_1 \subseteq \mathcal{X}_2$ that $\{p\}=\mathcal{X}_1$.
(\emph{Necessity})
Suppose $\{p\}=\mathcal{X}_1$.
We next prove $\{p\}=\mathcal{X}_2$ by contradiction.
Assume $p'\in\mathcal{X}_2$ and $p'\ne p$.
Let $\delta p\triangleq p'-p$ and define
\begin{align}\label{eq_definitionp''}
p''\triangleq p+k\delta p, \quad k\in\mathbb{R}.
\end{align}
We next show that $p''\in\mathcal{X}_1$ when $|k|$ is sufficiently small, leading to a contradiction.
Since $p, p'\in\mathcal{X}_2$, we know $p''\in\mathcal{X}_2$ for all $k\in\mathbb{R}$ by \eqref{eq_definitionp''}.
As a result, for any $k\in\mathbb{R}$ and $(i,j)\in\mathcal{E}$, we have $P_{{g}_{ij}}(p''_j-p''_i)=0$ which implies either $(p''_j-p''_i)/\|p''_j-p''_i\|=g_{ij}$ or $(p''_j-p''_i)/\|p''_j-p''_i\|=-g_{ij}$.
Since $p''_j-p''_i=(p_j-p_i)+k(\delta p_j-\delta p_i)$ according to \eqref{eq_definitionp''}, it is obvious that when $|k|$ is sufficiently small, the entries of $p''_j-p''_i$ have the same signs as those of $p_j-p_i$, and consequently $(p''_j-p''_i)/\|p''_j-p''_i\|=(p_j-p_i)/\|p_j-p_i\|=g_{ij}$.
Note that when any entry of $p_j-p_i$ is zero, the corresponding entry of $\delta p_j-\delta p_i$ is also zero because $\delta p_i-\delta p_j$ is parallel to $p_j-p_i$.
To conclude, $p''$ is another solution other than $p$ satisfying \eqref{eq_networkLocalization_nonlinearConstraint}, which is a contradiction.
\qed\end{pf}
\begin{remark}
The proof of Lemma~\ref{lemma_nonlinearLinearConstraintsEquivalent}(b) can be illustrated by Figure~\ref{fig_example_illustrateLocalizability}, where the networks (a), (b), and (c) correspond to $p$, $p''$, and $p'$ in the proof, respectively.
\end{remark}
Lemma~\ref{lemma_nonlinearLinearConstraintsEquivalent} indicates that the true network location $p$ is the unique solution to \eqref{eq_networkLocalization_nonlinearConstraint} if and only if $p$ is the unique solution to \eqref{eq_networkLocalization_linearConstraint}.
Thus we can study the localizability by analyzing the linear system \eqref{eq_networkLocalization_linearConstraint}.
The linear system of equations in \eqref{eq_networkLocalization_linearConstraint} can be rewritten as the following linear least-squares problem,
\begin{align}\label{eq_networkLocalizationLSOptimization}
\underset{\hat{p}\in\mathbb{R}^{dn}}{\text{minimize}} & \qquad J(\hat{p})=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i\in\mathcal{V}}\sum_{j\in\mathcal{N}_i}\|P_{g_{ij}}(\hat{p}_i-\hat{p}_j)\|^2, \\
\text{subject to} &\qquad \hat{p}_i=p_i, \quad i\in\mathcal{V}_a.\nonumber
\end{align}
Since any minimizer with the objective function as zero is the solution to \eqref{eq_networkLocalization_linearConstraint}, we now successfully formulate the localizability problem as the above least-squares problem.
The rest of the paper is dedicated to studying two properties of the least-squares problem.
The first is to determine when the true location $p$ is the unique global minimizer of \eqref{eq_networkLocalizationLSOptimization} (i.e., the network is localizable), and the second is how to obtain $p$ in a distributed manner.
\section{The Bearing Laplacian Matrix}\label{section_propertiesOfBearingLaplacian}
In this section, we show that a new important matrix, termed \emph{bearing Laplacian}, emerges in the least-squares formulation.
The useful properties of the bearing Laplacian that will be used throughout the paper are explored.
Since the underlying graph $\mathcal{G}$ is undirected, the objective function in \eqref{eq_networkLocalizationLSOptimization} can be expressed in a quadratic form,
\begin{align*}
J(\hat{p})
=\hat{p}^\mathrm{T} \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{G}(p)) \hat{p},
\end{align*}
where $\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{G}(p))\in\mathbb{R}^{dn\times dn}$ and its $ij$th subblock matrix is
\begin{align*
[\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{G}(p))]_{ij}=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\mathbf{0}_{d\times d}, & i\ne j, (i,j)\notin\mathcal{E}, \\
-P_{g_{ij}}, & i\ne j, (i,j)\in\mathcal{E}, \\
\sum_{k\in\mathcal{N}_i}P_{g_{ik}}, & i=j, i\in\mathcal{V}. \\
\end{array}
\right.
\end{align*}
For notational simplicity, we write $\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{G}(p))$ as $\mathcal{B}$ in the sequel.
The matrix $\mathcal{B}$ has a structure reminiscent of the weighted graph Laplacian matrix.
Since $\mathcal{B}$ indicates not only the topology of the network but also the inter-neighbor bearings, it is referred to as \emph{bearing Laplacian} in this paper.
The bearing Laplacian has an intimate connection to the \emph{bearing rigidity} properties of the network.
Preliminaries to the bearing rigidity theory, originally proposed in \cite{zhao2014TACBearing}, are given in Appendix~\ref{appendix_preliminaryBearingRigidity}.
Here we would like to highlight two important notions from this theory.
The first is the notion of \emph{infinitesimal bearing motions}.
Loosely speaking, infinitesimal bearing motions are motions of the nodes that preserve inter-neighbor bearings.
For example, for the network in Figure~\ref{fig_example_illustrateLocalizability}(a), the bearings can be preserved when the nodes 3 and 4 move in the horizontal direction to the right.
A network always has two kinds of \emph{trivial} infinitesimal bearing motions - they are the translational and scaling motions of the entire network.
A network is \emph{infinitesimally bearing rigid} if all its infinitesimal bearing motions are trivial.
One important property of an infinitesimally bearing rigid network is that its shape can be uniquely determined by the inter-neighbor bearings.
We next give the basic properties of the bearing Laplacian matrix.
We also show that the bearing Laplacian matrix is a powerful tool for characterizing the bearing rigidity of a network.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma_NetworkLaplacian_nullspace}
For a network $\mathcal{G}(p)$ with undirected graph $\mathcal{G}$, the bearing Laplacian $\mathcal{B}$ satisfies the following:
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item $\mathcal{B}$ is symmetric positive semi-definite;
\item $\mathrm{Rank}(\mathcal{B})\le dn-d-1$ and $\mathrm{Null}(\mathcal{B})\supseteq\myspan{\mathbf{1}\otimes I_d, p}$;
\item $\mathrm{Rank}(\mathcal{B})=dn-d-1$ and $\mathrm{Null}(\mathcal{B})=\myspan{\mathbf{1}\otimes I_d, p}$ if and only if $\mathcal{G}(p)$ is infinitesimally bearing rigid.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{pf}
Assign an arbitrary orientation to each undirected edge and label the edge vectors and bearings for the directed edges as $\{e_{k}\}_{k=1}^m$ and $\{g_{k}\}_{k=1}^m$, respectively.
Then the bearing Laplacian $\mathcal{B}$ can be expressed as $\mathcal{B}=\bar{H}^\mathrm{T} \mathrm{diag}(P_{g_k})\bar{H}$ where $\bar{H}=H\otimes I_d$ and $H$ is the incidence matrix of the graph.\footnote{The incidence matrix $H \in \mathbb{R}^{m\times n}$ of an oriented graph is the $\{0,\pm 1\}$-matrix with $[H]_{ki}=1$ if vertex $i$ is the head of edge $k$, $[H]_{ki}=-1$ if it is the tail, and $0$ otherwise.}
It further follows from $P_{g_k}=P_{g_k}^\mathrm{T} P_{g_k}$ that
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{B}=\underbrace{\bar{H}^\mathrm{T} \mathrm{diag}{(P_{g_k}^\mathrm{T} )}}_{\mathcal{R}^\mathrm{T} }\underbrace{\mathrm{diag}{(P_{g_k})}\bar{H}}_{\mathcal{R}}
=\mathcal{R}^\mathrm{T} \mathcal{R}.
\end{align*}
Note $\mathcal{R}=\dia{\|e_k\|I_d}R_B$ where $R_B$ is the bearing rigidity matrix (see Lemma~\ref{lemma_bearingRigidityMatrixRank} in Appendix~\ref{appendix_preliminaryBearingRigidity}).
As a result, the matrix $\mathcal{R}$, and hence $\mathcal{B}$, have exactly the same rank and null space as $R_B$.
Then the results in (b) and (c) follows immediately from Lemma~\ref{lemma_bearingRigidityMatrixRank} and Theorem~\ref{theorem_conditionInfiParaRigid} as given in Appendix~\ref{appendix_preliminaryBearingRigidity}.
\qed\end{pf}
Since the nodes in the network are partitioned into anchors and followers, it will be useful to partition the corresponding bearing Laplacian as
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{B}=\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
\mathcal{B}_{aa} & \mathcal{B}_{af} \\
\mathcal{B}_{fa} & \mathcal{B}_{ff} \\
\end{array}
\right],
\end{align*}
where $\mathcal{B}_{aa}\in\mathbb{R}^{dn_a\times dn_a}$, $\mathcal{B}_{af}=\mathcal{B}_{fa}^\mathrm{T} \in\mathbb{R}^{dn_a\times dn_f}$, and $\mathcal{B}_{ff}\in\mathbb{R}^{dn_f\times dn_f}$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma_pa_pf_relation}
For any network $\mathcal{G}(p)$ with undirected graph $\mathcal{G}$, the subblock matrix $\mathcal{B}_{ff}$ is symmetric positive semi-definite and satisfies $\mathcal{B}_{ff}p_f+\mathcal{B}_{fa}p_a=0$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{pf}
For any nonzero $x\in\mathbb{R}^{dn_f}$, denote $\bar{x}=[0,x^\mathrm{T} ]^\mathrm{T} \in\mathbb{R}^{dn}$. Since $\mathcal{B}\ge0$, we have $x^\mathrm{T} \mathcal{B}_{ff}x=\bar{x}^\mathrm{T} \mathcal{B}\bar{x}\ge0$.
As a result $\mathcal{B}_{ff}$ is positive semi-definite.
Since $p\in\mathrm{Null}(\mathcal{B})$ as suggested by Lemma~\ref{lemma_NetworkLaplacian_nullspace}, we have $\mathcal{B} p=0$ which further implies $\mathcal{B}_{fa}p_a+\mathcal{B}_{ff}p_f=0$.
\qed\end{pf}
\section{Analysis of Network Localizability}\label{section_localizabilityAnalysis}
In this section, we analyze the localizability of networks in arbitrary dimensions.
We first prove two necessary and sufficient conditions for network localizability from algebraic and rigidity perspectives, respectively.
We then present more necessary and/or sufficient conditions which can give more intuition on what localizable networks look like.
First of all, we derive the optimality condition for the least-squares problem \eqref{eq_networkLocalizationLSOptimization}.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma_LSOptimalityCondition}
For the least-squares problem \eqref{eq_networkLocalizationLSOptimization}, any minimizer $\hat{p}_f^*$ is also a global minimizer and satisfies $$\mathcal{B}_{ff}\hat{p}_f^*+\mathcal{B}_{fa}p_a=0.$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{pf}
By substituting $\hat{p}_a=p_a$ into the objective function $J(\hat{p})=\hat{p}^\mathrm{T} \mathcal{B} \hat{p}$, the constrained optimization problem \eqref{eq_networkLocalizationLSOptimization} can be converted to the unconstrained problem
\begin{align}\label{eq_networkLocalizationLSOptimization_unconstrained}
\min_{\hat{p}_f\in\mathbb{R}^{dn_f}}
\tilde{J}(\hat{p}_f)=\hat{p}_f^\mathrm{T} \mathcal{B}_{ff}\hat{p}_f+2{p}_a^\mathrm{T} \mathcal{B}_{af}\hat{p}_f+p_a^\mathrm{T} \mathcal{B}_{aa}p_a.
\end{align}
Any minimizer must satisfy $\nabla_{\hat{p}_f}\tilde{J}(\hat{p}_f)=\mathcal{B}_{ff}\hat{p}_f+\mathcal{B}_{fa}p_a=0$.
Now suppose $\hat{p}_f^*$ is a minimizer and satisfies $\mathcal{B}_{ff}\hat{p}_f^*+\mathcal{B}_{fa}p_a=0$.
By comparing with $\mathcal{B}_{ff}p_f+\mathcal{B}_{fa}p_a=0$ as shown in Lemma~\ref{lemma_pa_pf_relation}, we know $\hat{p}_f^*=p_f+x$ where $x\in\mathrm{Null}(\mathcal{B}_{ff})$.
Let $\hat{p}^*=[p_a^\mathrm{T},(\hat{p}_f^*)^\mathrm{T}]^\mathrm{T}$ and $\bar{x}=[0,x^\mathrm{T}]^\mathrm{T}\in\mathbb{R}^{dn}$. Since $\hat{p}_f^*={p}_f+x$ and $\mathcal{B} p=0$, we have $J(\hat{p}^*)=(\hat{p}^*)^\mathrm{T}\mathcal{B}\hat{p}^*=(p+\bar{x})^\mathrm{T}\mathcal{B}(p+\bar{x})=\bar{x}^\mathrm{T}\mathcal{B}\bar{x}=x^\mathrm{T}\mathcal{B}_{ff}x=0$.
As a result, the objective function equals zero at every minimizer.
\qed\end{pf}
The linear equations in \eqref{eq_networkLocalization_linearConstraint} hold if and only if the objective function in the least-squares problem \eqref{eq_networkLocalizationLSOptimization} is minimized to zero; this is a direct consequence of the first-order optimality conditions associated with \eqref{eq_networkLocalizationLSOptimization}.
Thus the equivalence between \eqref{eq_networkLocalization_linearConstraint} and \eqref{eq_networkLocalizationLSOptimization} is formally established.
We are now ready to present the necessary and sufficient condition for localizability.
\begin{theorem}[Algebraic Condition for Localizability]\label{theorem_Localizability_NS_alge}
A network $\mathcal{G}(p)$ is localizable if and only if the matrix $\mathcal{B}_{ff}$ is nonsingular.
When the network is localizable, the true locations of the followers can be calculated by $p_f=-\mathcal{B}_{ff}^{-1}\mathcal{B}_{fa}p_a$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{pf}
By Lemma~\ref{lemma_LSOptimalityCondition}, a network is localizable if and only if the true network location $p$ is the unique minimizer of the least-squares problem \eqref{eq_networkLocalizationLSOptimization}.
Since any minimizer must satisfy $\mathcal{B}_{ff}\hat{p}_f^*+\mathcal{B}_{fa}p_a=0$, it is obvious that the minimizer is unique if and only if $\mathcal{B}_{ff}$ is nonsingular.
When $\mathcal{B}_{ff}$ is nonsingular, we have $\hat{p}_f^*=-\mathcal{B}_{ff}^{-1}\mathcal{B}_{fa}p_a$, whose value equals the true location $p_f$ according to Lemma~\ref{lemma_pa_pf_relation}.
\qed\end{pf}
Theorem~\ref{theorem_Localizability_NS_alge} establishes the equivalence between the localizability and the nonsingularity of $\mathcal{B}_{ff}$.
A question that immediately follows Theorem~\ref{theorem_Localizability_NS_alge} is what kind of networks have nonsingular $\mathcal{B}_{ff}$.
We next propose a necessary and sufficient condition from the bearing rigidity point of view.
This rigidity condition is mathematically equivalent to the algebraic condition, but it gives more intuition on what localizable networks look like.
\begin{theorem}[Rigidity Condition for Localizability]\label{theorem_Localizability_NS_rigidity}
A network $\mathcal{G}(p)$ is localizable if and only if every infinitesimal bearing motion involves at least one anchor; that is, for any nonzero infinitesimal bearing motion
\begin{align*}
\delta p=\left[
\begin{array}{c}
\delta p_a \\
\delta p_f \\
\end{array}
\right]\in\mathrm{Null}(\mathcal{B}),
\end{align*}
the vector $\delta p_a$ corresponding to the anchors must be nonzero.
\end{theorem}
\begin{pf}
We only need to show that $\mathcal{B}_{ff}$ is singular if and only if there exists nonzero $\delta p\in\mathrm{Null}(\mathcal{B})$ with $\delta p_a=0$.
(\emph{Necessity}) Suppose $\mathcal{B}_{ff}$ is singular.
Then there exists nonzero $x\in\mathbb{R}^{dn_f}$ such that $\mathcal{B}_{ff}x=0$.
Let $\delta p=[0,x^\mathrm{T}]^\mathrm{T}\in\mathbb{R}^{dn}$. Then $\delta p^\mathrm{T}\mathcal{B} \delta p=x^\mathrm{T}\mathcal{B}_{ff}x=0$.
Hence $\delta p\in \mathrm{Null}(\mathcal{B})$ and $\delta p_a=0$.
(\emph{Sufficiency}) Suppose there exists $\delta p\in\mathrm{Null}(\mathcal{B})$ satisfying $\delta p_a=0$ and $\delta p_f\ne0$.
Then $\delta p_f^\mathrm{T}\mathcal{B}_{ff}\delta p_f=\delta p^\mathrm{T} \mathcal{B} \delta p=0$, which implies that $\mathcal{B}_{ff}$ is singular.
\qed\end{pf}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\def0.4{0.35}
\include{fig_tikz_Example_nonLocalizable}
\caption{Examples of \emph{non-localizable} networks.
The solid and hollow dots represent the anchors and followers, respectively.
The networks are not localizable because they have infinitesimal bearing motions that only correspond to the followers (see, for example, the red arrows).
The networks in (e) and (f) are three-dimensional, and the rest are two-dimensional.}
\label{fig_Example_nonlocalizable}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\def0.4{0.35}
\include{fig_tikz_Example_Localizable}
\caption{Examples of \emph{localizable} networks.
The solid and hollow dots represent the anchors and followers, respectively.
The networks in (e), (f), and (h) are three-dimensional, and the rest are two-dimensional.}
\label{fig_Example_localizable}
\end{figure*}
The intuition behind Theorem~\ref{theorem_Localizability_NS_rigidity} is as follows.
Any infinitesimal bearing motion (i.e., bearing-preserved motion) would imply multiple false networks that have exactly the same bearings as the true network.
Only if the infinitesimal bearing motion involves at least one anchor, the false networks can be ruled out as solutions to \eqref{eq_networkLocalization_nonlinearConstraint} since they do not satisfy the anchor constraints; otherwise, the false networks cannot be distinguished from the true network.
Examples are given in Figure~\ref{fig_Example_nonlocalizable} and Figure~\ref{fig_Example_localizable} to illustrate Theorem~\ref{theorem_Localizability_NS_rigidity}.
Figure~\ref{fig_Example_nonlocalizable} shows examples of \emph{non-localizable} networks.
These networks are not localizable because each of them has infinitesimal bearing motions that only involve the followers (see those marked by red arrows).
Figure~\ref{fig_Example_localizable} shows examples of \emph{localizable} networks.
The networks in Figure~\ref{fig_Example_localizable}(a)-(f) are obtained by modifying the networks in Figure~\ref{fig_Example_nonlocalizable}, which suggests that a non-localizable network can be made localizable by adding extra edges or selecting different anchors.
It is worth noting that the networks in Figure~\ref{fig_Example_localizable}(c)-(g) are not infinitesimally bearing rigid yet they are localizable.
As a result, infinitesimal bearing rigidity is not necessary to guarantee localizability.
Up to this point, we have presented two necessary and sufficient localizability conditions.
One is the algebraic condition in Theorem~\ref{theorem_Localizability_NS_alge} and the other is the rigidity condition in Theorem~\ref{theorem_Localizability_NS_rigidity}.
We next utilize the two conditions to examine some specific problems more closely.
The first is how many anchors are required to ensure the localizability of a network.
\begin{corollary}\label{corollary_anchorNumber}
If a network $\mathcal{G}(p)$ is localizable, then
\begin{align*}
n_a\ge \frac{\dim\left(\mathrm{Null}(\mathcal{B})\right)}{d}>1.
\end{align*}
\end{corollary}
\begin{pf}
Let $k=\dim\left(\mathrm{Null}(\mathcal{B})\right)$ and $N\in\mathbb{R}^{dn\times k}$ be a basis matrix of $\mathrm{Null}(\mathcal{B})$ which means $\mathrm{Range}(N)=\mathrm{Null}(\mathcal{B})$.
Then any nonzero $\delta p\in\mathrm{Null}(\mathcal{B})$ can be expressed as $\delta p=N x$, where $x\in\mathbb{R}^k, x\ne 0$.
Partition $N$ and express $Nx$ as
$
\delta p=N x
=\left[
\begin{array}{c}
N_ax \\
N_fx \\
\end{array}
\right]
$,
where $N_a\in\mathbb{R}^{dn_a\times k}$.
According to Theorem~\ref{theorem_Localizability_NS_rigidity}, the network is localizable if and only if $N_ax\ne0, \forall x\in\mathbb{R}^k, x\ne 0$.
As a result, the matrix $N_a$ must have full column rank, which requires $N_a$ to be a \emph{tall} matrix with $dn_a\ge k=\dim(\mathrm{Null}(\mathcal{B}))$.
Since $\dim(\mathrm{Null}(\mathcal{B}))\ge d+1$ according to Lemma~\ref{lemma_NetworkLaplacian_nullspace}, we have $n_a\ge \dim(\mathrm{Null}(\mathcal{B}))/d\ge(d+1)/d>1$.
\qed\end{pf}
A simple but important fact suggested by Corollary~\ref{corollary_anchorNumber} is that any localizable network must have at least \emph{two} anchors.
Similar conclusions have already been obtained in the existing studies for networks in the two-dimensional space \cite{ErenTurkishJournal2007,Piovan2013Automatica,Shames2013TAC,ZhuGuangwei2014Automatica}.
But Corollary~\ref{corollary_anchorNumber} also suggests another important fact, which has not been observed in the literature, that more anchors are required to ensure the localizability when $\dim(\mathrm{Null}(\mathcal{B}))$ increases.
The quantity $\dim(\mathrm{Null}(\mathcal{B}))$ can be viewed as a measure of the ``degree of bearing rigidity'' because $\dim(\mathrm{Null}(\mathcal{B}))$ reaches the smallest value $d+1$ when the network is infinitesimally bearing rigid as shown in Lemma~\ref{lemma_NetworkLaplacian_nullspace}.
As a result, the intuition behind the second fact is that more anchors are required to ensure the localizability when the network is ``less'' bearing rigid (i.e., $\dim(\mathrm{Null}(\mathcal{B}))$ is large).
We next present another three localizability conditions, two of which are sufficient and the other is both necessary and sufficient.
These conditions are important because they indicate the explicit connection between the localizability and infinitesimal bearing rigidity.
Before presenting the conditions, we need to first define the notion of augmented network.
\begin{definition}[Augmented Network]
Given a network $\mathcal{G}(p)$ with $\mathcal{G}=(\mathcal{V}, \mathcal{E})$, denote by $\bar{\mathcal{G}}(p)$ an \emph{augmented network} with $\bar{\mathcal{G}}=(\mathcal{V}, \bar{\mathcal{E}})$ where $\bar{\mathcal{E}}=\mathcal{E}\cup\{(i,j): i,j\in\mathcal{V}_a\}$.
\end{definition}
The augmented network $\bar{\mathcal{G}}(p)$ is obtained from $\mathcal{G}(p)$ by connecting every pair of anchors.
If the anchors are already connected in $\mathcal{G}(p)$, then $\bar{\mathcal{G}}(p)$ is the same as $\mathcal{G}(p)$.
It should be noted that adding or deleting the edge between any pair of anchors only changes $\mathcal{B}_{aa}$ but not $\mathcal{B}_{ff}$.
As a result, $\mathcal{G}(p)$ and $\bar{\mathcal{G}}(p)$ have exactly the same $\mathcal{B}_{ff}$ and hence they are localizable or nonlocalizable simultaneously.
The next two sufficient conditions connect the notions of localizability and infinitesimal bearing rigidity.
\begin{corollary}\label{corollary_networkLocalizability_GBarIBR}
When $n_a\ge2$, if $\bar{\mathcal{G}}(p)$ is infinitesimally bearing rigid, then $\mathcal{G}(p)$ is localizable.
\end{corollary}
\begin{pf}
We will first use Theorem~\ref{theorem_Localizability_NS_rigidity} to prove the localizability of $\bar{\mathcal{G}}(p)$.
Then the localizability of $\mathcal{G}(p)$ immediately follows because $\mathcal{G}(p)$ and $\bar{\mathcal{G}}(p)$ have the same localizability.
Let $\bar{\mathcal{B}}$ be the bearing Laplacian for $\bar{\mathcal{G}}(p)$.
Since $\bar{\mathcal{G}}(p)$ is infinitesimally bearing rigid, we have $\mathrm{Null}(\bar{\mathcal{B}})=\myspan{\mathbf{1}\otimes I_d, p}$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma_NetworkLaplacian_nullspace}.
As a result, any infinitesimal bearing motion $\delta p\in\mathrm{Null}(\bar{\mathcal{B}})$ can be expressed as a linear combination of $\mathbf{1}\otimes I_d$ and $p$.
Since no two anchors collocate, there does not exist a linear combination of $\mathbf{1}\otimes I_d$ and $p$ leading to $\delta p_a=0$ if $n_a\ge2$.
Then $\bar{\mathcal{G}}(p)$ is localizable according to Theorem~\ref{theorem_Localizability_NS_rigidity}.
\qed\end{pf}
\begin{corollary}\label{corollary_networkLocalizability_GIBR}
When $n_a\ge2$, if $\mathcal{G}(p)$ is infinitesimally bearing rigid, then $\mathcal{G}(p)$ is localizable.
\end{corollary}
\begin{pf}
Similar to Corollary~\ref{corollary_networkLocalizability_GBarIBR}.
\qed\end{pf}
The intuition behind Corollary~\ref{corollary_networkLocalizability_GIBR} is as follows.
If a network is infinitesimally bearing rigid, then it can be uniquely determined up to a translation and a scaling factor by the bearings.
Since the translational and scaling ambiguity can be further eliminated by the anchor constraints, the entire network can be fully determined and hence localizable.
It is notable that Corollary~\ref{corollary_networkLocalizability_GIBR} is more restrictive than Corollary~\ref{corollary_networkLocalizability_GBarIBR} because it requires $\mathcal{G}(p)$ to be infinitesimally bearing rigid whereas Corollary~\ref{corollary_networkLocalizability_GBarIBR} merely requires $\bar{\mathcal{G}}(p)$ to be.
To illustrate, for each of the networks as shown in Figure~\ref{fig_Example_localizable}(c)-(f), the augmented network $\bar{\mathcal{G}}(p)$ is infinitesimally bearing rigid but $\mathcal{G}(p)$ is not.
Then, these networks can be concluded as localizable by Corollary~\ref{corollary_networkLocalizability_GBarIBR}.
Finally, Corollary~\ref{corollary_networkLocalizability_GBarIBR} can be viewed as a generalization of the result \cite[Cor~10]{ZhuGuangwei2014Automatica} which is applicable only to two-dimensional cases.
As suggested by Corollary~\ref{corollary_networkLocalizability_GBarIBR}, the condition of the infinitesimal bearing rigidity of $\bar{\mathcal{G}}(p)$ is \emph{sufficient} to ensure the localizability of $\mathcal{G}(p)$.
An important yet unexplored problem is whether or not the condition is also \emph{necessary}.
In the case of $n_a\ge3$, the condition is sufficient but \emph{not} necessary.
For example, for the network in Figure~\ref{fig_Example_localizable}(g), $\mathcal{G}(p)$ is localizable but $\bar{\mathcal{G}}(p)$ is not infinitesimally bearing rigid since the three anchors are collinear.
However, in the case of $n_a=2$, the condition is \emph{both necessary and sufficient} as shown below.
\begin{theorem}\label{theorem_na=2_IBRisNS}
When $n_a=2$, a network $\mathcal{G}(p)$ is localizable if and only if the augmented network $\bar{\mathcal{G}}(p)$ is infinitesimal bearing rigid.
\end{theorem}
\begin{pf}
The sufficiency has already been proved in Corollary~\ref{corollary_networkLocalizability_GBarIBR}.
We next prove the necessity by contradiction.
Assume $\mathcal{G}(p)$ is localizable but $\bar{\mathcal{G}}(p)$ is \emph{not} infinitesimal bearing rigid.
Then $\bar{\mathcal{G}}(p)$ has a nontrivial infinitesimal bearing motion $\delta p$ which is not in $\myspan{\mathbf{1}\otimes I_d, p}$.
Write $\delta p=[\delta p_1^\mathrm{T}, \delta p_2^\mathrm{T}, (*)]^\mathrm{T}$, where $\delta p_1, \delta p_2\in\mathbb{R}^d$ corresponds to the two anchors.
Because the infinitesimal motion $\delta p$ preserves all the bearings including the bearing between $p_1$ and $p_2$, we know that the vector $\delta p_1-\delta p_2$ is parallel to $p_1-p_2$.
As a result, there exists a nonzero scalar $k$ such that $\delta p_1-\delta p_2=k(p_1-p_2)$. Construct
\begin{align*}
\delta p'
&\triangleq \delta p+\mathbf{1}_n\otimes (kp_2-\delta p_2) -kp \\
&= \left[
\begin{array}{c}
\delta p_1 \\
\delta p_2 \\
(*)\\
\end{array}
\right]
+\left[\begin{array}{c}
kp_2-\delta p_2 \\
kp_2-\delta p_2 \\
(*)\\
\end{array}
\right]
-\left[\begin{array}{c}
k p_1 \\
k p_2 \\
(*)\\
\end{array}
\right]
=
\left[
\begin{array}{c}
0 \\
0 \\
(*)\\
\end{array}
\right].
\end{align*}
Since the first two entries of $\delta p'$ are zero, we know $\delta p'$ is an infinitesimal motion that only involves the followers.
Thus, the network is not localizable by Theorem~\ref{theorem_Localizability_NS_rigidity}, which is a contradiction.
\qed\end{pf}
\section{Distributed Network Localization Protocols}\label{section_distributedProtocol}
In this section, we propose and analyze a linear distributed protocol for bearing-based network localization in arbitrary dimensions.
The global minimizer of the unconstrained optimization problem \eqref{eq_networkLocalizationLSOptimization_unconstrained} can be obtained by the gradient decent protocol
\begin{align}\label{eq_bearingNetworkLocalizeProtocal}
\dot{\hat{p}}_f(t)
=-\nabla_{\hat{p}_f}\tilde{J}(\hat{p}_f)
=-\mathcal{B}_{ff}\hat{p}_f(t)-\mathcal{B}_{fa}p_a,
\end{align}
whose elementwise expression is
\begin{align}\label{eq_bearingNetworkLocalizeProtocal_element}
\dot{\hat{p}}_i(t)&=-\sum_{j\in\mathcal{N}_i} P_{g_{ij}}(\hat{p}_i(t)-\hat{p}_j(t)), \quad i\in\mathcal{V}_f.
\end{align}%
where $P_{g_{ij}}=I_d-g_{ij}g_{ij}^\mathrm{T}$.
Note the neighbor of the follower $i$ can be either a follower or an anchor.
Several remarks for protocol \eqref{eq_bearingNetworkLocalizeProtocal_element} are given below.
First, the protocol is distributed because the localization of $p_i$ only requires $\{g_{ij}\}_{j\in\mathcal{N}_i}$ and $\{\hat{p}_j\}_{j\in\mathcal{N}_i}$. In practical implementation, the bearings $\{g_{ij}\}_{j\in\mathcal{N}_i}$ can be measured by a bearing-only sensor such as a camera and the estimates $\{\hat{p}_j\}_{j\in\mathcal{N}_i}$ can be transmitted from the neighbors via wireless communication.
All the bearings must be measured in a global reference frame.
Second, the protocol has a clear geometric interpretation as shown in Figure~\ref{fig_protocolGeometricMeaning}.
The term $-P_{{g}_{ij}}(\hat{p}_i(t)-\hat{p}_j(t))$ is the orthogonal projection of $(\hat{p}_j(t)-\hat{p}_i(t))$ onto the orthogonal compliment of $g_{ij}$, and hence it acts to steer the estimate $\hat{p}_i(t)$ to align with the bearing measurement $g_{ij}$.
Third, protocol \eqref{eq_bearingNetworkLocalizeProtocal_element} can be viewed as an extension of the protocol proposed in \cite{ZhuGuangwei2014Automatica}, which is applicable to networks in the two-dimensional space.
Finally, those who are familiar with consensus problems might have noticed that protocol~\eqref{eq_bearingNetworkLocalizeProtocal} has a similar expression as the well-known consensus protocol \cite{OlfatiTAC2004}.
The difference is that in the consensus protocol, the weight for each edge is a positive scalar whereas in the localization protocol the weight for each edge is a positive semi-definite orthogonal projection matrix.
The convergence of the protocol is characterized as below.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\def0.4{0.4}
\include{figure_tikz_ProtocolMeaning}
\caption{The geometric interpretation of protocol \eqref{eq_bearingNetworkLocalizeProtocal_element}.}
\label{fig_protocolGeometricMeaning}
\end{figure}
\begin{theorem}\label{theorem_bearingNetworkProtocolConvergence}
The distributed protocol \eqref{eq_bearingNetworkLocalizeProtocal_element} can globally localize the network $\mathcal{G}(p)$ if and only if the network is localizable.
\end{theorem}
\begin{pf}
When $\mathcal{B}_{ff}$ is nonsingular (i.e., the network is localizable), the matrix $-\mathcal{B}_{ff}$ is Hurwitz.
As a result, the linear time-invariant system \eqref{eq_bearingNetworkLocalizeProtocal} is stable and the state converges to the steady state value $-\mathcal{B}_{ff}^{-1}\mathcal{B}_{fa}p_a$ which equals to the real follower location $p_f$ according to Lemma~\ref{lemma_pa_pf_relation}. When $\mathcal{B}_{ff}$ is singular (i.e., the network is not localizable), the final estimate would depend on the initial estimate of the network location.
\qed\end{pf}
\subsection{Sensitivity Analysis}\label{section_sensitivityAnalysis}
Since the bearing measurements may be corrupted by errors in practice, it is meaningful to study the impact of constant measurement errors on the localization protocol \eqref{eq_bearingNetworkLocalizeProtocal_element}.
Denote the unit vector $\tilde{g}_{ij}\in\mathbb{R}^d$ as the measurement of $g_{ij}$.
In the presence of bearing measurement errors, the localization protocol \eqref{eq_bearingNetworkLocalizeProtocal} becomes
\begin{align}\label{eq_bearingNetworkLocalizeProtocal_errorCase}
\dot{\hat{p}}_f(t)=-\tilde{\mathcal{B}}_{ff}\hat{p}_f(t)-\tilde{\mathcal{B}}_{fa}p_a,
\end{align}
where $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}_{ff}$ and $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}_{fa}$ are obtained from $\mathcal{B}_{ff}$ and $\mathcal{B}_{fa}$ by replacing $g_{ij}$ with $\tilde{g}_{ij}$, respectively.
The matrix $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}_{ff}$ may not be symmetric since $\tilde{g}_{ij}\ne-\tilde{g}_{ji}$ in general.
We next analyze two problems regarding \eqref{eq_bearingNetworkLocalizeProtocal_errorCase}.
The first is when $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}_{ff}$ is positive stable (i.e., all its eigenvalues have positive real parts) such that \eqref{eq_bearingNetworkLocalizeProtocal_errorCase} is globally stable.
If $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}_{ff}$ is positive stable, the final estimate given by \eqref{eq_bearingNetworkLocalizeProtocal_errorCase} is
\begin{align}\label{eq_finalEstimateWithBearingError}
\hat{p}_f^*=-\tilde{\mathcal{B}}_{ff}^{-1}\tilde{\mathcal{B}}_{fa}p_a.
\end{align}
The second problem is how large the localization error $\|\hat{p}^*_f-p_f\|$ is.
To solve the two problems, define
$$\Delta \mathcal{B}_{ff}\triangleq\tilde{\mathcal{B}}_{ff}-\mathcal{B}_{ff}, \quad \Delta \mathcal{B}_{fa}\triangleq\tilde{\mathcal{B}}_{fa}-\mathcal{B}_{fa},$$ as the perturbations of $\mathcal{B}_{ff}$ and $\mathcal{B}_{fa}$ caused by the bearing measurement errors.
Let $\theta_{ij}\in[0,\pi]$ be the angle between $\tilde{g}_{ij}$ and $g_{ij}$; that is $g_{ij}^\mathrm{T}\tilde{g}_{ij}=\cos\theta_{ij}$.
The angle $\theta_{ij}$ represents the inconsistency between $\tilde{g}_{ij}$ and $g_{ij}$.
This representation is valid for arbitrary dimensions.
Note $\theta_{ij}\ne\theta_{ji}$ in general.
Define the total bearing measurement error for the followers as
\begin{align*}
\epsilon\triangleq2\sum_{i\in\mathcal{V}_f}\sum_{j\in\mathcal{N}_i}\sin\theta_{ij}.
\end{align*}
We next give lemmas to characterize the relationship between $\epsilon$ and $\Delta \mathcal{B}_{ff}, \Delta\mathcal{B}_{fa}$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma_Px-Py_norm}
Denote by $\theta\in[0,\pi]$ the angle between any two nonzero vectors $x, y\in\mathbb{R}^d$ (i.e., $x^\mathrm{T} y=\|x\|\|y\|\cos\theta$). Then $\|P_x-P_y\|=\sin\theta.$
\end{lemma}
\begin{pf}
See Appendix~\ref{appendix_Proof of lemma_Px-Py_norm}.
\qed\end{pf}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma_DeltaLffDeltaLfa_bearingError}
For a network $\mathcal{G}(p)$ with arbitrary bearing measurements $\{\tilde{g}_{ij}\}_{(i,j)\in\mathcal{E}}$, it always holds that $\|\Delta\mathcal{B}_{ff}\|\le \epsilon$ and $\|\Delta\mathcal{B}_{fa}\|\le \epsilon/2$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{pf}
Denote $\Delta P_{g_{ij}}\triangleq P_{\tilde{g}_{ij}}-P_{g_{ij}}, \forall (i,j)\in\mathcal{E}$.
It then follows from Lemma~\ref{lemma_Px-Py_norm} that $\|\Delta P_{g_{ij}}\|=\sin\theta_{ij}$.
Note $[\Delta \mathcal{B}_{ff}]_{ii}=\sum_{j\in\mathcal{N}_i}\Delta P_{g_{ij}}$ for $i\in\mathcal{V}_f$; $[\Delta \mathcal{B}_{ff}]_{ij}=-\Delta P_{g_{ij}}$ for $i\in\mathcal{V}_f$ and $j\in\mathcal{N}_i\cap\mathcal{V}_f$; and $[\Delta \mathcal{B}_{ff}]_{ij}=0$ otherwise.
Then we have
$
\|\Delta\mathcal{B}_{ff}\|
\le \sum_{i\in\mathcal{V}_f}\sum_{j\in\mathcal{N}_i\cap\mathcal{V}_f}\|\Delta P_{g_{ij}}\|+\sum_{i\in\mathcal{V}_f}\left\|\sum_{j\in\mathcal{N}_i}\Delta P_{g_{ij}}\right\|
\le \sum_{i\in\mathcal{V}_f}\sum_{j\in\mathcal{N}_i}\|\Delta P_{g_{ij}}\|+\sum_{i\in\mathcal{V}_f}\sum_{j\in\mathcal{N}_i} \|\Delta P_{g_{ij}}\|
\le 2\sum_{i\in\mathcal{V}_f}\sum_{j\in\mathcal{N}_i}\|\Delta P_{g_{ij}}\|
=2\sum_{i\in\mathcal{V}_f}\sum_{j\in\mathcal{N}_i}\sin\theta_{ij}=\epsilon.
$
Similarly, we have
$
\|\Delta\mathcal{B}_{fa}\|
\le \sum_{i\in\mathcal{V}_f}\sum_{j\in\mathcal{N}_i\cap\mathcal{V}_a}\|\Delta P_{g_{ij}}\|
\le \sum_{i\in\mathcal{V}_f}\sum_{j\in\mathcal{N}_i}\|\Delta P_{g_{ij}}\|
=\sum_{i\in\mathcal{V}_f}\sum_{j\in\mathcal{N}_i}\sin\theta_{ij}=\epsilon/2.
$
\qed\end{pf}
We now give a upper bound for the total bearing error $\epsilon$ to ensure the positive stability of $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}_{ff}$.
\begin{theorem}\label{theorem_sufficientConditionForMffNonsingular}
Given a localizable network with $\mathcal{B}_{ff}$ nonsingular, the matrix $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}_{ff}$ is positive stable if the total bearing error $\epsilon$ satisfies
\begin{align}\label{eq_sufficentConditionForMffNonsingular}
\epsilon<\lambda_{\min}(\mathcal{B}_{ff}),
\end{align}
where $\lambda_{\min}(\mathcal{B}_{ff})$ is the minimum eigenvalue of $\mathcal{B}_{ff}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{pf}
Since $\|\Delta\mathcal{B}_{ff}\|<\epsilon$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma_DeltaLffDeltaLfa_bearingError},
if \eqref{eq_sufficentConditionForMffNonsingular} holds, we have $\|\Delta\mathcal{B}_{ff}\|<\lambda_{\min}(\mathcal{B}_{ff})=1/\|\mathcal{B}_{ff}^{-1}\|$,
which further implies $\|\mathcal{B}_{ff}^{-1}\Delta \mathcal{B}_{ff}\|\le\|\mathcal{B}_{ff}^{-1}\|\|\Delta \mathcal{B}_{ff}\|<1$.
Thus the spectral radius $\rho(\mathcal{B}_{ff}^{-1}\Delta\mathcal{B}_{ff})<1$ and hence the matrix $(I+\mathcal{B}_{ff}^{-1}\Delta\mathcal{B}_{ff})$ is nonsingular.
As a result, $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}_{ff}=\mathcal{B}_{ff}+\Delta\mathcal{B}_{ff}=\mathcal{B}_{ff}(I+\mathcal{B}_{ff}^{-1}\Delta\mathcal{B}_{ff})$ is nonsingular.
Since $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}_{ff}$ is obtained by perturbing $\mathcal{B}_{ff}$ and $\mathcal{B}_{ff}$ is positive stable, the nonsingularity of $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}_{ff}$ implies the positive stability.
\qed\end{pf}
Theorem~\ref{theorem_sufficientConditionForMffNonsingular} suggests that a large $\lambda_{\min}(\mathcal{B}_{ff})$ would give the network a large tolerance to bearing measurement errors.
We now study the localization error $\|\hat{p}_f^*-p_f\|$.
An intuitive conclusion that can be immediately drawn from \eqref{eq_finalEstimateWithBearingError} and matrix perturbation theory is that the localization error would be sufficiently small when the bearing measurement errors are sufficiently small.
We next give a specific upper bound on the localization error.
\begin{theorem}\label{theorem_upperBoundofEstimateError}
The estimate $\hat{p}^*_f=-\tilde{\mathcal{B}}_{ff}^{-1}\tilde{\mathcal{B}}_{fa}p_a$ given in \eqref{eq_finalEstimateWithBearingError} satisfies
$
\|\hat{p}_f^*-p_f\|
\le \frac{\epsilon}{\lambda_{\min}(\mathcal{B}_{ff})-\epsilon}\left(\frac{1}{2}\|p_a\|+\|p_f\|\right)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{pf}
See Appendix~\ref{appendix_proof_theorem_upperBoundofEstimateError}.
\qed\end{pf}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\subfloat[Initial estimate]{\includegraphics[width=0.2\linewidth]{sim_protocolFollower_accurate_initial}}
\subfloat[$\sum_{i\in\mathcal{V}_f}\|\hat{p}_i(t)-p_i\|$]{\includegraphics[width=0.2\linewidth]{sim_protocolFollower_accurate_positionError}}
\subfloat[Final estimate]{\includegraphics[width=0.2\linewidth]{sim_protocolFollower_accurate_final}}
\subfloat[$\sum_{i\in\mathcal{V}_f}\|\hat{p}_i(t)-p_i\|$]{\includegraphics[width=0.2\linewidth]{sim_protocolFollower_inaccurate_positionError}}
\subfloat[Final estimate]{\includegraphics[width=0.2\linewidth]{sim_protocolFollower_inaccurate_final}}
\caption{Simulation examples for the localization protocol~\eqref{eq_bearingNetworkLocalizeProtocal_element}. The bearing measurements are \emph{accurate} for the example in (b)-(c), and \emph{inaccurate} for the one in (d)-(e).
The blue squares represent the anchors. The blue hollow dots and the green solid dots represent the true and estimated locations of the followers, respectively.
}
\label{fig_sim_bearingLocalization}
\end{figure*}
In the last, we briefly discuss the impact of measurement errors in the anchors' locations.
Suppose the bearing measurements are accurate in this case.
Then the final estimate given by protocol \eqref{eq_bearingNetworkLocalizeProtocal_element} becomes $\hat{p}_f^*=-\mathcal{B}_{ff}^{-1}\mathcal{B}_{fa}(p_a+\Delta p_a)$, where $\Delta p_a\in\mathbb{R}^{dn_a}$ denotes the anchor location error.
Then the localization error is given by $\Delta \hat{p}_f\triangleq\hat{p}_f^*-p_f=-\mathcal{B}_{ff}^{-1}\mathcal{B}_{fa}\Delta p_a$, which indicates that the anchor location errors prorogate to the final localization error via a linear transformation.
It is straightforward to show that a translational or scaling error in the anchor measurements would cause the same translational or scaling error in the localization of followers.
\subsection{Simulation Examples}
Two simulation examples are shown in Figure~\ref{fig_sim_bearingLocalization} to demonstrate the localization protocol
\eqref{eq_bearingNetworkLocalizeProtocal_element}.
The network to be localized is a three-dimensional cubic network, which contains eight nodes and two of them are anchors and the other six are followers.
The initial estimate, which is randomly generated, is given in Figure~\ref{fig_sim_bearingLocalization}(a).
For the first example in Figure~\ref{fig_sim_bearingLocalization}(b)-(c), the bearing measurements are accurate and it can be seen that the estimate of the network location converges to the true value.
For the second example in Figure~\ref{fig_sim_bearingLocalization}(d)-(e), the bearing measurements are inaccurate.
Specifically, the total bearing error is $\epsilon=2.77$ and the final localization error equals $7.25$~m.
By comparing the two examples, it can be seen that when the bearings have measurement errors, the finally localized network would have localization errors. However, the final localized network can still be sufficiently close to the true network if the bearing errors are sufficiently small.
In addition, for the second example, we have $\lambda_{\min}=0.59<\epsilon$.
Although the condition in Theorem~\ref{theorem_sufficientConditionForMffNonsingular} is not satisfied, the matrix $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}_{ff}$ is still positive stable which indicates that the condition in Theorem~\ref{theorem_sufficientConditionForMffNonsingular} may be conservative.
\section{Conclusions}\label{section_conclusion}
This paper studied the problem of bearing-based network localization in arbitrary dimensions.
The first main contribution of this paper is to propose a variety of necessary and/or sufficient conditions for network localizability.
The second main contribution is to propose and analyze a linear localization protocol.
The results presented in this paper not only can be applied to solve the problem of sensor network localization but also provide a theoretical foundation for bearing-based multi-agent formation control \cite{zhao2015ECC,zhao2015MSC,zhao2015Maneuver,zhao2015CDC}.
In this paper, we assumed that the underlying graph is undirected.
As we have explained, the localizability analysis is independent to whether or not the sensing graph is undirected because any directed graph can be converted to an undirected one without affecting the localizability analysis.
But the convergence analysis of the proposed localization protocol relies on the assumption of undirected graphs.
As observed in \cite{zhao2015CDC}, a new notion termed bearing persistence emerges and makes the problem more complicated to analyze in the directed case.
Distributed localization with directed interaction topologies is therefore a direction for future work.
{\small
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The work presented here has been supported by the Israel Science Foundation (grant no. 1490/13).
|
\section{Introduction}
Shannon entropy $H(P)$, defined as
\begin{equation}\label{eqn.entropy}
H(P) \triangleq \sum_{i = 1}^S p_i \ln \frac{1}{p_i},
\end{equation}
is one of the most fundamental quantities of information theory and statistics, which emerged in Shannon's 1948 masterpiece~\cite{Shannon1948} as the answer to foundational questions of compression and communication.
Consider the problem of estimating Shannon entropy $H(P)$ from $n$ i.i.d. samples. Classical theory is mainly concerned with the case where the number of samples $n\to \infty$, while the alphabet size $S$ is fixed. In that scenario, the maximum likelihood estimator (MLE), $H(P_n)$, which plugs in the empirical distribution into the definition of entropy, is \emph{asymptotically efficient} \cite[Thm. 8.11, Lemma 8.14]{Vandervaart2000} in the sense of the H\'ajek convolution theorem \cite{Hajek1970characterization} and the H\'ajek--Le Cam local asymptotic minimax theorem \cite{Hajek1972local}. It is therefore not surprising to encounter the following quote from the introduction of Wyner and Foster \cite{Wyner--Foster2003lower} who considered entropy estimation:
\begin{center}
\parbox{.85\textwidth}{~~\emph{ ``The plug-in estimate is universal and optimal not only for finite alphabet i.i.d. sources but also for finite alphabet, finite memory sources. On the other hand, practically as well as theoretically, these problems are of little interest.
"}}
\end{center}
In contrast, various modern data-analytic applications deal with datasets which do not fall into the regime of fixed alphabet and $n\to \infty$. In fact, in many applications the alphabet size $S$ is comparable to, or even larger than the number of samples $n$. For example:
\begin{itemize}
\item Corpus linguistics: about half of the words in the Shakespearean canon appeared only once \cite{Efron--Thisted1976}.
\item Network traffic analysis: many customers or website users are seen a small number of times \cite{Benevenuto--Rodrigues--Cha--Almeida2009characterizing}.
\item Analyzing neural spike trains: natural stimuli generate neural responses of high timing precision resulting in a massive space of meaningful responses \cite{Berry--Warland--Meister1997structure,Mainen--Sejnowski1995reliability,Van--Lewen--Strong--Koberle--Bialek1997reproducibility}.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Existing literature}
The problem of entropy estimation in the large alphabet regime (or non-asymptotic analysis) has been investigated extensively in various disciplines, which we refer to~\cite{jiao2014minimax} for a detailed review. One recent breakthrough in this direction came from Valiant and Valiant~\cite{Valiant--Valiant2011}, who constructed the first explicit entropy estimator whose sample complexity is $n \asymp \frac{S}{\ln S}$ samples, which they also proved to be necessary. It was also shown in \cite{Paninski2003}\cite{Jiao--Venkat--Han--Weissman2014MLE} that the MLE requires $n \asymp S$ samples, implying that MLE is strictly sub-optimal in terms of sample complexity.
However, the aforementioned estimators have not been shown to achieve the minimax $L_2$ rates. In light of this, Jiao et al.\cite{jiao2014minimax}, and Wu and Yang in \cite{Wu--Yang2014minimax} independently developed schemes based on approximation theory, and obtained the minimax $L_2$ convergence rates for the entropy. Furthermore, Jiao et al.\cite{jiao2014minimax} proposed a general methodology for estimating functionals, and showed that for a wide class of functionals (including entropy, mutual information, and R\'enyi entropy), their methodology can construct minimax rate-optimal estimators whose performance with $n$ samples is essentially that of the MLE with $n\ln n$ samples. They also obtained minimax $L_2$ rates for estimating a large class of functionals. On the practical side, Jiao et al.\cite{Jiao--Venkat--Han--Weissman2014beyond} showed that the minimax rate-optimal estimators introduced in~\cite{jiao2014minimax} can lead to consistent and substantial performance boosts in various machine learning algorithms.
Recall that the minimax risk of estimating functional $F(P)$ is defined via $\inf_{\hat{F}}\sup_{P \in \mathcal{M}_S} \mathbb{E}_P \left( \hat{F} - F(P)\right)^2$, where $\mathcal{M}_S$ denotes all distributions with alphabet size $S$, and the infimum is taken with respect to all estimators $\hat{F}$. Correspondingly, the maximum risk of MLE $F(P_n)$, which evaluates the functional $F(\cdot)$ at the empirical distribution $P_n$, is defined via $\sup_{P \in \mathcal{M}_S} \mathbb{E}_P \left( F(P_n) -F(P) \right)^2$. The following table in Jiao et al.~\cite{jiao2014minimax} summaries the minimax $L_2$ rates and the $L_2$ rates of MLE in estimating $H(P)$ and $F_\alpha(P) \triangleq \sum_{i = 1}^S p_i^\alpha$. Whenever there are two terms, the first term corresponds to squared bias, and the second term corresponds to variance. It is evident that one can obtain the minimax rates from the $L_2$ rates of MLE via replacing $n$ with $n\ln n$ in the dominating (bias) terms. We adopt the following notation: $a_n\preceq b_n$ means $\sup_n a_n/b_n <\infty$, $a_n \succeq b_n$ means $b_n\preceq a_n$, $a_n \asymp b_n$ means $a_n\preceq b_n$ and $a_n \succeq b_n$, or equivalently, there exists two universal constants $c,C$ such that
\begin{align}
0<c<\liminf_{n\to\infty} \frac{a_n}{b_n} \le \limsup_{n\to\infty} \frac{a_n}{b_n} < C<\infty.
\end{align}
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\hspace*{-0.5cm}
\begin{tabular}{| l | l | l |}
\hline
& Minimax $L_2$ rates & $L_2$ rates of MLE\\ \hline
$H(P)$ & $\frac{S^2}{(n \ln n)^2} + \frac{\ln^2 S}{n} \quad \left( n \succeq \frac{S}{\ln S} \right)$ (\cite{jiao2014minimax,Wu--Yang2014minimax}) & $\frac{S^2}{n^2} + \frac{\ln^2 S}{n}\quad \left( n\succeq S \right)$ \cite{Jiao--Venkat--Han--Weissman2014MLE} \\ \hline
$F_\alpha(P), 0<\alpha\leq \frac{1}{2}$ & $\frac{S^2}{(n \ln n)^{2\alpha}} \quad \left( n \succeq S^{1/\alpha}/\ln S, \ln n \preceq \ln S \right)$ (\cite{jiao2014minimax}) & $\frac{S^2}{n^{2\alpha}}\quad \left( n \succeq S^{1/\alpha} \right)$ \cite{Jiao--Venkat--Han--Weissman2014MLE} \\
\hline
$F_\alpha(P), \frac{1}{2}<\alpha<1$ & $\frac{S^2}{(n \ln n)^{2\alpha}} + \frac{S^{2-2\alpha}}{n}\quad \left( n \succeq S^{1/\alpha}/\ln S \right)$ (\cite{jiao2014minimax}) & $\frac{S^2}{n^{2\alpha}} + \frac{S^{2-2\alpha}}{n}\quad \left( n \succeq S^{1/\alpha} \right)$ \cite{Jiao--Venkat--Han--Weissman2014MLE} \\ \hline
$F_\alpha(P), 1< \alpha<\frac{3}{2}$ & $(n \ln n)^{-2(\alpha-1)}\quad \left(S \succeq n\ln n \right)$ (\cite{jiao2014minimax}) & $n^{-2(\alpha-1)}\quad \left(S \succeq n \right)$ \cite{Jiao--Venkat--Han--Weissman2014MLE} \\ \hline
$F_\alpha(P), \alpha\geq \frac{3}{2}$ & $n^{-1}$ \cite{Jiao--Venkat--Han--Weissman2014MLE} & $n^{-1}$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Comparison of the minimax $L_2$ rates and the $L_2$ rates of MLE in estimating $H(P)$ and $F_\alpha(P)\triangleq \sum_{i = 1}^S p_i^\alpha$. Whenever there are two terms, the first term corresponds to squared bias, and the second term corresponds to variance. It is evident that one can obtain the minimax rates from the $L_2$ rates of MLE via replacing $n$ with $n\ln n$ in the dominating (bias) terms. }
\label{table.summary}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\subsection{Refined minimaxity: adaptive estimation}
One concern the readers may have about results on minimax rates is that they are too pessimistic. Indeed, in the definition $\inf_{\hat{F}}\sup_{P \in \mathcal{M}_S} \mathbb{E}_P \left( \hat{F} - F(P)\right)^2$, we have considered the worst case distribution $P$ over all possible distributions supported on $S$ elements, and it would be disappointing if the estimator in Jiao et al.~\cite{jiao2014minimax} turned out to behave sub-optimally when we consider distributions lying in subsets of $\mathcal{M}_S$. A usual approach to alleviate this concern is the adaptive estimation framework, which we briefly review below.
The primary approach to alleviate the pessimism of minimaxity in statistics is the construction of adaptive procedures, which has gained particular prominence in nonparametric statistics~\cite{Cai2012minimax}. The goal of adaptive inference is to construct a single procedure that achieves optimality simultaneously over a collection of parameter spaces. Informally, an adaptive procedure automatically adjusts to the \emph{unknown} parameter, and acts as if it knows the parameter lies in a more restricted subset of the whole parameter space. A common way to evaluate such a procedure is to compare its maximum risk over each subset of the parameter space in the collection with the corresponding minimax risk. If they are nearly equal, then we say such a procedure is \emph{adaptive} with respect to that collection of subsets of the parameter space.
The primary results of this paper are twofold.
\begin{enumerate}
\item First, we show that the minimax rate-optimal entropy estimator in Jiao et al.~\cite{jiao2014minimax} is adaptive with respect to the collection of parameter space $\mathcal{M}_S(H)$, where $\mathcal{M}_S(H) \triangleq \{P: H(P)\leq H, P \in \mathcal{M}_S\}$. Moreover, the estimator does not need to know $S$ nor $H$, which is an advantage in practice since usually the alphabet size $S$ nor an \emph{a priori} upper bound on the true entropy $H(P)$ are known.
\item Second, we show that the sample size \emph{enlargement} effect still holds in this adaptive estimation scenario. Table~\ref{table.summary} demonstrates that in estimating various functionals, the performance of the minimax rate-optimal estimator with $n$ samples is nearly that of the MLE with $n\ln n$ samples, which the authors termed ``effective sample size enlargement'' in \cite{jiao2014minimax}. We compute the maximum risk of the MLE over each $\mathcal{M}_S(H)$, and show that for every $H$, the performance of the estimator in~\cite{jiao2014minimax} with $n$ samples is still nearly that of the MLE with $n\ln n$ samples.
\end{enumerate}
These facts suggest that the estimator in Jiao et al.~\cite{jiao2014minimax} is near \emph{optimal} in a very strong sense, for which we refer the readers to \cite{jiao2014minimax} for a detailed discussion on methodology behind their estimator, literature survey, and experimental results.
\subsection{Mathematical framework and estimator construction}
Before we discuss the main results, we would like to recall the construction of the entropy estimator in~\cite{jiao2014minimax}. The approach is to tackle the estimation problem separately for the cases of ``small $p$'' and ``large $p$'' in $H(P)$ estimation, corresponding to treating regions where the functional is ``nonsmooth'' and ``smooth'' in different ways. Specifically, after we obtain the empirical distribution $P_n$, for each coordinate $P_n(i)$, if $P_n(i) \ll \ln n/n$, we (i) compute the best polynomial approximation for $-p_i \ln p_i$ in the regime $0\leq p_i \ll \ln n/n$, (ii) use the unbiased estimators for integer powers $p_i^k$ to estimate the corresponding terms in the polynomial approximation for $-p_i \ln p_i$ up to order $K_n \sim \ln n$, and (iii) use that polynomial as an estimate for $-p_i \ln p_i$. If $P_n(i) \gg \ln n/n$, we use the estimator $-P_n(i) \ln P_n(i) + \frac{1}{2n}$ to estimate $-p_i \ln p_i$. Then, we add the estimators corresponding to each coordinate.
We define the minimax risk for Multinomial model with $n$ observations on alphabet size $S$ for estimating $H(P), P\in \mathcal{M}_S(H)$ as
\begin{equation}
R(S,n,H) \triangleq \inf_{\hat{H}} \sup_{P \in \mathcal{M}_S(H)} \mathbb{E}_{\mathrm{Multinomial}} \left( \hat{H} - H(P) \right)^2,
\end{equation}
which is the quantity we will characterize in this paper. To simplify the analysis, we also utilize the Poisson sampling model, i.e., we first draw a random variable $N \sim \mathsf{Poi}(n)$, and then obtain $N$ samples from the distribution $P$. It is equivalent to having a $S$-dimensional random vector $\mathbf{Z}$ such that each component $Z_i$ in $\mathbf{Z}$ has distribution $\mathsf{Poi}(np_i)$, and all coordinates of $\mathbf{Z}$ are independent.
The counterpart of minimax risk in the Poissonized model is defined as
\begin{equation}
R_P(S,n,H) \triangleq \inf_{\hat{H}} \sup_{P \in \mathcal{M}_S(H)} \mathbb{E}_{\mathrm{Poisson}} \left( \hat{H} - H(P) \right)^2.
\end{equation}
The following lemma, which follows from \cite{Wu--Yang2014minimax,jiao2014minimax}, shows that the minimax risks under the Multinomial model and the Poissonized model are essentially equivalent.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma.poissonmultinomial}
The minimax risks under the Poissonized model and the Multinomial model are related via the following inequalities:
\begin{equation}
R_P(S,2n,H) - e^{-n/4} H^2 \leq R(S,n,H) \leq 2 R_P(S,n/2,H).
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
For simplicity of analysis, we conduct the classical ``splitting'' operation \cite{Tsybakov2013aggregation} on the Poisson random vector $\mathbf{Z}$, and obtain two independent identically distributed random vectors $\mathbf{X} = [X_1,X_2,\ldots,X_S]^T, \mathbf{Y} = [Y_1,Y_2,\ldots,Y_S]^T$, such that each component $X_i$ in $\mathbf{X}$ has distribution $\mathsf{Poi}(np_i/2)$, and all coordinates in $\mathbf{X}$ are independent. For each coordinate $i$, the splitting process generates a random variable $T_i$ such that $T_i|\mathbf{Z} \sim \mathrm{B}(Z_i, 1/2)$, and assign $X_i = T_i, Y_i = Z_i - T_i$. All the random variables $\{T_i:1\leq i\leq S\}$ are conditionally independent given our observation $\mathbf{Z}$. We also note that for random variable $X$ such that $nX \sim \mathsf{Poi}(np)$,
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E} \prod_{r = 0}^{k-1} \left( X - \frac{r}{n} \right) = p^k,
\end{equation}
for any $k \in \mathbb{N}_+$.
For simplicity, we re-define $n/2$ as $n$, and denote
\begin{equation}
\hat{p}_{i,1} = \frac{X_i}{n}, \hat{p}_{i,2} = \frac{Y_i}{n}, \Delta = \frac{c_1 \ln n}{n}, K = c_2 \ln n, t = \frac{\Delta}{4},
\end{equation}
where $c_1,c_2$ are positive parameters to be specified later. Note that $\Delta,K,t$ are functions of $n$, where we omit the subscript $n$ for brevity.
The estimator $\hat{H}$ in Jiao et al.~\cite{jiao2014minimax} is constructed as follows.
\begin{equation}\label{eqn.falphaconstruct}
\hat{H} \triangleq \sum_{i = 1}^S \left[ L_H(\hat{p}_{i,1}) \mathbbm{1}(\hat{p}_{i,2} \leq 2\Delta) + U_H(\hat{p}_{i,1}) \mathbbm{1}(\hat{p}_{i,2}>2\Delta) \right],
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align}
S_{K,H}(x) & \triangleq \sum_{k = 1}^{K} g_{k,H} (4\Delta)^{-k + 1} \prod_{r = 0}^{k-1} \left(x-\frac{r}{n}\right) \label{eqn.SKalpha}\\
L_H(x) & \triangleq \min \left\{ S_{K,H}(x) , 1 \right\}\label{eqn.Lalphadef} \\
U_H(x) & \triangleq I_n(x)\left( -x \ln x + \frac{1}{2n}\right). \label{eqn.Ualphadef}
\end{align}
We explain each equation in detail as follows.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Equation~(\ref{eqn.falphaconstruct}):
Note that $\hat{p}_{i,1}$ and $\hat{p}_{i,2}$ are i.i.d. random variables such that $n \hat{p}_{i,1} \sim \mathsf{Poi}(n p_i)$. We use $\hat{p}_{i,2}$ to determine whether we are operating in the ``nonsmooth'' regime or not. If $\hat{p}_{i,2} \leq 2\Delta$, we declare we are in the ``nonsmooth'' regime, and plug in $\hat{p}_{i,1}$ into function $L_H(\cdot)$. If $\hat{p}_{i,2}>2\Delta$, we declare we are in the ``smooth'' regime, and plug in $\hat{p}_{i,1}$ into $U_H(\cdot)$.
\item Equation~(\ref{eqn.SKalpha}):
The coefficients $r_{k,H}, 0\leq k \leq K$ are coefficients of the best polynomial approximation of $-x\ln x$ over $[0,1]$ up to degree $K$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\sum_{k = 0}^K r_{k,H} x^k = \arg \min_{y(x) \in \mathsf{poly}_{K}} \sup_{x\in [0,1]} |y(x)- (-x \ln x)|,
\end{equation}
where $\mathsf{poly}_{K}$ denotes the set of algebraic polynomials up to order $K$. Note that in general $g_{k,\alpha}$ depends on $K$, which we do not make explicit for brevity.
Then we define $\{g_{k,H}\}_{1\leq k\leq K}$
\begin{equation}\label{eqn.gkhdefine}
g_{k,H} = r_{k,H}, 2\leq k \leq K, g_{1,H} = r_{1,H} - \ln (4\Delta).
\end{equation}
Lemma~\ref{lem_small_p} shows that for $nX \sim \mathsf{Poi}(np)$,
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E} S_{K,H}(X) = \sum_{k = 1}^{K} g_{k,H} (4\Delta)^{-k + 1} p^k
\end{equation}
is a near-best polynomial approximation for $-p\ln p$ on $[0,4\Delta]$. Thus, we can understand $S_{K,H}(X), nX\sim \mathsf{Poi}(np)$ as a random variable whose expectation is nearly \footnote{Note that we have removed the constant term from the best polynomial approximation. It is to ensure that we assign zero to symbols we do not see. } the best approximation of function $-x\ln x$ over $[0,4\Delta]$.
\item Equation~(\ref{eqn.Lalphadef}):
Any reasonable estimator for $-p\ln p$ should be upper bounded by the value one. We cutoff $S_{K,H}(x)$ by upper bound $1$, and define the function $L_H(x)$, which means ``lower part''.
\item Equation~(\ref{eqn.Ualphadef}):
The function $U_H(x)$ (means ``upper part'') is nothing but a product of an interpolation function $I_n(x)$ and the bias-corrected MLE. The interpolation function $I_n(x)$ is defined as follows:
\begin{equation}
I_n(x) = \begin{cases} 0 & x \leq t \\
g\left( x-t; t \right) & t < x < 2t \\ 1 & x \geq 2t\end{cases}
\end{equation}
The following lemma characterizes the properties of the function $g(x;a)$ appearing in the definition of $I_n(x)$. In particular, it shows that $I_n(x) \in C^4[0,1]$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma.gxa}
For the function $g(x;a)$ on $[0,a]$ defined as follows,
\begin{equation}
g(x;a) \triangleq 126 \left( \frac{x}{a} \right)^5 - 420 \left(\frac{x}{a}\right)^6 + 540 \left( \frac{x}{a} \right)^7-315 \left( \frac{x}{a} \right)^8 + 70 \left( \frac{x}{a} \right)^9 ,
\end{equation}
we have the following properties:
\begin{align}
g(0;a) = 0,\quad & g^{(i)}(0;a) = 0, 1\leq i\leq 4 \\
g(a;a) = 1, \quad & g^{(i)}(a;a) = 0, 1\leq i\leq 4
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
The function $g(x;1)$ is depicted in Figure~\ref{fig.gx1}.
\begin{center}
\centering
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{interpolate.pdf}}
\vspace{-0.1cm}
\captionof{figure}{The function $g(x;1)$ over interval $[0,1]$. }
\label{fig.gx1}
\end{center}
\end{enumerate}
\section{Main Results}
Since $\sup_{P\in\mathcal{M}_S}H(P) = \ln S$, we assume throughout this paper that $0<H\le\ln S$. Denote by $\mathcal{M}_S(H)$ the set of all discrete probability distributions $P$ with support size $|\mathsf{supp}(P)|=S$ and entropy $H(P)\le H$. We say an estimator $\hat{H}\equiv \hat{H}(\mathbf{Z})$ is within accuracy $\epsilon>0$, if and only if
\begin{align}
\sup_{P\in\mathcal{M}_S(H)} \left(\mathbb{E}_P |\hat{H}-H(P)|^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}} \le \epsilon.
\end{align}
For the plug-in estimator $H(P_n)$, the following theorem presents the non-asymptotic upper and lower bounds for the $L_2$ risk.
\begin{theorem}\label{th_MLE}
If $H\ge H_0>0$, where $H_0$ is a universal positive constant, then for the plug-in estimator $H(P_n)$, we have
\begin{align}
\sup_{P\in\mathcal{M}_S(H)} \mathbb{E}_P |H(P_n)-H(P)|^2 \asymp \begin{cases}
\left(\frac{S}{n}\right)^2 + \frac{H\ln S}{n} & \text{if }S\ln S\le enH,\\
\left[\frac{H}{\ln S}\ln \left(\frac{S\ln S}{nH}\right)\right]^2 & \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
Note that the only assumption in Theorem \ref{th_MLE} is that the upper bound $H$ should be no smaller than a constant, which is a reasonable assumption to avoid the subtle case where the naive zero estimator $\hat{H}\equiv 0$ has a satisfactory performance. The minimum sample complexity of the plug-in approach can be immediately obtained from Theorem \ref{th_MLE}.
\begin{corollary}\label{cor_1}
If $H\ge H_0>0$, where $H_0$ is a universal positive constant, the plug-in estimator $H(P_n)$ is within accuracy $\epsilon$ if and only if $n\succeq \left(S^{1-\frac{\epsilon}{H}}\cdot\frac{\ln S}{H}\right)$.
\end{corollary}
Recall that it requires $n\succeq \left(\frac{S}{\epsilon}\right)$ samples for the MLE to achieve accuracy $\epsilon$ when there is no constraint on the entropy~\cite{jiao2014minimax}. Hence, when the upper bound on the entropy is loose, i.e., $H\asymp\ln S$, the minimum sample complexity in the bounded entropy case is exactly the same, i.e., we cannot essentially improve the estimation performance. On the other hand, when the upper bound is tight, i.e., $H\ll\ln S$, the required sample complexity enjoyed a significant reduction, i.e., we only need a sublinear number of samples for accurate entropy estimation.
When it comes to the maximum $L_2$ risk, we conclude from Theorem \ref{th_MLE} that the bounded entropy property helps only at the boundary, i.e., when $n$ is close to $S$ and $H$ is small. Moreover, this help vanishes quickly as $S$ increases: when $n=S^{1-\delta}$, the maximum $L_2$ risk will be at the order $(\delta H)^2$, which is the same risk achieved by the naive zero estimator when $\delta$ is not close to zero.
Is the plug-in estimator $H(P_n)$ optimal in the minimax sense? It has been shown in \cite{Valiant--Valiant2011,jiao2014minimax,Wu--Yang2014minimax} that when there is no constraint on $H(P)$, i.e., $H=\ln S$, the answer is \emph{negative}. What about subsets of $\mathcal{M}_S$, such as $\mathcal{M}_S(H)$? The following theorem characterizes the minimax $L_2$ rates over $\mathcal{M}_S(H)$.
\begin{theorem}\label{th_minimax}
If $H\ge H_0>0$, where $H_0$ is a universal positive constant, then
\begin{align}
\inf_{\hat{H}}\sup_{P\in\mathcal{M}_S(H)} \mathbb{E}_P |\hat{H}-H(P)|^2 \asymp
\begin{cases}
\frac{S^2}{(n\ln n)^2} + \frac{H\ln S}{n} &\text{if }S\ln S\le enH\ln n,\\
\left[\frac{H}{\ln S}\ln \left(\frac{S\ln S}{nH\ln n}\right)\right]^2&\text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}
\end{align}
where the infimum is taken over all possible estimators. Moreover, the upper bound is achieved by the estimator in~\cite{jiao2014minimax} under the Poissonized model without the knowledge of $H$ nor $S$.
\end{theorem}
An immediate result on the sample complexity is as follows.
\begin{corollary}\label{cor_2}
If $H\ge H_0>0$, where $H_0$ is a universal positive constant, the minimax rate-optimal estimator in~\cite{jiao2014minimax} is within accuracy $\epsilon$ if and only if $n \succeq \left(\frac{1}{H}S^{1-\frac{\epsilon}{H}}\right)$.
\end{corollary}
For the minimum sample complexity, we still distinguish $H$ into two cases. Firstly, when $H\asymp \ln S$, the required sample complexity is $n \asymp \frac{S}{\epsilon\ln S}$, which recovers the minimax results with no constraint on entropy in \cite{jiao2014minimax}. Secondly, when $H\ll \ln S$, there is a significant improvement.
We also conclude from Theorem \ref{th_minimax} that the bounded entropy constraint again helps only at the boundary, and this help vanishes quickly as $S$ increases: when $n=S^{1-\delta}$, we do not have sufficient information to make inference, and the naive zero estimator is near-minimax.
To sum up, we have obtained the following conclusions.
\begin{enumerate}
\item The minimax rate-optimal entropy estimator in Jiao et al.~\cite{jiao2014minimax} is adaptive with respect to the collection of parameter space $\mathcal{M}_S(H)$, where $\mathcal{M}_S(H) \triangleq \{P: H(P)\leq H, P \in \mathcal{M}_S\}$. Moreover, the estimator does not need to know $S$ nor $H$, which is an advantage in practice since usually the alphabet size $S$ nor an \emph{a priori} upper bound on the true entropy $H(P)$ are known.
\item Second, the sample size \emph{enlargement} effect still holds in this adaptive estimation scenario. Table~\ref{table.summary} demonstrates that in estimating various functionals, the performance of the minimax rate-optimal estimator with $n$ samples is essentially that of the MLE with $n\ln n$ samples, which the authors termed ``sample size enlargement'' in \cite{jiao2014minimax}. Theorems~\ref{th_MLE} and~\ref{th_minimax} show that over every $\mathcal{M}_S(H)$, the performance of the estimator in~\cite{jiao2014minimax} with $n$ samples is still essentially that of the MLE with $n\ln n$ samples.
\end{enumerate}
\section{Proof of Upper Bounds in Theorem \ref{th_MLE}}
First we consider the case where $S\ln S\le enH$. For the bias, it has been shown in \cite{Paninski2003} that
\begin{align}
\mathsf{Bias}(H(P_n)) \le \ln\left(1+\frac{S-1}{n}\right) \le \frac{S}{n}.
\end{align}
As for the variance, \cite{jiao2014minimax} shows that by the Efron-Stein inequality that
\begin{align}
\mathsf{Var}(H(P_n)) \le \frac{2}{n}\sum_{i=1}^S p_i\left(\ln p_i-2\right)^2 \le \frac{2}{n}\left(\sum_{i=1}^S p_i(\ln p_i)^2 + 4H + 4\right).
\end{align}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem_varentropy}
For any discrete distribution $P=(p_1,p_2,\cdots,p_S)$ with alphabet size $S\ge 2$, we have
\begin{align}
\sum_{i=1}^S p_i(\ln p_i)^2 \le 2\ln S\cdot\left(\sum_{i=1}^S -p_i\ln p_i\right) + 3.
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
In light of Lemma \ref{lem_varentropy}, we conclude that
\begin{align}
\mathsf{Var}(H(P_n)) \le\frac{2}{n}\left(\sum_{i=1}^S p_i(\ln p_i)^2 + 4H + 4\right) \le \frac{2}{n}\left(2H\ln S + 4H + 7\right)\preceq\frac{H\ln S}{n}
\end{align}
where we have used the assumption $H\ge H_0>0$ in the last step.
Hence, when $S\ln S\le enH$, we have
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}_P\left(H(P_n)-H(P)\right)^2 = \left(\mathsf{Bias}(H(P_n))\right)^2 + \mathsf{Var}(H(P_n)) \preceq \frac{S^2}{n^2} + \frac{H\ln S}{n}
\end{align}
which completes the proof for the first part. For the second part, we introduce a lemma first.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem_bias}
For $p\le \frac{c}{2en}$ and $n\hat{p}\sim\mathsf{B}(n,p)$, where $c$ is a positive integer, we have
\begin{align}
0 \le -p\ln p - \mathbb{E} [-\hat{p}\ln\hat{p}] \le -p\ln(np) + p\ln c + \frac{c\ln c}{n}\left(\frac{enp}{c}\right)^c + \sum_{k=c+1}^n \frac{\ln k+1}{n}\left(\frac{enp}{k}\right)^k.
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
Define $\xi(\hat{p}_i)=-\hat{p}_i\ln\hat{p}_i$. In light of Lemma \ref{lem_bias}, for any positive integer $c$, we have
\begin{align}
\sum_{i: p_i\le \frac{c}{2en}} \left|\mathsf{Bias}\left(\xi(\hat{p}_i)\right)\right|
&\le \sum_{i: p_i\le \frac{c}{2en}} \left[-p_i\ln(np_i) + p_i\ln c + \frac{c\ln c}{n}\left(\frac{enp_i}{c}\right)^{c} + \sum_{k=c+1}^n \frac{\ln k+1}{n}\left(\frac{enp_i}{k}\right)^k\right]\\
&\le \sum_{i: p_i\le \frac{c}{2en}}\left[-p_i\ln\left(\frac{np_i}{c}\right)\right] + \sum_{i: p_i\le \frac{c}{2en}}\left[\frac{c\ln c}{n}\left(\frac{enp_i}{c}\right)^{c} + \sum_{k=c+1}^n \frac{\ln k+1}{n}\left(\frac{enp_i}{k}\right)^k\right]\\
&\le \sum_{i: p_i\le \frac{c}{2en}}\left[-p_i\ln\left(\frac{np_i}{c}\right)\right]+ \frac{c\ln c}{n}\cdot \frac{2en}{c}2^{-c} + \sum_{k=c+1}^n \frac{\ln k+1}{n}\cdot \frac{2en}{c}\left(\frac{c}{2k}\right)^k\label{eq:bound_sum} \\
&\le \sum_{i: p_i\le \frac{c}{2en}}\left[-p_i\ln\left(\frac{np_i}{c}\right)\right]+ 2e \cdot 2^{-c}\ln c + \sum_{k=c+1}^n 2e\cdot\frac{\ln k+1}{k2^{k}} \\
&\le \sum_{i: p_i\le \frac{c}{2en}}\left[-p_i\ln\left(\frac{np_i}{c}\right)\right] + 2e\cdot 2^{-c}(\ln c + 1),\label{eq:total_bias}
\end{align}
where we have used the convexity of $x^k,0\le x\le1$ for any $k\ge1$ in (\ref{eq:bound_sum}). We consider the following optimization problem:
\begin{align}\label{eq:optimization}
\text{maximize }\sum_{i:p_i\le \frac{c}{2en}} -p_i\ln\left(\frac{np_i}{c}\right) \qquad \text{ subject to } \sum_{i:p_i\le \frac{c}{2en}}-p_i\ln p_i\le H,
A_1\equiv\left|\left\{i:p_i\le\frac{c}{2en}\right\}\right| \le S
\end{align}
It is straightforward to show that in the solution to (\ref{eq:optimization}), all $p_i\le c/2en$ should be equal, say, to $p_0$. Then (\ref{eq:optimization}) reduces to
\begin{align}\label{eq:optimization_sim}
\text{maximize }A_1p_0\ln\left(\frac{c}{np_0}\right) \qquad \text{ subject to } 0\le p_0\le \frac{c}{2en}, A_1\le S, -A_1p_0\ln p_0\le H
\end{align}
whose optimization result is no larger than
\begin{align}\label{eq:optimization_sim_2}
\text{maximize }A_1p_0\ln\left(\frac{c}{np_0}\right) \qquad \text{ subject to } A_1\le S, -A_1p_0\ln p_0\le H.
\end{align}
Then it is easy to check that the solution to (\ref{eq:optimization_sim_2}) is $A_1=S$ and $-A_1p_0\ln p_0=H$. Then we have $p_0\asymp \frac{H}{S\ln S}$, and
\begin{align}
\sum_{i: p_i\le \frac{c}{2en}} \left|\mathsf{Bias}\left(\xi(\hat{p}_i)\right)\right| &\le Sp_0\ln\left(\frac{c}{np_0}\right) + 2e\cdot 2^{-c}(\ln c + 1)\\
&\preceq \frac{H}{\ln S}\ln\left(\frac{cS\ln S}{nH}\right) + 2^{-c}\ln c.
\end{align}
Now we set $c = n^{\frac{\epsilon}{H}}$ with
\begin{align}
\epsilon = \frac{H}{\ln S}\ln\left(\frac{S\ln S}{nH}\right) > 0
\end{align}
and we assume without loss of generality that $c$ is an integer. We can easily check that
\begin{align}
2^{-c}\ln c \preceq \frac{H\ln c}{\ln S} = \frac{\ln n}{\ln S}\epsilon \preceq\epsilon = \frac{H}{\ln S}\ln\left(\frac{S\ln S}{nH}\right)
\end{align}
which leads to the desired result
\begin{align}
\sum_{i: p_i\le \frac{c}{2en}} \left|\mathsf{Bias}\left(\xi(\hat{p}_i)\right)\right| \preceq \frac{H}{\ln S}\ln\left(\frac{S\ln S}{nH}\right).
\end{align}
As for the second part of bias, it has been shown in \cite{jiao2014minimax} that $\left|\mathsf{Bias}\left(\xi(\hat{p}_i)\right)\right|\le \frac{5\ln2}{n}$ holds for all $i$, hence
\begin{align}
\sum_{i: p_i> \frac{c}{2en}} \left|\mathsf{Bias}\left(\xi(\hat{p}_i)\right)\right| \le \frac{5\ln 2}{n}\cdot \left|\{i: p_i> \frac{c}{2en}\}\right| \equiv \frac{5\ln2}{n}\cdot A_2.
\end{align}
We use the bounded entropy property to bound $A_2$. Due to the concavity of $-x\ln x,0\le x\le 1$, the minimum of $\sum_{i: p_i> \frac{c}{2en}}-p_i\ln p_i$ is attained when all but one $p_i$ are at the boundary $p_i = \frac{c}{2en}$, hence
\begin{align}
H \ge \sum_{i=1}^S -p_i\ln p_i \ge \sum_{i: p_i> \frac{c}{2en}}-p_i\ln p_i \ge (A_2-1)\cdot \frac{c}{2en}\ln\left(\frac{2en}{c}\right).
\end{align}
As a result, we have $A_2 \preceq \frac{nH}{\ln n}$, and
\begin{align}
\sum_{i: p_i> \frac{c}{2en}} \left|\mathsf{Bias}\left(\xi(\hat{p}_i)\right)\right|\preceq \frac{H}{\ln n} \preceq \frac{H}{\ln S}\ln\left(\frac{S\ln S}{nH}\right)
\end{align}
when $S\ln S\ge enH$ (the last inequality can be shown by considering two cases $S\ge n^2$ and $S<n^2$ separately). Hence,
\begin{align}
\left|\mathsf{Bias}(H(P_n))\right| \le \sum_{i: p_i\le \frac{c}{2en}} \left|\mathsf{Bias}\left(\xi(\hat{p}_i)\right)\right|+
\sum_{i: p_i> \frac{c}{2en}} \left|\mathsf{Bias}\left(\xi(\hat{p}_i)\right)\right|\preceq \frac{H}{\ln S}\ln\left(\frac{S\ln S}{nH}\right)
\end{align}
and the squared bias is the dominating term since
\begin{align}
\left[\frac{H}{\ln S}\ln\left(\frac{S\ln S}{nH}\right)\right]^2 \succeq \frac{(\ln n)^2}{n}
\end{align}
where $\frac{(\ln n)^2}{n}$ is an upper bound for the variance $\mathsf{Var}(H(P_n))$ \cite{jiao2014minimax}.
\section{Proof of Lower Bounds in Theorem \ref{th_MLE}}
We first derive a lower bound for the bias term. When $S\ln S\le enH$, we recall the following result in \cite{jiao2014minimax}.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem_bias_lower_MLE}
For $p\ge \frac{15}{n},p\in[0,1]$, we have
\begin{align}
-p\ln p-\mathbb{E}[-\hat{p}\ln\hat{p}] \ge \frac{1-p}{2n} + \frac{1}{20n^2p} - \frac{p}{12n^2}.
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
If we choose $P=(\frac{15}{n},\frac{15}{n},\cdots,\frac{15}{n},1-\frac{15K}{n},0,\cdots,0)$, where
\begin{align}
K = \min\left\{\lfloor\frac{n}{15}\rfloor, S-1, \max\left\{N\in \mathbb{N}: -\frac{15N}{n}\ln\left(\frac{15}{n}\right) - \left(1-\frac{15N}{n}\right)\ln \left(1-\frac{15N}{n}\right)\le H\right\}\right\}
\end{align}
we have
\begin{align}
|\mathsf{Bias}(H(P_n))| \ge K\cdot \left(\frac{n-15}{2n^2} + \frac{1}{300n} - \frac{5}{4n^3}\right) \succeq
\min\left\{1, \frac{S}{n}, \frac{H}{\ln n}\right\} \succeq \frac{S}{n}
\end{align}
where we have used the assumption $S\ln S\le enH$ and $H\ge H_0>0$. Hence, we have proved that
\begin{align}
\sup_{P\in\mathcal{M}_S(H)} \mathbb{E}_P |H(P_n)-H(P)|^2 \succeq \frac{S^2}{n^2}.
\end{align}
For the case where $S\ln S> enH$, we establish a lemma first.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem_bias_lower}
For $n\hat{p}\sim\mathsf{B}(n,p)$, we have
\begin{align}
-p\ln p - \mathbb{E} [-\hat{p}\ln\hat{p}] \ge -p\ln (np).
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Note that $n\hat{p}$ is an integer, we have
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E} [-\hat{p}\ln\hat{p}] \le \mathbb{E} [\hat{p}\ln n] = p\ln n.
\end{align}
\end{proof}
Consider a distribution $P=(\frac{A}{S-1},\cdots,\frac{A}{S-1},A)\in\mathcal{M}_S$, where $A\in(0,1)$ is the solution to
\begin{align}\label{eq:def_A}
-A\ln \left(\frac{A}{S-1}\right) - (1-A)\ln(1-A) = H
\end{align}
then Lemma \ref{lem_bias_lower} tells us that
\begin{align}
|\mathsf{Bias}(H(P_n))| \ge \sum_{i=1}^{S-1} -p_i\ln (np_i) = -A\ln\left(\frac{nA}{S-1}\right) \succeq \frac{H}{\ln S}\ln\left(\frac{S\ln S}{nH}\right)
\end{align}
where in the last step we have used the relationship $A\asymp \frac{H}{\ln S}$ from (\ref{eq:def_A}).
We now turn to the lower bound for variance. We will actually prove a stronger result: a minimax lower bound for all estimators for the $L_2$ risk, which naturally is also a lower bound for the maximum risk of the MLE. We use Le Cam's two-point method here. Suppose we observe a random vector ${\bf Z} \in (\mathcal{Z},\mathcal{A})$ which has distribution $P_\theta$ where $\theta \in \Theta$. Let $\theta_0$ and $\theta_1$ be two elements of $\Theta$. Let $\hat{T} = \hat{T}({\bf Z})$ be an arbitrary estimator of a function $T(\theta)$ based on $\bf Z$. We have the following general minimax lower bound.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem_twopoint}
\cite[Sec. 2.4.2]{Tsybakov2008} Denoting the Kullback-Leibler divergence between $P$ and $Q$ by
\begin{align}
D(P\|Q) \triangleq \begin{cases}
\int \ln\left(\frac{dP}{dQ}\right)dP, &\text{if }P\ll Q,\\
+\infty, &\text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\end{align}
we have
\begin{align}
\inf_{\hat{T}} \sup_{\theta \in \Theta} \mathbb{P}_\theta\left( |\hat{T} - T(\theta)| \geq \frac{|T(\theta_1)-T(\theta_0)|}{2} \right) \geq
\frac{1}{4}\exp\left(-D\left(P_{\theta_1}\|P_{\theta_0}\right)\right).
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
Applying this lemma to the Poissonized model $n\hat{p}_i\sim\mathsf{Poi}(np_i),1\le i\le S$, we know that for $\theta_1=(p_1,p_2,\cdots,p_S), \theta_0=(q_1,q_2,\cdots,q_S)$,
\begin{align}
D\left(P_{\theta_1}\|P_{\theta_0}\right) = \sum_{i=1}^S D\left(\mathsf{Poi}(np_i)\|\mathsf{Poi}(nq_i)\right)
= \sum_{i=1}^S \sum_{k=0}^\infty \mathbb{P}\left(\mathsf{Poi}(np_i)=k\right)\cdot k\ln\frac{p_i}{q_i} = \sum_{i=1}^S np_i\ln\frac{p_i}{q_i} = nD(\theta_1\|\theta_0),
\end{align}
then Markov's inequality yields
\begin{align}
\inf_{\hat{H}} \sup_{P \in \mathcal{M}_S(H)} \mathbb{E}_P\left( \hat{H}-H(P)\right)^2 &\ge \frac{|H(\theta_1)-H(\theta_0)|^2}{4}\cdot
\inf_{\hat{H}} \sup_{P \in \mathcal{M}_S(H)} \mathbb{P}\left( |\hat{H}-H(P)| \ge \frac{|H(\theta_1)-H(\theta_0)|}{2}\right)\\
&\ge \frac{|H(\theta_1)-H(\theta_0)|^2}{16}\exp\left(-nD(\theta_1\|\theta_0)\right).
\end{align}
Fix $\epsilon\in(0,1)$ to be specified later, and let
\begin{align}
\theta_1 = \left(\frac{A}{S-1},\cdots,\frac{A}{S-1},1-A\right),\quad
\theta_0 = \left(\frac{A(1-\epsilon)}{S-1},\cdots,\frac{A(1-\epsilon)}{S-1},1-A+A\epsilon\right),\quad
\end{align}
where $A$ is the solution to (\ref{eq:def_A}). Direct computation yields
\begin{align}
D(\theta_1\|\theta_0) = A\ln\frac{1}{1-\epsilon} + (1-A)\ln\frac{1-A}{1-A+A\epsilon} \equiv h(\epsilon),
\end{align}
we have $h(0)=h'(0)=0$, and $|h''(0)| = \frac{1-A}{A} >0$. Hence, for $\epsilon$ small enough we have $D(\theta_1\|\theta_0) \le \epsilon^2/A$. By choosing $\epsilon=(nA)^{-\frac{1}{2}}\preceq1$, we have
\begin{align}
|H(\theta_1)-H(\theta_0)| &= \left|-A\ln\left(\frac{A}{S-1}\right)+A(1-\epsilon)\ln\left(\frac{A(1-\epsilon)}{S-1}\right)-(1-A)\ln(1-A)+(1-A+A\epsilon)\ln(1-A+A\epsilon)\right|\\
&\succeq A\epsilon\ln \left(\frac{S-1}{A}\right).
\end{align}
Hence, by Lemma \ref{lem_twopoint} we know that
\begin{align}\label{eq:var_lower}
\inf_{\hat{H}}\sup_{P\in\mathcal{M}_S(H)} \mathbb{E}_P |\hat{H}-H(P)|^2 \succeq
\left[ A\epsilon\ln \left(\frac{S-1}{A}\right)\right]^2 \asymp \frac{H}{n\ln S}\left[\ln\left(\frac{S\ln S}{H}\right)\right]^2
\asymp \frac{H\ln S}{n}
\end{align}
and the lower bound in the Multinomial model follows from Lemma \ref{lemma.poissonmultinomial}.
\section{Proof of Upper Bounds in Theorem \ref{th_minimax}}
Define
\begin{align}
\xi \triangleq \xi(X,Y) = L_H(X) \mathbbm{1}(Y \leq 2\Delta) + U_H(X) \mathbbm{1}(Y>2\Delta),
\end{align}
where $nX\overset{D}{=}nY\sim \mathsf{Poi}(np)$, and $X,Y$ are independent.
We first recall the following lemma from \cite{jiao2014minimax}.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem_optimal}
Suppose $0<c_1=16(1+\delta), 0<8c_2\ln 2=\epsilon<1, \delta>0$. Then the bias and variance of $\xi(X,Y)$ are given as follows:
\begin{align}
|\mathsf{Bias}(\xi)| &\preceq \frac{1}{n\ln n}\\
\mathsf{Var}(\xi) &\preceq \frac{(\ln n)^4}{n^{2-\epsilon}} + \frac{p(\ln p)^2}{n}
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
In light of Lemma \ref{lem_optimal}, we have
\begin{align}
|\mathsf{Bias}(\hat{H})| &\le \sum_{i=1}^S |\mathsf{Bias}(\xi(\hat{p}_{i,1},\hat{p}_{i,2}))| \preceq \sum_{i=1}^S \frac{1}{n\ln n} = \frac{S}{n\ln n}\\
\mathsf{Var}(\hat{H}) &= \sum_{i=1}^S \mathsf{Var}(\xi(\hat{p}_{i,1},\hat{p}_{i,2})) \le \sum_{i=1}^S \left(\frac{(\ln n)^4}{n^{2-\epsilon}} + \frac{p_i(\ln p_i)^2}{n}\right) \preceq \frac{S(\ln n)^4}{n^{2-\epsilon}} + \frac{H\ln S}{n}
\end{align}
where we have used Lemma \ref{lem_varentropy} in the last step. Hence,
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}_P\left(\hat{H}-H(P)\right)^2 = |\mathsf{Bias}(\hat{H})|^2 + \mathsf{Var}(\hat{H}) \preceq \frac{S^2}{(n\ln n)^2} + \frac{S(\ln n)^4}{n^{2-\epsilon}} + \frac{H\ln S}{n}.
\end{align}
When $S\ln S\le enH\ln n$, for $\epsilon$ small enough, say, $\epsilon<\frac{1}{2}$, we have
\begin{align}
\frac{S(\ln n)^4}{n^{2-\epsilon}}\preceq \sqrt{\frac{S^2}{(n\ln n)^2}\cdot \frac{H\ln S}{n}} \le \frac{S^2}{(n\ln n)^2} + \frac{H\ln S}{n}
\end{align}
where we have used the assumption that $H\ge H_0>0$. Hence, the term $\frac{S(\ln n)^4}{n^{2-\epsilon}}$ is negligible when compared with others, and we have reached the end for the case $S\ln S\le enH\ln n$.
For the case where $S\ln S\ge enH\ln n$, we need stronger results for the bias and variance in the regime where $p<\frac{1}{en\ln n}$. The results are summarized in the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem_small_p}
If $0<c_2\le1\le c_1$, for $nX\sim\mathsf{Poi}(np),0<p<\frac{1}{en\ln n}$, we have
\begin{align}
|\mathbb{E} S_{K,H}(X) + p\ln p| &\le -p\ln(pn\ln n) + \left(D_p + \ln(4c_1/c_2^2)\right)p\\
\mathbb{E} S_{K,H}^2(X) &\le 2^{10c_2\ln 2}\frac{(4c_1\ln n)^{4}p}{n}
\end{align}
where the constant $D_p$ is given in Lemma \ref{lem_ibragimov}.
\end{lemma}
Using the Poisson tail bound (cf. Lemma \ref{lemma.poissontail}) and similar argument to \cite[Lem. 8]{jiao2014minimax}, we have the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem_optimal}
Suppose $0<c_1=16(1+\delta), 0<10c_2\ln 2=\epsilon<1, \delta>0$. Then for $0<p<\frac{1}{en\ln n}$, we have
\begin{align}
|\mathsf{Bias}(\xi)| &\preceq -p\ln(pn\ln n)\\
\mathsf{Var}(\xi) &\preceq \frac{(\ln n)^4p}{n^{1-\epsilon}}
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
Now we proceed to bound the total bias and variance. By looking at the maximization problem
\begin{align}
\sum_{i:p_i< \frac{1}{en\ln n}} -p_i\ln(p_in\ln n) \qquad \text{ subject to } \sum_{i:p_i< \frac{1}{en\ln n}}-p_i\ln p_i\le H,
\left|\left\{i:p_i<\frac{1}{en\ln n}\right\}\right| \le S.
\end{align}
Using similar arguments to (\ref{eq:optimization}), all $p_i\le \frac{1}{en\ln n}$ should be equal and both equalities in the constraints hold. As a result, we have
\begin{align}
\sum_{i:p_i< \frac{1}{en\ln n}} |\mathsf{Bias}(\xi)| \preceq \sum_{i:p_i< \frac{1}{en\ln n}} -p_i\ln(p_in\ln n) \preceq \frac{H}{\ln S}\ln\left(\frac{S\ln S}{nH\ln n}\right).
\end{align}
For symbols with $p_i>\frac{1}{en\ln n}$, similar arguments in the MLE analysis yield
\begin{align}
\left|\left\{i: p_i\ge\frac{1}{en\ln n}\right\}\right| \preceq \frac{nH\ln n}{\ln(n\ln n)} \asymp nH
\end{align}
hence
\begin{align}
\sum_{i:p_i\ge \frac{1}{en\ln n}} |\mathsf{Bias}(\xi)| \preceq \frac{1}{n\ln n}\cdot \left|\left\{i: p_i\ge\frac{1}{en\ln n}\right\}\right| \preceq \frac{H}{\ln n} \preceq \frac{H}{\ln S}\ln\left(\frac{S\ln S}{nH\ln n}\right)
\end{align}
when $S\ln S\ge enH\ln n$. Summing up the bias yields
\begin{align}
|\mathsf{Bias}(\hat{H})| &\le \sum_{i:p_i\ge \frac{1}{en\ln n}} |\mathsf{Bias}(\xi(\hat{p}_{i,1},\hat{p}_{i,2}))| + \sum_{i:p_i< \frac{1}{en\ln n}} |\mathsf{Bias}(\xi(\hat{p}_{i,1},\hat{p}_{i,2}))| \preceq\frac{H}{\ln S}\ln\left(\frac{S\ln S}{nH\ln n}\right).
\end{align}
For the total variance, we have
\begin{align}
\mathsf{Var}(\hat{H}) &= \sum_{i:p_i\ge \frac{1}{en\ln n}} \mathsf{Var}(\xi(\hat{p}_{i,1},\hat{p}_{i,2})) + \sum_{i:p_i< \frac{1}{en\ln n}} \mathsf{Var}(\xi(\hat{p}_{i,1},\hat{p}_{i,2}))\\
&\preceq \sum_{i:p_i\ge \frac{1}{en\ln n}} \left(\frac{(\ln n)^4}{n^{2-\epsilon}} + \frac{p(\ln p)^2}{n}\right) + \sum_{i:p_i< \frac{1}{en\ln n}} \frac{(\ln n)^4p}{n^{1-\epsilon}}\\
&\preceq \left(\frac{(\ln n)^5}{n^{1-\epsilon}} + \frac{(\ln n)^2}{n}\right) + \frac{(\ln n)^4}{n^{1-\epsilon}}\\
&\preceq \left[\frac{H}{\ln S}\ln\left(\frac{S\ln S}{nH\ln n}\right)\right]^2
\end{align}
where in the last step we have used the assumption $H\ge H_0>0$ again. Combining the total bias and variance constitutes a complete proof of the upper bounds in Theorem \ref{th_minimax}.
\section{Proof of Lower Bounds in Theorem \ref{th_minimax}}
When $S\ln S\le enH\ln n$, the lower bound for the squared bias, i.e., the $\frac{S^2}{(n\ln n)^2}$ term, can be obtained using a similar argument in \cite{Wu--Yang2014minimax}. Specifically, we can assign two product measures $\mu_0^N$ and $\mu_1^N$ to the first $N(\le S)$ components in the distribution vector $P$, where
\begin{align}
\mathsf{supp}(\mu_i) = \{0\} \cup \left[\frac{1}{a_1n\ln n}, \frac{a_2\ln n}{n}\right], \qquad i=0,1
\end{align}
for some constants $a_1,a_2>0$, and
\begin{align}
\int_0^1 t\mu_i(dt) = \frac{1}{a_1n\ln n},\qquad i=0,1.
\end{align}
In particular,
\begin{align}
\int_0^1 -t\ln t\mu_1(dt) - \int_0^1 -t\ln t\mu_0(dt) \succeq \frac{1}{n\ln n}
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
\inf_{\hat{H}}\sup_{P\in\mathcal{M}_S} \mathbb{E}_P\left(\hat{H}-H(P)\right)^2 \succeq \left[N\left(\int_0^1 -t\ln t\mu_1(dt) - \int_0^1 -t\ln t\mu_0(dt)\right)\right]^2 \succeq \frac{N^2}{(n\ln n)^2}.
\end{align}
In \cite{Wu--Yang2014minimax}, $N=S$. However, in our case, we have an additional constraint that $H(P)\le H$. Since
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}_{\mu_i}[-p\ln p] = \int_0^1 -t\ln t\mu_i(dt) \le \ln(a_1n\ln n)\int_0^1 t\mu_i(dt) = \frac{a_1\ln(a_1n\ln n)}{n\ln n}\asymp \frac{1}{n}
\end{align}
we have
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}_{\mu_i^N}H(P) = N\mathbb{E}_{\mu_i}[-p\ln p] \asymp \frac{N}{n}.
\end{align}
One can show that the measures $\mu_i^N,i = 0,1$ are highly concentrated around their expectations~\cite{Wu--Yang2014minimax}. Hence, in order to ensure $H(P)\le H$ with overwhelming probability, we can set $N\asymp \min\{nH, S\}$, and the condition $S\ln S\le enH\ln n$ and $H\ge H_0>0$ yield that $N\succeq S$. Hence,
\begin{align}
\inf_{\hat{H}}\sup_{P\in\mathcal{M}_S(H)} \mathbb{E}_P\left(\hat{H}-H(P)\right)^2 \succeq \frac{N^2}{(n\ln n)^2} \succeq \frac{S^2}{(n\ln n)^2}.
\end{align}
The variance bound $\frac{H\ln S}{n}$ has been given in (\ref{eq:var_lower}), and so far we have completed the proof of the first part. As for the second part, the key lemma we will employ is the so-called method of two fuzzy hypotheses presented in Tsybakov \cite{Tsybakov2008}. Below we briefly review this general minimax lower bound.
Suppose we observe a random vector ${\bf Z} \in (\mathcal{Z},\mathcal{A})$ which has distribution $P_\theta$ where $\theta \in \Theta$. Let $\sigma_0$ and $\sigma_1$ be two prior distributions supported on $\Theta$. Write $F_i$ for the marginal distribution of $\mathbf{Z}$ when the prior is $\sigma_i$ for $i = 0,1$. For any function $g$ we shall write $\mathbb{E}_{F_i} g(\mathbf{Z})$ for the expectation of $g(\mathbf{Z})$ with respect to the marginal distribution of $\mathbf{Z}$ when the prior on $\theta$ is $\sigma_i$. We shall write $\mathbb{E}_\theta g(\mathbf{Z})$ for the expectation of $g(\mathbf{Z})$ under $P_\theta$. Let $\hat{T} = \hat{T}({\bf Z})$ be an arbitrary estimator of a function $T(\theta)$ based on $\bf Z$. We have the following general minimax lower bound.
\begin{lemma}\cite[Thm. 2.15]{Tsybakov2008} \label{lemma.tsybakov}
Given the setting above, suppose there exist $\zeta\in \mathbb{R}, s>0, 0\leq \beta_0,\beta_1 <1$ such that
\begin{align}
\sigma_0(\theta: T(\theta) \leq \zeta -s) & \geq 1-\beta_0 \\
\sigma_1(\theta: T(\theta) \geq \zeta + s) & \geq 1-\beta_1.
\end{align}
If $V(F_1,F_0) \leq \eta<1$, then
\begin{equation}
\inf_{\hat{T}} \sup_{\theta \in \Theta} \mathbb{P}_\theta\left( |\hat{T} - T(\theta)| \geq s \right) \geq \frac{1-\eta - \beta_0 - \beta_1}{2},
\end{equation}
where $F_i,i = 0,1$ are the marginal distributions of $\mathbf{Z}$ when the priors are $\sigma_i,i = 0,1$, respectively.
\end{lemma}
Here $V(P,Q)$ is the total variation distance between two probability measures $P,Q$ on the measurable space $(\mathcal{Z},\mathcal{A})$. Concretely, we have
\begin{equation}
V(P,Q) \triangleq \sup_{A\in \mathcal{A}} | P(A) - Q(A) | = \frac{1}{2} \int |p-q| d\nu,
\end{equation}
where $p = \frac{dP}{d\nu}, q = \frac{dQ}{d\nu}$, and $\nu$ is a dominating measure so that $P \ll \nu, Q \ll \nu$.
First we assume that $S\preceq n^{\frac{3}{2}}$. In light of Lemma \ref{lemma.tsybakov}, we construct two measures as follows.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem_measure}
For any $0<\eta<1$ and positive integer $L>0$, there exist two probability measures $\nu_0$ and $\nu_1$ on $[\eta,1]$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\int t^{l} \nu_1(dt) = \int t^{l} \nu_0(dt)$, for all $l=0,1,2,\cdots,L$;
\item $\int -\ln t \nu_1(dt) - \int -\ln t \nu_0(dt) = 2E_L[-\ln x]_{[\eta,1]}$,
\end{enumerate}
where $E_L[-\ln x]_{[\eta,1]}$ is the distance in the uniform norm on $[\eta,1]$ from the function $f(x)=-\ln x$ to the space spanned by $\{1,x,\cdots,x^L\}$.
\end{lemma}
Based on Lemma \ref{lem_measure}, two new measures $\tilde{\nu}_0,\tilde{\nu}_1$ can be constructed as follows: for $i=0,1$, the restriction of $\tilde{\nu}_i$ on $[\eta,1]$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $\nu_i$, with the Radon-Nikodym derivative given by
\begin{align}\label{eq:derivative}
\frac{d\tilde{\nu}_i}{d\nu_i}(t) = \frac{\eta}{t}, \qquad t\in[\eta,1],
\end{align}
and $\tilde{\nu}_i(\{0\})=1-\tilde{\nu}_i([\eta,1])\ge0$. Hence, $\tilde{\nu}_0,\tilde{\nu}_1$ are both probability measures on $[0,1]$, with the following properties
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\int t^1 \tilde{\nu}_1(dt) = \int t^1 \tilde{\nu}_0(dt) = \eta$;
\item $\int t^l \tilde{\nu}_1(dt) = \int t^l \tilde{\nu}_0(dt)$, for all $l=2,\cdots,L+1$;
\item $\int -t\ln t \tilde{\nu}_1(dt) - \int -t\ln t \tilde{\nu}_0(dt) = 2\eta E_L[-\ln x]_{[\eta,1]}$.
\end{enumerate}
The construction of measures $\tilde{\nu}_0,\tilde{\nu}_1$ are inspired by Wu and Yang~\cite{Wu--Yang2014minimax}.
The following lemma characterizes the properties of $E_L[-\ln x]_{[\eta,1]}$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem_approx}
If $K\ge eL^2$, there exists a universal constant $D_0\ge 1$ such that
\begin{align}
E_L[-\ln x]_{[(D_0K)^{-1},1]} \succeq \ln\left(\frac{K}{L^2}\right).
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
Define
\begin{align}
L = d_2\ln n, \quad\eta = \frac{nH}{d_2^2D_0S\ln S\ln n}, \quad M = \frac{H}{\ln S}\cdot \frac{d_1}{S\eta} = \frac{d_1d_2^2D_0\ln n}{n},
\end{align}
with universal positive constants $d_1\in(0,e^{-1}],d_2>2$ to be determined later. Without loss of generality we assume that $d_2\ln n$ is always a positive integer. Due to $S\ln S\ge enH\ln n$, we have $(D_0\eta)^{-1}\ge eL^2$, thus Lemma \ref{lem_approx} yields
\begin{align}\label{eq:appro_err}
E_L[-\ln x]_{[\eta,1]} \succeq \ln\left(\frac{1}{D_0\eta L^2}\right) \succeq \ln\left(\frac{S\ln S}{Hn\ln n}\right).
\end{align}
Let $g(x)=Mx$ and let $\mu_i$ be the measures on $[0,M]$ defined by $\mu_i(A)=\tilde{\nu}_i(g^{-1}(A))$ for $i=0,1$. It then follows that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\int t^1 \mu_1(dt) = \int t^1 \mu_0(dt) = d_1H/(S\ln S)$;
\item $\int t^l \mu_1(dt) = \int t^l \mu_0(dt)$, for all $l=2,\cdots,L+1$;
\item $\int -t\ln t \mu_1(dt) - \int -t\ln t \mu_0(dt) = 2\eta M E_L[-\ln x]_{[\eta,1]}$.
\end{enumerate}
Let $\mu_0^{S-1}$ and $\mu_1^{S-1}$ be product priors which we assign to the length-$(S-1)$ vector $(p_1,p_2,\cdots,p_{S-1})$, and we set $p_S=d_1(1-H/\ln S)$. With a little abuse of notation, we still denote the overall product measure by $\mu_0^S$ and $\mu_1^S$. Note that $P$ may not be a probability distribution, we consider the set of \emph{approximate} probability vectors
\begin{align}
\mathcal{M}_S(\epsilon, H) \triangleq \left\{P: \left|\sum_{i=1}^S p_i-d_1\right|\le \epsilon, H(P)\le H,p_i\ge 0(1\le i\le S)\right\},
\end{align}
with parameter $\epsilon>0$ to be specified later, and further define under the Poissonized model,
\begin{align}
R_P(S,n,H,\epsilon) &\triangleq \inf_{\hat{F}}\sup_{P\in \mathcal{M}_S(\epsilon, H)} \mathbb{E}_P|\hat{H}-H(P)|^2.
\end{align}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem_equiv}
For any $S,n\in\mathbb{N}$ and $0<\epsilon<d_1$, we have
\begin{align}
R(S,n,H) \ge \frac{1}{2d_1^{2}}R_P\left(S,\frac{2n}{d_1},\ln(d_1-\epsilon)\left(H-\ln(d_1+\epsilon)\right),\epsilon\right) - (\ln S)^2\exp(-\frac{n}{4}) - \frac{\epsilon^2}{d_1^{2}}\cdot \sup_{x\in[d_1-\epsilon,d_1+\epsilon]} \ln^2(ex).
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
In light of Lemma \ref{lem_equiv}, it suffices to consider $R_P(S,n,H,\epsilon)$ to give a lower bound of $R(S,n,H)$. Denote
\begin{align}
\chi\triangleq\mathbb{E}_{\mu_1^{S}}H(P) - \mathbb{E}_{\mu_0^{S}}H(P) &= 2\eta M E_L[-\ln x]_{[\eta,1]}\cdot S=\frac{2d_1H}{\ln S}\cdot E_L[-\ln x]_{[\eta,1]}
\succeq \frac{H}{\ln S}\cdot \ln\left(\frac{S\ln S}{nH\ln n}\right),
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
E_i \triangleq \mathcal{M}_{S}(\epsilon, H)\bigcap \left\{P: |H(P)-\mathbb{E}_{\mu_i^{S}}H(P)|\le\frac{\chi}{4}\right\},\qquad i=0,1.
\end{align}
Denote by $\pi_i$ the conditional distribution defined as
\begin{align}
\pi_i(A) = \frac{\mu_i^S(E_i\cap A)}{\mu_i^S(E_i)}, \qquad i=0,1.
\end{align}
Now consider $\pi_0,\pi_1$ as two priors. By setting
\begin{align}
\zeta = \mathbb{E}_{\mu_0^{S}}H(P) + \frac{\chi}{2}, \quad s = \frac{\chi}{4}, \quad \epsilon = \frac{1}{\ln n},
\end{align}
we have $\beta_0=\beta_1=0$ in Lemma \ref{lemma.tsybakov}. Applying union bound yields that
\begin{align}\label{eq:tail_prob}
\mu_i^{S}[(E_i)^c]&\le \mu_i^{S}\left[\left|\sum_{j=1}^{S} p_j-d_1\right|> \epsilon\right] + \mu_i^{S}\left[|H(P)-\mathbb{E}_{\mu_i^{S}}H(P)|>\frac{\chi}{4}\right] + \mu_i^{S}[H(P)>H]
\end{align}
and the Chebychev inequality tells us that
\begin{align}
\mu_i^{S}\left[\left|\sum_{j=1}^{S} p_j-d_1\right|> \epsilon\right] &\le \frac{1}{\epsilon^2}\sum_{j=1}^S \mathsf{Var}_{\mu_i^S} (p_j)\le \frac{SM^2}{\epsilon^2} \asymp \frac{S(\ln n)^4}{n^2} \preceq \frac{(\ln n)^4}{n^{\frac{1}{2}}} \to 0\label{eq:chebychev_1}\\
\mu_i^{S}\left[|H(P)-\mathbb{E}_{\mu_i^{S}}H(P)|>\frac{\chi}{4}\right] &\le \frac{16}{\chi^2}\sum_{j=1}^S \mathsf{Var}_{\mu_i^S} (-p_j\ln p_j)
\le \frac{16S(M\ln M)^2}{\chi^2}\preceq \frac{S(\ln S)^2(\ln n)^4}{n^2} \preceq \frac{(\ln n)^6}{n^{\frac{1}{2}}} \to 0 \label{eq:chebychev_2}
\end{align}
where we have used our assumption that $S\preceq n^{\frac{3}{2}}$. For bounding $\mu_i^{S}[H(P)>H]$, we first remark that for $d_1\le e^{-1}$,
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}_{\mu_i^S} H(P) &\le -d_1\ln d_1 + (S-1)\int -t\ln t\mu_i(dt)\\
&\le -d_1\ln d_1 - S\ln(\eta M)\int t\mu_i(dt)\\
&= -d_1\ln d_1 + \frac{d_1H}{\ln S}\ln\left(\frac{S\ln S}{d_1H}\right)\\
&= -d_1\ln d_1 + d_1H - \frac{d_1H}{\ln S}\ln \left(\frac{d_1H}{\ln S}\right)\\
&\le d_1H - 2d_1\ln d_1
\end{align}
hence, for $d_1$ sufficiently small, say, $d_1\le \min\{\frac{1}{4},f^{-1}\left(\min\{\frac{H_0}{8},\frac{1}{e}\}\right)\}$, where $f(x)=-x\ln x$ is defined in $[0,e^{-1}]$ and $f^{-1}(\cdot)$ denotes the inverse function of $f(\cdot)$, we have
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}_{\mu_i^S} H(P)\le d_1H - 2d_1\ln d_1\le \frac{H}{4} + 2\cdot \min\left\{\frac{H_0}{8},\frac{1}{e}\right\} \le \frac{H_0+H}{4}\le \frac{H}{2}.
\end{align}
Hence, similar to (\ref{eq:chebychev_2}), we have
\begin{align}\label{eq:chebychev_3}
\mu_i^S[H(P)> H]\le \mu_i^{S}\left[|H(P)-\mathbb{E}_{\mu_i^{S}}H(P)|>\frac{H}{2}\right]
\le \frac{S(M\ln M)^2}{(H/2)^2}\preceq \frac{S(\ln n)^4}{n^2} \preceq \frac{(\ln n)^4}{n^{\frac{1}{2}}} \to 0.
\end{align}
Denote by $F_i,G_i$ the marginal probability under prior $\pi_i$ and $\mu_i^S$, respectively, for all $i=0,1$. In light of (\ref{eq:tail_prob}), (\ref{eq:chebychev_1}), (\ref{eq:chebychev_2}) and (\ref{eq:chebychev_3}), we have
\begin{align}
V(F_i, G_i) \le \mu_i^{S}[(E_i)^c] \to 0.
\end{align}
Moreover, by setting
\begin{align}
d_1=\min\left\{\frac{1}{4},f^{-1}\left(\min\left\{\frac{H_0}{8},\frac{1}{e}\right\}\right), \frac{1}{d_2^2D_0}\right\}, \quad d_2=10e
\end{align}
it was shown in \cite[Lem. 11]{jiao2014minimax} that
\begin{align}
V(G_0,G_1) \le \frac{S}{n^6} \preceq \frac{1}{n^\frac{9}{2}} \to 0.
\end{align}
Hence, the total variational distance is then upper bounded by
\begin{align}
V(F_0,F_1) &\le V(F_0,G_0) + V(G_0,G_1) + V(G_1,F_1) \to 0
\end{align}
where we have used the triangle inequality of the total variation distance. The idea of converting approximate priors $\mu_i^S$ into priors $\pi_i$ via conditioning comes from Wu and Yang~\cite{Wu--Yang2014minimax}.
Now it follows from Lemma \ref{lemma.tsybakov} and Markov's inequality that
\begin{align}
R_P(S,n,H,\epsilon) &\ge s^2\inf_{\hat{H}}\sup_{P\in\mathcal{M}_S(\epsilon,H)}\mathbb{P}\left(|\hat{H}-H(P)|\ge s\right) \succeq \chi^2 \succeq \left[ \frac{H}{\ln S}\ln\left(\frac{S\ln S}{nH\ln n}\right)\right]^2
\end{align}
and the desired result follows directly from Lemma \ref{lem_equiv}. Hence we have obtained the desired lower bound in the case $S\preceq n^{\frac{3}{2}}$.
For general $S\succeq n^{\frac{3}{2}}$, the non-decreasing property of $R(n,S,H)$ with respect to $S$ shows that
\begin{align}
R(n,S,H) \ge R(n,n^{\frac{3}{2}},H) \succeq \left.\left[\frac{H}{\ln S}\ln\left(\frac{S\ln S}{nH\ln n}\right)\right]^2\right|_{S=n^{\frac{3}{2}}} \asymp H^2
\end{align}
which exactly equals to the desired lower bound $\left[\frac{H}{\ln S}\ln\left(\frac{S\ln S}{nH\ln n}\right)\right]^2$.
\section{Future work}
This paper studies the adaptive estimation framework to strengthen the optimality properties of the approximation theoretic entropy estimator proposed in Jiao et al.~\cite{jiao2014minimax}. We remark that the techniques in this paper are by no means constrained to entropy, and we believe analogous results are also true for the estimators of $F_\alpha(P) = \sum_{i = 1}^S p_i^\alpha$ in~\cite{jiao2014minimax}. Furthermore, we find the fact that the sample size enlargement effect still holds in the adaptive estimation setting very intriguing, and we believe there is a larger picture surrounding this theme to be explored.
\section{Acknowledgments}
The authors would like to express their most sincere gratitude to Dany Leviatan for valuable advice on the literature of approximation theory, in particular, for suggesting the result in Lemma~\ref{lem_polynorm}.
\appendices
\section{Auxiliary Lemmas}
The following lemma characterizes the performance of the best uniform approximation polynomial for $-x\ln x, x\in[0,1]$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem_ibragimov}
Denote by $\sum_{k=0}^K g_{K,k}x^k$ the $K$-th order best uniform approximation polynomial for $-x\ln x,x\in[0,1]$, then for $p_K(x)=\sum_{k=1}^K g_{K,k}x^k$, we have the norm bound
\begin{align}\label{eq:bound_norm}
\sup_{x\in[0,1]} |p_K(x)-(-x\ln x)| \le \frac{D_n}{K^2}
\end{align}
where $D_n>0$ is a universal constant for the norm bound. In fact, the following inequality holds:
\begin{align}
\limsup_{K\to\infty} K^2\cdot \sup_{x\in[0,1]} |p_K(x)-(-x\ln x)| \le \nu_1(2) \approx 0.453,
\end{align}
where the function $\nu_1(p)$ is was introduced by Ibragimov \cite{Ibragimov1946} as the following limit for $p$ positive even integer and $m$ positive integer
\begin{equation}
\lim_{n\to \infty} \frac{n^p}{(\ln n)^{m-1}} E_n[|x|^p \ln^m |x|]_{[-1,1]} = \nu_1(p).
\end{equation}
Furthermore, we also have the pointwise bound: there exists a universal constant $D_p>0$ such that for any $C\ge1$,
\begin{align}
|p_K(x) - 2\ln K\cdot x| \le D_pCx, \qquad \forall x\in\left[0,\frac{C}{K^2}\right].
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem_polynorm}
\cite[Thm. 8.4.8]{Ditzian--Totik1987} There exists some universal constant $M>0$ such that for any order-$n$ polynomial $p(x)$ in $[0,1]$, we have
\begin{align}
\sup_{x\in[0,1]} |p(x)| \le M\cdot\sup_{x\in[n^{-2},1-n^{-2}]} |p(x)|.
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
The following lemma gives some tails bounds for Poisson and Binomial random variables.
\begin{lemma}\cite[Exercise 4.7]{mitzenmacher2005probability}\label{lemma.poissontail}
If $X\sim \mathsf{Poi}(\lambda)$, or $X\sim \mathsf{B}(n,\frac{\lambda}{n})$, then for any $\delta>0$, we have
\begin{align}
\mathbb{P}(X \geq (1+\delta) \lambda) & \leq \left( \frac{e^\delta}{(1+\delta)^{1+\delta}} \right)^\lambda \\
\mathbb{P}(X \leq (1-\delta)\lambda) & \leq \left( \frac{e^{-\delta}}{(1-\delta)^{1-\delta}} \right)^\lambda \leq e^{-\delta^2 \lambda/2}.
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\section{Proof of Lemmas}
\subsection{Proof of Lemma \ref{lem_varentropy}}
Denote $H(P)=\sum_{i=1}^S -p_i\ln p_i$ by $H$, we construct the lagrangian:
\begin{align}
\mathcal{L} = \sum_{i=1}^S p_i(\ln p_i)^2 + \lambda \left(\sum_{i=1}^S -p_i\ln p_i - H\right) + \mu \left(\sum_{i=1}^S p_i-1\right).
\end{align}
By taking the derivative with respect to $p_i$, we obtain that
\begin{align}
\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial p_i} = (\ln p_i)^2 + 2 \ln p_i - \lambda (1+\ln p_i) + \mu
\end{align}
is a quadratic form of $\ln p_i$, so the equation $\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial p_i}=0$ has at most two solutions.
Hence, we conclude that components of the maximum achieving distribution can only take two values $p_i\in\{q_1,q_2\}$, and suppose $q_1$ appears $m$ times. Then our objective function becomes
\begin{align}
\sum_{i=1}^S p_i(\ln p_i)^2 &= \left(\sum_{i=1}^S p_i(\ln p_i)^2\right)\left(\sum_{i=1}^S p_i\right)\\
&= \left(\sum_{i=1}^S -p_i\ln p_i\right)^2 + \sum_{1\le i<j\le S} p_ip_j(\ln p_i-\ln p_j)^2\\
&= H^2 + m(S-m)q_1q_2(\ln q_1-\ln q_2)^2.
\end{align}
We distinguish the analysis into two cases.
\subsubsection{Case I}
If $\min\{q_1,q_2\}\ge \frac{1}{S^2}$, we have $-\ln p_i\le 2\ln S$ for all $i$. Hence,
\begin{align}
\sum_{i=1}^S p_i(\ln p_i)^2 \le 2\ln S\cdot \sum_{i=1}^S -p_i\ln p_i = 2H\ln S.
\end{align}
\subsubsection{Case II}
If one of $q_1$ and $q_2$ is smaller than $\frac{1}{S^2}$, without loss of generality we can assume that $q_1< \frac{1}{S^2}$. Then
\begin{align}
\sum_{i=1}^S p_i(\ln p_i)^2 &= H^2 + m(S-m)q_1q_2(\ln q_1-\ln q_2)^2\\
&\le H^2 + m(S-m)q_1q_2 (\ln q_1)^2\\
&\le H^2 + Sq_1 (\ln q_1)^2 \\
&\le H^2 + S\cdot\frac{1}{S^2}\left(\ln \frac{1}{S^2}\right)^2\\
&= H^2 + \frac{4(\ln S)^2}{S}
\end{align}
where we have used the inequalities $m\le S, (S-m)q_2\le 1$ and the monotonically increasing property of $x(\ln x)^2$ for $x\in[0, e^{-1}]$. Then the lemma is proved by noticing that $H\le \ln S$.
\subsection{Proof of Lemma \ref{lem_bias}}
The lower bound follows directly from the concavity of $-x\ln x, 0\le x\le 1$. For the upper bound,
\begin{align}
p\ln n - \mathbb{E} [-\hat{p}\ln\hat{p}] &= \mathbb{E} [\hat{p}\ln(n\hat{p})]\\
&=\sum_{k=1}^n \frac{k\ln k}{n} \cdot\left(\mathbb{P}\left(\hat{p}\ge \frac{k}{n}\right)-\mathbb{P}\left(\hat{p}\ge \frac{k+1}{n}\right)\right)\\
&= \sum_{k=1}^c \frac{k\ln k}{n}\mathbb{P}\left(\hat{p}= \frac{k}{n}\right) + \frac{c\ln c}{n}\mathbb{P}\left(\hat{p}= \frac{c}{n}\right) + \sum_{k=c+1}^{n} \frac{k\ln k-(k-1)\ln(k-1)}{n}\mathbb{P}\left(\hat{p}\ge \frac{k}{n}\right)\\
&\le \sum_{k=1}^{c} \frac{k\ln c}{n}\mathbb{P}\left(\hat{p}= \frac{k}{n}\right) + \frac{c\ln c}{n}\mathbb{P}\left(\hat{p}= \frac{c}{n}\right) + \sum_{k=c+1}^{n} \frac{k\ln k-(k-1)\ln(k-1)}{n}\mathbb{P}\left(\hat{p}\ge \frac{k}{n}\right)\\
&\le p\ln c + \frac{c\ln c}{n}\mathbb{P}\left(\hat{p}= \frac{c}{n}\right) + \sum_{k=c+1}^{n} \frac{k\ln k-(k-1)\ln(k-1)}{n}\mathbb{P}\left(\hat{p}\ge \frac{k}{n}\right).\label{eq:bias}
\end{align}
The Chernoff bound yields
\begin{align}
\mathbb{P}\left(n\hat{p} \ge (1+\delta)np\right) \le \left(\frac{e^\delta}{(1+\delta)^{1+\delta}}\right)^{np}
\le \left(\frac{e^{1+\delta}}{(1+\delta)^{1+\delta}}\right)^{np}=\left(\frac{e}{1+\delta}\right)^{(1+\delta)np},
\end{align}
hence for any integer $k$, we have
\begin{align}
\mathbb{P}\left(\hat{p}\ge \frac{k}{n}\right) = \mathbb{P}\left(n\hat{p}\ge k\right) \le \left(\frac{enp}{k}\right)^k.
\end{align}
Then the desired result follows directly from the fact that
\begin{align}
k\ln k-(k-1)\ln(k-1) = \ln k + (k-1)\ln\left(1+\frac{1}{k-1}\right) \le \ln k+1.
\end{align}
\subsection{Proof of Lemma \ref{lem_small_p}}
For the bias, it is straightforward to see that for $nX\sim\mathsf{Poi}(np)$, we have
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E} S_{K,H}(X) + p\ln p &= \sum_{k=1}^K r_{K,H}(4\Delta)^{-k+1}p^k + p\ln p \\
&= 4\Delta\left[p_K\left(\frac{p}{4\Delta}\right) - \ln(4\Delta)\cdot \frac{p}{4\Delta} \right] + p\ln p\\
&= 4\Delta\left[p_K\left(\frac{p}{4\Delta}\right) - 2\ln K\cdot \frac{p}{4\Delta} \right] + p\ln\left(\frac{c_2^2n\ln n}{4c_1}\right) + p\ln p
\end{align}
where $p_K(x) \triangleq \sum_{k=1}^K g_{K,H}x^k$ is the best approximating polynomial appearing in Lemma \ref{lem_ibragimov}. Since $\frac{p}{4\Delta}\le \frac{1}{K^2}$, Lemma \ref{lem_ibragimov} asserts that
\begin{align}
\left|p_K\left(\frac{p}{4\Delta}\right) - 2\ln K\cdot \frac{p}{4\Delta}\right|\le D_p\cdot\frac{p}{4\Delta}
\end{align}
and we conclude that
\begin{align}
| \mathbb{E} S_{K,H}(X) + p\ln p| \le -p\ln(pn\ln n) + \left(D_p+\ln(4c_1/c_2^2)\right)p.
\end{align}
The proof for the second part is similar to \cite[Lem. 5]{jiao2014minimax}.
\subsection{Proof of Lemma \ref{lem_approx}}
By defining
\begin{align}
f_N(x) = -\ln\left(\frac{1+x}{2}+\frac{1-x}{2N}\right),\qquad -1\le x\le 1
\end{align}
we have $E_L[f_N]_{[-1,1]}=E_L[-\ln x]_{[N^{-1},1]}$. Let $\Delta_L(x)=\frac{\sqrt{1-x^2}}{L}+\frac{1}{L^2}$ and define the following modulus of continuity for $f$:
\begin{align}
\tau_1(f,\Delta_L) \triangleq \sup\left\{|f(x)-f(y)|:x,y\in[-1,1],|x-y|\le \Delta_L(x)\right\}
\end{align}
We have the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}
There are an upper bound and a lower bound for $\tau_1(f_N,\Delta_L)$:
\begin{align}
\ln\left(\frac{N}{2L^2}\right)\le \tau_1(f_N,\Delta_L) \le \ln\left(\frac{2N}{L^2}\right), \qquad \forall L\le \frac{\sqrt{N}}{10}
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The upper bound is shown in \cite[Lem. 4]{Wu--Yang2014minimax}. For the lower bound, denote by $x_L\in[-1,1]$ the solution to the equation $x_L-\Delta_L(x_L)=-1$, we have the following closed-form formula:
\begin{align}
x_L = \frac{L^2-L^4+\sqrt{-3L^2+L^4}}{L^2+L^4}\ge -1 + \frac{1}{L^2}.
\end{align}
Hence, by definition, we have
\begin{align}
\tau_1(f_N,\Delta_L)&\ge |f_N(x_L) - f_N(-1)|
= \ln\left(\frac{x_L+1}{2}N + \frac{1-x_L}{2}\right)
\ge \ln\left(\frac{x_L+1}{2}N\right)
\ge \ln\left(\frac{N}{2L^2}\right).
\end{align}
\end{proof}
The relationship between $\tau_1(f_N,\Delta_L)$ and $E_L[f_N]_{[-1,1]}$ was shown in \cite[Thm. 3.13, Thm. 3.14]{Petrushev--Popov2011rational} that there exist two universal constants $M_1,M_2>0$ such that
\begin{align}
E_n[f_N]_{[-1,1]} &\le M_1\tau_1(f_N,\Delta_n) \label{eq:approx_upper}\\
\frac{1}{n}\sum_{k=0}^n E_k[f_N]_{[-1,1]} &\ge M_2\tau_1(f_N,\Delta_n) \label{eq:approx_lower}
\end{align}
Applying (\ref{eq:approx_upper}) and (\ref{eq:approx_lower}) and setting the approximation order to be $DL$ with constant $D>1$ to be specified later, then given $N=(10D)^2M\ge (10DL)^2$, the non-increasing property of $E_n[f_N]_{[-1,1]}$ with respect to $n$ yields
\begin{align}
E_L[f_N]_{[-1,1]} &\ge \frac{1}{DL-L}\sum_{n=L+1}^{DL} E_n[f_N]_{[-1,1]}\\
&\ge \frac{1}{DL}\left(\sum_{n=0}^{DL}E_n[f_N]_{[-1,1]} - E_0[f_N]_{[-1,1]} - \sum_{n=1}^L E_n[f_N]_{[-1,1]}\right)\\
&\ge M_2\tau_1(f_N,\Delta_{DL}) - \frac{\ln N}{DL} - \frac{M_1}{DL}\sum_{n=1}^L \tau_1(f_N,\Delta_n)\\
&\ge M_2\ln\left(\frac{N}{2(DL)^2}\right) - \frac{\ln N}{DL} - \frac{M_1}{DL}\sum_{n=1}^L \ln\left(\frac{2N}{n^2}\right)\\
&\ge M_2\ln\left(\frac{N}{2(DL)^2}\right) - \frac{\ln N}{DL} - \frac{M_1}{DL}\int_1^L \ln\left(\frac{2N}{x^2}\right)dx\\
&\ge M_2\ln\left(\frac{50K}{L^2}\right) - \frac{\ln K+2\ln(10D)}{DL} - \frac{M_1}{D}\ln\left(\frac{200e^2D^2K}{L^2}\right).
\end{align}
Hence, there exists a sufficiently large constant $D>0$ such that
\begin{align}
E_L[-\ln x]_{[(100D^2K)^{-1},1]} = E_L[f_N]_{[-1,1]} \succeq \ln\left(\frac{K}{L^2}\right)
\end{align}
and this lemma is proved by setting $D_0=\max\{100D^2,1\}$.
\subsection{Proof of Lemma \ref{lem_equiv}}
Fix $\delta>0$. Let $\hat{H}({\bf Z})$ be a near-minimax estimator of $H(P)$ under the Multinomial model. The estimator $\hat{H}({\bf Z})$ obtains the number of samples $n$ from observation $\bf Z$. By definition, we have
\begin{align}
\sup_{P\in \mathcal{M}_S(H)} \mathbb{E}_{\mathrm{Multinomial}}|\hat{H}(\mathbf{Z})-H(P)|^2 < R(S,n,H)+\delta,
\end{align}
where $R(S,n,H)$ is the minimax $L_2$ risk under the Multinomial model. Note that for any vector $P\in\mathcal{M}_S(\epsilon,H)$ ($P$ is not necessarily a probability distribution), we have
\begin{align}\label{eq:entropy_rela}
H\left(\frac{P}{\sum_{i=1}^S p_i}\right) = \frac{H(P)}{\sum_{i=1}^S p_i} + \ln\left(\sum_{i=1}^S p_i\right) \le \frac{H(P)}{d_1-\epsilon} + \ln(d_1+\epsilon)
\end{align}
where by definition we have $\left|\sum_{i=1}^S p_i-d_1\right|\le \epsilon$. Hence, given $P\in\mathcal{M}_S(\epsilon, H)$, let $\mathbf{Z}=[Z_1,\cdots,Z_S]^T$ with $Z_i\sim \mathsf{Poi}(np_i)$ and let $n'=\sum_{i=1}^S Z_i\sim \mathsf{Poi}(n\sum_{i=1}^Sp_i)$, (\ref{eq:entropy_rela}) suggests to use the estimator $d_1\left(\hat{H}(\mathbf{Z})-\ln d_1\right)$ to estimate $H(P)$. Note that
\begin{align}
d_1\left(\hat{H}(\mathbf{Z})-\ln d_1\right)-H(P) = d_1\left(\hat{H}(\mathbf{Z}) - H\left(\frac{P}{\sum_{i=1}^S p_i}\right)\right)
+ \left(\sum_{i=1}^S p_i\right)\ln\left(\sum_{i=1}^S p_i\right) - d_1\ln d_1
\end{align}
the triangle inequality gives (define $A=\sup_{x\in[d_1-\epsilon,d_1+\epsilon]} \ln^2(ex)$)
\begin{align}
\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{E}_P\left|d_1\left(\hat{H}(\mathbf{Z})-\ln d_1\right)-H(P)\right|^2
&\le d_1^2\mathbb{E}_P\left|\hat{H}({\bf Z})-H\left(\frac{P}{\sum_{i=1}^S p_i}\right)\right|^2 + \left|\left(\sum_{i=1}^S p_i\right)\ln\left(\sum_{i=1}^S p_i\right) - d_1\ln d_1\right|^2\\
&\le d_1^{2} \sum_{m = 0}^\infty \mathbb{E}_P\left[\left.\left|\hat{H}(\mathbf{Z})-H\left(\frac{P}{\sum_{i=1}^S p_i}\right)\right|^2\right|n'=m\right]\mathbb{P}(n'=m)+ \epsilon^2A\\
&\le d_1^{2}\sum_{m=0}^\infty R\left(S,m,\frac{H}{d_1-\epsilon} + \ln(d_1+\epsilon)\right)\mathbb{P}(n'=m) + \delta + \epsilon^2A\\
&\le d_1^{2}R\left(S,\frac{d_1n}{2},\frac{H}{d_1-\epsilon} + \ln(d_1+\epsilon)\right)\mathbb{P}(n'\ge \frac{d_1n}{2}) + (d_1\ln S)^2\mathbb{P}(n'\le \frac{d_1n}{2}) + \delta +\epsilon^2A\\
&\le d_1^{2}R\left(S,\frac{d_1n}{2},\frac{H}{d_1-\epsilon} + \ln(d_1+\epsilon)\right)+ (d_1\ln S)^2\exp(-\frac{d_1n}{8}) + \delta + \epsilon^2A,
\end{align}
where we have used the fact that conditioned on $n'=m$, $\mathbf{Z}\sim \mathsf{Multinomial}(m,\frac{P}{\sum_ip_i})$, and $R(S,n,H)\le \left(\sup_{P\in\mathcal{M}_S} H(P)\right)^2=(\ln S)^2$. Moreover, the last step follows from Lemma~\ref{lemma.poissontail}. The proof is completed by the arbitrariness of $\delta$ and Lemma~\ref{lemma.poissonmultinomial}.
\subsection{Proof of Lemma \ref{lem_ibragimov}}
It has been shown in \cite[Lemma 18]{jiao2014minimax} that
\begin{align}
\lim_{K\to\infty} K^2\cdot \sup_{x\in[0,1]}\left|\sum_{k=0}^K g_{K,k}x^k-(-x\ln x)\right| = \frac{\nu_1(2)}{2},
\end{align}
then plugging in $x=0$ yields
\begin{align}
\limsup_{K\to\infty} K^2\cdot |g_{K,0}| \le \frac{\nu_1(2)}{2}.
\end{align}
Hence, it follows from the triangle inequality that
\begin{align}
\limsup_{K\to\infty} K^2\cdot \sup_{x\in[0,1]}\left|\sum_{k=1}^K g_{K,k}x^k-(-x\ln x)\right| \le \frac{\nu_1(2)}{2} + \frac{\nu_1(2)}{2} = \nu_1(2),
\end{align}
which completes the proof of the norm bound.
For the pointwise bound, \cite[Thm. 7.3.1]{Ditzian--Totik1987} asserts that there exists a universal positive constant $M_1$ such that
\begin{align}
\sup_{x\in[0,1]} |(\varphi(x))^2 p_K''(x)| \le M_1K^2\omega_\varphi^2(-x\ln x,K^{-1}),
\end{align}
where $\varphi(x)=\sqrt{x(1-x)}$, and $\omega_\varphi^2(f,t)$ is the second-order Ditzian-Totik modulus of smoothness \cite{Ditzian--Totik1987} defined by
\begin{align}
\omega_\varphi^2(f,t)\triangleq \sup\left\{\left|f(u)+f(v)-2f\left(\frac{u+v}{2}\right)\right|: u,v\in[0,1], |u-v|\le 2t\varphi\left(\frac{u+v}{2}\right)\right\}.
\end{align}
Direct computation yields
\begin{align}
\omega_\varphi^2(-x\ln x,t) = \frac{2t^2\ln 2}{1+t^2},
\end{align}
we have
\begin{align}
\sup_{x\in[0,1]} |x(1-x) p_K''(x)|\le 2M_1\ln 2.
\end{align}
According to Lemma \ref{lem_polynorm}, since $p_K''(x)$ is a polynomial with order $K-2<2K$, there exists some positive constant $M_2$ such that
\begin{align}
\sup_{x\in[0,1]} |p_K''(x)|
&\le M_2\sup_{x\in[(2K)^{-2},1-(2K)^{-2}]} |p_K''(x)| \\
&\le \frac{M_2(2K)^4}{(2K)^2-1}\sup_{x\in[(2K)^{-2},1-(2K)^{-2}]} |x(1-x)p_K''(x)| \\
&\le \frac{16M_2K^4}{4K^2-1}\sup_{x\in[0,1]} |x(1-x)p_K''(x)| \\
&\le \frac{32M_1M_2K^4\ln 2}{4K^2-1}\\
&\le 16M_1M_2K^2\ln2,
\end{align}
hence for any $x,y\in[0,C/K^2]$, we have
\begin{align}
|p_K'(x)-p_K'(y)| \le \int_{\min\{x,y\}}^{\max\{x,y\}} |p_K''(t)|dt \le 16M_1M_2\ln2\cdot K^2|x-y| \le 16M_1M_2C\ln2.
\end{align}
As a result, we know that for any $C\ge 1$ and $x\in[0,C/K^2]$,
\begin{align}
16M_1M_2C\ln 2&\ge \frac{K^2}{C}\int_0^{\frac{C}{K^2}}\left|p_K'(x)-p_K'(t)\right|dt\\
&\ge \left|p_K'(x)-\frac{K^2}{C}\int_0^{\frac{C}{K^2}}p_K'(t)\right|dt\\
&= \left|p_K'(x) - \frac{K^2}{C}p_K\left(\frac{C}{K^2}\right)\right|\\
&\ge \left|p_K'(x) - \frac{K^2}{C}\left(-\frac{C}{K^2}\ln\frac{C}{K^2}\right)\right| - \frac{K^2}{C}\left|p_K\left(\frac{C}{K^2}\right)-\left(-\frac{C}{K^2}\ln\frac{C}{K^2}\right)\right|\\
&\ge \left|p_K'(x) - 2\ln K\right| - \ln C - K^2\sup_{t\in[0,1]} \left|p_K(t)-(-t\ln t)\right|\\
&\ge \left|p_K'(x) - 2\ln K\right| - \ln C - D_n,
\end{align}
where $D_n$ is the coefficient of the norm bound in (\ref{eq:bound_norm}). Hence, the universal positive constant $D_p\triangleq 16M_1M_2\ln2+1+D_n$ satisfies
\begin{align}
\left|p_K'(x) - 2\ln K\right| \le D_pC, \qquad \forall x\in\left[0,\frac{C}{K^2}\right],
\end{align}
and it follows that
\begin{align}
\left|p_K(x) - 2\ln K\cdot x\right| \le \int_0^x \left|p_K'(t) - 2\ln K\right|dt \le \int_0^x D_pCdt = D_pCx.
\end{align}
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Resilience of cluster features against temperature} \label{sec:temp}
In this section, we study the finite temperature properties of the cluster Luttinger liquid state. Even though thermal fluctuations will suppress any long-range or quasi-long range order for the 1D system at finite temperature, we will show that certain cluster features characterized by a peak in the static structure factor for certain quasi-momenta can still survive for temperatures of the order of the interaction strength. To study the finite temperature properties of the system, we use a numerically exact Quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) method with worm-type updates~\cite{Prokofev1998} implemented in Ref.~\cite{Pollet2007}.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics[width=0.98\linewidth]{Structure_finiteT.pdf}
\caption{The structure factor $S(q)$ for $V/t=8$, $L=56$. For example, $\mu=-3.2t$ $(-5t)$ for temperatures $T=1/t$ $(8/t)$, such that $N\simeq 24$ is kept constant.}
\label{fig:finiteT}
\end{figure}
We choose the hard-core boson Hamiltonian we discussed above with $r_c=2$:
\begin{equation}
H=-t\sum_i (b_i^\dag b_{i+1}+h.c)+V\sum_i \sum_{\ell =1}^{r_c} n_i n_{i+\ell} - \sum_i \mu n_i \label{eq:hamT}.
\end{equation}
Here $\mu$ is the chemical potential, since our QMC simulations are performed in the grand canonical ensemble. We note that in Hamiltonian (\ref{eq:hamT}), $t>0$ and the frustration induced by the next-nearest neighbour interactions only appears in diagonal terms. As a result, the system is free from the so-called "sign problem" irrespectively of the filling factor. In the QMC simulation, we choose the interaction strength $V=8t$ so that the ground state of the Hamiltonian corresponds to a cluster Luttinger liquid state. We focus on a chain with PBCs, and tune $\mu$ such that the average particle number is kept constant for the different temperatures studied.\\
In the following we focus on the static structure factor at finite temperature, in analogy to Eq.~\eqref{Sq}
\begin{equation}
S(q)=\frac{1}{L^2}\sum_{i,j} e^{iq(i-j)}\langle (n_i-n)(n_j-n)\rangle.
\end{equation}
Here $q$ is again the lattice quasi-momentum, $n=N/L$ is the average density and $\langle \hat{O}\rangle=Tr(\hat{O}e^{-\beta H})/Z$, with $Z$ the partition function at temperature $T=1/\beta$.
For a chain with $L=56$, $N=24$ and PBCs the number of blocks of type $A(B)$, $N_{A(B)}$, satisfy
\begin{eqnarray}
N_A+2N_B= N\\
3N_A+4 N_B=L,
\end{eqnarray}
with $N_A=N_B=8$.
For these parameters, the cluster Luttinger liquid ground state exhibits a sharp peak in $S(q)$ at a characteristic wave vector $k_1= \pi (1-n)$ [from Eq.~\eqref{char_wv}], which indicates cluster features. In Fig.~\ref{fig:finiteT} we plot $S(q)$ and tune $\mu$ such that the average number of particles is $\langle N \rangle \simeq 24$, for the different temperatures studied ($T=1/t, 8/t$ and $16/t$). As expected, we find that the peaks, located at $k_1=4\pi/7$, become broader with increasing $T$. However, they remain clearly visible up to temperatures of the order of $V$. This indicates that certain cluster features are comparatively robust against thermal fluctuations for sufficiently low temperatures.
\section{Model Hamiltonian} \label{sec:model_ham}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width = 0.98\columnwidth]{fig1.pdf}
\caption{Sketch of the degenerate ground state configuration for the Hamiltonian in Eq.~\eqref{equ:hamiltonian} in the classical regime ($t=0$) at density $n=2/5$ [panel (a)] and $n=3/7$ [panel (b)]. \textit{Insets}: The structure factor $S(q)$ versus the lattice quasi-momentum $q$ for various system sizes $N$. $S(q)$ is peaked at the $q$-vector characteristic of the formation of ground state cluster structures (see main text) and does not shift even for very small numbers of particles.
\label{fig1}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The model Hamiltonian we are interested in describes
fermionic or hard-core bosonic particles in a 1D geometry and reads
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{equ:hamiltonian}
H&=&-t\sum_i (b^\dagger_ib_{i+1}+\mathrm{h.c.})+
V\sum_{i}\sum_{\ell=1}^{r_c}n_in_{i+\ell}.
\end{eqnarray}
Here, $b^{\dagger}_i (b_i)$ are bosonic/fermionic creation (annihilation)
operators at the site $i$, $n_i=b^{\dagger}_i b_i$, and $t$ is the tunneling rate. \\
Interactions between particles have a soft-core profile, with depth $V$ and radius $r_c$.
These particular features of the interaction potential can be experimentally realised with Rydberg-dressed cold gases. In the weak-dressing regime $\Omega \ll |\Delta|$, atoms in their ground states are off-resonantly coupled with Rabi frequency $\Omega$ and red detuning $\Delta<0$ to an high-lying Rydberg state. The resulting effective potential as a function of the relative distance $x$ between pair of atoms reads~\cite{Henkel2010}
\begin{equation}
V(x) = \frac{\Omega^4}{8\Delta^3}\frac{r_c^6}{r_c^6 + x^6}
\label{equ:Vx}
\end{equation}
where $r_c = [C_6/(2|\Delta|)]^{1/6}$ is the Condon radius and $C_6$ is the van-der-Waals coefficient of the addressed Rydberg state. At large distances $x \gg r_c$, $V(x)$ reduces to the usual repulsive van-der-Waals interaction between Rydberg atoms $\propto x^{-6}$, suppressed by a factor $[\Omega/(2\Delta)]^4$, since only a small fraction $[\Omega/(2\Delta)]^2$ of the Rydberg state is admixed into the original ground state. However, for $x<r_c$, a double Rydberg excitation is prevented by the dipole blockade and $V(x)$ saturates to a universal constant value $\Omega^4/8\Delta^3$.
\subsection{Cluster exchange model} \label{subsec:cluex}
Before presenting results for the quantum phases of Hamiltonian Eq.~(\ref{equ:hamiltonian}), we first summarize results for the classical ground state. Particles with soft-shoulder interactions and their cluster-phases have been extensively studied in the classical regime in the context of soft matter physics \cite{LIKOS2001,MLADEK2006}. In one dimensional chains, we study the classical ground state from applying the \textit{cluster exchange model} introduced in Ref.~\onlinecite{PRL_MMMDWLGP}. The two relevant length scales in this regime are the cut-off radius $r_c$ and the average distance between particles $r^\star=1/n$, with $n=N/L$ the particle density. Here, $N$ and $L$ are the number of particles and of lattice sites respectively. This leads to three possible regimes in the classical limit: (i) liquid $r^\star > r_c$, (ii) crystal $r^\star = r_c$ and (iii) cluster liquid phase $r^\star < r_c$. In this work we will consider $r_c = 2$ and densities $n=2/5$ and $n=3/7$ which both correspond to a cluster phase.
The cluster exchange model is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig1}: For, e.g., $r_c=2$ and $n=2/5$ the state with lowest energy consists of single particles and clusters of size $2$ [depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig1}(a)] with a total energy of $E_0 = V n$. However, the ground state is not a unique configuration but there are exponentially many degenerate configurations with the same energy. These configurations can be represented by dividing the system in blocks made of particles and holes, where the number of holes is the same in each block. Here, e.g., blocks labeled $A$ consist of two particles and two holes with a total length of $4$, whereas blocks labeled $B$ consist of one particle and two holes with length $3$. In this block model, each density of particles $n$ corresponds to a ratio of number of blocks $A$ ($B$), $N_A (N_B)$. For example, $n=2/5$ corresponds to a ratio $N_A/N_B=1/2$ and $n=3/7$ to $N_A/N_B=1$, respectively. The ground state then consists of all permutations of blocks A and B (e.g. for $n=3/7$ typical configurations are [AABAAB...], [ABAAAB...], $...$)\cite{PRL_MMMDWLGP}. The associated ground state degeneracy, assuming open boundary conditions, is $d = M!/[(M/3)! (2M/3)!]$ for $n=3/7$ and $d=M!/[(M/2)!]^2$ for $n=2/5$, respectively, where $M=(L-N)/r_c$ is the total number of clusters in the system.
\section{Introduction}
\input{intro_CLLGP.tex}
\input{clustersec.tex}
\input{Sec3b.tex}
\input{Sec4.tex}
\input{cluster_liquid.tex}
\section{Adiabatic state preparation of a cluster Luttinger liquid state} \label{sec:adprep}
\input{adiabatic_1.tex}
\section{Conclusion and outlook}
\input{conclusions.tex}
\subsection*{Acknowledegments}
We acknowledge useful discussions with M. Fleischhauer, A. Gl\"atzle, C. Gross, F. Ortolani, M. Punk, and H. Weimer, and would like to thank
L. Huijse for correspondence on the nature of the critical point.
Numerical simulations for the adiabatic state preparation have been performed using QuTip libraries~\cite{qutip}.
Work in Innsbruck was supported in parts by the ERC Synergy Grant UQUAM, SIQS, EU Marie Curie ITN
COHERENCE, the SFB FoQuS (FWF Project No. F4006-N16), the ERA-NET CHIST-ERA (R-ION consortium), the Austrian Science Fund (FWF): P 25454-N27, and by the Austrian Ministry of Science BMWF as part of the UniInfrastrukturprogramm of the Focal Point Scientific Computing at the University of Innsbruck. Work in Strasbourg was supported by the ERC-St Grant ColdSIM (No. 307688), EOARD, UdS via IdEX, ANR via BLUESHIELD.
\section{The cluster Luttinger liquid phase} \label{sec:cll}
The complex structure of the classical ground states results in the emergence of an exotic quantum liquid once quantum fluctuations are introduced. In this Section, we will first present a strong coupling approach in the $V\gg t$ limit, and then a modified bosonization treatment which embodies the cluster constraints derived in the classical limit. The combination of the two approaches allows us to gain a qualitative analytical understanding of the full phase diagram of Eq.~\eqref{equ:hamiltonian}, which we quantitatively investigate in Sec.~IV below.
\subsection{Strong-coupling approach to cluster manifolds: the XX model} \label{subsec:strong}
Once the degenerate manifold of clustered ground states has been identified, it is possible to derive an effective Hamiltonian describing the dynamics in the limit $t\ll V$. In order to do so, we define as $\mathcal{P}$ the projector operator on the classical ground state manifold, and apply conventional second order perturbation theory (odd order corrections are not present for the case $r_c=2$)
\begin{equation}
H_{\textrm{eff.}} \simeq H_0 + \mathcal{P}H_t \mathcal{Q}\frac{1}{\epsilon - H_0} \mathcal{Q}H_t \mathcal{P} + \mathcal{O}(t^4/V^3),
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{Q}= \mathbb{1} - \mathcal{P}$, and $\epsilon$ is the classical ground state energy within the cluster manifold. First, we define effective spin-1/2 operators $\tilde{S}_j$ as follows: Ordering the cluster configuration with an index $j\in[1,M]$, we associate to the position of each $A$-type cluster a spin-up, and for each $B$-type, a spin-down. This is a one-to-one mapping of the Hilbert space defined by $\mathcal{P}$ to the Hilbert space of a spin-1/2 chain with $M$ sites. The effective Hamiltonian can be then cast in a compact form as a spin chain. For the $r_c=2$ case, diagonal contributions of the type $\tilde{S}^z_i\tilde{S}^z_{i+1}$ do not contribute at lowest order and we get
\begin{equation}\label{2order}
H_{\textrm{eff.}} \simeq H_0 -\frac{t^2}{V}\sum_{j = 1}^{M}[ (\tilde{S}^+_j\tilde{S}^-_{j+1} + h.c.) +2].
\end{equation}
The strong coupling limit can then be mapped to a system of hard-core bosons (spin-1/2) hopping in an artificial lattice created by the underlying cluster structure. This confirms that the CLL, which is adiabatically connected to the strong coupling limit, is indeed described at low-energies by a $c=1$ conformal field theory (CFT), which is interpreted as a Luttinger liquid of composite cluster particles~\cite{PRL_MMMDWLGP}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width = 0.98\columnwidth]{comparison_diffDens.pdf}
\caption{{\it Main Panel}: Energy of the ground state (GS) as a function of $V/t$ in the perturbative limit $t\ll V$ (here $t=1$). Symbols denote the exact GS energies obtained via exact diagonalization of Eq.~\eqref{equ:hamiltonian}, while lines denote perturbative estimates for different cluster configurations and system sizes.
{\it Inset:} Absolute value of the energy difference $\epsilon$ between the exact and the perturbative estimate. The energies are quite accurate down to low values of $V/t \lesssim 10 $, where the strong coupling expansion around the cluster manifold first starts to break down. The thin, black line is a guide for the eye indicating a power law decay $t^4/V^3$. The latter demonstrates that higher order terms are irrelevant at large couplings, but play a role around $V/t \simeq 10$. The small kink around $V/t \simeq 2$ is due to the fact that $\epsilon$ changes sign in this region.
\label{EDcomp}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In order to benchmark the validity of the strong coupling expansion and to check to which extent corrections to Eq.~(\ref{2order}) are quantitatively relevant, we compare in Fig.~\ref{EDcomp} the energy of a system of $L=14$ and $10, 20$ sites for $n=3/7$ and $2/5$, respectively, and $r_c=2$, using exact diagonalizations of the full Hamiltonian as well as perturbative estimates. We find a very good agreement between the exact and perturbative results down to relatively small values of $V/t\simeq 5$. This indicates that all relevant quantum dynamics is well described within our strong-coupling model detailed above, where clusters play the role of the mesoscopic degrees of freedom. At smaller interaction values, higher order terms are non-negligible, and moreover the cluster assumption breaks down, as demonstrated by the poor agreement between the exact and perturbative results below $V/t\simeq5$ [see inset in Fig.~\ref{EDcomp}].
\subsection{Beyond perturbation theory: Low-energy field theory of cluster Luttinger liquids} \label{subsec:lowe}
While perturbation theory provides an understanding of the large $V$ limit, an analytical picture at intermediate couplings is hindered by the complex structure of the interactions. In Ref.~\onlinecite{PRL_MMMDWLGP}, we discussed how cluster-type constraints can be generically applied to Haldane's bosonization prescription to derive a modified mapping between the original microscopics fields and continuous bosonic variables. The main feature of this treatment is that it captures the correct behavior of correlation functions and the deformation of the Bose surface, which is instead not accessible by direct bosonization of Eq.~\eqref{equ:hamiltonian}. Here, we provide a detailed derivation of the mapping and a discussion of its consequences on various observables. Analytical predictions will be compared with exact numerical simulations in the next sections.\\
We start from the second step of Haldane's construction~\cite{haldane1981,GIAMARCHI2003}, by considering a more
complicated shape of the initial particle distribution that can reflect the underlying cluster
structure. After taking the continuum limit, this can be cast as the following constraint on the density distribution for the density operator $\rho$
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho(x)&=&\sum_{n=1}^{N}\delta(x-x_n)\doteq \sum_{m=1}^M\delta(x-x_m)+
\sum_{\ell\in cl}\delta(x-x_{\ell})=\nonumber\\
&=&\sum_{m=1}^Mf(x_m)\delta(x-x_m).
\end{eqnarray}
Here, $\sum_{x_m}f(x_m)=N$, and the function
$f(x_m)\in \{1,2\}$ describes both one- and two-particle cluster structures.
In the center equality, $\sum_{cl}$ represents the sum over
all two-particle clusters.
Formally, the summation $\sum_{cl}$ constraints the values of $x_\ell$ such
that there exists an $m$ such that $x_\ell=x_m\;\forall \ell$. The key point here is that the sum is split into two parts: the first one describes the fact that there are some clusters where at least one particle resides, while the second sum takes into account the possibility of having clusters formed by two particles. We now introduce a new field, $\varphi_{cl}(x)$, which accounts for quantum fluctuations of the cluster density. The field satisfies:
\begin{equation}
\varphi_{cl}(x)=\varphi_{cl}(x+L)+M \pi, \quad \varphi_{cl}(x_m)=\pi m
\end{equation}
similarly to the standard density fluctuations in the Haldane scenario.
Now, we can apply the standard representation
of the delta function
\begin{equation}\label{eqdelta}
\delta[g(x)]=\sum_{\textrm{zeros of } g}\frac{1}{|\nabla g(x_j)|}\delta(x-x_j)
\end{equation}
which, when combined with the previous ansatz, gives
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho(x)&=&\sum_{m=1}^Mf(x_m)\delta(x-x_m)=\nonumber\\
&=& \nabla\varphi_{cl}(x)\sum_{m=1}^{M}f(x_m)\delta[\varphi_{cl}(x)-\pi m] .
\end{eqnarray}
The initial density formula is recovered by applying to the right-hand-side of the latter formula
the delta function transformation of Eq.~\eqref{eqdelta}.
The next passage is then to Fourier transform the previous formula.
This is rather different with respect to the Haldane scenario; in the
latter, one has to Fourier transform a standard Dirac comb. Here,
the Dirac comb is in fact \emph{weighted} by the cluster configuration
$f(x_m)$, which affects its Fourier components. Let us define
the functional:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{chi}
\chi[\varphi_{cl}(x)]&=&\sum_{m=1}^{M}f(x_m)\delta[\varphi_{cl}(x)-\pi m] = \\
& = &\sum_{m=1}^{M}\delta[\varphi_{cl}(x)-\pi m]
+ \sum_{\ell\in cl} \delta[\varphi_{cl}(x)-\pi \ell]\nonumber ,
\end{eqnarray}
where the last sum is again performed on two-particle clusters. The first
part can be Fourier transformed by considering the Poisson summation
formula
\begin{equation}
\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}\delta(x-nK)=\sum_{k=-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{1}{K}e^{-i\pi kx/K}
\end{equation}
thus leading to
\begin{equation}
\lim_{M\rightarrow \infty}\sum_{m=1}^{M}\delta[\varphi_{cl}(x)-\pi m] = \sum_{k=-\infty}^\infty \frac{1}{\pi}e^{-i k\varphi_{cl}(x)}.
\end{equation}
The last important point is to re-absorb the last term in Eq.~\eqref{chi}.
By Fourier expanding all of its components, one gets
renormalized $c_k$ coefficients in the previous expression - not
affecting its functional form. As such, we neglect these effects in the
following, noticing that they are nevertheless expected to be very small
when the number of two-particle clusters is small, that is, $M\simeq N$.
We will then re-express the particle density as a function of the
cluster operators as follows
\begin{equation}
\rho(x)=\frac{N}{M}\nabla\varphi_{cl}(x)\left\{\sum_{k=-\infty}^\infty \frac{a_k}{\pi}e^{-i k\varphi_{cl}(x)}, \right\}
\end{equation}
where the numerical pre-factor has been introduced to compensate
for the delta function renormalized coefficients. We now proceed by rescaling the fields as follows:
\begin{equation}
\varphi_{cl}(x)=-2\varphi_{cl}(x)'+2\pi n \sigma x,
\end{equation}
where the new field $\varphi_{cl}(x)'$ represents fluctuations on top of the
perfect cluster-crystalline solution of the problem, and $\sigma=M/N$.
In this way we obtain the final form of the mapping between the microscopic continuum density and the cluster fields
\begin{eqnarray}\label{rho_cl}
\rho(x)&=&\frac{N}{M}\nabla\varphi_{cl}(x)\left\{\sum_{k=-\infty}^\infty \frac{1}{\pi}e^{-i k\varphi_{cl}(x)} \right\}=\\
&=&\left[ n- \frac{\sigma}{\pi} \nabla \varphi_{cl}(x)' \right]
\left\{\sum_{k=-\infty}^\infty a_ke^{2i k[\varphi_{cl}(x)'-\pi n\sigma x]} \right\}.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The single particle operators can also be expressed by applying
the same procedure of the Haldane formalism. In the bosonic case,
we get:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{psiB}
\psi^B(x)\simeq \sqrt{n- \frac{\sigma}{\pi} \nabla \varphi_{cl}(x)' }
e^{-i\beta\vartheta_{cl}(x)'}\times\nonumber\\
\times \left\{\sum_{k=-\infty}^\infty \alpha_ke^{i2 k[\varphi_{cl}(x)'-\pi n\sigma x]} \right\},
\end{eqnarray}
where the operator $\vartheta_{cl}(x)'$ is the conjugate of $\varphi_{cl}'$,
satisfying
\begin{equation}\label{comm1}
\left[\frac{1}{\pi}\nabla\varphi_{cl}(x)',\vartheta_{cl}(y)'\right]=-i\delta(x-y).
\end{equation}
This can be verified by considering the role of the factor $\beta$;
approximating the density operators with its non-oscillating part,
we need the following commutation to hold
\begin{equation}
\left[\frac{\sigma}{\pi}\nabla\varphi_{cl}(x)',e^{-i\beta\vartheta_{cl}(y)'}\right]=-\delta(x-y)e^{-i\beta\vartheta_{cl}(y)},
\end{equation}
which is satisfied if $\beta=\sigma^{-1}$ and Eq.~\eqref{comm1} holds.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width = 0.88\columnwidth]{TLL_panelv2.pdf}
\caption{Configurations allowed for the field $\varphi(x)$. Panel (a): In the Luttinger
liquid scenario, $\varphi(x)$ can describe all possible particle configurations and takes
integer values at the position of each particle (red circles). The integrated particle density (thin orange line) follows the profile of $\varphi$. Panel (b): In the cluster Luttinger liquid scenario, $\varphi_{cl}$ is constrained by the cluster structure, which assumes that a finite
number of particles are \emph{packed} into small clusters (blue circles). The integrated particle density (thick orange line) does not follow the behavior of $\varphi_{cl}$, but jumps whenever a two-particle cluster is encountered.
\label{TLL_panelv2}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The effective low-energy Hamiltonian obtained by introducing the cluster fields in the microscopic Hamiltonian is thus a compactified boson theory
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{H} = \frac{v_{cl}}{2}\int dx \left[ (\partial_x\varphi_{cl})^2/K_{cl} + K_{cl},(\partial_x\vartheta_{cl})^2\right]
\end{equation}
which is gapless and conformal, with central charge $c=1$. All correlation functions of the microscopic operators can be evaluated using conventional techniques - see Ref.~\cite{difrancesco_book} for a review. The theory is thus very similar to a TLL, with the exception that the mapping between microscopic and low-energy degrees of freedom presents remarkable differences. In the next subsection, we will illustrate the effects on correlations, while in Sec.~\ref{sec:phasd}, we will show numerically that the interpretation of the low-energy excitations differs considerably in a CLL with respect to the TLL.
\subsection{Correlation functions and structure factors in the cluster Luttinger liquid phase} \label{subsec:corrf}
The mapping between the original operators and the emergent cluster fields in~\eqref{rho_cl} and~\eqref{psiB} allows us to make predictions on the scaling of both Green's functions and density-density correlations. As an example, we focus here on the latter (the effects on the former have been discussed in Ref.~\cite{PRL_MMMDWLGP}), which after bosonization take the form
\begin{equation}
\langle\rho(x)\rho(0)\rangle\simeq n^2+\frac{\alpha_1}{x^2}+
\frac{\alpha_2\cos(2\pi n\sigma x)}{x^{\gamma_1}}+... \;,
\end{equation}
with $\alpha_1$, $\alpha_1$ and $\gamma_1$ non-universal coefficients. This latter expression displays a radically different spatial modulation with respect to the
standard Luttinger liquid scenario. In particular, assuming periodic boundary conditions (PBCs) peaks in the static structure factor
\begin{equation}\label{Sq}
S(q)=\frac{1}{L}\sum_{\ell, j}e^{i(\ell-j)q}\left[\langle n_\ell n_j\rangle -n^2\right]
\end{equation}
are now {\it not} displayed at momenta associated with the particle density, as in TLLs. In particular, the lowest momentum peak is located at
\begin{equation} \label{char_wv}
k_1 =\frac{2\pi(1-n)}{r_c}
\end{equation}
which for $r_c =2$ , gives $k_1 = \pi (1-n)$. This is exactly the corresponding momentum peak of the classical cluster configuration, which is unrelated to the density of individual particles as in TLLs. We note that other signatures of departure from the TLL picture can also be found using level spectroscopy techniques~\cite{Zhuravlev2000}.
In the next two sections, we provide numerical evidence for the existence of a CLL at intermediate couplings in Eq.~\eqref{equ:hamiltonian}, by monitoring the entanglement entropy, the spectral properties, and correlation functions.
\section{Phase diagram} \label{sec:phasd}
In this section, we investigate the phase transition from the TLL to the CLL phase by using numerical simulations based on the DMRG algorithm~\cite{White,Sch}. As boundary effects are expected to be prominent in the cluster phase, we perform simulations using PBCs for systems up to $L=70$ sites, keeping up to 1400 states per block and with up to 10 finite-size sweeps. The typical truncation error in the final sweep is of the order $2\cdot 10^{-6}$ for $L<60$ and $< 10^{-5}$ for $L=70$. Observables such as the local density $n_j$ deviate from the mean value $n$ at most as $n_j-n< 3\cdot10^{-5}$.
In order to illustrate the generality of our findings, we investigate two relevant scenarios for the case $r_c=2$, namely, different densities $n=3/7$ and $n=4/10$, which in the classical limit lead to different cluster densities as discussed in the previous sections (density regimes where dominant Umklapp terms appear have been investigated in Ref.~\cite{Schmitteckert2004}). In order to keep commensurability with the cluster structure, we considered sizes of $(14, 28, 42, 56, 70)$ and $(20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70)$ for the two cases, respectively.
\subsection{Entanglement entropies} \label{subsec:entr}
In order to locate the transition point between the TLL and the CLL, as a first observable we monitor how the ground state entanglement properties change as a function of $V/t$. We consider the bipartite von Neumann entanglement entropy
\begin{equation}
S_A = - \textrm{Tr}\rho_A\log\rho_A,
\end{equation}
where $\rho_A$ is the reduced density matrix of the sub-system $A$ with respect to the rest of the chain. As both the TLL and the CLL are described at low-energies by a conformal field theory, the entanglement entropy fulfills the following scaling~\cite{Wil,calabrese}
\begin{equation}\label{eqS2}
S_L(l) = \frac{c}{3} \ln \left[\frac{L}{\pi}\sin(\pi l /L)\right] + C + \mathcal{O}(1/l^\alpha),
\end{equation}
where $L $ is the system size, $l$ is the block length, $C$ is a non-universal constant, and $c$ is the central charge of the theory. Corrections of order $1/l^\alpha$, if any, are expected to exhibit no oscillations for the von Neumann entropy under PBCs.
In order to extract the central charge of the system from finite-size simulations, we proceed in two-steps. First, we evaluate the finite-size value of the central charge, $c(L)$, by fitting the entanglement entropy at a fixed size with the following function
\begin{equation}
S_L(l) = \frac{c(L)}{3} \kappa(l) + a_0,\quad \kappa(l) = \log\left[\frac{L}{\pi}\sin(\pi l /L)\right],
\end{equation}
where $\kappa(l)$ is the logarithm of the cord length. We keep $l=7$ as the minimum block size considered in order to avoid possible corrections due to the breakdown of Eq.~\eqref{eqS2} for blocks that are too small. Typical results are presented in Figs.~\ref{fig_S} and~\ref{fig_S2}. We find that a linear fit works quite well for all system sizes and in the entire parameter regimes we investigated. The finite-size central charge can be extracted with an accuracy of order $1\%$\footnote{The error is estimated by performing fits including additional $1/l^\alpha$ corrections, and excluding the smaller blocks from the fitted data.}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width = 0.49\columnwidth]{Entropies_sameV40_varL.pdf}
\includegraphics[width = 0.49\columnwidth]{Entropies_sameV5675_varL.pdf}
\includegraphics[width = 0.49\columnwidth]{Entropies_sameV65_varL.pdf}
\includegraphics[width = 0.49\columnwidth]{Entropies_sameL50_varV.pdf}
\caption{Entanglement entropy scaling as a function of the block length for $n=4/10$. Panels (a)-(c): different interaction strengths $V/t = 4.0, 5.675, 6.5$. Data for different sizes are indicated by symbols, while lines are linear fits. Deep in the TLL phase, the finite-size central charge quickly approaches $1$. At the transition point, the value is $1.5$. Deep in the CLL phase, finite-size-effects are strong - as evidenced by the bending of the entropy for different system sizes.
Panel (d): $L=50$, different interaction strengths. The black continuous and blue dot-dashed lines are guides for the eye at $c = 1$ and $3/2$, respectively.
\label{fig_S}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width = 0.49\columnwidth]{Entropies_sameV55_n37.pdf}
\includegraphics[width = 0.49\columnwidth]{Entropies_sameL42_n37.pdf}
\caption{Entanglement entropy scaling as a function of the block length for $n=3/7$. Panel (a): entropies at the transition point $V/t = 5.5$. Data for different sizes are indicated by symbols, while the black line is a linear fit in good agreement with $c=3/2$. Panel (b): $L=50$, different interaction strengths. The black continuous and blue dot-dashed lines are guides for the eye at $c = 1$ and $3/2$, respectively.
\label{fig_S2}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
A summary of all data is presented in Fig.~\ref{fig_cc_V}(a), where we show the dependence of $c(L)$ as a function of $V/t$ for different system sizes and $n=4/10$. The data strongly suggest that there is an intervening phase transition between the two different $c=1$ phases (TLL and CLL) at an intermediate value of $V/t$, evidenced by the bell-like structure centered around $V/t\simeq 5.65$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width = 0.85\columnwidth]{FiniteSIzeC.pdf}
\includegraphics[width = 0.85\columnwidth]{EstimateVc.pdf}
\caption{Panel (a): Finite-size central charge as estimated from a linear interpolation according to the Cardy-Calabrese formula.
Blocks of size $<9$ are neglected to avoid strong non-universal effects. Residuals are of order $10^{-4}$ in the worst
cases, closer to the transition line and at large system sizes. The data evidence a phase transition around $V/t\simeq 5.63\pm0.02$
with a $c=3/2$ central charge. Both liquid phases are compactified bosons, as expected. Panel (b): Finite-size scaling for the critical point $V_L^c$ as a function of $1/L$. Errors in the estimates of $V_L^c$, obtained via local interpolations of $c_L$ in panel (a), are of the size of the symbols.
\label{fig_cc_V}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
At the transition point, the central charge is compatible with $c=3/2$, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig_S}(b). This universality class points toward the presence of a supersymmetric critical point~\cite{Dix88}, where the low-energy field theory is described by a combination of an compactified boson, and a real (Majorana) fermion~\cite{difrancesco_book}. Critical points of this kind have been recently discussed in different situations, such as constrained models coming from explicitly supersymmetric Hamiltonians~\cite{Fen2003, Bauer} and as effective boundary degrees of freedom for topological phases~\cite{Gro14}.
In order to extract the transition point more accurately, in Fig.~\ref{fig_cc_V}(b) we plot as a function of the system size, the critical value of $V^c_L$ at which the finite-size central charge reaches its maximum value, and then take the thermodynamic limit. We obtain an estimate of the critical point $V^c/t\simeq 5.63\pm 0.02 $.
\subsection{Gaps and low-energy degrees of freedom} \label{subsec:gaps}
In order to further deepen our understanding of the two phases and of the low-energy excitations in the vicinity of the transition point, we analyze the lower part of the spectrum of the Hamiltonian. In particular, we have targeted the single particle gap, defined as
\begin{equation}
\Delta_{sp}(L)=2E_{N}(L)-E_{N-1}(L)-E_{N+1}(L),
\end{equation}
where $E_N(L)$ is the ground state energy in a chain of length $L$ with $N$ particles. In addition, we have investigated the {\it cluster gap} $\Delta_{cl}$, which, for the case $n=4/10$, is defined as
\begin{equation}
\Delta_{cl}(L) = 2E_{N}(L) - E_{N-2}(L) - E_{N+2}(L).
\end{equation}
In the TLL phase, both gaps are expected to vanish, as they are linear combinations of different vertex operators. In the cluster phase, however, the picture is different, as discussed below. In the following, we first analyze the gaps in the classical limit $t=0$ by considering the exact solution of Sec.~\ref{sec:model_ham} and then present predictions of field theory and exact numerical results for $t\neq 0$.\\
\paragraph{Single-particle gap in a clustered state:}
Let us consider a system with size $L=10 \ell$, $N_A=2\ell$ and $N_B=\ell$, where $\ell $ labels the number of building blocks. The classical energy of the system is
\begin{equation}
E_N=V N_B = V\ell
\end{equation}
and, upon doping, one gets
\begin{equation}
E_{N+1} = V\ell +2V,\quad E_{N-1} = V\ell - V,
\end{equation}
as the states with $N+1$ and $N-1$ particles cannot rearrange properly due to cluster constraints. This implies that the single particle gap is always open in the cluster phase, and in particular $\Delta_{sp}(L) = V$ for every system size. \\
\paragraph{Cluster gap in a clustered state:}
For the cluster gap the situation is remarkably different. Doping with a B cluster (two-particles) generates the following configuration in the classical limit
\begin{equation}
E_{N+2} = V\ell +3V,\quad E_{N-2} = V\ell - 3V
\end{equation}
The latter is very much reminiscent of a classical crystal deformation - insertion and extraction of a single cluster take the same energy from the system. This leads to a vanishing cluster gap, as both contribution exactly cancel.\\
From the field theory described in Subsec.~\ref{subsec:lowe}, one can see that, while the cluster gap is nothing but a combination of vertex operators in the cluster language and thus vanishes in the cluster phase, the single particle gap cannot be written in this way, thus implying that single particle excitations are never gapless within the low-energy description. This implies that there must be a phase transition between the CLL and TLL phases where the single particle gap $\Delta_{sp}$ opens, while the cluster gap $\Delta_{cl}$ remains largely unperturbed.\\
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width = 0.48\columnwidth]{Cgaps_phases.pdf}
\includegraphics[width = 0.48\columnwidth]{Cgaps_transition.pdf}
\caption{Panel (a): Finite-size scaling of the cluster gap deep into the different phases. The gap scales to 0 in both CLL and TLL phases. Panel (b): data close to the transition point.
\label{Cgap1}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width = 0.65\columnwidth]{Spgaps_phases.pdf}
\caption{Finite-size scaling of the single particle gap deep into the different phases. The gap scales to 0 in the TLL phase, but takes a finite expectation value in the CLL phase, in agreement with the field theory predictions.
\label{Spgap}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The numerical results on the gap scaling fully confirm this picture. In Fig.~\ref{Cgap1}(a), we show the cluster gap $\Delta_{cl}$ for some points representative of the TLL ($V/t = 5$) and cluster phase ($V/t=6,7,8$). In both phases, $\Delta_{cl}$ scales to 0 in the thermodynamic limit as a power law - as predicted from the field theory analysis. Moreover, the scaling is also present close to the transition point [Fig.~\ref{Cgap1}(b)], where the gap vanishes approximately as $\propto1/L$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width = 0.65\columnwidth]{Spgaps_transitionv2.pdf}
\caption{Finite-size scaling of the single particle gap in the vicinity of the transition point. Lines are best fits of the form $a_0+ a_1(1/L^{a_2})$, with $a_0$, $a_1$ and $a_2$ constants; the caption indicates as a reference some of the extrapolated values.
\label{Spgap2}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width = 0.65\columnwidth]{TDgapopening.pdf}
\caption{Single particle gap extrapolated to the thermodynamic limit as a function of the interaction strength. The red line is a linear fit in the vicinity of the transition point, while the dashed line is a linear fit improved with a logarithmic correction. Errors in the extrapolation are of order of the symbol-size ($\simeq 0.01$) except at $V/t=5.6, 5.675$, where the errors estimated by least-square methods are $\simeq 0.015$.
\label{Spgap3}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The behaviour of the single particle gap $\Delta_{sp}$ in the two phases is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{Spgap}. Deep in the TLL phase, the gap scales to 0 (green diamonds and black pluses). However, once in the CLL phase, the gap is clearly finite, and extrapolates to larger values as $V$ increases. We notice that in this latter region we have excluded from the fit to the data small system sizes with $L=10$, which might display strong finite-size effects due to the presence of limited cluster structures at very small sizes.
In Figs.~\ref{Spgap2} and~\ref{Spgap3} we show how the single particle gap $\Delta_{sp}$ scales in the vicinity of the transition point. In particular, Fig.~\ref{Spgap3} shows that the dependence of the gap on $V/t$ is approximately linear (red dashed line), which is consistent with an emergent Ising field at the critical point~\cite{Dix88}. The linear extrapolations locate the critical point around $V/t\simeq 5.605$, in good agreement with the results for the scaling of the entanglement entropy (see Subsec.~\ref{subsec:entr}). Moreover, we notice that the agreement improves considerably once additional logarithmic corrections are included in the fit. This could point towards the presence of additional corrections close to the critical point, which have already been observed in similar supersymmetric scenarios~\cite{Bauer}. An accurate understanding of the relation between the microscopic degrees of freedom and the emergent fields at the critical point might shed further light onto these finite-size corrections.
\subsection{Sound velocities}
At the critical point, the emergent supersymmetry implies that the scaling dimensions of the operators are fixed, and the sound velocities of both the boson and Ising (fermionic) mode are the same. Within our framework, we can identify the sound velocity of the bosonic mode $v_B$ using conventional conformal field theory techniques (see, e.g., Ref.~\onlinecite{henkel_book}), by monitoring the finite-size scaling of the cluster gap~\footnote{The cluster gap, as it is defined here, is driven by a pair of vertex operators, so technical speaking, the bosonic gap of the continuum theory is half the cluster gap.}:
\begin{equation}
\Delta_{cl}/2 = \frac{2\pi v_Bx_B}{L}
\end{equation}
where $x_B$ is the scaling dimension of the corresponding vertex operator. Following the scaling dimensions for the expected value of $x_B=1/4K$ at criticality, with $K=4$ being the Luttinger parameter~\cite{Bauer}, one gets:
\begin{equation}\label{vb}
v_B = \frac{4\Delta_{cl}L}{\pi}.
\end{equation}
The estimate of the fermionic velocity is however not unambiguous, as our field theory does not allow to establish an exact mapping between the low-energy, continuum fields, and the lattice operators. As the gap in the Ising model approaches $1$ in the strong coupling limit of the Ising model following the notations in Ref.~\onlinecite{henkel_book}, while our $\Delta_{sp}$ approaches $V$ and scales approximately as $\simeq(V-V_c)$ in the vicinity of the critical point, it seems plausible to assume that $\Delta_{sp} = \Delta_{F}$ in our context, where $\Delta_F$ is the gap in the Ising model corresponding to different parity sectors - thus related to the {\it spin} primary operator. This implies:
\begin{equation}\label{vc}
\Delta_{sp} = \frac{2\pi v_f( \bar{\delta}_\sigma + \delta_\sigma)}{L}
\end{equation}
where $\bar{\delta}_\sigma,\delta_\sigma = 1/16$ are the anti-holomorphic and holomorphic dimensions of the primary operator corresponding to the Ising spin at low energy. We thus get the following form for the fermionic sound velocity:
\begin{equation}
v_f = \frac{8\Delta_{sp}L}{\pi}.
\end{equation}
In Fig.~\ref{sound}, we report our results for the velocities in Eq.~\ref{vb},~\ref{vc} in the vicinity of the critical point. The $y$-axis are rescaled by the value of the largest velocity in the $L\rightarrow\infty$ limit to improve readability. The fits, indicated by the continuos lines, are 3-parameter fits of the form $a_0+a_1*L^{a_2}$, where the extrapolated value $a_0$ represents the velocity in the thermodynamic limit. Typical errors in the extrapolated limit are of order 3\%~\footnote{The error is estimated by performing the fits with a different set of points, and keeping track of the variation in the value of $a_0$. The term $a_1 * L^{a2}$ represents corrections beyond the linear order which have non-universal nature (see, e.g., the discussion in Ref.~\onlinecite{henkel_book}).}. As can be seen in the upper panel, the velocities are equal (within numerical error) in the close vicinity of the transition point, further supporting the supersymmetric nature of the critical point itself.
We note that the next order corrections to the fermionic velocity are scaling with $a_2\simeq -2$, in full agreement with the conformal field theory prediction~\cite{henkel_book}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width = 0.75\columnwidth]{AllThreecasesv3.pdf}
\caption{Rescaled sound velocities $v_\beta^r = v^\beta/v_M$ (where $v_M$ is the maximum of the two sound velocity in the $L\rightarrow\infty$ limit) of the fermionic and bosonic models are extracted from the low-energy spectrum following Eq.~\ref{vb},~\ref{vc}.
\label{sound}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:Introduction}
The Internet of Things (IoT) is a network of networks where, typically, a massive number of objects/things/sensors/devices are connected through communications and information infrastructure to provide value-added services. The term was first coined in 1998 and later defined as ``The Internet of Things allows people and things to be connected Anytime, Anyplace, with Anything and Anyone, ideally using Any path/ network and Any service'' \cite{ZMP007}. As highlighted in the definition, connectivity among the devices is a critical functionality that is required to fulfil the vision of the IoT. The main reasons behind such interest are the capabilities and sophistication that the IoT will bring to society \cite{P003}. It promises to create a world where all the objects around us are connected to the Internet and communicate with each other with minimal human intervention. The ultimate goal is to create ``a better world for human beings'', where objects around us know what we like, what we want, and what we need, and hence act accordingly without explicit instructions \cite{P040}.
There have been a number of surveys conducted in the IoT domain. The area of the IoT has been broadly surveyed by Atzori et al. in \cite{P003}. Bandyopadhyay et al. have surveys of the IoT middleware solutions in \cite{P118}. Layered architecture in industrial IoT are discussed in \cite{TII01}. A similar survey focusing on data mining techniques for the IoT are discussed in \cite{Z1039}. Edge mining in IoT paradigm is discussed in \cite{TII10}. In contrast to the traditional data mining, edge mining takes place on the wireless, battery-powered, and smart sensing devices that sit at the edge points of the IoT. The challenges in self organizing in IoT are discussed in \cite{TII02}. Atzori et al \cite{TII07} have discussed how smart objects can be transformed in to social objects. Such transformation will allow the network to enhance the level of trust between objects that are `friends' with each other. IoT technologies and solutions towards Smart Cities are reviewed in \cite{TII04}. Communication protocols and technologies play a significant role in IoT. Sheng et al. \cite{TII06} have survey a protocol stack developed specifically for IoT domain by Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF).
Internet of things: vision, applications and research challenges are discussed from a research perspective in \cite{Z1037, Z1038}. Further, the IoT has been surveyed in a context-aware perspective by Perera et al. \cite{ZMP008}. A survey on facilitating experimentally IoT research is presented by \cite{Z1040}. Palattella et al. \cite{Z1041} have introduced a communications protocol stack to support and standardise IoT communication. Security challenges such as general system security, network security, and application security in the IoT are discussed in \cite{Z1042}. The security issues in perception layer, network layer and application layer in architectures have discussed in \cite{TII03}. Hardware devices, specially nano sensors and technologies, used in IoT are surveyed in \cite{TII09}. Another similar survey has been done by Hodges et al. \cite{Z1055}. This paper discusses a open-source hardware platform called {.NET Gadgeteer}, a rapid prototyping platform for small electronic gadgets and embedded hardware devices.{.NET Gadgeteer} is coming from an industrial setting similar to Arduino \cite{P411}.
Besides the above articles, there are a number of surveys and reviews that have been conducted by researchers around the world in the IoT domain, from which we have hand picked some to represent the existing body of knowledge.
As far as we know, however, no survey has focused on IoT industry solutions. All the above-mentioned surveys have reviewed the solutions proposed by the academic and research community and refer to scholarly publications. In the present paper, we review the IoT solutions that have been proposed, designed, developed, and brought to market by industrial organisations. These organisations range from start-ups and small and medium enterprises to large corporations. Because of their industrial and market-driven nature, most of the IoT solutions in the market are not published as academic works. Therefore, we collected information about the solutions from their respective web-sites, demo videos, technical specifications, and consumer reviews. Understanding how technologies are used in the IoT solutions in the industry's marketplace is vital for academics, researchers, and industrialists so they can identify trends, opportunities, industry requirements, demands, and open research challenges. It is also critical for understanding trends and open research gaps so future research directions can be guided by them.
The present paper is organised into sections as follows: In Section \ref{sec:Evaluation}, we evaluate and examine the functionalities provided by each solution under the five categories identified in the earlier section. At the end of that section, we summarise the functionalities and highlight the major domains that are commonly targeted by the solutions. Then, we examine the IoT solutions from a technology and business perspective. Hardware platforms, software platforms, additional equipment, communication protocols, and the energy sources used by each solution are examined in Section \ref{sec:Technology_Review}. At the end of that section, we summarise the technologies and business models used by the IoT solutions so trends and opportunities can be identified. In Section \ref{sec:Lessons_Learned}, we identify such trends using the evaluations we conducted in the previous sections. Later, opportunities for research and development will be assessed in Section \ref{sec:Ope_Research_Challenges}. Concluding remarks
will be presented in Section \ref{sec:Conclusions}.
\section{Functionality Review of IoT Solutions}
\label{sec:Evaluation}
In this section, we focus on the functionalities of the IoT solutions. The next section discusses the technologies used by these solutions under common themes. In both sections, our intention is not to describe each IoT solution in detail, but to organise them into common themes so we can identify trends and opportunities. However, readers can use citation numbers to track a given IoT solution throughout the paper, if desired. Such an option allows consolidating the knowledge we have put separately in two sections, to better understand a single IoT solution. In Section \ref{sec:Lessons_Learned}, we will analyse the trends from both the functional and the technological point of views.
\subsection{Smart Wearable}
\label{sec:SS:Smart_Wearable}
Wearable solutions are diverse in terms of functionality. They are designed for a variety of purposes as well as for wear on a variety of parts of the body, such as the head, eyes, wrist, waist, hands, fingers, legs, or embedded into different elements of attire. In Table \ref{Tbl:Wearable_IoT_Solutions}, we summarise popular wearable IoT solutions. This table includes a brief description of each solution, context information gathered, similar solutions, and the context-aware functionality provided by the solution. The IoT solutions are categorised by the body part on which the solution must be worn, as illustrated in Figure \ref{Figure:Bodyparts}. In addition to the industry IoT solutions, academic solutions in the wearable computing area are discussed in \cite{Z1048, Z1049}. Challenges and opportunities in developing smart wearable solutions are presented in \cite{Z1046}.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=1.2]{./Images/2_Wearables.pdf}
\caption{Different body parts popularly targeted by wearable IoT solutions in the industry market-place.}
\label{Figure:Bodyparts}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\end{figure}
\begin{table*}[htbp]
\centering
\footnotesize
\caption{Summary of Wearable IoT Solutions}
\label{Tbl:Wearable_IoT_Solutions}
\begin{tabular}{ c p{15.4cm} }
\hline
& \begin{center}
Functionalities Provided by Different wearable IoT solutions
\end{center} \\ \hline \hline
\multirow{3}{*}{ \begin{sideways}Cloth \hspace{1.0cm} \end{sideways}} &
\begin{itemize}
\item Monitor respiration, body position, activity level, skin temperature, and audio of a baby using pressure, stretch, noise, and temperature sensors, and provide notification through a smart phone regarding any situation that parents need to attend to (Baby Monitor: RestDevice / Mimobaby \cite{RestDevice}).
\item A sleep-tracking device that uses a thin-film sensor strip placed on a mattress in combination with smart phone to help to create a nightly rest profile. It helps to improve user's sleep over time (Sleep Tracking: Beddit \cite{Beddit}).
\item Jacket relieves anxiety and stress from those diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Built-in motion sensors and pressure sensors track the frustration and activity levels of the child throughout the day and generate custom notification alerts based on that information (Medical Assistant :MyTJacket \cite{TJacket}).
\end{itemize} \\
\multirow{3}{*}{ \begin{sideways}Waist / Chest \hspace{0.3cm} \end{sideways}} &
\begin{itemize}
\item Tracks posture and daily activities in real time. It provides advice on posture issues so users can improve their posture (Daily Activity and Fitness Monitor / Medical: Lumoback \cite{LUMOback}).
\item A device that updates Twitter when a baby in the womb kicks its mother (Medical Assistant: kickbee \cite{CoreyMenscher}).
\item A chest band that tracks heart rate, speed, distance, stress level, calories, and activity level. It allows recommended working out within certain heart rate zones to achieve goals such as weight loss or cardiovascular improvement. (Personal Sports Assistant: BioHarness \cite{BioHarness}).
\end{itemize} \\
\multirow{3}{*}{ \begin{sideways}Wrist \hspace{1.4cm} \end{sideways}} &
\begin{itemize}
\item A wrist band that tracks steps taken, stairs climbed, calories burned, and hours slept, distance travelled, and quality of sleep and provides recommendation for a healthier lifestyle (Daily Activity and Fitness Monitor: MyBasis \cite{BASIS}, BodyMedia \cite{LINKArmband}, Lark \cite{lark}).
\item Open wearable sensor platform, a wrist band that comprises number of different sensors such as pulse, blood flow sounds, blood oxygen saturation, blood flow waveform, pulse, acceleration, type of activity, calories burned and number of steps taken, skin temperature (Open Platform: AngelSensor \cite{angelsensor}).
\item EMBRACE+, a wrist band that connects to the user's smartphone via Bluetooth and displays any notifications user may receive as ambient light notifications (Personal Sports Assistant: EmbracePlus \cite{embraceplus}).
\item Electrocardiogram technology (ECG), Bluetooth connectivity and a suite of sensors are used to recognize users' heart rhythm uniquely and securely and continuously log into users' nearby devices (Secure Authentication: nymi \cite{getnymi}).
\item A watch that helps athletes to keep track of their training. Context information such as mapping, distance, speed, heart rate, and light are collected and fused to generate athletes' training profile (Personal Sports Assistant: Leikr \cite{leikr}).
\end{itemize} \\
\multirow{3}{*}{ \begin{sideways}Eyes \hspace{1.4cm} \end{sideways}} &
\begin{itemize}
\item Sports-specific (skiing) goggles that monitor jump analytics, speed, navigation, trip recording, and peer tracking (Personal Sports Assistant: Oakley Goggles \cite{OakleyAirwaveGoggles}).
\item A pair of glasses that consist of camera, projector, and sensors to support functionalities such as navigation calendar notification, navigation, voice activated, voice translation, communication and so on. It also acts as an open platform where different context-ware functionalities can be built using provided sensors and processing capabilities (Open Platform: Google Glass \cite{glass}).
\end{itemize} \\
\multirow{3}{*}{ \begin{sideways}Head \hspace{1.4cm} \end{sideways}} &
\begin{itemize}
\item Sports-specific (American football) helmet that determines when to take a player off the field and seek medical advice through impact detection and analysis (Personal Sports Assistant: TheShockBox \cite{shockboxImpactalertsensors}).
\item A bicycle helmet that detects a crash. If the user's head hits the pavement (or anything hard (ice, snow, dirt)), a signal will be sent to the smartphone automatically to generate a call for help (Emergency Accident monitor: ICEdot \cite{icedot}).
\end{itemize} \\
\multirow{3}{*}{ \begin{sideways}Hands \hspace{1.4cm} \end{sideways}} &
\begin{itemize}
\item Monitor, analyze and improve golf swing through motion sensors embedded in gloves (Personal Sports Assistant: Zepp \cite{Zepp} )
\item A ring that monitors and keeps track of the user's heart rate (Medical Assistant: ElectricFoxy \cite{electricfoxy}).
\end{itemize} \\
\multirow{3}{*}{ \begin{sideways}Legs / Foot \hspace{1.4cm} \end{sideways}} &
\begin{itemize}
\item A sock that combines an accelerometer with textile sensors to measure steps, altitude and calories burnt. It helps runners to avoid potentially dangerous techniques: heel striking or excessive forefoot running that could lead to back pain or Achilles ten-don injuries. (Daily Activity and Fitness Monitor / Medical: Heapsylon \cite{SensoriaSmartSock})
\item A pair of shoes that provides feedback through vibrations in an intuitive and non-obstructive way. The shoes suggest the right direction and detect obstacles (Disability Assistance: LeChal \cite{LeChal})
\end{itemize} \\
\multirow{3}{*}{ \begin{sideways}Internal \hspace{1.4cm} \end{sideways}} &
\begin{itemize}
\item A small patch worn on the body working together with 1mm sensor-enabled pills and a back-end cloud service to collect and process real-time information (e.g. heart rate, temperature, activity and rest patterns throughout the day) on the user's medication adherence (Medical: Proteus Digital Health \cite{proteusdigitalhealth}).
\end{itemize} \\
\multirow{3}{*}{ \begin{sideways}Multi \hspace{1.4cm} \end{sideways}} &
\begin{itemize}
\item A device that can be worn on multiple body parts tracks steps taken, stairs climbed, calories burned, and hours slept, distance travelled, quality of sleep (Daily Activity and Fitness Monitor: Fitbit \cite{fitbit}).
\item An ultra-small GPS unit and five in-built sensors are used to collect data and fused to tell the camera exactly the right moment to take photos (Leisure: Autographer \cite{Autographer}).
\item Remote monitoring system that collects data through devices that can be worn on different body parts on a patient's physiological conditions to support physicians (Health Monitoring: Preventice BodyGuardian \cite{BodyGuardianRemoteMonitoringSystem}).
\end{itemize} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{Tbl:Smart_Wearables_Summary}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Smart Home}
\label{sec:SS:Smart_Home}
Solutions in this category make the experience of living at home more convenient and pleasant for the occupants. Some smart home \cite{Z1053} solutions also focus on assisting elderly people in their daily activities and on health care monitoring \cite{Z1050}. Due to the large market potential, more and more smart home solutions are making their way into the market. From the academic point of view, smart energy and resource management \cite{Z1051, Z1061}, human--system interaction \cite{Z1052}, and activity management \cite{Z1054}, have been some of the major foci.
\textit{\textbf{Platforms: }}Smartthings \cite{SmartThingsHomeWatchSolution} is a generic platform that consists of hardware devices, sensors, and software applications. Context information is collected through sensors and injected into applications where reasoning and action are performed accordingly. For example, the sprinkler installed in the user's garden can detect rain and turn itself off to save energy. Ninjablocks \cite{ninjablocks} and Twine \cite{Twine} provide similar functionalities. These solutions were mainly developed to support smart home and building domains, but they can be customised to other domains. HomeOS \cite{Z1058} is a platform that supports home automation. Instead of custom hardware (e.g. a smartthings hub), HomeOS is a software platform which can be installed on a normal PC. As with the smartthings platform, applications can be installed to support different context-aware functionalities (e.g. capturing an image from a door camera and sending it to the user when someone rings the doorbell). Lab-of-things \cite{Z1059} is a platform built for experimental research. It allows the user to easily connect hardware sensors to the software platform and enables the collection of data and the sharing of data, codes, and participants.
\textit{\textbf{Virtual Assistance: }}Ubi \cite{Ubi} supports residents by acting as a voice-activated computer. It can perform tasks such as audio calendar, feed reader, podcast, voice memos, make lighting-based notifications to indicate the occurrence of certain events, weather, stock, email, and so on. Ubi has a microphone and speakers. It also has sensors to monitor the environment, such as monitoring the temperature, humidity, air pressure, and ambient light. Netatmo \cite{Netatmo} is an air quality monitoring solution for smart homes. In order to determine air quality, it collects context information from sensors such as temperature, humidity, and CO2. The solution monitors the home environment and sends an alert when the residents' attention is required. Meethue \cite{meethue} is a bulb which can be controlled from mobile devices. The bulb reacts to the context and can change its colour and brightness according to user preferences, time / day / season, and activity (e.g. resident enters home) and is also sensitive to changes in the weather during the day.
\textit{\textbf{Smart Objects:} }— WeMo \cite{WeMoSwitc} is a Wi-Fi enabled switch that can be used to turn electronic devices on or off from anywhere. Context-aware schedules are also supported, where turning on or off is performed automatically according to the time of day, sunrise, or sunset. Tado \cite{TADO} is an intelligent heating control that uses a smartphone. It offers context-aware functionalities such as turning down the heating when the last person leaves the house, turning the heating back up before someone gets home, and heats the house less when the sun is shining. Nest \cite{NestThermostat} is a thermostat that learns what temperatures users like and builds a context-aware personalised schedule. The thermostat automatically turns to an energy-efficient `away temperature' when occupants leave the home. If it senses activity, such as a friend's coming over to water the plants, Nest could start warming up the house. The thermostat can be activated remotely through the Nest mobile app. Lockitron \cite{Lockitron} is a door lock that can be opened and closed by a phone over the Internet. Residents can authorise family and friends to open a given door by providing authorisation over the Internet, so that others can use their smartphones to unlock doors. Blufitbottle \cite{BlueFit} is a water bottle that records drinking habits while keeping the users healthy and hydrated. If the user starts to fall behind with hydration, the bottle has customisable sounds and lights to alert them.
\textit{\textbf{Digital Relationships:}} — Wheredial \cite{WhereDial} offers a way to make a personal connection with family members or friends. It retrieves a person's location from Foursquare, Google Latitude, and a variety of other services. Then it rotates the dial (like a clock) to show where the person is at a given moment. Goodnightlamp \cite{GoodNightLamp} is a family of connected lamps that let the user remotely communicate the act of coming back home to their loved ones easily and in an ambient way by fusing location-aware sensing. The objective of Wheredial and Goodnightlamp is the same: helping to build and maintain family relationships and further strengthen friendships by mitigating the fact that the users are apart from each other. Such solutions are extremely important in terms of social, psychological, and mental well-being.
\subsection{Smart City}
\label{sec:SS:Smart_City}
Towns and cities accommodate one-half of the world's population, creating tremendous pressure on every aspect of urban living. Cities have large concentrations of resources and facilities \cite{P535}. The enormous pressure towards efficient city management has triggered various Smart City initiatives by both government and private sector businesses to invest in information and communication technologies to find sustainable solutions to the growing problems \cite{ZMP008}. Smart grid is one of the domains in which academia, industry, and governments are interested and invested significantly \cite{Z1064, Z1067}.
\textit{\textbf{Smart Traffic}} ParkSight \cite{ParkSight} is a parking management technology designed for cities. Context information is retrieved through sensors (magnetometers) embedded in parking slots. Application support is provided via location and map services to guide drivers to convenient parking based on real-time context analysis. Uber \cite{Uber} allows users to request a ride at any time. The company in a particular place sends a cab. In contrast to transitional taxi services, no phone call or pick-up location is required. A mobile application shows the cabs close to the users and their movement in real time. A cab can be requested by means of a single smartphone tap. Alltrafficsolutions \cite{AllTraffic} collects traffic data through sensors and visualises it on maps in order to provide drivers with traffic updates. Further, it provides remote equipment management support related to traffic control (e.g. changes in digital road signs, speed limit boards, variable message signs (e.g. `event parking') to drivers, and changes in the brightness of digital signs based on the context information). Streetbump \cite{StreetBum} is a crowd-sourcing project that helps residents to improve their neighbourhood streets. Volunteers use the Streetbump mobile application to collect road condition data while they drive. The data are visualised on a map to alert residents regarding real-time road conditions. The collected data provide governments with real-time information with which to fix problems and plan long-term investments.
\textit{\textbf{Platforms}} Libelium \cite{WaspMote} provides a platform of low-level sensors that is capable of collecting a large amount of context information to support different application domains [9]. Thingworx \cite{thingworx} and Xively \cite{xively} are cloud-based on-line platforms that process, analyse, and manage sensor data retrieved through a variety of different protocols.
\textit{\textbf{Resource Management}} — SmartBelly \cite{SmartBellycomponents} is a smart waste management solution. It provides a sensor-embedded trash can that is capable of real-time context analysis and alerting the authorities when it is full and needs to be emptied. Location information is used to plan efficient garbage collection. Echelon \cite{SmartStreetLighting} has developed a smart street lighting solution transforming street-lights into intelligent, energy-efficient, remotely managed networks. It schedules lights to be turned on or off and sets the dimming levels of individual lights or groups of lights so a city can intelligently provide the right level of lighting needed by analysing the context such as time of day, season, or weather conditions.
\textit{\textbf{Activity Monitoring}} Livehoods \cite{Livehoods} offers a new way to conceptualise the dynamics, structure, and character of a city by analysing the social media its residents generate. This is achieved through collecting context information such as check-in patterns. Livehoods shows how citizens use the urban landscape and other resources. Scenetap \cite{SceneTap} shows real-time info about the city's best places. It shows the context information of a given location such as how many people are there, the male to female ratio, and the average age of everyone inside. This helps users to find the best places to hang out (e.g. cinema, bar, restaurant) at a given time and gives information such as availability.
\subsection{Smart Environment}
\label{sec:SS:Smart_Environment}
\textit{\textbf{Air Quality Monitoring}} — Airqualityegg \cite{AirQualityEgg} is a community-led sensor system that allows anyone to collect context information such as the carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) gas concentrations outside their home. Such data are related to urban air pollution. Communitysensing \cite{CommonSense} is also an air quality monitoring system which provides both hand-held devices and a platform to be fixed into municipal vehicles such as street sweepers. Aircasting \cite{AirCasting} is a platform for recording, mapping, and sharing health and environmental data using smartphones and custom monitoring devices. Context information includes sound levels, temperature, humidity, carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) gas concentrations, heart and breathing rate, activity level, and peak acceleration.
\textit{\textbf{Water Quality Monitoring}} — Floating Sensor Network \cite{TheFloatingSensorNetwork} collects real-time, high-resolution data on waterways via a series of mobile sensing `drifters' that are placed in the water. It collects context information such as water quality, water flow movement, and speed, temperature and water pollution. Intelligentriver \cite{IntelligentRiver} is also an observation system that supports research and provides real-time monitoring, analysis and management of water resources. A similar solution has been developed by Roboshoal \cite{Shoal}. The difference is that their station is a mobile fish-shaped robotic device whose movement is controllable. Dontflush \cite{dontflushme} is designed to enable residents to understand when overflows happen and reduce their waste-water production before and during an overflow event. Context information is processed in order to determine real-time sewage levels and advise users regarding safe flushing through a context-aware light bulb and SMS.
\textit{\textbf{Natural Disaster Monitoring}} — AmritaWNA \cite{AmritaWNA} is a wireless landslide detection system that is capable of releasing alerts about possible landslides caused by torrential rain in the region. Context information is collected by sensors such as strain gauge piezometers, vibrating wire piezometers, dielectric moisture sensors, tilt meters, and geophones. This is a station-based solution. Insightrobotics \cite{ComputerVisionWildfireDetectionSystem} is a solution that detects forest fires by fusing context information collected through various kinds of sensors (i.e. temperature, wind, and so on) and networked cameras.
\textit{\textbf{Smart Farming}} — Microstrain \cite{ShelburneVineyardRemoteMonitoring} has developed a wireless environmental sensing system to monitor key conditions during the growing season in vineyards. Context information such as current temperature and soil moisture conditions, leaf wetness, and solar radiation is collected and fused in order to monitor vineyards remotely and alert farmers regarding critical situations. The collected data are used to support both real-time context-aware functionalities and historic data analysis. Bumblebee \cite{Bumblebeenestingproject} monitors the lives of bumblebees by collecting and processing context information such as visual, audio, temperature, sunlight, and weather. It automatically tweets the current situation of the colony and well-being of the bees. Hydropoint \cite{HydroPoint} retrieves context information through 40,000 weather stations and automatically schedules irrigation based on individual landscape needs and local weather conditions, resulting in lower water bills and energy savings.
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\footnotesize
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.05}
\caption{Summary of the Taxonomy used in Table~\ref{Tbl:Evaluation_of_Previous_Research_Efforts}}
\label{Tbl:Evaluation_of_Technology_Taxonomy}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\begin{tabular}{ c l m{13cm} }
\hline
& Taxonomy & Description \\ \hline \hline
1 & Project & The name of the project, product or solution sorted by `Category' and then by `Project Name' within each category in ascending order \\
3 & Year & Last known active year of the project. \\
4 & Category & Category that the solution belongs to.
Each category is denoted by a different colour:
\iftrue
red {\color{SC}\rule{0.2cm}{0.2cm}} (smart city), yellow
{\color{SN}\rule{0.2cm}{0.2cm}} (smart environment), blue {\color{SE}\rule{0.2cm}{0.2cm}} (smart enterprise), green {\color{SW}\rule{0.2cm}{0.2cm}} (smart wearable), and purple {\color{SH}\rule{0.2cm}{0.2cm}} (smart home).
\else
red \catC (smart city), yellow \catV (smart environment), blue \catN (smart enterprise), green \catW (smart wearable), and purple \catH (smart home).
\fi
Some solutions belongs to multiple categories.\\
5 & Availability & The ability to obtain (free or purchase) each IoT solution. Available solutions are denoted by ($\checkmark$). . \\
6 & Price & The price of the IoT solution. It can be unit price or service prise or both. All the prices are denoted in US dollars. Superscript number denotes the original currency where the IoT solution has been sold: USD (1), AUD (2), EURO (3), and GBP (4). Further, if it is a service, additional superscripts are used to denote payment period: monthly (m) and yearly (y). Currency conversion has been performed on 2013-December-11 using online service provided by www.xe.com. \\
7 & Hardware and / or Software & This indicate whether the IoT solution consists of hardware (H) unit, software (S) service or both \\
8 & Wireless Technology & Different types of wireless technologies used in each of the IoT solutions are denoted as follows: (Mobile) Ad-hoc Network using Ultrasonic communication (A) , WiFi (W), Bluetooth (B), USB (U), Celluar Radio / GSM (C), ZigBee (Z), RF (R), GPS (G)\\
9 & Platform & IoT solutions have utilized different platforms. Some solutions support multiple platforms as follows: Android (A), Blackberry (K), IOS (I), Web based service (B), Mac OSX (M), Windows (W), and Linux (L)\\
10 & License & The IoT solutions are covered by different licenses as follows: Commercial (C), Open-source (O), Research \& Development (R), and Free (F).
No specific license information were available for cases denoted by (R) which were carried out as research initiatives and possibly available for collaborative research work with permission for non-commercial work.
(F) denotes solutions which are available for free without any governing licenses.\\
11 & Unit and / or subscription & The IoT solution that are sold as a unit are denoted by (U) and others cases where the solution need to be purchased as a subscription are denoted by (S) \\
12 & Product and / or Service & IoT solutions that marketed as a product are denoted by (P) and the solutions marketed as services are denoted by (S). Some IoT solutions have both product and service components. \\ \hline
\multicolumn{3}{c}{Note: Cases where sufficient information were not available are denoted by (-)}
\end{tabular}
\label{Tbl:Summarized taxonmy}
\vspace{-16pt}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Smart Enterprise}
\label{sec:SS:Smart_Enterprise}
In general, enterprise IoT solutions are designed to support infrastructure and more general purpose functionalities in industrial places, such as management and connectivity.
\textit{\textbf{Transportation and Logistics}} — Senseaware \cite{SenseAware} is a solution developed to support real-time shipment tracking. The context information such as location, temperature, light, relative humidity and biometric pressure is collected and processed in order to enhance the visibility of the supply chain. HiKoB \cite{PROJECTGRIZZLY} collects real-time measurements such as temperature gradients within the road, current outdoor temperatures, moisture, dew and frost points from sensors deployed in roads and provides traffic management, real-time information on traffic conditions, and services for freight and logistics. Cantaloupesys \cite{SeedPlatform} allows the user to keep track of stocks in vending machines remotely. Timely and optimal replenishment strategies (i.e. the elimination of unnecessary truck travel and smaller loads per truck) are determined from context information related to usage patterns.
\textit{\textbf{Infrastructure and Safety}}— SmartStructures \cite{SmartPile} collects data from sensors embedded within concrete piles in foundations which enables post-construction long-term load and event monitoring. Yanzi \cite{RemoteSiteManagement} is a solution that enables the user to monitor, maintain, and manage lifts, elevators, heating systems, energy consumption, motion detection, and surveillance. Context information is retrieved through sensors such as video, temperature, motion, and light. Engaugeinc \cite{RemoteFireExtinguisherMonitoringSystem} is a remote fire extinguisher monitoring system. Multiple sensors are used to collect context information that allows the user to determine when a fire extinguisher is blocked, when it is missing from its designated location, or when its pressure falls below safe operating levels. Alerts are sent out via email, phone, pager, and a software-based control panel.
\textit{\textbf{Energy and Production}} — Wattics \cite{Smartmetering} is a smart metering solution that manages energy consumption at the individual appliance and machine level. Context information is used to understand usage pattern recognitions of each appliance through software algorithms which predict and load balance to reduce the energy cost. Sightmachine \cite{SightMachine} continuously processes context data gathered from sensors, lasers, and network cameras, makes assessments in real time, and allows the user to stop problems before they happen with regard to industrial manufacturing machines and equipment.
\textit{
\textbf{Resources Management}}— Onfarmsystems \cite{OnFarm} is an IoT solution designed to facilitate smart farming through accommodating increasingly complex and interconnected farming equipment. Context information such as energy, pesticide, mapping/ location, soil moisture, telemetry, weather, and monitoring are used to support efficient real-time decision-making. HeatWatch \cite{HeatWatchII} is a cattle monitoring solution that records the activities of each animal. Recorded context information includes such information as movement, time of day of the mount, and duration of the mount. Such information enables farmers to breed more cows and heifers earlier, obtain better results (more pregnancies), use less semen, spend much less time, and be more efficient. Motionloft \cite{Motionloftpropertyanalytics} is a solution that monitors pedestrian and vehicle movements in real-time by collecting activity data. It enables boutique retailers, large chains, restaurants, and bars to understand the impact which vehicle and pedestrian traffic has on their revenue.
\section{Technology Review of IoT Solutions}
\label{sec:Technology_Review}
In this section, we summarise, from the technology point of view, the results surveyed so far. Our review criteria are explained in detail in Table \ref{Tbl:Evaluation_of_Technology_Taxonomy}. The results are presented in Table \ref{Tbl:Evaluation_of_Previous_Research_Efforts}. Specifically, our objective is not to discuss the technologies in details but to survey and compare the usage of the technologies (i.e. column (7), (8), (9) in Table \ref{Tbl:Evaluation_of_Technology_Taxonomy}) and solution models employed by different IoT solutions (i.e. column (10), (11), (12) in Table \ref{Tbl:Evaluation_of_Technology_Taxonomy}). Over the last few years, IoT has been surveys in many different perspective. Leading surveys that discuss different aspects of IoT technologies are presented in Section \ref{sec:Introduction}. In Section \ref{sec:Lessons_Learned}, we will analyse trends and lessons learned from the survey in detail.
\begin{table*}[t!]
\caption{Evaluation of Surveyed Research Prototypes, Systems, and Approaches}
\footnotesize
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.8}
\begin{tabular}{
m{4.5cm}
c
m{0.4cm}
c
p{0.2cm}
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
}
\hline
Project Name &
\begin{sideways}Citations \end{sideways} &
Year &
\begin{sideways}Category\end{sideways} &
\begin{sideways}Availability \end{sideways} &
Price &
\begin{sideways}\begin{minipage}[b]{1.5cm}Hardware Software \end{minipage} \end{sideways} &
\begin{sideways}\begin{minipage}[b]{1.6cm}Wireless \\Technology \end{minipage} \end{sideways} &
\begin{sideways}Platform \end{sideways} &
\begin{sideways}License \end{sideways} &
\begin{sideways}\begin{minipage}[b]{1.6cm}Unit \\Subscription \end{minipage} \end{sideways} &
\begin{sideways}\begin{minipage}[b]{1.6cm}Product \\Service \end{minipage} \end{sideways}
\\
\hline \hline
(1) & (2) & (3) & (4) &(5) & (6) & (7) & (8) & (9) & (10) & (11) & (12) \\
.NET Gadgeteer & \cite{Z1055} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SC}{}} \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SE}{}} \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SN}{}} \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SW}{}} & $\checkmark$ & Vary & H & All & - & O & U & P \\
Arduino & \cite{P411} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SC}{}} \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SE}{}} \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SN}{}} \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SW}{}} & $\checkmark$ & Vary & H & All & - & O & U & P \\
ThingWorx & \cite{thingworx} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SC}{}} \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SE}{}} \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SN}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & S & All & B & C & S & S \\
Xively & \cite{xively} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SC}{}} \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SE}{}} \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SN}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 999 - 39,000$^{y}$ & S & All & B & C & S & S \\
All Traffic & \cite{AllTraffic} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SC}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H,S & B,C,W & A,B & C & S & P,S \\
CityDashboard & \cite{CityDashboard} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SC}{}} & $\checkmark$ & Free & S & C,W & B & R & - & S \\
Common Sense & \cite{CommonSense} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SC}{}} & $\checkmark$ & & H,S & B,C & B & R & U & P,S \\
Enevo & \cite{Enevo} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SC}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H & C & B & - & S & P,S \\
Estimote Beacons & \cite{EstimoteBeacons} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SC}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 99.00$^{1}$ & H,S & B & A,I & O & U & P \\
Livehoods & \cite{Livehoods} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SC}{}} & $\checkmark$ & Free & S & C,W & B & F & - & S \\
ParkSight & \cite{ParkSight} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SC}{}} & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - \\
Pavegen & \cite{Pavegen} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SC}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H & - & B & R & U & P \\
Placemeter & \cite{Placemeter} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SC}{}} & - & - & H,S & C,W & - & - & S & S \\
Points & \cite{Points} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SC}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H & W & B & - & U & S \\
SceneTap & \cite{SceneTap} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SC}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H,S & C,W & A,B,I & C & S & S \\
Smart Street Lighting & \cite{SmartStreetLighting} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SC}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & - & - & - & - & - & - \\
SmartBelly components & \cite{SmartBellycomponents} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SC}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & - & C & B & - & - & P,S \\
Street Bum & \cite{StreetBum} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SC}{}} & $\checkmark$ & Free & S & C,W & I & F & - & S \\
Uber & \cite{Uber} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SC}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & - & C & A,I & C & U & S \\
WaspMote & \cite{WaspMote} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SC}{}} \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SE}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H,S & C,R,W,Z & B & - & - & - \\
Motionloft property analytics & \cite{Motionloftpropertyanalytics} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SC}{}}\adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SE}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 279.00$^{1,m}$ & H,S & - & B & C & S & S \\
PROJECT GRIZZLY & \cite{PROJECTGRIZZLY} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SC}{}}\adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SE}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H,S & - & - & O & - & - \\
Air Quality Egg & \cite{AirQualityEgg} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SC}{}}\adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SN}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H,S & - & B & O & P & S \\
AirCasting & \cite{AirCasting} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SC}{}}\adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SN}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H,S & B,C,W & A & O & U & P,S \\
FleetSafer OBD & \cite{FleetSaferOBD} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SE}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H & B & - & C & U & P \\
GPS Trailer Tracking & \cite{GPSTrailerTracking} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SE}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H & G,W & - & C & U & P \\
HeatWatch II & \cite{HeatWatchII} & 2006 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SE}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H,S & R & - & C & U & P,S \\
Intelligence Golf Course Irrigation & \cite{IntelligenceGolfCourseIrrigation} & 2012 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SE}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H,S & - & - & - & - & P \\
Limitless Wireless Operator & \cite{LimitlessWirelessOperatorInterface} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{-} & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SE}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H & R & - & C & U & P \\
OnFarm & \cite{OnFarm} & 2012 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SE}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 0-1,500$^{1,y}$ & H,S & - & - & C & S & P,S \\
Asset Tracking System & \cite{RecovereAssetTrackingandRecoverySystem} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{-} & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SE}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H & C,R & - & C & U & P \\
Remote Fire Extinguisher & \cite{RemoteFireExtinguisherMonitoringSystem} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{-} & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SE}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H,S & - & - & C & U & P \\
Remote Site Management & \cite{RemoteSiteManagement} & 2011 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SE}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H,S & W & A,B,I & C & S & P,S \\
Remote Tank Monitoring Solution & \cite{RemoteTankMonitoringSolution} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SE}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H,S & - & - & C & U & P \\
Seed Platform & \cite{SeedPlatform} & 2012 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SE}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H,S & - & B & C & S & P,S \\
SenseAware & \cite{SenseAware} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SE}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H,S & C & B & C & U & P,S \\
Sight Machine & \cite{SightMachine} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SE}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H,S & - & - & O & - & - \\
Smart metering & \cite{Smartmetering} & 2011 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SE}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H,S & - & - & C & U & P,S \\
Smart Pallet & \cite{SmartPallet} & 2012 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SE}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H & R & - & C & U & P \\
SmartPile & \cite{SmartPile} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SE}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H,S & - & B & C & U & P,S \\
temperaturealert & \cite{temperaturealert} & 2012 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SE}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H & C,U,W & - & C & U & P \\
Bumblebee nesting project & \cite{Bumblebeenestingproject} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SN}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & - & - & B & R & - & S \\
Wildfire Detection System & \cite{ComputerVisionWildfireDetectionSystem} & 2012 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SN}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H,S & - & - & - & U & P,S \\
dontflushme & \cite{dontflushme} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SN}{}} & - & - & H,S & - & B & O & U & P,S \\
Intelligent River & \cite{IntelligentRiver} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SN}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H,S & - & - & R & U & P,S \\
Vineyard Remote Monitoring & \cite{ShelburneVineyardRemoteMonitoring} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SN}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H,S & C & - & C & - & - \\
Shoal & \cite{Shoal} & 2012 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SN}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 32,879.13$^{4}$ & H,S & A & - & C & U & P,S \\
The Floating Sensor Network & \cite{TheFloatingSensorNetwork} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SN}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H,S & C & B & R & U & P,S \\
Asthmapolis & \cite{Asthmapolis} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SW}{}} & - & - & H,S & B & I,A & R & U & P \\
Autographer & \cite{Autographer} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SW}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 399.00$^{1}$ & H & B,U & - & C & U & P \\
BASIS & \cite{BASIS} & 2012 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SW}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 199.00$^{1}$ & H,S & B,W & A,I,B & C & U & P \\
BEARTek Gloves & \cite{BEARTekGloves} & 2012 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SW}{}} & - & - & H & B & - & R & U & P \\
Beddit & \cite{Beddit} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SW}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 411.26$-680.85^{3}$ & H,S & B & A,I & C & U,S & P \\
BleepBleep & \cite{BleepBleep} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SW}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H,S & B & A,I & C & U,S & P,S \\
BodyGuardian Remote Monitoring & \cite{BodyGuardianRemoteMonitoringSystem} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SW}{}} & - & - & H,S & B,W & B & - & - & P,S \\
fitbit & \cite{fitbit} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SW}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 63.94-137.08$^{2}$ & H,S & B,W & A,I,M,W & C & U & P \\
Galaxy Gear & \cite{fitbit} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SW}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 299.00$^{1}$ & H,S& B,W & A & C & U & P \\
Helios Bars & \cite{HeliosBars} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SW}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 199.00$^{1}$ & H,S & B,G & I & C & U & P \\
LINK Armband & \cite{LINKArmband} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SW}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 149.00$^{1}$ & H,S & B & A,I,B & C & U,S & P,S \\
Lively & \cite{Lively} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SW}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 149.00$^{1}$- & H,S & C & B,I & C & U,S & P,S \\
LUMOback & \cite{LUMOback} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SW}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 149.00$^{1}$ & H,S & B & I & C & U & P \\
MUZIK headphones & \cite{MUZIKheadphones} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SW}{}} & - & 299.00$^{1}$ & H,S & B & A,I & O & U & P \\
NFC ring & \cite{NFCring} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SW}{}} & - & - & H,S & B & - & O & U & P \\
Oakley Airwave Goggles & \cite{OakleyAirwaveGoggles} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SW}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 599.95$^{1}$ & H,S & B & A,I & C & U & P \\
Owlet & \cite{Owlet} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SW}{}} & - & - & H,S & - & I & C & U & P \\
Rest Device & \cite{RestDevice} & 2012 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SW}{}} & - & - & H,S & W & - & R & U & P \\
Sensoria Smart Sock & \cite{SensoriaSmartSock} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SW}{}} & - & - & H,S & B & - & R & U & P \\
shockbox Impact alert sensors & \cite{shockboxImpactalertsensors} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SW}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 149.99$^{1}$ & H & B & A,I,K & C & U & P \\
\hline
\label{Tbl:Evaluation_of_Previous_Research_Efforts}
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[t!]
\centering
\footnotesize
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.8}
\begin{tabular}{
m{4.8cm}
c
m{0.8cm}
c
p{0.4cm}
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
}
\hline
Project Name &
\begin{sideways}Citations \end{sideways} &
Year &
\begin{sideways}Category\end{sideways} &
\begin{sideways}Availability \end{sideways} &
Price &
\begin{sideways}\begin{minipage}[b]{1.5cm}Hardware Software \end{minipage} \end{sideways} &
\begin{sideways}\begin{minipage}[b]{1.6cm}Wireless \\Technology \end{minipage} \end{sideways} &
\begin{sideways}Platform \end{sideways} &
\begin{sideways}License \end{sideways} &
\begin{sideways}\begin{minipage}[b]{1.6cm}Unit \\Subscription \end{minipage} \end{sideways} &
\begin{sideways}\begin{minipage}[b]{1.6cm}Product \\Service \end{minipage} \end{sideways}
\\
\hline \hline
(1) & (2) & (3) & (4) &(5) & (6) & (7) & (8) & (9) & (10) & (11) & (12) \\
SIGMO & \cite{SIGMO} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SW}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H,S & B & - & C & U & P \\
TJacket & \cite{TJacket} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SW}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 499.00$^{1}$ & H,S & - & I,A & C & U & P \\
Withings Wireless Scales & \cite{WithingsWirelessScales} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SW}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 137.48-206.26$^{3}$ & H,S & B,W & A,I & R & U & P \\
BeClose Senior Safety System & \cite{BeCloseSeniorSafetySystem} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SW}{}}\adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 399.00$^{1}$- & H,S & W & - & C & U,S & P \\
Smart pill bottles & \cite{Smartpillbottles} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SW}{}}\adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} & - & - & - & C & - & O,R & U & P \\
Whistle & \cite{Whistle} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{-} & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SW}{}}\adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 99.95$^{1}$ & H,S & B,W & A,I & C & U & P \\
AirBoxLab & \cite{AirBoxLab} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H & W & A,I & C & U & P \\
BiKN & \cite{BiKN} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 129.99$^{1}$ & H,S & W & I & C & U & P \\
BrewBit & \cite{BrewBit} & 2012 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 199.00$^{1}$ & H,S & W & A,I & O & U & P \\
Canary & \cite{Canary} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} & - & - & H,S & W & A,I & C & U & P \\
Fliwer & \cite{Fliwer} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H,S & R,W & B & C & U & P \\
Good Night Lamp & \cite{GoodNightLamp} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 122.42-206.33$^{3}$ & H & W & B & C & U & P \\
Hintsights & \cite{Hintsights} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} & - & - & H,S & - & - & O & - & S \\
iDoorCam & \cite{iDoorCam} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 164.95$^{1}$ & H,S & W & A,I & C & U & P \\
Iris & \cite{Iris} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 299.00$^{1}$ & H & W & B & C & U,S & P,S \\
Koubachi & \cite{Koubachi} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 122.41-273.72$^{3}$ & H & W & A,I & C & U & P \\
Lernstift & \cite{Lernstift} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} & - & - & H & W & L & C & U & P \\
Lockitron & \cite{Lockitron} & 2009 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 179.00$^{1}$ & H & B,W & A,I & C & U & P \\
Nest Thermostat & \cite{NestThermostat} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 249.00$^{1}$ & H,S & W & I,A & C & U & P \\
Netatmo & \cite{Netatmo} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 129.00-199.00$^{1}$ & H & - & A,I & C & U & P \\
Ninja Blocks & \cite{ninjablocks} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 199.00-250.00$^{1}$ & H,S & W,B,Z & A,B,I & C,O & U & P,S \\
OpenSprinkler & \cite{OpenSprinkler} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 114.15-206.31$^{3}$ & H,S & W & A,I & O & U & P \\
PetzillaConnect & \cite{PetzillaConnect} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 94.91-$^{3}$ & H,S & W & A,I & C & U & P \\
Philips Hue Connected Bulb & \cite{PhilipsHueConnectedBulb} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 199.95$^{1}$ & H,S & W & I & C & U & P \\
Pintofeed & \cite{Pintofeed} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 179.00$^{1}$ & H,S & W & A,I,W & C & U & P \\
Sensr.net & \cite{Sensr.net} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 94.91-$^{3}$ & H & W & B & C & U,S & P,S \\
SmartThings & \cite{SmartThingsHomeWatchSolution} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 199.00-299.00$^{1}$ & H,S & - & I,A & C & U & P \\
TADO & \cite{TADO} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H,S & W & I,A & C & U & P \\
Twine & \cite{Twine} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 124.95-199.95$^{1}$ & H & W & B & C & U & P \\
Ubi & \cite{Ubi} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 219.00$^{1}$ & H,S & W & A & O & U & P \\
WeMo Switch & \cite{WeMoSwitc} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 75.22-78.99$^{1}$ & H,S & W & A,I & C & U & P \\
WhereDial & \cite{WhereDial} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 162.77-179.20$^{4}$ & H & W & B & O & U & P \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\vspace{-12pt}
\end{table*}
\section{Trends and Lessons Learned}
\label{sec:Lessons_Learned}
In this section, we highlight and discuss some of the trends in the IoT solutions in the marketplace. The trends can be categorised \textit{1) based on domains, functionalities, and value}, and \textit{2) based on technology}.
\subsubsection{Domains, Functionalities, and Value}
\label{sec:TLL:Common_Domains}
Most of the IoT solutions are narrowly focused on providing one functionality. However, we have seen that a number of generic platforms are being developed (e.g. Ninja Blocks \cite{ninjablocks}, SmartThings \cite{SmartThingsHomeWatchSolution}, and Twine \cite{Twine}) to support applications in the domains of the smart home and the smart city. In general, more solutions are focused on the wearable and the smart home domains. One reason for this concentration is the market potential. These solution providers can earn a significant financial return for their solutions due to the larger consumer market. In addition, it has been revealed that the IoT solutions in the smart home and wearable domains are comparatively easy to develop and therefore low in price. Building smart enterprise, smart environment, and smart city solutions takes much effort and time due to the complexity and unique challenges in comparison to other domains. Some of the unique challenges are the sustainability of the hardware devices in harsh outdoor environments; the availability of energy sources for sensing, processing and communication in remote and outdoor locations; and the maintenance and repair of the hardware. These challenges justify the low interest in these domain areas, specially on the part of start-ups and small companies.
\subsubsection{Technology: Hardware and Software Platforms}
\label{sec:TLL:Hardware_and_Software_Platforms}
According to the survey results presented in Table \ref{Tbl:Evaluation_of_Previous_Research_Efforts}, it is evident that most of the IoT solutions include both custom hardware and software. It is also to be noted that some of the solutions are not available for immediate purchase but are on the way to the market (e.g. pre-order). In terms of communication, WiFi and Bluetooth are the most commonly used protocols. Additionally, an increasing number of the IoT solutions support more than one platform (e.g. Android, iOS, browser-based, Windows, Linux, and Mac). Mostly, they are built around the Android and iOS platforms. Most of the solutions are protected under a commercial license and both software and hardware are closed-source. The majority of the IoT solutions are sold as units. Though solutions may have both software and hardware components, the price is mainly for the hardware and the accompanying software is free. The only exceptions are solutions that are completely based on the cloud, where they charge for subscription.
In most of the wearable solutions, smartphones are used as an interface for human--system interaction. Smart wearable solutions generally have two or three components. Custom designed wearable devices are used to capture the context and sense the phenomena. Then, either processed or raw data is sent to a processing device, which is usually a smart phone (or a device with a similar computational capability). The smartphone then visualises and presents the outcome (e.g. alerts and notifications) to the users. One such example is Lumoback \cite{LUMOback}, which tracks posture and daily activities in real time. Lumoback collects data through a wearable waist belt and pushes the data directly to the smartphone. \textcolor{blue}{Human Computer Interaction (HCI) plays a significant roes in the success of IoT products and solutions. When combining different interaction mechanisms, IoT product designers will need to select the right combination of methods based on number of different factors such as data processing and communication capability, energy, hardware cost, target user knowledge, criticality of the product and so on. Commonly available options are gesture, voice, touch. Further, IoT products can use smart phones, tablets and wearable devices to enable user interactions.}
Alternatively, sensors may send data to custom gateway devices and then push to the cloud over GSM or WiFi. In such situations, cloud services push the outcome to a mobile device to update the user on the real-time activities. For example, Mimobaby \cite{RestDevice} is a baby movement monitoring wearable solution. Mimobaby collects data from sensors attached to the baby's clothes. Then, it transfers the data to a nearby custom gateway which uses home WiFi connectivity to push the data to the cloud. Then, the cloud services alert the parents' smartphone in real-time. Figure \ref{Figure:Common_Communication_Patterns} illustrates some of the most common communication patterns used in the IoT solutions. Data collected by the IoT solutions may be sent to the cloud for further processing, historical archiving, or pattern recognition. Mobile devices allow users to immediately take action or perform actuation tasks. In such circumstances, the communication between the hardware and the mobile devices is performed using short distance communication protocols, such as Bluetooth, and long range communication tasks are performed via WiFi or GSM.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.42]{./Images/1_Common_Communication_Patterns.pdf}
\vspace{-0.23cm}
\caption{Common Communication Patterns in IoT Applications. There are mainly three types of common patterns}
\label{Figure:Common_Communication_Patterns}
\vspace{-0.32cm}
\end{figure}
It is also evident that cloud IoT platforms are trying to build their own ecosystems by facilitating and supporting third party extensions (also called plugins) development and distribution through \textit{app store}. We have repeatedly seen such trends in both PC market and smartphone markets. IoT platform developers are increasingly support non-technical people to build IoT solutions by providing easy ways to assemble the components without programming knowledge \cite{WaspMote, Z1069}.
\section{Open Research Challenges}
\label{sec:Ope_Research_Challenges}
\setcounter{subsubsection}{0}
In this section, our objective is to discuss some of the major challenges that need to be addressed in order to build the IoT. These challenges are yet to be addressed, by either academia or industry, in a comprehensive manner. The solutions for these issues need to be come from technological, social, legal, financial, and business backgrounds in order to receive wide acceptance by the IoT community.
\subsubsection{Modularity and Layered Interoperability}
\label{sec:ORC:Modularity}
Modularity is a key to success in the IoT paradigm. The notion of modularity goes hand in hand with interoperability. We can interpret modularity in different ways. First, the hardware / physical layer in the IoT needs to support modularity. This means, ideally, consumers should be able to build a smart object (or an Internet connected object) by putting different modules (e.g. sensors or actuators) produced by different manufacturing companies together without getting restricted to one vendor. Such modularity reduces the entry barriers to the IoT marketplace. Further, interoperability will increase the level of creativity and will reduce costs due to competition. Modularity also allows organisations to focus on one component of the IoT architecture and become experts on that, rather than having to build end to end solutions, something which leads to re-inventing the wheel. Furthermore, modularity provides more choices and options to the consumers as to which modules to use and when, based on factors such as reliability.
Modularity is vital in software / cloud services layer as well. Especially in sensing as a service model \cite{ZMP008}, something which provides an economical business model for the IoT, users should have the right and flexibility to choose and use cloud services either in a standalone fashion or as a composition of multiple services \cite{Z1062, Z1060} based on their own priorities and preferences \cite{ZMP009}. Modularity needs to be governed by rigorous standardisation processes. Semantics technologies can also be used to improve the interoperability through knowledge reuse and knowledge mapping. In addition, interoperability can be achieved through mediators and adapters. At the hardware level, modularity has been introduced to some extent by platforms such as Arduino \cite{P411} and Microsoft's .NET Gadgeteer \cite{Z1055}. However, cross platform compatibility is not yet supported. In recent years, we have seen many different IoT companies building cross layer partnerships with each other to ensure comparability and interoperability. For example, sensing hardware platform designers are partnering with cloud IoT solution providers. However, standardisations and collaboration with competitors is rarely seen within layers (e.g. among different hardware vendors). The concept of an app store for IoT solutions is currently supported by HomeOS \cite{Z1058} and ThingWorx \cite{thingworx}. They have started to support modularity by allowing third parties to develop extensions to their IoT middleware platforms. The integration of multiple cloud platform service providers will enable more data sharing and value creation \cite{Z1063}.
\subsubsection{Unified Multi-Protocol Communication Support}
\label{sec:ORC:Unified_Multi-Protocol_Support}
Designing protocols and systems for wireless industrial communications will have a significant impact on the successful adoption of the IoT \cite{Z1068}. IoT solutions use different types of communication protocols, mostly through wireless channels \cite{Z1014}. WiFi, Bluetooth, 3G, Zigbee, and z-wave are some of them. Even though they seem few, incompatibility makes developing the IoT applications more challenging. Each protocol has its own advantages and disadvantages \cite{Z1067}. Comparisons of these protocols are presented in \cite{Z1014, Z1067}. Some protocols are efficient in long distance communication and others are efficient in short distance communication. It is important to address the challenge of developing a high-level framework that handles the difference of protocols behind the scenes without bothering the developers or consumers. Therefore, an ideal framework should allow the developers to focus on data communications at a high level (e.g. what to send and when) rather than dealing with low-level communication protocol details (e.g. which protocol to use when, and implementation-level differences). Such a high-level framework will increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the IoT solutions and will also save a significant amount of development time. Intelligent context-aware capabilities need to be integrated into the IoT solutions so the communication tasks and related decisions will be made and handled based on the capabilities and the energy availability of the ICOs at a given situation. The importance of standardising a protocol stack for the IoT is highlighted and discussed in \cite{Z1041}.
\subsubsection{Sustainable Business Models}
\label{sec:ORC:Business_Models}
A sustainable business model is essential for building a sustainable IoT paradigm. Most of the IoT solutions we have reviewed are narrowly focused on addressing one problem. They have missed the bigger picture of the IoT and earnings potential. Sharing data in open markets can add more value to the IoT solutions. One such business model is presented in \cite{ZMP008} in detail. Preliminary work towards building such a model is currently conducted by the project HAT (Hub of All Things) \cite{Z1056}. HAT is a platform for a multi-sided market powered by the IoT which expects to create opportunities for new economic \& business models. It aims to create a market platform for the home based on the data generated by individuals' consumption, behaviour, and interactions. Such data exchange, in secure and privacy preserved manner, would generate additional value that may help to maintain the IoT infrastructure in the long-term.
For example, one institution (primary) may deploy and maintain sensors in public infrastructures such as roads and bridges with the intention of monitoring their structural health and the public safety. Other institutions (secondary) who are interested in such data can purchase them through an auction-like marketplace. Secondary institutions may have different intentions, such as local weather monitoring, environmental pollution monitoring, and local traffic condition monitoring. The financial support offered by secondary institutions motivates the primary institute to deploy and maintain sensors over the long term. In this way, primary and secondary institutions will benefit by the transaction's creating a sustainable economic model. The details of such markets are discussed from the technology perspective in \cite{ZMP008} and from the business perspective in \cite{Z1056}.
\subsubsection{Ownership, Privacy and Security}
\label{sec:ORC:Ownership, Privacy and Security}
One of the biggest technical, social, and legal challenges is protecting privacy and creating a secure environment for the IoT. Unfortunately, these have been the challenges least addressed. Due to the limited adoption of IoT, not many security and privacy challenges have been identified. We can expect more challenges to be identified over the coming years due to the growing adoption of IoT solutions. The security issues have two aspects. One aspect is data security. The other aspect is the security of the IoT solutions (e.g. security related to sensing communication, iterations, authentication, and actuation). In the fully automated and integrated IoT paradigm, security breaches can be life threatening and can have devastating economic and social impact. Especially the new business models that we briefly discussed in the above section may create additional challenges regarding data ownership and privacy.
As we discussed in \cite{ZMP008}, anonymisation is a critical process in the IoT data flow. The data collected by households always needs to be anonymised in such a way that no one will be able to trace it back to its exact origin. Data may identified and grouped broadly into certain geographical regions, but not for individuals or households. Another aspect of this challenge is ownership transfer. Technology should be intelligent enough to identify its current owner and follow their commands and preferences. The details of such ownership transfers are discussed in \cite{ZMP008}. In addition to the technology-based security and privacy solutions, legal terms need to be developed in order to protect the consumers and the data they own.
\section{Concluding Remarks}
\label{sec:Conclusions}
This paper presented a survey of the IoT solutions in the emerging marketplace. We classified the solutions in the market broadly into five categories: smart wearable, smart home, smart city, smart environment, and smart enterprise. Under each category, we discussed and summarised the functionalities provided by each solution. We also examined the contribution of each solution towards improving the efficiency and effectiveness of consumers' lifestyle as well as of society in general. It is important to highlight the proliferation of wearable solutions in the market. Despite the long existence of wearable computing, those products did not reach the consumer market until recently. It is clear that more and more wearable solutions will make their way into the IoT marketplace over the coming years. Further, we can see a significant investment and focus on indoor smart home and office domains, in comparison to environmental monitoring solutions.
Moreover, we also see a substantial amount of investment made in research and development towards supply chain management. These solutions are aimed at large scale industry players who are looking for novel methods to optimise their supply chain processes, especially through real-time data collecting, reasoning, and monitoring. Until household consumers adopt IoT solutions, the majority of the value creation is expected to occur with large scale industries. Finally, we discussed the lessons learned and listed some of the major research challenges and opportunities. We believe further research that addresses these open challenges will help to develop more interesting IoT solutions and strengthen the existing solutions in this area in both the industrial and the academic sectors.
\ifCLASSOPTIONcaptionsoff
\newpage
\fi
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:Introduction}
The Internet of Things (IoT) is a network of networks where, typically, a massive number of objects/things/sensors/devices are connected through communications and information infrastructure to provide value-added services. The term was first coined in 1998 and later defined as ``The Internet of Things allows people and things to be connected Anytime, Anyplace, with Anything and Anyone, ideally using Any path/ network and Any service'' \cite{ZMP007}. As highlighted in the definition, connectivity among the devices is a critical functionality that is required to fulfil the vision of the IoT. The main reasons behind such interest are the capabilities and sophistication that the IoT will bring to society \cite{P003}. It promises to create a world where all the objects around us are connected to the Internet and communicate with each other with minimal human intervention. The ultimate goal is to create ``a better world for human beings'', where objects around us know what we like, what we want, and what we need, and hence act accordingly without explicit instructions \cite{P040}.
There have been a number of surveys conducted in the IoT domain. The area of the IoT has been broadly surveyed by Atzori et al. in \cite{P003}. Bandyopadhyay et al. have surveys of the IoT middleware solutions in \cite{P118}. Layered architecture in industrial IoT are discussed in \cite{TII01}. A similar survey focusing on data mining techniques for the IoT are discussed in \cite{Z1039}. Edge mining in IoT paradigm is discussed in \cite{TII10}. In contrast to the traditional data mining, edge mining takes place on the wireless, battery-powered, and smart sensing devices that sit at the edge points of the IoT. The challenges in self organizing in IoT are discussed in \cite{TII02}. Atzori et al \cite{TII07} have discussed how smart objects can be transformed in to social objects. Such transformation will allow the network to enhance the level of trust between objects that are `friends' with each other. IoT technologies and solutions towards Smart Cities are reviewed in \cite{TII04}. Communication protocols and technologies play a significant role in IoT. Sheng et al. \cite{TII06} have survey a protocol stack developed specifically for IoT domain by Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF).
Internet of things: vision, applications and research challenges are discussed from a research perspective in \cite{Z1037, Z1038}. Further, the IoT has been surveyed in a context-aware perspective by Perera et al. \cite{ZMP008}. A survey on facilitating experimentally IoT research is presented by \cite{Z1040}. Palattella et al. \cite{Z1041} have introduced a communications protocol stack to support and standardise IoT communication. Security challenges such as general system security, network security, and application security in the IoT are discussed in \cite{Z1042}. The security issues in perception layer, network layer and application layer in architectures have discussed in \cite{TII03}. Hardware devices, specially nano sensors and technologies, used in IoT are surveyed in \cite{TII09}. Another similar survey has been done by Hodges et al. \cite{Z1055}. This paper discusses a open-source hardware platform called {.NET Gadgeteer}, a rapid prototyping platform for small electronic gadgets and embedded hardware devices.{.NET Gadgeteer} is coming from an industrial setting similar to Arduino \cite{P411}.
Besides the above articles, there are a number of surveys and reviews that have been conducted by researchers around the world in the IoT domain, from which we have hand picked some to represent the existing body of knowledge.
As far as we know, however, no survey has focused on IoT industry solutions. All the above-mentioned surveys have reviewed the solutions proposed by the academic and research community and refer to scholarly publications. In the present paper, we review the IoT solutions that have been proposed, designed, developed, and brought to market by industrial organisations. These organisations range from start-ups and small and medium enterprises to large corporations. Because of their industrial and market-driven nature, most of the IoT solutions in the market are not published as academic works. Therefore, we collected information about the solutions from their respective web-sites, demo videos, technical specifications, and consumer reviews. Understanding how technologies are used in the IoT solutions in the industry's marketplace is vital for academics, researchers, and industrialists so they can identify trends, opportunities, industry requirements, demands, and open research challenges. It is also critical for understanding trends and open research gaps so future research directions can be guided by them.
The present paper is organised into sections as follows: In Section \ref{sec:Evaluation}, we evaluate and examine the functionalities provided by each solution under the five categories identified in the earlier section. At the end of that section, we summarise the functionalities and highlight the major domains that are commonly targeted by the solutions. Then, we examine the IoT solutions from a technology and business perspective. Hardware platforms, software platforms, additional equipment, communication protocols, and the energy sources used by each solution are examined in Section \ref{sec:Technology_Review}. At the end of that section, we summarise the technologies and business models used by the IoT solutions so trends and opportunities can be identified. In Section \ref{sec:Lessons_Learned}, we identify such trends using the evaluations we conducted in the previous sections. Later, opportunities for research and development will be assessed in Section \ref{sec:Ope_Research_Challenges}. Concluding remarks
will be presented in Section \ref{sec:Conclusions}.
\section{Functionality Review of IoT Solutions}
\label{sec:Evaluation}
In this section, we focus on the functionalities of the IoT solutions. The next section discusses the technologies used by these solutions under common themes. In both sections, our intention is not to describe each IoT solution in detail, but to organise them into common themes so we can identify trends and opportunities. However, readers can use citation numbers to track a given IoT solution throughout the paper, if desired. Such an option allows consolidating the knowledge we have put separately in two sections, to better understand a single IoT solution. In Section \ref{sec:Lessons_Learned}, we will analyse the trends from both the functional and the technological point of views.
\subsection{Smart Wearable}
\label{sec:SS:Smart_Wearable}
Wearable solutions are diverse in terms of functionality. They are designed for a variety of purposes as well as for wear on a variety of parts of the body, such as the head, eyes, wrist, waist, hands, fingers, legs, or embedded into different elements of attire. In Table \ref{Tbl:Wearable_IoT_Solutions}, we summarise popular wearable IoT solutions. This table includes a brief description of each solution, context information gathered, similar solutions, and the context-aware functionality provided by the solution. The IoT solutions are categorised by the body part on which the solution must be worn, as illustrated in Figure \ref{Figure:Bodyparts}. In addition to the industry IoT solutions, academic solutions in the wearable computing area are discussed in \cite{Z1048, Z1049}. Challenges and opportunities in developing smart wearable solutions are presented in \cite{Z1046}.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=1.2]{./Images/2_Wearables.pdf}
\caption{Different body parts popularly targeted by wearable IoT solutions in the industry market-place.}
\label{Figure:Bodyparts}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\end{figure}
\begin{table*}[htbp]
\centering
\footnotesize
\caption{Summary of Wearable IoT Solutions}
\label{Tbl:Wearable_IoT_Solutions}
\begin{tabular}{ c p{15.4cm} }
\hline
& \begin{center}
Functionalities Provided by Different wearable IoT solutions
\end{center} \\ \hline \hline
\multirow{3}{*}{ \begin{sideways}Cloth \hspace{1.0cm} \end{sideways}} &
\begin{itemize}
\item Monitor respiration, body position, activity level, skin temperature, and audio of a baby using pressure, stretch, noise, and temperature sensors, and provide notification through a smart phone regarding any situation that parents need to attend to (Baby Monitor: RestDevice / Mimobaby \cite{RestDevice}).
\item A sleep-tracking device that uses a thin-film sensor strip placed on a mattress in combination with smart phone to help to create a nightly rest profile. It helps to improve user's sleep over time (Sleep Tracking: Beddit \cite{Beddit}).
\item Jacket relieves anxiety and stress from those diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Built-in motion sensors and pressure sensors track the frustration and activity levels of the child throughout the day and generate custom notification alerts based on that information (Medical Assistant :MyTJacket \cite{TJacket}).
\end{itemize} \\
\multirow{3}{*}{ \begin{sideways}Waist / Chest \hspace{0.3cm} \end{sideways}} &
\begin{itemize}
\item Tracks posture and daily activities in real time. It provides advice on posture issues so users can improve their posture (Daily Activity and Fitness Monitor / Medical: Lumoback \cite{LUMOback}).
\item A device that updates Twitter when a baby in the womb kicks its mother (Medical Assistant: kickbee \cite{CoreyMenscher}).
\item A chest band that tracks heart rate, speed, distance, stress level, calories, and activity level. It allows recommended working out within certain heart rate zones to achieve goals such as weight loss or cardiovascular improvement. (Personal Sports Assistant: BioHarness \cite{BioHarness}).
\end{itemize} \\
\multirow{3}{*}{ \begin{sideways}Wrist \hspace{1.4cm} \end{sideways}} &
\begin{itemize}
\item A wrist band that tracks steps taken, stairs climbed, calories burned, and hours slept, distance travelled, and quality of sleep and provides recommendation for a healthier lifestyle (Daily Activity and Fitness Monitor: MyBasis \cite{BASIS}, BodyMedia \cite{LINKArmband}, Lark \cite{lark}).
\item Open wearable sensor platform, a wrist band that comprises number of different sensors such as pulse, blood flow sounds, blood oxygen saturation, blood flow waveform, pulse, acceleration, type of activity, calories burned and number of steps taken, skin temperature (Open Platform: AngelSensor \cite{angelsensor}).
\item EMBRACE+, a wrist band that connects to the user's smartphone via Bluetooth and displays any notifications user may receive as ambient light notifications (Personal Sports Assistant: EmbracePlus \cite{embraceplus}).
\item Electrocardiogram technology (ECG), Bluetooth connectivity and a suite of sensors are used to recognize users' heart rhythm uniquely and securely and continuously log into users' nearby devices (Secure Authentication: nymi \cite{getnymi}).
\item A watch that helps athletes to keep track of their training. Context information such as mapping, distance, speed, heart rate, and light are collected and fused to generate athletes' training profile (Personal Sports Assistant: Leikr \cite{leikr}).
\end{itemize} \\
\multirow{3}{*}{ \begin{sideways}Eyes \hspace{1.4cm} \end{sideways}} &
\begin{itemize}
\item Sports-specific (skiing) goggles that monitor jump analytics, speed, navigation, trip recording, and peer tracking (Personal Sports Assistant: Oakley Goggles \cite{OakleyAirwaveGoggles}).
\item A pair of glasses that consist of camera, projector, and sensors to support functionalities such as navigation calendar notification, navigation, voice activated, voice translation, communication and so on. It also acts as an open platform where different context-ware functionalities can be built using provided sensors and processing capabilities (Open Platform: Google Glass \cite{glass}).
\end{itemize} \\
\multirow{3}{*}{ \begin{sideways}Head \hspace{1.4cm} \end{sideways}} &
\begin{itemize}
\item Sports-specific (American football) helmet that determines when to take a player off the field and seek medical advice through impact detection and analysis (Personal Sports Assistant: TheShockBox \cite{shockboxImpactalertsensors}).
\item A bicycle helmet that detects a crash. If the user's head hits the pavement (or anything hard (ice, snow, dirt)), a signal will be sent to the smartphone automatically to generate a call for help (Emergency Accident monitor: ICEdot \cite{icedot}).
\end{itemize} \\
\multirow{3}{*}{ \begin{sideways}Hands \hspace{1.4cm} \end{sideways}} &
\begin{itemize}
\item Monitor, analyze and improve golf swing through motion sensors embedded in gloves (Personal Sports Assistant: Zepp \cite{Zepp} )
\item A ring that monitors and keeps track of the user's heart rate (Medical Assistant: ElectricFoxy \cite{electricfoxy}).
\end{itemize} \\
\multirow{3}{*}{ \begin{sideways}Legs / Foot \hspace{1.4cm} \end{sideways}} &
\begin{itemize}
\item A sock that combines an accelerometer with textile sensors to measure steps, altitude and calories burnt. It helps runners to avoid potentially dangerous techniques: heel striking or excessive forefoot running that could lead to back pain or Achilles ten-don injuries. (Daily Activity and Fitness Monitor / Medical: Heapsylon \cite{SensoriaSmartSock})
\item A pair of shoes that provides feedback through vibrations in an intuitive and non-obstructive way. The shoes suggest the right direction and detect obstacles (Disability Assistance: LeChal \cite{LeChal})
\end{itemize} \\
\multirow{3}{*}{ \begin{sideways}Internal \hspace{1.4cm} \end{sideways}} &
\begin{itemize}
\item A small patch worn on the body working together with 1mm sensor-enabled pills and a back-end cloud service to collect and process real-time information (e.g. heart rate, temperature, activity and rest patterns throughout the day) on the user's medication adherence (Medical: Proteus Digital Health \cite{proteusdigitalhealth}).
\end{itemize} \\
\multirow{3}{*}{ \begin{sideways}Multi \hspace{1.4cm} \end{sideways}} &
\begin{itemize}
\item A device that can be worn on multiple body parts tracks steps taken, stairs climbed, calories burned, and hours slept, distance travelled, quality of sleep (Daily Activity and Fitness Monitor: Fitbit \cite{fitbit}).
\item An ultra-small GPS unit and five in-built sensors are used to collect data and fused to tell the camera exactly the right moment to take photos (Leisure: Autographer \cite{Autographer}).
\item Remote monitoring system that collects data through devices that can be worn on different body parts on a patient's physiological conditions to support physicians (Health Monitoring: Preventice BodyGuardian \cite{BodyGuardianRemoteMonitoringSystem}).
\end{itemize} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{Tbl:Smart_Wearables_Summary}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Smart Home}
\label{sec:SS:Smart_Home}
Solutions in this category make the experience of living at home more convenient and pleasant for the occupants. Some smart home \cite{Z1053} solutions also focus on assisting elderly people in their daily activities and on health care monitoring \cite{Z1050}. Due to the large market potential, more and more smart home solutions are making their way into the market. From the academic point of view, smart energy and resource management \cite{Z1051, Z1061}, human--system interaction \cite{Z1052}, and activity management \cite{Z1054}, have been some of the major foci.
\textit{\textbf{Platforms: }}Smartthings \cite{SmartThingsHomeWatchSolution} is a generic platform that consists of hardware devices, sensors, and software applications. Context information is collected through sensors and injected into applications where reasoning and action are performed accordingly. For example, the sprinkler installed in the user's garden can detect rain and turn itself off to save energy. Ninjablocks \cite{ninjablocks} and Twine \cite{Twine} provide similar functionalities. These solutions were mainly developed to support smart home and building domains, but they can be customised to other domains. HomeOS \cite{Z1058} is a platform that supports home automation. Instead of custom hardware (e.g. a smartthings hub), HomeOS is a software platform which can be installed on a normal PC. As with the smartthings platform, applications can be installed to support different context-aware functionalities (e.g. capturing an image from a door camera and sending it to the user when someone rings the doorbell). Lab-of-things \cite{Z1059} is a platform built for experimental research. It allows the user to easily connect hardware sensors to the software platform and enables the collection of data and the sharing of data, codes, and participants.
\textit{\textbf{Virtual Assistance: }}Ubi \cite{Ubi} supports residents by acting as a voice-activated computer. It can perform tasks such as audio calendar, feed reader, podcast, voice memos, make lighting-based notifications to indicate the occurrence of certain events, weather, stock, email, and so on. Ubi has a microphone and speakers. It also has sensors to monitor the environment, such as monitoring the temperature, humidity, air pressure, and ambient light. Netatmo \cite{Netatmo} is an air quality monitoring solution for smart homes. In order to determine air quality, it collects context information from sensors such as temperature, humidity, and CO2. The solution monitors the home environment and sends an alert when the residents' attention is required. Meethue \cite{meethue} is a bulb which can be controlled from mobile devices. The bulb reacts to the context and can change its colour and brightness according to user preferences, time / day / season, and activity (e.g. resident enters home) and is also sensitive to changes in the weather during the day.
\textit{\textbf{Smart Objects:} }— WeMo \cite{WeMoSwitc} is a Wi-Fi enabled switch that can be used to turn electronic devices on or off from anywhere. Context-aware schedules are also supported, where turning on or off is performed automatically according to the time of day, sunrise, or sunset. Tado \cite{TADO} is an intelligent heating control that uses a smartphone. It offers context-aware functionalities such as turning down the heating when the last person leaves the house, turning the heating back up before someone gets home, and heats the house less when the sun is shining. Nest \cite{NestThermostat} is a thermostat that learns what temperatures users like and builds a context-aware personalised schedule. The thermostat automatically turns to an energy-efficient `away temperature' when occupants leave the home. If it senses activity, such as a friend's coming over to water the plants, Nest could start warming up the house. The thermostat can be activated remotely through the Nest mobile app. Lockitron \cite{Lockitron} is a door lock that can be opened and closed by a phone over the Internet. Residents can authorise family and friends to open a given door by providing authorisation over the Internet, so that others can use their smartphones to unlock doors. Blufitbottle \cite{BlueFit} is a water bottle that records drinking habits while keeping the users healthy and hydrated. If the user starts to fall behind with hydration, the bottle has customisable sounds and lights to alert them.
\textit{\textbf{Digital Relationships:}} — Wheredial \cite{WhereDial} offers a way to make a personal connection with family members or friends. It retrieves a person's location from Foursquare, Google Latitude, and a variety of other services. Then it rotates the dial (like a clock) to show where the person is at a given moment. Goodnightlamp \cite{GoodNightLamp} is a family of connected lamps that let the user remotely communicate the act of coming back home to their loved ones easily and in an ambient way by fusing location-aware sensing. The objective of Wheredial and Goodnightlamp is the same: helping to build and maintain family relationships and further strengthen friendships by mitigating the fact that the users are apart from each other. Such solutions are extremely important in terms of social, psychological, and mental well-being.
\subsection{Smart City}
\label{sec:SS:Smart_City}
Towns and cities accommodate one-half of the world's population, creating tremendous pressure on every aspect of urban living. Cities have large concentrations of resources and facilities \cite{P535}. The enormous pressure towards efficient city management has triggered various Smart City initiatives by both government and private sector businesses to invest in information and communication technologies to find sustainable solutions to the growing problems \cite{ZMP008}. Smart grid is one of the domains in which academia, industry, and governments are interested and invested significantly \cite{Z1064, Z1067}.
\textit{\textbf{Smart Traffic}} ParkSight \cite{ParkSight} is a parking management technology designed for cities. Context information is retrieved through sensors (magnetometers) embedded in parking slots. Application support is provided via location and map services to guide drivers to convenient parking based on real-time context analysis. Uber \cite{Uber} allows users to request a ride at any time. The company in a particular place sends a cab. In contrast to transitional taxi services, no phone call or pick-up location is required. A mobile application shows the cabs close to the users and their movement in real time. A cab can be requested by means of a single smartphone tap. Alltrafficsolutions \cite{AllTraffic} collects traffic data through sensors and visualises it on maps in order to provide drivers with traffic updates. Further, it provides remote equipment management support related to traffic control (e.g. changes in digital road signs, speed limit boards, variable message signs (e.g. `event parking') to drivers, and changes in the brightness of digital signs based on the context information). Streetbump \cite{StreetBum} is a crowd-sourcing project that helps residents to improve their neighbourhood streets. Volunteers use the Streetbump mobile application to collect road condition data while they drive. The data are visualised on a map to alert residents regarding real-time road conditions. The collected data provide governments with real-time information with which to fix problems and plan long-term investments.
\textit{\textbf{Platforms}} Libelium \cite{WaspMote} provides a platform of low-level sensors that is capable of collecting a large amount of context information to support different application domains [9]. Thingworx \cite{thingworx} and Xively \cite{xively} are cloud-based on-line platforms that process, analyse, and manage sensor data retrieved through a variety of different protocols.
\textit{\textbf{Resource Management}} — SmartBelly \cite{SmartBellycomponents} is a smart waste management solution. It provides a sensor-embedded trash can that is capable of real-time context analysis and alerting the authorities when it is full and needs to be emptied. Location information is used to plan efficient garbage collection. Echelon \cite{SmartStreetLighting} has developed a smart street lighting solution transforming street-lights into intelligent, energy-efficient, remotely managed networks. It schedules lights to be turned on or off and sets the dimming levels of individual lights or groups of lights so a city can intelligently provide the right level of lighting needed by analysing the context such as time of day, season, or weather conditions.
\textit{\textbf{Activity Monitoring}} Livehoods \cite{Livehoods} offers a new way to conceptualise the dynamics, structure, and character of a city by analysing the social media its residents generate. This is achieved through collecting context information such as check-in patterns. Livehoods shows how citizens use the urban landscape and other resources. Scenetap \cite{SceneTap} shows real-time info about the city's best places. It shows the context information of a given location such as how many people are there, the male to female ratio, and the average age of everyone inside. This helps users to find the best places to hang out (e.g. cinema, bar, restaurant) at a given time and gives information such as availability.
\subsection{Smart Environment}
\label{sec:SS:Smart_Environment}
\textit{\textbf{Air Quality Monitoring}} — Airqualityegg \cite{AirQualityEgg} is a community-led sensor system that allows anyone to collect context information such as the carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) gas concentrations outside their home. Such data are related to urban air pollution. Communitysensing \cite{CommonSense} is also an air quality monitoring system which provides both hand-held devices and a platform to be fixed into municipal vehicles such as street sweepers. Aircasting \cite{AirCasting} is a platform for recording, mapping, and sharing health and environmental data using smartphones and custom monitoring devices. Context information includes sound levels, temperature, humidity, carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) gas concentrations, heart and breathing rate, activity level, and peak acceleration.
\textit{\textbf{Water Quality Monitoring}} — Floating Sensor Network \cite{TheFloatingSensorNetwork} collects real-time, high-resolution data on waterways via a series of mobile sensing `drifters' that are placed in the water. It collects context information such as water quality, water flow movement, and speed, temperature and water pollution. Intelligentriver \cite{IntelligentRiver} is also an observation system that supports research and provides real-time monitoring, analysis and management of water resources. A similar solution has been developed by Roboshoal \cite{Shoal}. The difference is that their station is a mobile fish-shaped robotic device whose movement is controllable. Dontflush \cite{dontflushme} is designed to enable residents to understand when overflows happen and reduce their waste-water production before and during an overflow event. Context information is processed in order to determine real-time sewage levels and advise users regarding safe flushing through a context-aware light bulb and SMS.
\textit{\textbf{Natural Disaster Monitoring}} — AmritaWNA \cite{AmritaWNA} is a wireless landslide detection system that is capable of releasing alerts about possible landslides caused by torrential rain in the region. Context information is collected by sensors such as strain gauge piezometers, vibrating wire piezometers, dielectric moisture sensors, tilt meters, and geophones. This is a station-based solution. Insightrobotics \cite{ComputerVisionWildfireDetectionSystem} is a solution that detects forest fires by fusing context information collected through various kinds of sensors (i.e. temperature, wind, and so on) and networked cameras.
\textit{\textbf{Smart Farming}} — Microstrain \cite{ShelburneVineyardRemoteMonitoring} has developed a wireless environmental sensing system to monitor key conditions during the growing season in vineyards. Context information such as current temperature and soil moisture conditions, leaf wetness, and solar radiation is collected and fused in order to monitor vineyards remotely and alert farmers regarding critical situations. The collected data are used to support both real-time context-aware functionalities and historic data analysis. Bumblebee \cite{Bumblebeenestingproject} monitors the lives of bumblebees by collecting and processing context information such as visual, audio, temperature, sunlight, and weather. It automatically tweets the current situation of the colony and well-being of the bees. Hydropoint \cite{HydroPoint} retrieves context information through 40,000 weather stations and automatically schedules irrigation based on individual landscape needs and local weather conditions, resulting in lower water bills and energy savings.
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\footnotesize
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.05}
\caption{Summary of the Taxonomy used in Table~\ref{Tbl:Evaluation_of_Previous_Research_Efforts}}
\label{Tbl:Evaluation_of_Technology_Taxonomy}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\begin{tabular}{ c l m{13cm} }
\hline
& Taxonomy & Description \\ \hline \hline
1 & Project & The name of the project, product or solution sorted by `Category' and then by `Project Name' within each category in ascending order \\
3 & Year & Last known active year of the project. \\
4 & Category & Category that the solution belongs to.
Each category is denoted by a different colour:
\iftrue
red {\color{SC}\rule{0.2cm}{0.2cm}} (smart city), yellow
{\color{SN}\rule{0.2cm}{0.2cm}} (smart environment), blue {\color{SE}\rule{0.2cm}{0.2cm}} (smart enterprise), green {\color{SW}\rule{0.2cm}{0.2cm}} (smart wearable), and purple {\color{SH}\rule{0.2cm}{0.2cm}} (smart home).
\else
red \catC (smart city), yellow \catV (smart environment), blue \catN (smart enterprise), green \catW (smart wearable), and purple \catH (smart home).
\fi
Some solutions belongs to multiple categories.\\
5 & Availability & The ability to obtain (free or purchase) each IoT solution. Available solutions are denoted by ($\checkmark$). . \\
6 & Price & The price of the IoT solution. It can be unit price or service prise or both. All the prices are denoted in US dollars. Superscript number denotes the original currency where the IoT solution has been sold: USD (1), AUD (2), EURO (3), and GBP (4). Further, if it is a service, additional superscripts are used to denote payment period: monthly (m) and yearly (y). Currency conversion has been performed on 2013-December-11 using online service provided by www.xe.com. \\
7 & Hardware and / or Software & This indicate whether the IoT solution consists of hardware (H) unit, software (S) service or both \\
8 & Wireless Technology & Different types of wireless technologies used in each of the IoT solutions are denoted as follows: (Mobile) Ad-hoc Network using Ultrasonic communication (A) , WiFi (W), Bluetooth (B), USB (U), Celluar Radio / GSM (C), ZigBee (Z), RF (R), GPS (G)\\
9 & Platform & IoT solutions have utilized different platforms. Some solutions support multiple platforms as follows: Android (A), Blackberry (K), IOS (I), Web based service (B), Mac OSX (M), Windows (W), and Linux (L)\\
10 & License & The IoT solutions are covered by different licenses as follows: Commercial (C), Open-source (O), Research \& Development (R), and Free (F).
No specific license information were available for cases denoted by (R) which were carried out as research initiatives and possibly available for collaborative research work with permission for non-commercial work.
(F) denotes solutions which are available for free without any governing licenses.\\
11 & Unit and / or subscription & The IoT solution that are sold as a unit are denoted by (U) and others cases where the solution need to be purchased as a subscription are denoted by (S) \\
12 & Product and / or Service & IoT solutions that marketed as a product are denoted by (P) and the solutions marketed as services are denoted by (S). Some IoT solutions have both product and service components. \\ \hline
\multicolumn{3}{c}{Note: Cases where sufficient information were not available are denoted by (-)}
\end{tabular}
\label{Tbl:Summarized taxonmy}
\vspace{-16pt}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Smart Enterprise}
\label{sec:SS:Smart_Enterprise}
In general, enterprise IoT solutions are designed to support infrastructure and more general purpose functionalities in industrial places, such as management and connectivity.
\textit{\textbf{Transportation and Logistics}} — Senseaware \cite{SenseAware} is a solution developed to support real-time shipment tracking. The context information such as location, temperature, light, relative humidity and biometric pressure is collected and processed in order to enhance the visibility of the supply chain. HiKoB \cite{PROJECTGRIZZLY} collects real-time measurements such as temperature gradients within the road, current outdoor temperatures, moisture, dew and frost points from sensors deployed in roads and provides traffic management, real-time information on traffic conditions, and services for freight and logistics. Cantaloupesys \cite{SeedPlatform} allows the user to keep track of stocks in vending machines remotely. Timely and optimal replenishment strategies (i.e. the elimination of unnecessary truck travel and smaller loads per truck) are determined from context information related to usage patterns.
\textit{\textbf{Infrastructure and Safety}}— SmartStructures \cite{SmartPile} collects data from sensors embedded within concrete piles in foundations which enables post-construction long-term load and event monitoring. Yanzi \cite{RemoteSiteManagement} is a solution that enables the user to monitor, maintain, and manage lifts, elevators, heating systems, energy consumption, motion detection, and surveillance. Context information is retrieved through sensors such as video, temperature, motion, and light. Engaugeinc \cite{RemoteFireExtinguisherMonitoringSystem} is a remote fire extinguisher monitoring system. Multiple sensors are used to collect context information that allows the user to determine when a fire extinguisher is blocked, when it is missing from its designated location, or when its pressure falls below safe operating levels. Alerts are sent out via email, phone, pager, and a software-based control panel.
\textit{\textbf{Energy and Production}} — Wattics \cite{Smartmetering} is a smart metering solution that manages energy consumption at the individual appliance and machine level. Context information is used to understand usage pattern recognitions of each appliance through software algorithms which predict and load balance to reduce the energy cost. Sightmachine \cite{SightMachine} continuously processes context data gathered from sensors, lasers, and network cameras, makes assessments in real time, and allows the user to stop problems before they happen with regard to industrial manufacturing machines and equipment.
\textit{
\textbf{Resources Management}}— Onfarmsystems \cite{OnFarm} is an IoT solution designed to facilitate smart farming through accommodating increasingly complex and interconnected farming equipment. Context information such as energy, pesticide, mapping/ location, soil moisture, telemetry, weather, and monitoring are used to support efficient real-time decision-making. HeatWatch \cite{HeatWatchII} is a cattle monitoring solution that records the activities of each animal. Recorded context information includes such information as movement, time of day of the mount, and duration of the mount. Such information enables farmers to breed more cows and heifers earlier, obtain better results (more pregnancies), use less semen, spend much less time, and be more efficient. Motionloft \cite{Motionloftpropertyanalytics} is a solution that monitors pedestrian and vehicle movements in real-time by collecting activity data. It enables boutique retailers, large chains, restaurants, and bars to understand the impact which vehicle and pedestrian traffic has on their revenue.
\section{Technology Review of IoT Solutions}
\label{sec:Technology_Review}
In this section, we summarise, from the technology point of view, the results surveyed so far. Our review criteria are explained in detail in Table \ref{Tbl:Evaluation_of_Technology_Taxonomy}. The results are presented in Table \ref{Tbl:Evaluation_of_Previous_Research_Efforts}. Specifically, our objective is not to discuss the technologies in details but to survey and compare the usage of the technologies (i.e. column (7), (8), (9) in Table \ref{Tbl:Evaluation_of_Technology_Taxonomy}) and solution models employed by different IoT solutions (i.e. column (10), (11), (12) in Table \ref{Tbl:Evaluation_of_Technology_Taxonomy}). Over the last few years, IoT has been surveys in many different perspective. Leading surveys that discuss different aspects of IoT technologies are presented in Section \ref{sec:Introduction}. In Section \ref{sec:Lessons_Learned}, we will analyse trends and lessons learned from the survey in detail.
\begin{table*}[t!]
\caption{Evaluation of Surveyed Research Prototypes, Systems, and Approaches}
\footnotesize
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.8}
\begin{tabular}{
m{4.5cm}
c
m{0.4cm}
c
p{0.2cm}
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
}
\hline
Project Name &
\begin{sideways}Citations \end{sideways} &
Year &
\begin{sideways}Category\end{sideways} &
\begin{sideways}Availability \end{sideways} &
Price &
\begin{sideways}\begin{minipage}[b]{1.5cm}Hardware Software \end{minipage} \end{sideways} &
\begin{sideways}\begin{minipage}[b]{1.6cm}Wireless \\Technology \end{minipage} \end{sideways} &
\begin{sideways}Platform \end{sideways} &
\begin{sideways}License \end{sideways} &
\begin{sideways}\begin{minipage}[b]{1.6cm}Unit \\Subscription \end{minipage} \end{sideways} &
\begin{sideways}\begin{minipage}[b]{1.6cm}Product \\Service \end{minipage} \end{sideways}
\\
\hline \hline
(1) & (2) & (3) & (4) &(5) & (6) & (7) & (8) & (9) & (10) & (11) & (12) \\
.NET Gadgeteer & \cite{Z1055} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SC}{}} \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SE}{}} \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SN}{}} \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SW}{}} & $\checkmark$ & Vary & H & All & - & O & U & P \\
Arduino & \cite{P411} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SC}{}} \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SE}{}} \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SN}{}} \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SW}{}} & $\checkmark$ & Vary & H & All & - & O & U & P \\
ThingWorx & \cite{thingworx} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SC}{}} \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SE}{}} \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SN}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & S & All & B & C & S & S \\
Xively & \cite{xively} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SC}{}} \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SE}{}} \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SN}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 999 - 39,000$^{y}$ & S & All & B & C & S & S \\
All Traffic & \cite{AllTraffic} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SC}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H,S & B,C,W & A,B & C & S & P,S \\
CityDashboard & \cite{CityDashboard} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SC}{}} & $\checkmark$ & Free & S & C,W & B & R & - & S \\
Common Sense & \cite{CommonSense} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SC}{}} & $\checkmark$ & & H,S & B,C & B & R & U & P,S \\
Enevo & \cite{Enevo} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SC}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H & C & B & - & S & P,S \\
Estimote Beacons & \cite{EstimoteBeacons} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SC}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 99.00$^{1}$ & H,S & B & A,I & O & U & P \\
Livehoods & \cite{Livehoods} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SC}{}} & $\checkmark$ & Free & S & C,W & B & F & - & S \\
ParkSight & \cite{ParkSight} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SC}{}} & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - \\
Pavegen & \cite{Pavegen} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SC}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H & - & B & R & U & P \\
Placemeter & \cite{Placemeter} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SC}{}} & - & - & H,S & C,W & - & - & S & S \\
Points & \cite{Points} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SC}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H & W & B & - & U & S \\
SceneTap & \cite{SceneTap} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SC}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H,S & C,W & A,B,I & C & S & S \\
Smart Street Lighting & \cite{SmartStreetLighting} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SC}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & - & - & - & - & - & - \\
SmartBelly components & \cite{SmartBellycomponents} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SC}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & - & C & B & - & - & P,S \\
Street Bum & \cite{StreetBum} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SC}{}} & $\checkmark$ & Free & S & C,W & I & F & - & S \\
Uber & \cite{Uber} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SC}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & - & C & A,I & C & U & S \\
WaspMote & \cite{WaspMote} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SC}{}} \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SE}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H,S & C,R,W,Z & B & - & - & - \\
Motionloft property analytics & \cite{Motionloftpropertyanalytics} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SC}{}}\adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SE}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 279.00$^{1,m}$ & H,S & - & B & C & S & S \\
PROJECT GRIZZLY & \cite{PROJECTGRIZZLY} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SC}{}}\adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SE}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H,S & - & - & O & - & - \\
Air Quality Egg & \cite{AirQualityEgg} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SC}{}}\adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SN}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H,S & - & B & O & P & S \\
AirCasting & \cite{AirCasting} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SC}{}}\adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SN}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H,S & B,C,W & A & O & U & P,S \\
FleetSafer OBD & \cite{FleetSaferOBD} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SE}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H & B & - & C & U & P \\
GPS Trailer Tracking & \cite{GPSTrailerTracking} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SE}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H & G,W & - & C & U & P \\
HeatWatch II & \cite{HeatWatchII} & 2006 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SE}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H,S & R & - & C & U & P,S \\
Intelligence Golf Course Irrigation & \cite{IntelligenceGolfCourseIrrigation} & 2012 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SE}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H,S & - & - & - & - & P \\
Limitless Wireless Operator & \cite{LimitlessWirelessOperatorInterface} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{-} & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SE}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H & R & - & C & U & P \\
OnFarm & \cite{OnFarm} & 2012 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SE}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 0-1,500$^{1,y}$ & H,S & - & - & C & S & P,S \\
Asset Tracking System & \cite{RecovereAssetTrackingandRecoverySystem} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{-} & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SE}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H & C,R & - & C & U & P \\
Remote Fire Extinguisher & \cite{RemoteFireExtinguisherMonitoringSystem} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{-} & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SE}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H,S & - & - & C & U & P \\
Remote Site Management & \cite{RemoteSiteManagement} & 2011 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SE}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H,S & W & A,B,I & C & S & P,S \\
Remote Tank Monitoring Solution & \cite{RemoteTankMonitoringSolution} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SE}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H,S & - & - & C & U & P \\
Seed Platform & \cite{SeedPlatform} & 2012 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SE}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H,S & - & B & C & S & P,S \\
SenseAware & \cite{SenseAware} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SE}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H,S & C & B & C & U & P,S \\
Sight Machine & \cite{SightMachine} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SE}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H,S & - & - & O & - & - \\
Smart metering & \cite{Smartmetering} & 2011 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SE}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H,S & - & - & C & U & P,S \\
Smart Pallet & \cite{SmartPallet} & 2012 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SE}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H & R & - & C & U & P \\
SmartPile & \cite{SmartPile} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SE}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H,S & - & B & C & U & P,S \\
temperaturealert & \cite{temperaturealert} & 2012 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SE}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H & C,U,W & - & C & U & P \\
Bumblebee nesting project & \cite{Bumblebeenestingproject} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SN}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & - & - & B & R & - & S \\
Wildfire Detection System & \cite{ComputerVisionWildfireDetectionSystem} & 2012 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SN}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H,S & - & - & - & U & P,S \\
dontflushme & \cite{dontflushme} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SN}{}} & - & - & H,S & - & B & O & U & P,S \\
Intelligent River & \cite{IntelligentRiver} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SN}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H,S & - & - & R & U & P,S \\
Vineyard Remote Monitoring & \cite{ShelburneVineyardRemoteMonitoring} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SN}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H,S & C & - & C & - & - \\
Shoal & \cite{Shoal} & 2012 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SN}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 32,879.13$^{4}$ & H,S & A & - & C & U & P,S \\
The Floating Sensor Network & \cite{TheFloatingSensorNetwork} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SN}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H,S & C & B & R & U & P,S \\
Asthmapolis & \cite{Asthmapolis} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SW}{}} & - & - & H,S & B & I,A & R & U & P \\
Autographer & \cite{Autographer} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SW}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 399.00$^{1}$ & H & B,U & - & C & U & P \\
BASIS & \cite{BASIS} & 2012 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SW}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 199.00$^{1}$ & H,S & B,W & A,I,B & C & U & P \\
BEARTek Gloves & \cite{BEARTekGloves} & 2012 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SW}{}} & - & - & H & B & - & R & U & P \\
Beddit & \cite{Beddit} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SW}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 411.26$-680.85^{3}$ & H,S & B & A,I & C & U,S & P \\
BleepBleep & \cite{BleepBleep} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SW}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H,S & B & A,I & C & U,S & P,S \\
BodyGuardian Remote Monitoring & \cite{BodyGuardianRemoteMonitoringSystem} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SW}{}} & - & - & H,S & B,W & B & - & - & P,S \\
fitbit & \cite{fitbit} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SW}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 63.94-137.08$^{2}$ & H,S & B,W & A,I,M,W & C & U & P \\
Galaxy Gear & \cite{fitbit} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SW}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 299.00$^{1}$ & H,S& B,W & A & C & U & P \\
Helios Bars & \cite{HeliosBars} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SW}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 199.00$^{1}$ & H,S & B,G & I & C & U & P \\
LINK Armband & \cite{LINKArmband} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SW}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 149.00$^{1}$ & H,S & B & A,I,B & C & U,S & P,S \\
Lively & \cite{Lively} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SW}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 149.00$^{1}$- & H,S & C & B,I & C & U,S & P,S \\
LUMOback & \cite{LUMOback} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SW}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 149.00$^{1}$ & H,S & B & I & C & U & P \\
MUZIK headphones & \cite{MUZIKheadphones} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SW}{}} & - & 299.00$^{1}$ & H,S & B & A,I & O & U & P \\
NFC ring & \cite{NFCring} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SW}{}} & - & - & H,S & B & - & O & U & P \\
Oakley Airwave Goggles & \cite{OakleyAirwaveGoggles} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SW}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 599.95$^{1}$ & H,S & B & A,I & C & U & P \\
Owlet & \cite{Owlet} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SW}{}} & - & - & H,S & - & I & C & U & P \\
Rest Device & \cite{RestDevice} & 2012 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SW}{}} & - & - & H,S & W & - & R & U & P \\
Sensoria Smart Sock & \cite{SensoriaSmartSock} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SW}{}} & - & - & H,S & B & - & R & U & P \\
shockbox Impact alert sensors & \cite{shockboxImpactalertsensors} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SW}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 149.99$^{1}$ & H & B & A,I,K & C & U & P \\
\hline
\label{Tbl:Evaluation_of_Previous_Research_Efforts}
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[t!]
\centering
\footnotesize
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.8}
\begin{tabular}{
m{4.8cm}
c
m{0.8cm}
c
p{0.4cm}
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
}
\hline
Project Name &
\begin{sideways}Citations \end{sideways} &
Year &
\begin{sideways}Category\end{sideways} &
\begin{sideways}Availability \end{sideways} &
Price &
\begin{sideways}\begin{minipage}[b]{1.5cm}Hardware Software \end{minipage} \end{sideways} &
\begin{sideways}\begin{minipage}[b]{1.6cm}Wireless \\Technology \end{minipage} \end{sideways} &
\begin{sideways}Platform \end{sideways} &
\begin{sideways}License \end{sideways} &
\begin{sideways}\begin{minipage}[b]{1.6cm}Unit \\Subscription \end{minipage} \end{sideways} &
\begin{sideways}\begin{minipage}[b]{1.6cm}Product \\Service \end{minipage} \end{sideways}
\\
\hline \hline
(1) & (2) & (3) & (4) &(5) & (6) & (7) & (8) & (9) & (10) & (11) & (12) \\
SIGMO & \cite{SIGMO} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SW}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H,S & B & - & C & U & P \\
TJacket & \cite{TJacket} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SW}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 499.00$^{1}$ & H,S & - & I,A & C & U & P \\
Withings Wireless Scales & \cite{WithingsWirelessScales} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SW}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 137.48-206.26$^{3}$ & H,S & B,W & A,I & R & U & P \\
BeClose Senior Safety System & \cite{BeCloseSeniorSafetySystem} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SW}{}}\adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 399.00$^{1}$- & H,S & W & - & C & U,S & P \\
Smart pill bottles & \cite{Smartpillbottles} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SW}{}}\adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} & - & - & - & C & - & O,R & U & P \\
Whistle & \cite{Whistle} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{-} & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SW}{}}\adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 99.95$^{1}$ & H,S & B,W & A,I & C & U & P \\
AirBoxLab & \cite{AirBoxLab} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H & W & A,I & C & U & P \\
BiKN & \cite{BiKN} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 129.99$^{1}$ & H,S & W & I & C & U & P \\
BrewBit & \cite{BrewBit} & 2012 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 199.00$^{1}$ & H,S & W & A,I & O & U & P \\
Canary & \cite{Canary} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} & - & - & H,S & W & A,I & C & U & P \\
Fliwer & \cite{Fliwer} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H,S & R,W & B & C & U & P \\
Good Night Lamp & \cite{GoodNightLamp} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 122.42-206.33$^{3}$ & H & W & B & C & U & P \\
Hintsights & \cite{Hintsights} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} & - & - & H,S & - & - & O & - & S \\
iDoorCam & \cite{iDoorCam} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 164.95$^{1}$ & H,S & W & A,I & C & U & P \\
Iris & \cite{Iris} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 299.00$^{1}$ & H & W & B & C & U,S & P,S \\
Koubachi & \cite{Koubachi} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 122.41-273.72$^{3}$ & H & W & A,I & C & U & P \\
Lernstift & \cite{Lernstift} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} & - & - & H & W & L & C & U & P \\
Lockitron & \cite{Lockitron} & 2009 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 179.00$^{1}$ & H & B,W & A,I & C & U & P \\
Nest Thermostat & \cite{NestThermostat} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 249.00$^{1}$ & H,S & W & I,A & C & U & P \\
Netatmo & \cite{Netatmo} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 129.00-199.00$^{1}$ & H & - & A,I & C & U & P \\
Ninja Blocks & \cite{ninjablocks} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 199.00-250.00$^{1}$ & H,S & W,B,Z & A,B,I & C,O & U & P,S \\
OpenSprinkler & \cite{OpenSprinkler} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 114.15-206.31$^{3}$ & H,S & W & A,I & O & U & P \\
PetzillaConnect & \cite{PetzillaConnect} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 94.91-$^{3}$ & H,S & W & A,I & C & U & P \\
Philips Hue Connected Bulb & \cite{PhilipsHueConnectedBulb} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 199.95$^{1}$ & H,S & W & I & C & U & P \\
Pintofeed & \cite{Pintofeed} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 179.00$^{1}$ & H,S & W & A,I,W & C & U & P \\
Sensr.net & \cite{Sensr.net} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 94.91-$^{3}$ & H & W & B & C & U,S & P,S \\
SmartThings & \cite{SmartThingsHomeWatchSolution} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 199.00-299.00$^{1}$ & H,S & - & I,A & C & U & P \\
TADO & \cite{TADO} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} & $\checkmark$ & - & H,S & W & I,A & C & U & P \\
Twine & \cite{Twine} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 124.95-199.95$^{1}$ & H & W & B & C & U & P \\
Ubi & \cite{Ubi} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 219.00$^{1}$ & H,S & W & A & O & U & P \\
WeMo Switch & \cite{WeMoSwitc} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 75.22-78.99$^{1}$ & H,S & W & A,I & C & U & P \\
WhereDial & \cite{WhereDial} & 2013 & \adjustbox{valign=m}{\colorbox{SH}{}} & $\checkmark$ & 162.77-179.20$^{4}$ & H & W & B & O & U & P \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\vspace{-12pt}
\end{table*}
\section{Trends and Lessons Learned}
\label{sec:Lessons_Learned}
In this section, we highlight and discuss some of the trends in the IoT solutions in the marketplace. The trends can be categorised \textit{1) based on domains, functionalities, and value}, and \textit{2) based on technology}.
\subsubsection{Domains, Functionalities, and Value}
\label{sec:TLL:Common_Domains}
Most of the IoT solutions are narrowly focused on providing one functionality. However, we have seen that a number of generic platforms are being developed (e.g. Ninja Blocks \cite{ninjablocks}, SmartThings \cite{SmartThingsHomeWatchSolution}, and Twine \cite{Twine}) to support applications in the domains of the smart home and the smart city. In general, more solutions are focused on the wearable and the smart home domains. One reason for this concentration is the market potential. These solution providers can earn a significant financial return for their solutions due to the larger consumer market. In addition, it has been revealed that the IoT solutions in the smart home and wearable domains are comparatively easy to develop and therefore low in price. Building smart enterprise, smart environment, and smart city solutions takes much effort and time due to the complexity and unique challenges in comparison to other domains. Some of the unique challenges are the sustainability of the hardware devices in harsh outdoor environments; the availability of energy sources for sensing, processing and communication in remote and outdoor locations; and the maintenance and repair of the hardware. These challenges justify the low interest in these domain areas, specially on the part of start-ups and small companies.
\subsubsection{Technology: Hardware and Software Platforms}
\label{sec:TLL:Hardware_and_Software_Platforms}
According to the survey results presented in Table \ref{Tbl:Evaluation_of_Previous_Research_Efforts}, it is evident that most of the IoT solutions include both custom hardware and software. It is also to be noted that some of the solutions are not available for immediate purchase but are on the way to the market (e.g. pre-order). In terms of communication, WiFi and Bluetooth are the most commonly used protocols. Additionally, an increasing number of the IoT solutions support more than one platform (e.g. Android, iOS, browser-based, Windows, Linux, and Mac). Mostly, they are built around the Android and iOS platforms. Most of the solutions are protected under a commercial license and both software and hardware are closed-source. The majority of the IoT solutions are sold as units. Though solutions may have both software and hardware components, the price is mainly for the hardware and the accompanying software is free. The only exceptions are solutions that are completely based on the cloud, where they charge for subscription.
In most of the wearable solutions, smartphones are used as an interface for human--system interaction. Smart wearable solutions generally have two or three components. Custom designed wearable devices are used to capture the context and sense the phenomena. Then, either processed or raw data is sent to a processing device, which is usually a smart phone (or a device with a similar computational capability). The smartphone then visualises and presents the outcome (e.g. alerts and notifications) to the users. One such example is Lumoback \cite{LUMOback}, which tracks posture and daily activities in real time. Lumoback collects data through a wearable waist belt and pushes the data directly to the smartphone. \textcolor{blue}{Human Computer Interaction (HCI) plays a significant roes in the success of IoT products and solutions. When combining different interaction mechanisms, IoT product designers will need to select the right combination of methods based on number of different factors such as data processing and communication capability, energy, hardware cost, target user knowledge, criticality of the product and so on. Commonly available options are gesture, voice, touch. Further, IoT products can use smart phones, tablets and wearable devices to enable user interactions.}
Alternatively, sensors may send data to custom gateway devices and then push to the cloud over GSM or WiFi. In such situations, cloud services push the outcome to a mobile device to update the user on the real-time activities. For example, Mimobaby \cite{RestDevice} is a baby movement monitoring wearable solution. Mimobaby collects data from sensors attached to the baby's clothes. Then, it transfers the data to a nearby custom gateway which uses home WiFi connectivity to push the data to the cloud. Then, the cloud services alert the parents' smartphone in real-time. Figure \ref{Figure:Common_Communication_Patterns} illustrates some of the most common communication patterns used in the IoT solutions. Data collected by the IoT solutions may be sent to the cloud for further processing, historical archiving, or pattern recognition. Mobile devices allow users to immediately take action or perform actuation tasks. In such circumstances, the communication between the hardware and the mobile devices is performed using short distance communication protocols, such as Bluetooth, and long range communication tasks are performed via WiFi or GSM.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.42]{./Images/1_Common_Communication_Patterns.pdf}
\vspace{-0.23cm}
\caption{Common Communication Patterns in IoT Applications. There are mainly three types of common patterns}
\label{Figure:Common_Communication_Patterns}
\vspace{-0.32cm}
\end{figure}
It is also evident that cloud IoT platforms are trying to build their own ecosystems by facilitating and supporting third party extensions (also called plugins) development and distribution through \textit{app store}. We have repeatedly seen such trends in both PC market and smartphone markets. IoT platform developers are increasingly support non-technical people to build IoT solutions by providing easy ways to assemble the components without programming knowledge \cite{WaspMote, Z1069}.
\section{Open Research Challenges}
\label{sec:Ope_Research_Challenges}
\setcounter{subsubsection}{0}
In this section, our objective is to discuss some of the major challenges that need to be addressed in order to build the IoT. These challenges are yet to be addressed, by either academia or industry, in a comprehensive manner. The solutions for these issues need to be come from technological, social, legal, financial, and business backgrounds in order to receive wide acceptance by the IoT community.
\subsubsection{Modularity and Layered Interoperability}
\label{sec:ORC:Modularity}
Modularity is a key to success in the IoT paradigm. The notion of modularity goes hand in hand with interoperability. We can interpret modularity in different ways. First, the hardware / physical layer in the IoT needs to support modularity. This means, ideally, consumers should be able to build a smart object (or an Internet connected object) by putting different modules (e.g. sensors or actuators) produced by different manufacturing companies together without getting restricted to one vendor. Such modularity reduces the entry barriers to the IoT marketplace. Further, interoperability will increase the level of creativity and will reduce costs due to competition. Modularity also allows organisations to focus on one component of the IoT architecture and become experts on that, rather than having to build end to end solutions, something which leads to re-inventing the wheel. Furthermore, modularity provides more choices and options to the consumers as to which modules to use and when, based on factors such as reliability.
Modularity is vital in software / cloud services layer as well. Especially in sensing as a service model \cite{ZMP008}, something which provides an economical business model for the IoT, users should have the right and flexibility to choose and use cloud services either in a standalone fashion or as a composition of multiple services \cite{Z1062, Z1060} based on their own priorities and preferences \cite{ZMP009}. Modularity needs to be governed by rigorous standardisation processes. Semantics technologies can also be used to improve the interoperability through knowledge reuse and knowledge mapping. In addition, interoperability can be achieved through mediators and adapters. At the hardware level, modularity has been introduced to some extent by platforms such as Arduino \cite{P411} and Microsoft's .NET Gadgeteer \cite{Z1055}. However, cross platform compatibility is not yet supported. In recent years, we have seen many different IoT companies building cross layer partnerships with each other to ensure comparability and interoperability. For example, sensing hardware platform designers are partnering with cloud IoT solution providers. However, standardisations and collaboration with competitors is rarely seen within layers (e.g. among different hardware vendors). The concept of an app store for IoT solutions is currently supported by HomeOS \cite{Z1058} and ThingWorx \cite{thingworx}. They have started to support modularity by allowing third parties to develop extensions to their IoT middleware platforms. The integration of multiple cloud platform service providers will enable more data sharing and value creation \cite{Z1063}.
\subsubsection{Unified Multi-Protocol Communication Support}
\label{sec:ORC:Unified_Multi-Protocol_Support}
Designing protocols and systems for wireless industrial communications will have a significant impact on the successful adoption of the IoT \cite{Z1068}. IoT solutions use different types of communication protocols, mostly through wireless channels \cite{Z1014}. WiFi, Bluetooth, 3G, Zigbee, and z-wave are some of them. Even though they seem few, incompatibility makes developing the IoT applications more challenging. Each protocol has its own advantages and disadvantages \cite{Z1067}. Comparisons of these protocols are presented in \cite{Z1014, Z1067}. Some protocols are efficient in long distance communication and others are efficient in short distance communication. It is important to address the challenge of developing a high-level framework that handles the difference of protocols behind the scenes without bothering the developers or consumers. Therefore, an ideal framework should allow the developers to focus on data communications at a high level (e.g. what to send and when) rather than dealing with low-level communication protocol details (e.g. which protocol to use when, and implementation-level differences). Such a high-level framework will increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the IoT solutions and will also save a significant amount of development time. Intelligent context-aware capabilities need to be integrated into the IoT solutions so the communication tasks and related decisions will be made and handled based on the capabilities and the energy availability of the ICOs at a given situation. The importance of standardising a protocol stack for the IoT is highlighted and discussed in \cite{Z1041}.
\subsubsection{Sustainable Business Models}
\label{sec:ORC:Business_Models}
A sustainable business model is essential for building a sustainable IoT paradigm. Most of the IoT solutions we have reviewed are narrowly focused on addressing one problem. They have missed the bigger picture of the IoT and earnings potential. Sharing data in open markets can add more value to the IoT solutions. One such business model is presented in \cite{ZMP008} in detail. Preliminary work towards building such a model is currently conducted by the project HAT (Hub of All Things) \cite{Z1056}. HAT is a platform for a multi-sided market powered by the IoT which expects to create opportunities for new economic \& business models. It aims to create a market platform for the home based on the data generated by individuals' consumption, behaviour, and interactions. Such data exchange, in secure and privacy preserved manner, would generate additional value that may help to maintain the IoT infrastructure in the long-term.
For example, one institution (primary) may deploy and maintain sensors in public infrastructures such as roads and bridges with the intention of monitoring their structural health and the public safety. Other institutions (secondary) who are interested in such data can purchase them through an auction-like marketplace. Secondary institutions may have different intentions, such as local weather monitoring, environmental pollution monitoring, and local traffic condition monitoring. The financial support offered by secondary institutions motivates the primary institute to deploy and maintain sensors over the long term. In this way, primary and secondary institutions will benefit by the transaction's creating a sustainable economic model. The details of such markets are discussed from the technology perspective in \cite{ZMP008} and from the business perspective in \cite{Z1056}.
\subsubsection{Ownership, Privacy and Security}
\label{sec:ORC:Ownership, Privacy and Security}
One of the biggest technical, social, and legal challenges is protecting privacy and creating a secure environment for the IoT. Unfortunately, these have been the challenges least addressed. Due to the limited adoption of IoT, not many security and privacy challenges have been identified. We can expect more challenges to be identified over the coming years due to the growing adoption of IoT solutions. The security issues have two aspects. One aspect is data security. The other aspect is the security of the IoT solutions (e.g. security related to sensing communication, iterations, authentication, and actuation). In the fully automated and integrated IoT paradigm, security breaches can be life threatening and can have devastating economic and social impact. Especially the new business models that we briefly discussed in the above section may create additional challenges regarding data ownership and privacy.
As we discussed in \cite{ZMP008}, anonymisation is a critical process in the IoT data flow. The data collected by households always needs to be anonymised in such a way that no one will be able to trace it back to its exact origin. Data may identified and grouped broadly into certain geographical regions, but not for individuals or households. Another aspect of this challenge is ownership transfer. Technology should be intelligent enough to identify its current owner and follow their commands and preferences. The details of such ownership transfers are discussed in \cite{ZMP008}. In addition to the technology-based security and privacy solutions, legal terms need to be developed in order to protect the consumers and the data they own.
\section{Concluding Remarks}
\label{sec:Conclusions}
This paper presented a survey of the IoT solutions in the emerging marketplace. We classified the solutions in the market broadly into five categories: smart wearable, smart home, smart city, smart environment, and smart enterprise. Under each category, we discussed and summarised the functionalities provided by each solution. We also examined the contribution of each solution towards improving the efficiency and effectiveness of consumers' lifestyle as well as of society in general. It is important to highlight the proliferation of wearable solutions in the market. Despite the long existence of wearable computing, those products did not reach the consumer market until recently. It is clear that more and more wearable solutions will make their way into the IoT marketplace over the coming years. Further, we can see a significant investment and focus on indoor smart home and office domains, in comparison to environmental monitoring solutions.
Moreover, we also see a substantial amount of investment made in research and development towards supply chain management. These solutions are aimed at large scale industry players who are looking for novel methods to optimise their supply chain processes, especially through real-time data collecting, reasoning, and monitoring. Until household consumers adopt IoT solutions, the majority of the value creation is expected to occur with large scale industries. Finally, we discussed the lessons learned and listed some of the major research challenges and opportunities. We believe further research that addresses these open challenges will help to develop more interesting IoT solutions and strengthen the existing solutions in this area in both the industrial and the academic sectors.
\ifCLASSOPTIONcaptionsoff
\newpage
\fi
|
\section{Introduction}
Recent research in the field of nanotechnology have led to the synthesis and characterization of various two-dimensional materials \cite{Castro}. The unique geometries of these novel structures are one of the main origins of their extraordinary physical and chemical properties \cite{Castro}, \cite{Xu}. Among different applications, the possibility of using such low-dimensional systems in the domain of nanoscale superconducting devices is of growing interest \cite{Franceschi}, \cite{Delahaye}, \cite{Saira}.
In this respect, the one-atom-thick two-dimensional form of carbon, known as graphene \cite{Novoselov}, attracted exceptional attention in recent years, when comparing to the other carbon allotropes \cite{Hirsch}, \cite{Szczesniak1}, \cite{Yang}. However, various theoretical calculations demonstrate that the phonon-mediated superconductivity does not occur in the intrinsic graphene, due to the weak electron-phonon coupling constant \cite{Forti}, \cite{Johannsen}, \cite{Zhang}. This fact follows the case of graphite, where the induction of the superconducting phase is possible only via the chemical process know as intercalation \cite{Profeta}.
In particular, it was suggested, by using the first-principle calculations, that the conventional superconducting state with notable high critical temperature ($T_C$) can be observed in the hole-doped graphane (a fully hydrogenated graphene) \cite{Sofo}, \cite{Savini} or in the lithium-decorated graphene \cite{Profeta}, \cite{LiC6}, \cite{Kaloni}. Due to these findings this direction of research can be considered as a promising and important one. However, the direct experimental evidences are still lacking.
Another noteworthy material for the superconducting nanoelectronic applications is silicene (the graphene-like monolayer of silicon) \cite{Aufray}. In general, the main advantage of this material is the fact that it combines some of the graphene intriguing properties and can be relatively easy incorporated into the existing silicon-based electronics \cite{Jose}. Moreover, the preliminary results on the synthesis of silicene are already available \cite{Vogt}.
From the point of view of the superconducting properties, it is important that pristine silicene is characterized by the buckled structure, which distinguish it from the graphene and favours stronger electron-phonon coupling in this material \cite{Wan}.
Some theoretical works, using random-phase-approximation (RPA), have proposed possible singlet $d+id'$ chiral supercondutivity in undoped bilayer silicene \cite{FengLiu} or quantum phase transition to the triplet $f-$wave superconducting phase in doped silicene under a perpendicular external electric field \cite{Li-DaZhang}.
Encouraging are also recent experimental results which suggest that the induction of the superconducting state in supported silicene may be possible \cite{Chen}.
On the other hand, latest theoretical investigations predict that the electron-doping and the influence of the biaxial tensile strain induce superconducting state characterized by the critical temperature much above 10 K \cite{Wan}. In particular, for the electron doping ($n_e$) equals $3.5\times10^{14}~{\rm cm^{-2}}$ and tension of $5\%$, the analytical McMillan \cite{McMillan} formula gives $T_C$ $\sim 17$ K. This outcome is promising and motivates our studies.
In the present paper, we concentrate ourselves on the analysis of the superconducting phase induced in silicene under the conditions mentioned above. In the considered case, the electron-phonon coupling constant exceeds the weak coupling limit ($\lambda>0.5$ \cite{Bauer}). Due to this fact we conduct our calculations within the framework of the Eliashberg formalism \cite{Eliashberg}, which allows us to calculate the thermodynamic properties of the superconducting phase at the quantitative level. Our calculations based on the electron-phonon spectral function $\alpha^2F(\omega)$ obtained in \cite{Wan}, by using the density functional theory within the local-density approximation. The numerical methods adopted in the present work based on the self-consistent iterative procedure presented in \cite{LiC6}, \cite{GaH3}, \cite{Domin}.
\section{The numerical and analytical results}
In order to compute all thermodynamic properties of interest, the Eliashberg equations are solved on the imaginary axis and in the mixed representation (defined simultaneously on the imaginary and real axis). The stability of the solutions in both cases is achieved in the temperature range from $T_0=1$ K to $T_C$, for the assumed $1100$ Matsubara frequencies: $\omega_{m}\equiv\frac{\pi}{\beta}(2m-1)$, where $\beta\equiv 1/k_{B}T$, and $k_{B}$ denotes the Boltzmann constant.
The Coulomb pseudopotential ($\mu^{\star}$) models the depairing interaction between the electrons and beside the Eliashberg function is the second input parameter in the Eliashberg equations.
In fact there are two well-known experimental methods to determine $\mu^{\star}$. One is based on the isotope effect \cite{McMillan}, second is based on the inversion of tunnelling data \cite{AllenDynes}.
It should be emphasized, that the isotope effect can be used only when a set of isotopes is available and the tunnelling experiments require strong or medium coupling superconductors in order to give sufficient structure in the current-voltage characteristic \cite{Rapp}.
The physical value of Coulomb pseudopotential is hard to calculate from first-principles, so it is usually treated as a material-dependent adjustable parameter chosen, for examples within the framework of the Eliashberg formalism, to reproduce the experimental value of critical temperature \cite{SzczesniakCoulomb}.
However, due to absence of the experimental results for silicene, a wide range of the Coulomb pseudopotential values is taken into account: $\mu^{\star}\in\left\langle0.1,0.3\right\rangle$.
In \fig{fig1} (A), the superconducting order parameter on the imaginary axis for selected values of the temperature and the Coulomb pseudopotential is presented. The maximum value of the order parameter ($\Delta_{m=1}$) decreases with the growth of $T$ and $\mu^{\star}$. This fact can be clearly observed in \fig{fig1} (B) where $\Delta_{m=1}\left(T\right)$ function is shown. On the basis of these results, we note that the $\Delta_{m=1}$ values can be well parameterized by the following formula:
\begin{equation}
\label{r1}
\Delta_{m=1}\left(T,\mu^{\star}\right)=\Delta_{m=1}\left(\mu^{\star}\right)\sqrt{1-\left(\frac{T}{T_{C}}\right)^{\alpha}},
\end{equation}
where: $\Delta_{m=1}\left(\mu^{\star}\right)=18.30\left(\mu^{\star}\right)^{2}-14.08\mu^{\star}+4.51$ and the fitting parameter $\alpha$ is equal to 3.4.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig01.pdf}
\caption{(A) The dependence of the order parameter on the number $m$ for the selected temperatures and Coulomb pseudopotential values. (B) The full dependence of the maximum value of the order
parameter on the temperature for selected $\mu^{\star}$. (C) The critical temperature as a function of the Coulomb pseudopotential. The circles correspond to the exact numerical solutions of the Eliashberg equations. The triangles and squares represent the results obtained using the Allen-Dynes and McMillan formula, respectively.}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
The superconducting transition temperature is defined as the temperature at which the order parameter vanishes: $\Delta_{m=1}\left(T_{C},\mu^{\star}\right)=0$. In the case of silicene it is stated that $T_{C}$ is high in the entire range of the Coulomb pseudopotential values. In particular, $T_{C}\in\left<18.7, 11.6\right>$ K for $\mu^{\star}\in\left<0.1, 0.3\right>$.
It should be noted that the maximum value of the critical temperature for $\mu^{\star}=0.1$ determined by us is significantly higher then the value predicted in paper \cite{Wan}, where $[T_C]^{\rm max}_{\mu^{\star}=0.1}=16.40$ K. This situation is caused by the fact that in paper \cite{Wan} the superconducting transition temperature was estimated by using McMillan formula \cite{McMillan}:
\begin{equation}
\label{r2}
k_{B}T_{C}=\frac{\omega_{\rm ln}}{1.2}\exp\left[\frac{-1.04\left(1+\lambda\right)}{\lambda-\mu^{\star}\left(1+0.62\lambda\right)}\right],
\end{equation}
where $\omega_{\rm ln}$ is the logarithmic averaged phonon frequency and equals $18.52$ meV for the tension of $5\%$.
A full dependence of $T_{C}$ on $\mu^{\star}$ is plotted in \fig{fig1} (C). Presented results are obtained using the Eliashberg formalism, Allen-Dynes expression \cite{AllenDynes} and the McMillan formula \cite{McMillan}. It can be observed that the analytical results underestimate the critical temperature, especially for the high values of the Coulomb pseudopotential. Moreover, the Allen-Dynes expression much better predicts $T_C$ than the McMillan formula.
In \fig{fig2}, we present the results for the wave function renormalization factor. The identical values of temperature and Coulomb pseudopotential as for the order parameter are chosen. It is found that the function $Z_{m=1}(T)$ increases together with the temperature and the Coulomb pseudopotential value.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig02.pdf}
\caption{(left panel) The form of the wave function renormalization factor on the imaginary axis for selected values of temperature and Coulomb pseudopotential, and (right panel) the dependence of the maximum value of the wave function renormalization factor on the temperature.}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}
The values of the function $Z_{m=1 }\left(T,\mu^{\star}\right)$ can be estimated by the formula:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{r3}
Z_{m=1}\left(T,\mu^{\star}\right)&=&Z_{m=1}\left(\mu^{\star}\right)\\ \nonumber
&+&\left[Z_{m=1}\left(T_{C}\right)-Z_{m=1}\left(\mu^{\star}\right)\right]\left(\frac{T}{T_{C}}\right)^{\alpha},
\end{eqnarray}
where: $Z_{m=1}\left(\mu^{\star}\right)=-0.48\left(\mu^{\star}\right)^{2}+0.35\mu^{\star}+1.98$ and $Z_{m=1}\left(T_{C}\right)=1+\lambda$. Note that for $T=T_C$, the maximum value of the wave function renormalization factor is independent of $\mu^{\star}$.
The temperature dependence of $\Delta_{m=1}$ is reflected in measurable thermodynamic parameters as the specific heat $C^{S}(T)$ of the superconducting state or the thermodynamic critical field $H_C(T)$. In order to investigate these properties from the solution of Eliashberg equations on imaginary axis, we have evaluated numerically the free energy difference between the superconducting and the normal state ($\Delta F=F^{S}-F^{N}$). This is given by the formula \cite{BardeenStephen}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{r4}
\frac{\Delta F}{\rho\left(0\right)}&=&-\frac{2\pi}{\beta}\sum_{n=1}^{M}
\left(\sqrt{\omega^{2}_{n}+\Delta^{2}_{n}}- \left|\omega_{n}\right|\right)\\\nonumber
&\times&\left(Z^{S}_{n}-Z^{N}_{n}\frac{\left|\omega_{n}\right|}
{\sqrt{\omega^{2}_{n}+\Delta^{2}_{n}}}\right),
\end{eqnarray}
where $\rho\left(0\right)$ is the value of the electron density of states at the Fermi energy level. Symbols $Z^{S}_{n}$ and $Z^{N}_{n}$ denote the wave function renormalization factors for the superconducting ($\Delta_{m=1}\neq 0$) and for the normal state ($\Delta_{m=1}= 0$), respectively.
The thermodynamic critical field and deviation function of the thermodynamic critical field are calculated from the free energy difference:
\begin{equation}
\label{r5}
\frac{H_{C}}{\sqrt{\rho\left(0\right)}}=\sqrt{-8\pi\left[\Delta F/\rho\left(0\right)\right],}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
D = {H_c\left(T\right)\over{H_c\left(0\right)}} -
\Bigl[1-\Bigl({T\over{T_c}}\Bigr)^2\Bigr]\,.
\label{rD}
\end{equation}
The specific heat difference $\Delta C=C^{S}-C^{N}$ is related to $\Delta F$ through:
\begin{equation}
\label{r6}
\frac{\Delta C\left(T\right)}{k_{B}\rho\left(0\right)}=-\frac{1}{\beta}\frac{d^{2}\left[\Delta F/\rho\left(0\right)\right]}{d\left(k_{B}T\right)^{2}},
\end{equation}
while the specific heat in the normal state is defined as: $C^{N}=\gamma/{\beta}$, where $\gamma$ is the Sommerfeld constant: $\gamma\equiv ({2}/{3})\pi^{2}\left(1+\lambda\right)k_{B}\rho\left(0\right)$.
The results obtained for silicene under the tension of 5$\%$ are presented in the lower panel of \fig{fig3} (A). From the physical point of view, the negative values of $\Delta F/\rho(0)$ inform us about the thermodynamic stability of the superconducting state in the temperature range from $T_0$ to $T_C$. It can be seen that the increase of the Coulomb pseudopotential substantially weakens the stability of the superconducting state in silicene.
\begin{figure}[hb]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig03.pdf}
\caption{(A) The free energy difference (lower panel) and the thermodynamic critical field (upper panel) as a function of temperature. (B) The specific heat of the superconducting and normal state as a function of temperature for selected values of Coulomb pseudopotential. (C) Critical field deviation as a function of the temperature.}
\label{fig3}
\end{figure}
The upper panel in \fig{fig3} (A) presents the influence of the temperature on the ratio $H_{C}/\sqrt{\rho\left(0\right)}$. It can be seen that the thermodynamic critical field decreases with the increasing temperature, taking the zero value for $T=T_{C}$. Let us notice that the maximum values of the considered function equal: $H_{C}\left(0\right)/\sqrt{\rho\left(0\right)}\in\left\langle 15.8, 9.4\right\rangle$ meV for $\mu^{\star}\in\left\langle0.1, 0.3\right\rangle$, where $H_{C}\left(0\right)\equiv H_{C}\left(T_{0}\right)$.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\includegraphics[width=2\columnwidth]{fig04.pdf}
\caption{The dependence of the total normalized density of states on the frequency for selected temperature and values of the Coulomb pseudopotential.}
\label{fig4}
\end{figure*}
In \fig{fig3} (B), the specific heat for the normal and superconducting state is presented.
We can note that with the increase of the temperature the specific heat of the superconducting state grows strongly, reaching its maximum at the critical temperature.
The characteristic specific heat jump at the critical temperature is marked with the vertical line.
We can observe that the value of the {\it jump}, just like the value of the thermodynamic critical field, decreases with the growth of the Coulomb pseudopotential. In particular this fact can be described by the following ratio:
$\left[\Delta C\left(T_{C}\right)\right]_{\mu^{\star}=0.3}/ \left[\Delta C\left(T_{C}\right)\right]_{\mu^{\star}=0.1}=0.58$.
In \fig{fig3} (C) we supplement our results with the calculated thermodynamic critical field deviation as a function of the temperature for selected values of Coulomb pseudopotential. The positive values of $D$ function correspond to the strong electron-phonon coupling ($\lambda>1$) and $D$ is negative for the weak coupling limit ($\lambda<1$) \cite{Navarro}. Our results confirm that for the investigated material the electron-phonon coupling is strong. Results predicted by the Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer theory (BCS) \cite{BCS1}, \cite{BCS2} are presented with a dashed line \cite{Michor}.
In the next step, on the basis of the calculated thermodynamic functions, we determined the dimensionless ratios $R_{C}\equiv \Delta C\left(T_{C}\right)/C^{N}\left(T_{C}\right)$ and
$R_{H}\equiv T_{C}C^{N}\left(T_{C}\right)/H^{2}_{C}\left(0\right)$. In the framework of the BCS model these parameters have the universal values: $\left[R_{C}\right]_{\rm BCS}=1.43$ and $\left[R_{H}\right]_{\rm BCS}=0.168$ \cite{BCS1}, \cite{BCS2}. Taking into account obtained results, we found that the values of $R_{C}$ and $R_{H}$ for silicene under the tension of 5$\%$ significantly diverge from the values predicted by the BCS model, in particular: $R_{C}\in\left\langle 2.19, 2.05\right\rangle$ and $R_{H}\in\left\langle 0.143, 0.155\right\rangle$.
The Eliashberg equations in the mixed representation are next solved for the identical range of the temperatures and the Coulomb pseudopotential as the Eliashberg equations on the imaginary axis.
On the basis of the solutions of the Eliashberg equations in the mixed representation the exact value of the order parameter can be obtained from the relation \cite{Cappelutti}:
\begin{equation}
\label{r7}
\Delta\left(T\right)={\rm Re}\left[\Delta\left(\omega=\Delta\left(T\right),T\right)\right].
\end{equation}
The zeroth temperature superconducting energy gap at the Fermi level for the investigated case of silicene takes the following values: $2\Delta(0)\equiv2\Delta(T_{0})\in\left\langle6.68, 3.88\right\rangle$ meV for $\mu^{\star}\in\left\langle0.1, 0.3\right\rangle$.
The most interesting from the physical point of view is dimensionless ratio $R_{\Delta}\equiv2\Delta(0)/k_{B}T_{C}$.
In the framework of the BCS theory: $\left[R_{\Delta}\right]_{\rm BCS}=3.53$ \cite{BCS2},
whereas in our case, even for a large values of $\mu^{\star}$, the ratio significantly exceeds the values predicted by the BCS model, in particular $R_{\Delta}\in\left\langle4.14, 3.87\right\rangle$.
This situation is caused by the fact that in the BCS model, the strong-coupling and retardation effects are not taken into account. Therefore this theory is valid only for values of the gap functions which are small compared to the Debye frequency. Strong-coupling and retardation effects are taken into consideration in Eliashberg theory and can be characterized by the ratio $k_{B}T_{C}/\omega_{ln}$.
In the weak-coupling limit, one can assume: $\left[k_{B}T_{C}/\omega_{\rm ln}\right]_{\rm BCS}\rightarrow0$. For two-dimensional silicene layer under the tension of $5\%$ we obtained: $\left[k_{B}T_{C}/\omega_{\rm ln}\right]_{\mu^{\star}=0.1}\simeq 0.087$ and $\left[k_{B}T_{C}/\omega_{\rm ln}\right]_{\mu^{\star}=0.3}\simeq 0.054$.
Moreover, the order parameter function on the real axis allows to calculate the total normalized density of states \cite{Eliashberg}:
\begin{equation}
\label{r15}
{\rm NDOS}\left(\omega \right)=\frac{\rm DOS_{S}\left(\omega \right)}{\rm DOS_{N}\left(\omega \right)}={\rm Re}\left[\frac{\left|\omega -i\Gamma \right|}{\sqrt{\left(\omega -i\Gamma\right)^{2}}-\Delta^{2}\left(\omega\right)}\right],
\end{equation}
where the symbols $\rm DOS_{S}\left(\omega \right)$ and $\rm DOS_{N}\left(\omega \right)$ denote the density in the superconducting and normal state, respectively. The pair breaking parameter $\Gamma$ is equal to $0.15$ meV.
The calculated total normalized density of states for different temperatures, and for selected values of Coulomb pseudopotential is presented in \fig{fig4}. These results allows us to trace the size of the superconducting gap with increasing values of the temperature and Coulomb pseudopotential. The symmetric maximas can be clearly observed for $T<T_C$. It is worth emphasizing, that the superconducting gap between the two symmetric maximas, is much larger than in the lithium-decorated graphene ($\rm LiC_6$) and is comparable with $\rm Li_2C_6$ \cite{Domin}. Above the critical temperature, the gap is no longer visible and silicene can reveals metallic behavior.
In the last step, the wave function renormalization factor on the real axis ($Z\left(\omega\right)$) is determined.
In the framework of the Eliashberg formalism the real part of $Z\left(\omega\right)$ enables the determination of the electron effective mass ($m^{\star}_{e}$). In particular, the ratio of $m^{\star}_{e}$ to the electron band mass ($m_{e}$) is given by:
$m^{\star}_{e}/m_{e}={\rm Re}\left[Z\left(0\right)\right]$. Let us notice that Re$\left[Z\left(0\right)\right]$, similarly as $Z_{m=1}$, takes the highest value for $T=T_{C}$. Thus, $\left[m^{\star}_{e}\right]_{{\rm max}}$ is equal to $2.11m_{e}$.
\section{Summary}
Using the Eliashberg approach, we have studied the behaviour of the superconducting critical temperature, energy gap, free energy difference between the superconducting and normal state, thermodynamic critical field and the specific heat in a strongly coupled electron-doped silicene under the tension of $5\%$.
The Coulomb pseudopotential effects on the thermodynamic properties have been extensively studied based on electron-phonon spectral function.
For $\mu^{\star}\in\left\langle0.1, 0.3\right\rangle$ the critical temperature and zeroth temperature superconducting energy gap at the Fermi level decrease from $18.7$ K to $11.6$ K and from $6.68$ meV to $3.88$ meV, respectively.
Other thermodynamic parameters differ from the predictions of the BCS theory. In particular, for the dimensionless ratios of the calculated thermodynamic functions we reported the following results:
$R_{\Delta}\in\left\langle4.14, 3.87\right\rangle$, $R_{C}\in\left\langle 2.19, 2.05\right\rangle$ and $R_{H}\in\left\langle 0.143, 0.155\right\rangle$.
It is connected with fact that the Eliashberg formalism in contrast to BCS model does not omit the strong-coupling and retardation effects.
\begin{acknowledgments}
The authors are grateful to the Cz{\c{e}}stochowa University of Technology - MSK CzestMAN for granting access to the computing infrastructure built in the project No. POIG.02.03.00-00-028/08 "PLATON - Science Services Platform".
\end{acknowledgments}
\bibliographystyle{apsrev}
|
\section{Introduction}
An {\it integer generalized spline} is a set of vertex labels on an edge-labeled graph that satisfy the condition that if two vertices are joined by an edge, the vertex labels are congruent modulo the edge label. (See Definition \ref{defSplines} for a precise statement.) Figure \ref{Three-cycle} shows examples of splines on a three-cycle.
\begin{figure}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{scope}
\pgfmathsetmacro{\r}{1.25}
\draw[edge] (-90:\r)--(0:\r);
\draw[edge] (0:\r)--(90:\r);
\draw[edge] (90:\r)--(-90:\r);
\node[edgelabel] at (-45:\r) {$2$};
\node[edgelabel] at (45:\r) {$5$};
\node[edgelabel] at (180:\r /4) {$3$};
\node[vertex] at (-90:\r) {$1$};
\node[vertex] at (0:\r) {$1$};
\node[vertex] at (90:\r) {$1$};
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[xshift=1.5 in]
\pgfmathsetmacro{\r}{1.25}
\draw[edge] (-90:\r)--(0:\r);
\draw[edge] (0:\r)--(90:\r);
\draw[edge] (90:\r)--(-90:\r);
\node[edgelabel] at (-45:\r) {$2$};
\node[edgelabel] at (45:\r) {$5$};
\node[edgelabel] at (180:\r /4) {$3$};
\node[vertex] at (-90:\r) {$0$};
\node[vertex] at (0:\r) {$2$};
\node[vertex] at (90:\r) {$12$};
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[xshift=3 in]
\pgfmathsetmacro{\r}{1.25}
\draw[edge] (-90:\r)--(0:\r);
\draw[edge] (0:\r)--(90:\r);
\draw[edge] (90:\r)--(-90:\r);
\node[edgelabel] at (-45:\r) {$2$};
\node[edgelabel] at (45:\r) {$5$};
\node[edgelabel] at (180:\r /4) {$3$};
\node[vertex] at (-90:\r) {$0$};
\node[vertex] at (0:\r) {$0$};
\node[vertex] at (90:\r) {$15$};
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{The edge labels are $\{2,5,3\}$ and the sets of vertex labels $\{1,1,1\}$, $\{0,2,12\}$, and $\{0,0,15\}$ each form a spline on the cycle.}
\label{Three-cycle}
\end{figure}
The term ``spline'' comes from the name of the thin strips of wood used by engineers to model larger constructions like ships or cars. Mathematicians later adopted the term to refer to piecewise polynomials on polytopes with the property that the polynomials on the faces agree at their shared edges up to a given degree of smoothness. These mathematical splines are also used for object-modeling purposes, hence the use of the name.
Billera pioneered the algebraic study of splines, especially looking into questions regarding the dimension of the module of splines \cite{Billera88}. Many people continued Billera's work, including among others, Rose \cite{Rose95,Rose04} and Haas \cite{Haas91} who worked on identifying dimension and bases for the module of splines.
Spline theory developed independently in topology and geometry. Goresky, Kottwitz, and MacPherson \cite{GKM}, Payne \cite{Payne06}, and Bahri, Franz, and Ray \cite{Bahri09} constructed equivariant cohomology rings using splines, although they did not use that name.
Gilbert, Polster, and Tymoczko generalize the notion of splines that we use here to what they call \emph{generalized splines} \cite{Gilbert} . These generalized splines are built on the dual graph of the polytopes found in classical splines. The work of Billera and Rose shows that the two constructions (on polytopes or their duals) are equivalent in most cases, including the cases of classical interest \cite{Billera91-2}.
Cycles turn out to be a particularly important family of graphs to study. Indeed Gilbert, Polster, and Tymoczko show that the ring of generalized splines on a graph $G$ can be decomposed in terms of splines on certain trees and cycles in $G$ \cite{Gilbert}. They completely describe splines on trees, while leaving open the investigation of splines on cycles. Similarly, Rose showed that cycles play a key role in the relations defining modules of splines \cite{Rose04}.
Handschy, Melnick, and Reinders begin analysis of integer generalized splines on cycles \cite{HMR}. They prove the existence of a certain flow-up basis (see Definition \ref{flowupdef}), what we call the smallest-value basis, for splines on cycles, and thus prove that such spline modules are free. They define their basis for arbitrary cycles, but only have formulas for the leading nonzero elements.
In this paper we introduce two new bases for the module of integer generalized splines on cycles: the triangulation basis and the King basis. Each of these bases is fully expressible in terms of the edge labels of the cycle, and each has its own strengths. The triangulation basis, so called because it is constructed from triangulated cycles, is useful because it exists on arbitrary cycles (Theorem \ref{triangbasis}). The advantage of the King basis lies in the fact that it is relatively simple to calculate, with the entries almost constant (Definition \ref{KingSplines}). Although the King basis only exists on cycles with a pair of relatively prime adjacent edge labels, this restriction is not uncommon in applications. In fact an even greater restriction that all edge labels be relatively prime is commonly used \cite{Goldin09,Knutson}. The results of our work naturally generalize to principle ideal domains, which include classical univariate splines and Pr\"{u}fer domains; see forthcoming work \cite{HT}.
As an application we present the multiplication table of splines on cycles where the products of splines are expressed in terms of the King basis. Finding multiplication tables of equivariant cohomology rings in terms of Schubert bases is the central problem of Schubert calculus. We view this work as a step in that geometric direction.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section \ref{prelim} we summarize the important definitions and theorems that we use in our work. In Section \ref{bcsec} we provide a criterion for the existence of flow-up bases. Sections \ref{triangsec} and \ref{kingsec} are dedicated to proving the existence of the triangulation basis and King basis respectively. In the final section we give the multiplication table for the King basis and end with an open question.
\section{Preliminaries}\label{prelim}
\subsection{Results from Handschy, Melnick, and Reinders}
Handschy, Melnick, and Reinders proved a number of results about splines on cycles \cite{HMR}. Many of their propositions and theorems play key roles in our proofs regarding triangulation \ splines and King splines. We also use their notation, which we describe in this section.
\subsubsection{Basic Definitions}
The foundational combinatorial object we study is an edge-labeled graph, defined here:
\begin{definition}[Edge-Labeled Graphs]
\label{defSplines}
Let $G$ be a graph with $k$ edges ordered $e_1, e_2, \dots, e_k$ and $n$ vertices ordered $v_1,...,v_n$. Let $\ell_i$ be a positive integer label on edge $e_i$ and let $L=\{\ell_1,...,\ell_k\}$ be the set of edge labels. Then $(G,L)$ is an edge-labeled graph.
\end{definition}
With this notation for edge-labeled graphs we have the formal definition of splines:
\begin{definition}[Splines]
A spline on the edge-labeled graph $(G,L)$ is a vertex-labeling as follows: if two vertices are connected by an edge $e_i$ then the two vertex labels are equivalent modulo $\ell_i$. We denote a spline $\mathcal{G}=(g_1,...,g_n)$ where $g_i$ is the label on vertex $v_i$ for $1 \leq i \leq n$.
\end{definition}
In this paper we assume the labels $g_i \in \mathbb{Z}$.
\subsubsection{Flow-Up Classes and the Smallest-Value Basis}
Flow-up classes are a particularly nice class of splines on cycles. They arise geometrically (\cite{Goldin09}, \cite{Knutson}, \cite{Tym05}) and are an analogue of upper triangular matrices.
\begin{definition}[Flow-Up Classes]\label{flowupdef}
Fix a cycle with edge labels $(C_n,L)$ and fix $k$ with $1\leq k<n$. A flow-up class $\mathcal{G}_k$ on $(C_n,L)$ is a spline with $k$ leading zeros.
\end{definition}
We say that a basis whose elements are flow-up classes is a \emph{flow-up basis}. The simplest flow-up class is the trivial spline; It exists on any edge-labeled cycle.
\begin{proposition}[Trivial Splines {\cite[Prop 2.5]{HMR}}]
\label{TrivialSplines}
Fix a cycle with edge labels $(C_n,L)$. The smallest flow-up class on $(C_n,L)$ is $\mathcal{G}_0=(1,...,1)$. Moreover, any multiple of $\mathcal{G}_0$ is also a spline. We call the multiples of $\mathcal{G}_0$ trivial splines.
\end{proposition}
The following theorem establishes that flow-up classes exist on any edge-labeled cycle.
\begin{theorem}[Flow-Up Classes on $n$-cycles {\cite[Thrm 4.3]{HMR}}]
\label{FlowUpClassesExist}
Fix a cycle with edge labels $(C_n,L)$. Let $n\geq 3$ and $1 \leq k< n$. There exists a flow-up class $\mathcal{G}_k$ on $(C_n,L)$.
\end{theorem}
The next definition introduces smallest flow-up classes.
\begin{definition}[Smallest Flow-Up Class]
Fix a cycle with edge labels $(C_n,L)$. The smallest flow-up class $\mathcal{G}_k=(0,...,0,g_{k+1},...,g_n)$ on $(C_n,L)$ is the flow-up class whose nonzero entries are positive and if $\mathcal{G}_k'=(0,...,0,g_{k+1}',...,g_n')$ is another flow-up class with positive entries then $g_i' \geq g_i$ for all entries. By convention we consider \\ $\mathcal{G}_0=(1,...,1)$ the smallest flow-up class $\mathcal{G}_0$.
\end{definition}
The following theorem gives an explicit formula for the smallest leading element of flow-up classes.
\begin{theorem}[Smallest Leading Element of $\mathcal{G}_k$ {\cite[Thrm 4.5]{HMR}}]
\label{SmallestElemn}
Fix a cycle with edge labels $(C_n,L)$. Fix $n\geq 3$ and $k$ such that $2 \leq k <n$. Let $\mathcal{G}_{k-1}=(0,...,0,g_k...,g_n)$ be a flow-up class on $(C_n,L)$. The leading element $g_k$ is a multiple of $\textup{lcm}(\ell_{k-1},\gcd(\ell_k,...,\ell_n))$ and there is a flow-up class $\mathcal{G}_{k-1}$ with $g_k=\textup{lcm}(\ell_{k-1},\gcd(\ell_k,...,\ell_n))$.
\end{theorem}
The smallest flow-up classes exist and form a basis for the set of splines given any edge-labeled cycle.
\begin{theorem}[Basis for $n$-Cycles {\cite[Thrm 4.7]{HMR}}]
\label{HMRbasis}
Fix a cycle with edge labels $(C_n,L)$. The smallest flow-up classes $\mathcal{G}_0, \mathcal{G}_1, \dots, \mathcal{G}_{n-1}$ exist on $(C_n,L)$ and form a basis over the integers for the $\mathbb{Z}$-module of splines on $(C_n,L)$.
\end{theorem}
\subsection{Useful Computational Tool}
For reasons related to finding an explicit basis for splines on cycles, we want to find a formula for the value of the variable $x$ in the following pair of congruences:
\[ \begin{cases}
x \equiv y \bmod a \\
x \equiv 0 \bmod b \\
\end{cases} \]
We note the conditions for when such a solution exists and we give an explicit formulation for $x$ in terms of $y$, $a$, and $b$ provided a solution does exist.
\begin{proposition}\label{modprop}
Consider the system of congruences
\[ \begin{cases}
x \equiv y \bmod a \\
x \equiv 0 \bmod b. \\
\end{cases} \]
If this system has a solution then one solution is given by the following formula:
\begin{itemize}
\item If $\frac{a}{\gcd(a,b)}=1$ then $x=b$ is a solution to the system.
\item If $\frac{a}{\gcd(a,b)}\neq 1$ then
\[ x = y \left(\frac{b}{\gcd(a,b)}\right)\left(\frac{b}{\gcd(a,b)}\right)^{-1}_{\bmod \left(\frac{a}{\gcd(a,b)} \right)} \]
is a solution to the system.
\end{itemize}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The Chinese Remainder Theorem tells us that this system of congruences is satisfied if and only if $y\equiv 0 \bmod \gcd(a,b)$. In what follows we will assume that a solution exists, and thus that $y\equiv 0 \bmod \gcd(a,b)$.
\emph{Case 1:} Let's deal first with the case where $\frac{a}{\gcd(a,b)}=1$. This condition implies that $\gcd(a,b)=a$ and so $b=an$ for some $n\in \mathbb{Z}$. Because $y\equiv 0 \bmod \gcd(a,b)$ by assumption and $\gcd(a,b)=a$ we have $y\equiv 0 \bmod a$. In other words, $y= am$ for some $m\in \mathbb{Z}$. Then $x=b$ satisfies the system of congruences because $b$ is congruent to zero modulo $b$ and $b=an$ is congruent to $y=am$ modulo $a$.
\emph{Case 2:} Now suppose $\frac{a}{\gcd(a,b)}\neq 1$. We can rewrite the system of congruences as
\[ \begin{cases}
x = y + as \\
x = bt \\
\end{cases} \]
Equate both expressions.
\[ bt = y+as \]
Recall that $y\equiv 0 \bmod \gcd(a,b)$. This allows us to divide both sides by $\gcd(a,b)$ and get an integer as the result.
\[ \left(\frac{b}{\gcd(a,b)}\right) t = \frac{y}{\gcd(a,b)} + \left(\frac{a}{\gcd(a,b)}\right)s \]
Putting this back into modular form we have
\[ \left(\frac{b}{\gcd(a,b)}\right) t =\frac{y}{\gcd(a,b)} \bmod \left(\frac{a}{\gcd(a,b)}\right). \]
The integers $ \left(\frac{b}{\gcd(a,b)}\right)$ and $\left(\frac{a}{\gcd(a,b)}\right)$ are relatively prime so we can take the inverse of the first modulo the second.
\[ t \equiv \frac{y}{\gcd(a,b)}\left(\frac{b}{\gcd(a,b)}\right)^{-1} \bmod \left(\frac{a}{\gcd(a,b)} \right). \]
Plug this expression for $t$ into the equation $x=bt$:
\[ x = y \left(\frac{b}{\gcd(a,b)}\right)\left(\frac{b}{\gcd(a,b)}\right)^{-1}_{\bmod \left(\frac{a}{\gcd(a,b)} \right)}. \]
This value is a solution to the original system of congruences.
\end{proof}
Notice that this second case simplifies enormously if $gcd(a,b)=1$. In this situation $x$ reduces to: $$x = yb[b^{-1}]_{\text{mod $a$}} $$
\section{Basis Condition}\label{bcsec}
Let $(G,L)$ be an arbitrary graph on $n$ vertices with an arbitrary edge-labeling. Consider a set of flow-up classes $\mathcal{G}_0 \ldots \mathcal{G}_{n-1}$ on $(G,L)$. In this section we give a necessary and sufficient condition for this set to form a basis for the module of the splines on $(G,L)$. Any set $\mathcal{G}_0, \ldots, \mathcal{G}_{n-1}$ that meets this basis condition is called a \emph{flow-up basis}. Such a basis is useful because linear independence is trivially verified.
Let $\mathcal{G}_0 \ldots \mathcal{G}_{n-1}$ be a set of flow-up classes and for each $i$ denote $$\mathcal{G}_i = (0,\ldots, 0, g_{i+1}^{(i)},\ldots, g_n^{(i)}).$$ The subscript of each $g^{(i)}$ indicates the entry-position of $g^{(i)}$ in the spline $\mathcal{G}_i$. The superscript $(i)$ is to keep track of the fact that we are working with the flow-up class $\mathcal{G}_i$. In much of this paper and in previous work the superscript is suppressed when the flow-up class in question is obvious.
\begin{theorem}[Basis Condition]
The following are equivalent:
\begin{itemize}
\item The set $\{\mathcal{G}_0,\ldots,\mathcal{G}_{n-1}\}$ forms a flow-up basis.
\item For each flow-up spline $A_i = (0,\ldots,0,a_{i+1},\ldots,a_{n})$ the entry $a_{i+1}$ of $A_i$ is an integer multiple of the entry $g_{i+1}^{(i)}$ of $\mathcal{G}_i$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $\mathcal{G}_0,\ldots,\mathcal{G}_{n-1}$ forms a flow-up basis for the module of splines on a graph $(G,L)$. Suppose that $A_i = (0,\ldots,0,a_{i+1},\ldots,a_{n})$ is a spline on $(G,L)$ with exactly $i$ leading zeros. We will show that $a_{i+1} = cg_{i+1}^{(i)}$ for some $c \in \mathbb{Z}$.
Since $\mathcal{G}_0,\ldots,\mathcal{G}_{n-1}$ form a basis, we can write $A_i$ as a linear combination of the splines $\mathcal{G}_0,\ldots,\mathcal{G}_{n-1}$. The fact that $A_i$ has $i$ leading zeros implies that the coefficients of $\mathcal{G}_0,\ldots,\mathcal{G}_{i-1}$ must be 0. Thus we have $A_i = c_i\mathcal{G}_i + \ldots + c_{n-1}\mathcal{G}_{n-1}$ for some \mbox{$c_i,\ldots,c_{n-1} \in \mathbb{Z}$}. Consider the $(i+1)^{th}$ entry of the splines on the right-hand side of this equation. Note that $\mathcal{G}_i$ is the only element of $\mathcal{G}_i,\ldots,\mathcal{G}_{n-1}$ with a nonzero entry in this position. Considering the $(i+1)^{th}$ entry on each side of the equation, we have $$a_{i+1} = c_ig_{i+1}^{(i)} + c_{i+1}0 + \ldots + c_{n-1}0 = c_ig_{i+1}^{(i)}.$$
Now we prove the converse. Let $A = (a_1,\ldots, a_n)$ be an arbitrary spline on $(G,L)$. We prove by induction that $$A = A'_j + \sum_{k=0}^{j-1}c_k \mathcal{G}_k$$ for all $1 \leq j \leq n$ where $A'_j$ is a spline with (at least) $j$ leading zeros.
For our base case, note that by hypothesis we have
$$A = \left(\begin{array}{c}a_{n} -c_0g_{n}^{(0)}\\ \vdots \\ a_2 - c_0g_{2}^{(0)}\\0\end{array}\right) + c_0\mathcal{G}_0$$ since $a_1 = c_0g_{1}^{(0)}$. Letting $A'_1 = (0, a_2 - c_0g_{2}^{(0)},\ldots,a_{n} -c_0g_{n}^{(0)})$ gives \mbox{$A = A'_1+ \sum_{k=0}^{0}c_k \mathcal{G}_k$}. Thus our claim holds for $j=1$.
Suppose as our induction hypothesis that we have $A = A'_i + \sum_{k=0}^{i-1}c_k \mathcal{G}_k$ for some $1 \leq i \leq n-1$. We can write this as $$A = \left(\begin{array}{c}a_{n}' \\ \vdots \\a_{i+1}'\\0\\ \vdots \\0\end{array}\right) + \sum_{k=0}^{i-1}c_k \mathcal{G}_k.$$
By hypothesis we have that $a_{i+1}' = c_i g_{i+1}^{(i)}$ for some $c_i \in \mathbb{Z}$. So we can write
$$A = \left(\begin{array}{c}a_{n}' -c_i g_{n}^{(i)}\\ \vdots \\ a_{i+2}' - c_i g_{i+2}^{(i)}\\ 0 \\ 0\\ \vdots \\0\end{array}\right) + \sum_{k=0}^{i}c_k \mathcal{G}_k.$$
Letting $A'_{i+1} = (0,\ldots,0,0,a_{i+2}' - c_i g_{i+2}^{(i)},\ldots,a_{n}' -c_i g_{n}^{(i)})$ gives us $A = A'_{i+1} + \sum_{k=0}^{i}c_k \mathcal{G}_k.$
By induction we have $A = A'_j + \sum_{k=0}^{j-1}c_k \mathcal{G}_k$ for all $1 \leq j \leq n$. In particular we have $A = A'_n + \sum_{k=0}^{n-1}c_k \mathcal{G}_k$. But $A'_n$ is a spline with $n$ leading zeros. So $A'_n = (0,\ldots,0)$. Thus $A = \sum_{k=0}^{n-1}c_k \mathcal{G}_k$. We conclude that every spline can be written as a linear combination of $\mathcal{G}_0,\ldots, \mathcal{G}_{n-1}$ as desired.
\end{proof}
One important observation is that the basis condition is only a condition on the first nonzero entry of each spline in a set of flow-up classes $\mathcal{G}_0,\ldots, \mathcal{G}_{n-1}$. This gives us the following useful corollary:
\begin{corollary}\label{bccor}
Suppose the set of flow-up classes $\{\mathcal{G}_0,\ldots, \mathcal{G}_{n-1}\}$ forms a basis for the module of splines. Suppose $\{\mathcal{G}'_0,\ldots, \mathcal{G}'_{n-1}\}$ is a set of flow-up classes for which for each $i$ the first nonzero entry of $\mathcal{G}'_i$ equals the first nonzero entry of $\mathcal{G}_i$. Then the set $\{\mathcal{G}'_0,\ldots, \mathcal{G}'_{n-1}\}$ also forms a basis for the module of splines.
\end{corollary}
\section{The Triangulation Splines}\label{triangsec}
Triangulation \ splines form another basis of flow-up classes for cycles. They are similar to Handschy, Melnick, and Reinders' smallest-value flow-up classes in that the leading nonzero elements of both are the same. However we give a formula for every entry of the triangulation \ splines, unlike the smallest-value flow-up classes.
\begin{definition}[Triangulation \ Splines]\label{GSFUCdef}
Fix an edge-labeled cycle $(C_n,L)$. For \mbox{$1 \leq k \leq n-1$} the vector $\mathcal{H}_k = (0,...,0,h_{k+1},...,h_n)$ has entries as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item $h_{k+1} = \textup{lcm}(\ell_k,\gcd(\ell_{k+1},...,\ell_n))$
\item For $k+1 < i \leq n$ if $\frac{\ell_{i-1}}{\gcd(\ell_{i-1},...,\ell_n)}=1$ then $h_i = \gcd(\ell_i,...,\ell_n)$.
\item For $k+1 < i \leq n$ if $\frac{\ell_{i-1}}{\gcd(\ell_{i-1},...,\ell_n)}\neq 1$ then
\[ h_i = h_{i-1} \left(\frac{\gcd(\ell_i,...,\ell_n)}{\gcd(\ell_{i-1},...,\ell_n)}\right)\left(\frac{\gcd(\ell_i,...,\ell_n)}{\gcd(\ell_{i-1},...,\ell_n)}\right)^{-1}_{\bmod \frac{\ell_{i-1}}{\gcd(\ell_{i-1},...,\ell_n)}} \]
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
The next theorem establishes that triangulation \ splines exist on any edge-labeled cycle.
\begin{theorem}[Existence of Triangulation \ Splines]\label{triangbasis}
Fix an edge-labeled cycle $(C_n,L)$. For $1\leq k \leq n-1$ the vector $\mathcal{H}_k$ is a spline on $(C_n,L)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Start with an edge-labeled cycle $(C_n,L)$. For $3 \leq k \leq n-1$ add an edge between vertices $v_1$ and $v_k$ as shown in Figure \ref{triang-cycle}. Label the edge between $v_1$ and $v_k$ with $\gcd(\ell_k,...,\ell_n)$. We will show the vector $\mathcal{H}_k$ satisfies all of the edge conditions represented by this graph, which implies it satisfies the cycle's edge conditions in particular.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.5\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{scope}
\pgfmathsetmacro{\r}{2.75}
\pgfmathsetmacro{\ro}{3}
\pgfmathsetmacro{\edge}{36}
\node (a) at ({-90 + \edge*0}:\r) {};
\node (b) at ({-90 + \edge*1}:\r) {};
\node (c) at ({-90 + \edge*2}:\r) {};
\node (d) at ({-90 + \edge*3}:\r) {};
\node (e) at ({-90 + \edge*4}:\r) {};
\node (f) at ({-90 + \edge*5}:\r) {};
\draw[edge] (a)--(b);
\draw[edge] (b)--(c);
\draw[edge] (c)--(d);
\draw[dashededge] (d)--(e);
\draw[edge] (e)--(f);
\draw[edge] (f)--(a);
\node[edgelabel] at ({-72 + \edge*0}:\ro) {$\ell_1$};
\node[edgelabel,right] at ({-72 + \edge*1}:\r) {$\ell_2$};
\node[edgelabel] at ({-72 + \edge*2}:\ro) {$\ell_3$};
\node[edgelabel] at ({-72 + \edge*4}:\ro) {$\ell_{n-1}$};
\node[edgelabel] at (180:\ro /5) {$\ell_n$};
\node[rectanglevertex] at (a) {$$};
\node[rectanglevertex] at (b) {$$};
\node[rectanglevertex] at (c) {$$};
\node[rectanglevertex] at (d) {$$};
\node[rectanglevertex] at (e) {$$};
\node[rectanglevertex] at (f) {$$};
\draw[edge] (a)--(c);
\draw[edge] (a)--(d);
\draw[edge] (a)-- (e);
\node[rotate=73,newedgelabel] at (0.65,0) {$\gcd(\ell_{n-1},\ell_n)$};
\node[rotate=56,newedgelabel] at (1.43,-.43) {$\gcd(\ell_4,...,\ell_n)$};
\node[rotate=38,newedgelabel] at (1.43,-1.43) {$\gcd(\ell_3,...,\ell_n)$};
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Add edges}
\end{subfigure}
~
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.5\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{scope}
\pgfmathsetmacro{\r}{2.75}
\pgfmathsetmacro{\ro}{3}
\pgfmathsetmacro{\edge}{36}
\node (a) at ({-90 + \edge*0}:\r) {};
\node (b) at ({-90 + \edge*1}:\r) {};
\node (c) at ({-90 + \edge*2}:\r) {};
\node (d) at ({-90 + \edge*3}:\r) {};
\node (e) at ({-90 + \edge*4}:\r) {};
\node (f) at ({-90 + \edge*5}:\r) {};
\draw[edge] (a)--(b);
\draw[edge] (b)--(c);
\draw[edge] (c)--(d);
\draw[dashededge] (d)--(e);
\draw[edge] (e)--(f);
\draw[edge] (f)--(a);
\node[edgelabel] at ({-72 + \edge*0}:\ro) {$\ell_1$};
\node[edgelabel,right] at ({-72 + \edge*1}:\r) {$\ell_2$};
\node[edgelabel] at ({-72 + \edge*2}:\ro) {$\ell_3$};
\node[edgelabel] at ({-72 + \edge*4}:\ro) {$\ell_{n-1}$};
\node[edgelabel] at (180:\ro /5) {$\ell_n$};
\draw[edge] (a)--(c);
\draw[edge] (a)--(d);
\draw[edge] (a)-- (e);
\node[rotate=73,newedgelabel] at (0.65,0) {$\gcd(\ell_{n-1},\ell_n)$};
\node[rotate=56,newedgelabel] at (1.43,-.43) {$\gcd(\ell_4,...,\ell_n)$};
\node[rotate=38,newedgelabel] at (1.43,-1.43) {$\gcd(\ell_3,...,\ell_n)$};
\node[rectanglevertex] at (a) {$0$};
\node[rectanglevertex] at (b) {$h_2$};
\node[rectanglevertex] at (c) {$h_3$};
\node[rectanglevertex] at (d) {$$};
\node[rectanglevertex] at (e) {$$};
\node[rectanglevertex] at (f) {$$};
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Base case}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Triangulated Cycle}
\label{triang-cycle}
\end{figure}
Label vertices $v_1,...,v_k$ zero. Label vertex $v_{k+1}$ with
\[ h_{k+1} = \textup{lcm}(\ell_k,\gcd(\ell_{k+1},...,\ell_n)). \]
The integer $h_{k+1}$ satisfies the edge conditions on the downward edges (edges with lower-indexed vertices) at vertex $v_{k+1}$ by construction:
\[ \begin{cases}
h_{k+1} \equiv 0 \bmod \ell_k \\
h_{k+1} \equiv 0 \bmod \gcd(\ell_{k+1},...,\ell_n) \\
\end{cases} \]
This is our base case, and we will label vertices from $h_{k+2}$ to $h_{n-1}$ inductively.
Our induction hypothesis is that $h_{k+1},...,h_i$ for $k+1 \leq i \leq n-1$ satisfy the edge conditions for downward edges. Consider the system of congruences at vertex $v_{i+1}$ represented by the edges labeled $\ell_i$ and $\gcd(\ell_{i+1},...,\ell_n)$:
\[ \begin{cases}
h_{i+1} \equiv h_i \bmod \ell_i \\
h_{i+1} \equiv 0 \bmod \gcd(\ell_{i+1},...,\ell_n) \\
\end{cases} \]
By the Chinese Remainder Theorem a solution $h_{i+1}$ exists if and only if $h_i \equiv 0 \bmod \gcd(\ell_i, \gcd(\ell_{i+1},...,\ell_n))$. In other words a solution exists if and only if $h_i \equiv 0 \bmod \gcd(\ell_i,...,\ell_n)$. By our induction hypothesis $h_i$ satisfies the downward edge conditions at vertex $v_i$ so in particular $h_i \equiv 0 \bmod \gcd(\ell_i,...,\ell_n)$. Thus a solution $h_{i+1}$ exists.
This means
\[ h_{i+1}= \begin{cases}
h_{i} \left(\frac{\gcd(\ell_{i+1},...,\ell_n)}{\gcd(\ell_{i},...,\ell_n)}\right)\left(\frac{\gcd(\ell_{i+1},...,\ell_n)}{\gcd(\ell_{i},...,\ell_n)}\right)^{-1}_{\bmod \frac{\ell_{i}}{\gcd(\ell_{i+1},...,\ell_n)}} & \text{ if } \frac{\ell_i}{\gcd(\ell_i,...,\ell_n)}\neq 1 \\
\gcd(\ell_{i+1},...,\ell_n) & \text{ if } \frac{\ell_i}{\gcd(\ell_i,...,\ell_n)} = 1
\end{cases}
\]
is a solution by Proposition \ref{modprop}.
In conclusion we can label each vertex $v_i$ for $k+1 < i \leq n-1$ with
\[ h_{i} = \begin{cases}
h_{i-1} \left(\frac{\gcd(\ell_{i},...,\ell_n)}{\gcd(\ell_{i-1},...,\ell_n)}\right)\left(\frac{\gcd(\ell_{i},...,\ell_n)}{\gcd(\ell_{i-1},...,\ell_n)}\right)^{-1}_{\bmod \frac{\ell_{i-1}}{\gcd(\ell_{i-1},...,\ell_n)}} & \text{ if } \frac{\ell_{i-1}}{\gcd(\ell_{i-1},...,\ell_n)}\neq 1 \\
\gcd(\ell_i,...,\ell_n) & \text{ if } \frac{\ell_{i-1}}{\gcd(\ell_{i-1},...,\ell_n)} = 1
\end{cases}
\]
and $h_i$ will satisfy the edge conditions represented by the edges labeled $\ell_{i-1}$ and $\gcd(\ell_i,...,\ell_n)$.
Lastly for an integer $h_n$ to satisfy the edge conditions at vertex $v_n$ it must satisfy the following system of congruences:
\[ \begin{cases}
h_n \equiv h_{n-1} \bmod \ell_{n-1} \\
h_n \equiv 0 \bmod \ell_n \\
\end{cases} \]
The Chinese Remainder Theorem tells us that a solution $h_n$ exists to this system if and only if $h_{n-1} \equiv 0 \bmod \gcd(\ell_{n-1},\ell_n)$. We showed by induction that our choice of $h_{n-1}$ satisfies the edge conditions of the downward edges at the $(n-1)$-th vertex. In particular this means $h_{n-1} \equiv 0 \bmod \gcd(\ell_{n-1},\ell_n)$ because this is the edge condition represented by the edge labeled $\gcd(\ell_{n-1},\ell_n)$.
Therefore
\[ h_{n}= \begin{cases}
h_{n-1} \left(\frac{\ell_n}{\gcd(\ell_{n-1},\ell_n)}\right)\left(\frac{\ell_n}{\gcd(\ell_{n-1},\ell_n)}\right)^{-1}_{\bmod \frac{\ell_{n-1}}{\gcd(\ell_{n-1},\ell_n)}} & \text{ if } \frac{\ell_{n-1}}{\gcd(\ell_{n-1},\ell_n)}\neq 1\\
\ell_n & \text{ if } \frac{\ell_{n-1}}{\gcd(\ell_{n-1},\ell_n)}= 1
\end{cases} \]
satisfies the vertex $v_n$ edge conditions by Proposition \ref{modprop}. Choose this integer to label the $n$-th vertex.
All of the congruences represented by the graph are accounted for so the vector $\mathcal{H}_k=(0,...,0,h_{k+1},...,h_n)$ is a spline on the graph. In particular $\mathcal{H}_k$ is a spline on the cycle $(C_n,L)$ as desired.
\end{proof}
The Corollary to the Basis Condition Theorem allows us to succinctly conclude that the set of triangulation \ splines $\mathcal{H}_0,...,\mathcal{H}_{n-1}$ forms a basis for the set of splines on an edge-labeled cycle.
\begin{theorem}\label{GSFUCthm}
Fix an edge-labeled cycle $(C_n,L)$. The set of triangulation \ splines $\mathcal{H}_0,...,\mathcal{H}_{n-1}$ form a basis for the set of splines on $(C_n,L)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The set of smallest flow-up classes $\mathcal{G}_0,...,\mathcal{G}_{n-1}$ form a basis for the set of splines on $(C_n,L)$ by Theorem \ref{HMRbasis}. The leading entry of $\mathcal{H}_k$ equals the leading entry of $\mathcal{G}_k$ by construction for $0 \leq k \leq n-1$. Thus the set of triangulation \ splines $\mathcal{H}_0,...,\mathcal{H}_k$ forms a basis for the set of splines on $(C_n,L)$ by Corollary \ref{bccor}.
\end{proof}
As an example, we calculate the triangulation basis for the $4$-cycle with edge labels $\{2,6,10,15\}$.
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{scope}[scale=.7]
\pgfmathsetmacro{\r}{1.25}
\draw[edge] (-135:\r)--(-45:\r);
\draw[edge] (-45:\r)--(45:\r);
\draw[edge] (45:\r)--(135:\r);
\draw[edge] (135:\r) -- (-135:\r);
\node[edgelabel] at (-90:\r) {$2$};
\node[edgelabel] at (0:\r) {$6$};
\node[edgelabel] at (90:\r) {$15$};
\node[edgelabel] at (180:\r) {$10$};
\node[rectanglevertex] at (-135:\r) {$$};
\node[rectanglevertex] at (-45:\r) {$$};
\node[rectanglevertex] at (45:\r) {$$};
\node[rectanglevertex] at (135:\r) {$$};
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
The first basis element $\mathcal{H}_0$ is, as always, the trivial spline $(1,1,1,1)$. The nonzero entries of the second basis element $\mathcal{H}_1$ are calculated as follows:
\begin{flalign*}
h_2^{(1)} &=\textup{lcm}(2,\gcd(6,10,15))=2 \\
h_3^{(1)} & =2\left(\frac{\gcd(15,10)}{\gcd(6,15,10)}\right)\left(\frac{\gcd(15,10)}{\gcd(6,15,10)}\right)^{-1}_{\bmod \frac{6}{\gcd(6,15,10)}}=2\cdot5\cdot(5)^{-1}_{\bmod 6}=50 \\
h_4^{(1)} &=50\left(\frac{\gcd(10)}{\gcd(15,10)}\right)\left(\frac{\gcd(10)}{\gcd(15,10)}\right)^{-1}_{\bmod \frac{15}{\gcd(15,10)}}=50\cdot2\cdot(2)^{-1}_{\bmod 3}=200
\end{flalign*}
The nonzero entries of the third basis element $\mathcal{H}_2$ are calculated as follows:
\begin{flalign*}
h_3^{(2)} &=\textup{lcm}(6,\gcd(10,15))=30 \\
h_4^{(2)} &=30\left(\frac{\gcd(10)}{\gcd(15,10)}\right)\left(\frac{\gcd(10)}{\gcd(15,10)}\right)^{-1}_{\bmod \frac{15}{\gcd(15,10)}}=50\cdot2\cdot(2)^{-1}_{\bmod 3}=120
\end{flalign*}
The only nonzero element of the final basis element $\mathcal{H}_3$ is $h_4^{(3)}=\textup{lcm}(15,10)=30$. Thus we have the following triangulation basis for the $4$-cycle with edge labels $\{2,6,10,15\}$: $\mathcal{H}_0=(1,1,1,1)$, $\mathcal{H}_1=(0,2,15,200)$, $\mathcal{H}_3=(0,0,30,120)$, and \mbox{$\mathcal{H}_4=(0,0,0,30)$}.
\section{The King Splines}\label{kingsec}
In this section we define King splines on $n$-cycles and prove that they form a basis for the set of splines.
\begin{definition}[King splines]
\label{KingSplines}
Fix a cycle with edge-labels $(C_n,L)$ and assume $\ell_{n-1}$ and $\ell_n$ relatively prime. The King splines on $(C_n,L)$ are the vectors
\[K_0= \begin{pmatrix} 1 \\ 1 \\ \vdots \\ 1 \\ 1 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix},
K_1= \begin{pmatrix} k_1 \\ \ell_1 \\ \vdots \\ \ell_1 \\ \ell_1 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix},
K_2 = \begin{pmatrix} k_2 \\ \ell_2 \\ \vdots \\ \ell_2 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix}, ... ,
K_{n-1}= \begin{pmatrix} k_{n-1} \\ 0 \\ \vdots \\ 0 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix}\]
where
\[ k_i= \begin{cases}
\ell_i\cdot \ell_{n}[\ell_{n}^{-1}]_{\text{mod $\ell_{n-1}$}} & \text{for } 1 \leq i \leq n-2 \\
\ell_{n-1}\ell_n & \text{for } i=n-1.
\end{cases} \]
By convention, we call $K_0$ the trivial King spline.
\end{definition}
As our terminology suggests, the King splines are in fact splines.
\begin{theorem}
Let $n\geq 3$. Fix a cycle with edge-labels $(C_n,L)$ with $\ell_{n-1}$ and $\ell_n$ relatively prime. The King splines $K_0 ,...,K_{n-1}$ are splines on $(C_n,L)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
First we note that the trivial King spline $K_0$ is the same as the trivial spline $\mathcal{G}_0$ which is indeed a spline on $(C_n,L)$ by Proposition \ref{TrivialSplines}.
Consider an arbitrary King spline $K_i = (0,\ldots,0,\ell_i,\ldots,\ell_i,k_{n-1})$ where \mbox{$1 \leq i \leq n-2$}. It has zero for its first $i$ entries, $\ell_i$ for entries $i+1$ to $n-1$, and $k_{n-1}$ for its last entry. We want to show that $K_i$ is a spline on $(C_n,L)$. Note that zero is congruent to itself modulo any integer, so in particular the following congruences are satisfied:
\begin{equation}\label{neweq1}
\begin{cases}
0 \equiv 0 \bmod \ell_j & \text{for } 1 \leq j \leq i-1 \\
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Also, since the integer $\ell_i$ is congruent to zero modulo $\ell_i$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{neweq2}
\ell_i \equiv 0 \bmod \ell_i
\end{equation}
The integer $\ell_i$ is congruent to itself modulo any integer, so in particular the following congruences are satisfied:
\begin{equation}\label{neweq3}
\begin{cases}
\ell_i \equiv \ell_i \bmod \ell_{j} & \text{for } i+1 \leq j \leq n-2 \\
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Finally we know $k_i=\ell_i\cdot \ell_{n}[\ell_{n}^{-1}]_{\text{mod $\ell_{n-1}$}}$ satisfies the following two congruences
\begin{equation}\label{neweq4} \begin{cases}
k_i \equiv \ell_i \bmod \ell_{n-1} \\
k_i \equiv 0 \bmod \ell_n \\
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
by Proposition \ref{modprop}. Collect the congruences in \ref{neweq1}, \ref{neweq2}, \ref{neweq3}, and \ref{neweq4} into a single system of congruences. This system represents the edge conditions on $(C_n,L)$. The vector $K_i$ satisfies all of these congruences so $K_i$ is a spline on $(C_n,L)$.
Now consider the vector $K_{n-1}=(0,...,0,k_{n-1})$. Zero is congruent to itself modulo any integer, so the following system of congruences is satisfied:
\begin{equation}\label{eq4}
\begin{cases}
0 \equiv 0 \bmod \ell_j & \text{for } 1 \leq j \leq n-2.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Since $k_{n-1}=\ell_{n-1} \ell_n$ we know
\begin{equation}\label{neweq5}
\begin{cases}
k_{n-1} \equiv 0 \bmod \ell_{n-1} \\
k_{n-1} \equiv 0 \bmod \ell_n \\
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Collect the congruences in \ref{eq4} and \ref{neweq5} into a single system. This system represents the edge conditions on $(C_n,L)$. The vector $K_{n-1}$ satisfies all of these congruences so $K_{n-1}$ is a spline on $(C_n,L)$.
Thus we have that $K_i$ is a spline for all $0 \leq i \leq n-1$ as desired.
\end{proof}
Now that we know the King splines are splines, we confirm that they form a basis.
\begin{theorem}
Fix a cycle with edge labels $(C_n,L)$ with $\ell_{n-1}$ and $\ell_n$ relatively prime. The set of King splines $K_0,...,K_{n-1}$ forms a basis for the set of splines on $(C_n,L)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The set of smallest flow-up classes $\mathcal{G}_0,...,\mathcal{G}_{n-1}$ form a basis for the set of splines on $(C_n,L)$ by Theorem \ref{HMRbasis}. We constructed the King splines so that the leading entry $\mathcal{K}_i$ equals the leading entry of $\mathcal{G}_i$ for $0\leq i \leq n-1$. Thus the set of King splines $K_0,...,K_{n-1}$ forms a basis for the set of splines on $(C_n,L)$ by Corollary \ref{bccor}.
\end{proof}
\section{Multiplication Tables}\label{multsec}
The fact that we have simple explicit formulas for the entries of the King basis is a powerful computational tool. In this section we use the King basis to write the product of any pair of basis elements as a linear combination of basis elements. This kind of calculation is important in geometry and topology, which use splines over polynomial rings to describe cohomology rings.
\subsection{Multiplication Tables for $n$-Cycles on the King Basis} When multiplying splines the operation is performed component-wise. Consider the King basis on a given n-cycle.
Since the entries in the trivial spline $K_0$ are all ones, multiplying any spline $K_i$ (with $0\leq i \leq n-1$) by $K_0$ simply yields $K_i$. The following theorem gives us the product of any pair of non-trivial King splines.
\bigskip
\begin{theorem}
For arbitrary $K_i, K_j$ with $i, j \neq 0$ and $i \leq j$, we have the product
\[ K_i K_j = l_i K_j + \frac{k_j (k_i - l_i)}{k_{n-1}}K_{n-1}.\]
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We give a proof by construction.
Consider arbitrary basis elements $K_i$ and $K_j$ with $i, j \neq 0$ and $i \leq j$. Their product $K_i K_j$ has zeros up to the $j^{th}$ entry. The entries numbered $j + 1$ through $n - 1$ are $\ell_i \cdot \ell_j$. The last entry is $k_i \cdot k_j$.
Note that $\ell_i \cdot K_j$ has zeros for the first $j$ entries, $\ell_i \cdot \ell_j$ from entries $j + 1$ to $n - 1$, and $\ell_i \cdot k_j$ for the $n^{th}$ entry. This is almost exactly the product $K_i K_j$. However we want this last entry to be $k_i \cdot k_j$. Adding $\frac{k_j (k_i - l_i)}{k_{n-1}}K_{n-1}$ gives the desired result.
\smallskip
Thus for $K_i K_j$ with $i, j \neq 0$ and $i \leq j$ we have
\begin{center}
$K_i K_j= \ell_i K_j + \frac{k_i k_j - l_i k_j}{k_{n-1}}K_{n-1} = \ell_i K_j + \frac{k_j (k_i - l_i)}{k_{n-1}}K_{n-1}$
\end{center}
\bigskip
Since we are working in the integers, our last step is to prove that the coefficient $$\frac{k_j (k_i - \ell_i)}{k_{n-1}}$$ is indeed an integer. We know $k_i \equiv \ell_i \bmod \ell_{n-1}$ because $K_i$ is a spline. Say \mbox{$k_i - \ell_i = p\ell_{n-1}$} for some $p \in \mathbb{Z}$. Similarly, we know $k_j \equiv 0 \bmod \ell_n$ because $K_j$ is a spline. Say $k_j = q \ell_n$ for some $q \in \mathbb{Z}$. By definition we have $k_{n-1} = \ell_{n-1}\ell_n$. Plugging these values into the expression $\frac{k_i k_j - l_i k_j}{k_{n-1}}$ yields the following:
\begin{equation*}
\frac{k_j (k_i - \ell_i)}{k_{n-1}} = \frac{(q\ell_n)(p\ell_{n-1})}{\ell_{n-1}\ell_n} = pq
\end{equation*}
Thus $\frac{k_j (k_i - \ell_i)}{k_{n-1}}$ is always an integer.
\end{proof}
Note that the product $K_i K_{n -1}$ for any $i \leq n - 1$ simplifies significantly.
\begin{corollary}
Choose any $i \neq 0$. Then $K_i K_{n-1} = k_iK_{n-1}.$
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
We apply the formula for the product $K_iK_j$ to the particular case where $j = n-1$ and simplify:
\begin{equation*}
K_i K_{n-1} = \ell_i K_{n-1} + \frac{k_{n - 1}(k_i - \ell_i)}{k_{n-1}}K_{n-1} = k_i K_{n-1}
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
\bigskip
\noindent For example consider the 5-cycle with edge labels $\{3, 4, 8, 2, 5\}$. The King basis on a 5-cycle with these labels looks like the following:
\bigskip
\begin{multicols}{5}
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{scope}[scale=.8]
\pgfmathsetmacro{\r}{1}
\node at (.1,0) {$K_0$};
\draw[edge] (-72:\r)--(0:\r);
\draw[edge] (0:\r)--(72:\r);
\draw[edge] (72:\r)--(144:\r);
\draw[edge] (144:\r) -- (-144:\r);
\draw[edge] (-144:\r) -- (-72:\r);
\node[edgelabel] at (-108:\r) {$5$};
\node[edgelabel] at (-36:\r) {$3$};
\node[edgelabel] at (36:\r) {$4$};
\node[edgelabel] at (108:\r) {$8$};
\node[edgelabel] at (180:\r) {$2$};
\node[vertex] at (-72:\r) {$1$};
\node[vertex] at (0:\r) {$1$};
\node[vertex] at (72:\r) {$1$};
\node[vertex] at (144:\r) {$1$};
\node[vertex] at (-144:\r) {$1$};
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\columnbreak
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{scope}
\pgfmathsetmacro{\r}{1}
\node at (.1,0) {$K_1$};
\draw[edge] (-72:\r)--(0:\r);
\draw[edge] (0:\r)--(72:\r);
\draw[edge] (72:\r)--(144:\r);
\draw[edge] (144:\r) -- (-144:\r);
\draw[edge] (-144:\r) -- (-72:\r);
\node[edgelabel] at (-108:\r) {$5$};
\node[edgelabel] at (-36:\r) {$3$};
\node[edgelabel] at (36:\r) {$4$};
\node[edgelabel] at (108:\r) {$8$};
\node[edgelabel] at (180:\r) {$2$};
\node[vertex] at (-72:\r) {$0$};
\node[vertex] at (0:\r) {$3$};
\node[vertex] at (72:\r) {$3$};
\node[vertex] at (144:\r) {$3$};
\node[vertex] at (-144:\r) {$15$};
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\columnbreak
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{scope}
\pgfmathsetmacro{\r}{1}
\node at (.1,0) {$K_2$};
\draw[edge] (-72:\r)--(0:\r);
\draw[edge] (0:\r)--(72:\r);
\draw[edge] (72:\r)--(144:\r);
\draw[edge] (144:\r) -- (-144:\r);
\draw[edge] (-144:\r) -- (-72:\r);
\node[edgelabel] at (-108:\r) {$5$};
\node[edgelabel] at (-36:\r) {$3$};
\node[edgelabel] at (36:\r) {$4$};
\node[edgelabel] at (108:\r) {$8$};
\node[edgelabel] at (180:\r) {$2$};
\node[vertex] at (-72:\r) {$0$};
\node[vertex] at (0:\r) {$0$};
\node[vertex] at (72:\r) {$4$};
\node[vertex] at (144:\r) {$4$};
\node[vertex] at (-144:\r) {$20$};
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\columnbreak
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{scope}
\pgfmathsetmacro{\r}{1}
\node at (.1,0) {$K_3$};
\draw[edge] (-72:\r)--(0:\r);
\draw[edge] (0:\r)--(72:\r);
\draw[edge] (72:\r)--(144:\r);
\draw[edge] (144:\r) -- (-144:\r);
\draw[edge] (-144:\r) -- (-72:\r);
\node[edgelabel] at (-108:\r) {$5$};
\node[edgelabel] at (-36:\r) {$3$};
\node[edgelabel] at (36:\r) {$4$};
\node[edgelabel] at (108:\r) {$8$};
\node[edgelabel] at (180:\r) {$2$};
\node[vertex] at (-72:\r) {$0$};
\node[vertex] at (0:\r) {$0$};
\node[vertex] at (72:\r) {$0$};
\node[vertex] at (144:\r) {$8$};
\node[vertex] at (-144:\r) {$40$};
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\columnbreak
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{scope}
\pgfmathsetmacro{\r}{1}
\node at (.1,0) {$K_4$};
\draw[edge] (-72:\r)--(0:\r);
\draw[edge] (0:\r)--(72:\r);
\draw[edge] (72:\r)--(144:\r);
\draw[edge] (144:\r) -- (-144:\r);
\draw[edge] (-144:\r) -- (-72:\r);
\node[edgelabel] at (-108:\r) {$5$};
\node[edgelabel] at (-36:\r) {$3$};
\node[edgelabel] at (36:\r) {$4$};
\node[edgelabel] at (108:\r) {$8$};
\node[edgelabel] at (180:\r) {$2$};
\node[vertex] at (-72:\r) {$0$};
\node[vertex] at (0:\r) {$0$};
\node[vertex] at (72:\r) {$0$};
\node[vertex] at (144:\r) {$0$};
\node[vertex] at (-144:\r) {$10$};
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\end{multicols}
\bigskip
Let's multiply the elements $K_1$ and $K_3$. We obtain \\
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{scope}
\node at (-3,0) {$K_1 K_3 = $ };
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}
\pgfmathsetmacro{\r}{1}
\node at (.1,0) {$K_1$};
\draw[edge] (-72:\r)--(0:\r);
\draw[edge] (0:\r)--(72:\r);
\draw[edge] (72:\r)--(144:\r);
\draw[edge] (144:\r) -- (-144:\r);
\draw[edge] (-144:\r) -- (-72:\r);
\node[edgelabel] at (-108:\r) {$5$};
\node[edgelabel] at (-36:\r) {$3$};
\node[edgelabel] at (36:\r) {$4$};
\node[edgelabel] at (108:\r) {$8$};
\node[edgelabel] at (180:\r) {$2$};
\node[vertex] at (-72:\r) {$0$};
\node[vertex] at (0:\r) {$3$};
\node[vertex] at (72:\r) {$3$};
\node[vertex] at (144:\r) {$3$};
\node[vertex] at (-144:\r) {$15$};
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}
\node at (.5,0) {\hspace{1in}$\times$\hspace{1in}};
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[xshift=1.5in]
\pgfmathsetmacro{\r}{1}
\node at (.1,0) {$K_3$};
\draw[edge] (-72:\r)--(0:\r);
\draw[edge] (0:\r)--(72:\r);
\draw[edge] (72:\r)--(144:\r);
\draw[edge] (144:\r) -- (-144:\r);
\draw[edge] (-144:\r) -- (-72:\r);
\node[edgelabel] at (-108:\r) {$5$};
\node[edgelabel] at (-36:\r) {$3$};
\node[edgelabel] at (36:\r) {$4$};
\node[edgelabel] at (108:\r) {$8$};
\node[edgelabel] at (180:\r) {$2$};
\node[vertex] at (-72:\r) {$0$};
\node[vertex] at (0:\r) {$0$};
\node[vertex] at (72:\r) {$0$};
\node[vertex] at (144:\r) {$8$};
\node[vertex] at (-144:\r) {$40$};
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}
\node at (4.5,0) {\hspace{1in}$=$\hspace{1in}};
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[xshift=3in]
\pgfmathsetmacro{\r}{1}
\draw[edge] (-72:\r)--(0:\r);
\draw[edge] (0:\r)--(72:\r);
\draw[edge] (72:\r)--(144:\r);
\draw[edge] (144:\r) -- (-144:\r);
\draw[edge] (-144:\r) -- (-72:\r);
\node[edgelabel] at (-108:\r) {$5$};
\node[edgelabel] at (-36:\r) {$3$};
\node[edgelabel] at (36:\r) {$4$};
\node[edgelabel] at (108:\r) {$8$};
\node[edgelabel] at (180:\r) {$2$};
\node[vertex] at (-72:\r) {$0$};
\node[vertex] at (0:\r) {$0$};
\node[vertex] at (72:\r) {$0$};
\node[vertex] at (144:\r) {$24$};
\node[vertex] at (-144:\r) {$600$};
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}
\bigskip
\noindent By the formula given above \[ K_1 K_3 = 3 K_3 + \frac{40 (15 - 3)}{10}K_4 = 3 K_3 + 48 K_4.\] Pictorially this solution is shown below. \\
\noindent
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{scope}
\node at (-5,0) {$ 3K_3 + 48 K_4 = $};
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}
\node at (-3.5,0) {$3$};
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[xshift=-.75in]
\pgfmathsetmacro{\r}{1}
\node at (.1,0) {$K_3$};
\draw[edge] (-72:\r)--(0:\r);
\draw[edge] (0:\r)--(72:\r);
\draw[edge] (72:\r)--(144:\r);
\draw[edge] (144:\r) -- (-144:\r);
\draw[edge] (-144:\r) -- (-72:\r);
\node[edgelabel] at (-108:\r) {$5$};
\node[edgelabel] at (-36:\r) {$3$};
\node[edgelabel] at (36:\r) {$4$};
\node[edgelabel] at (108:\r) {$8$};
\node[edgelabel] at (180:\r) {$2$};
\node[vertex] at (-72:\r) {$0$};
\node[vertex] at (0:\r) {$0$};
\node[vertex] at (72:\r) {$0$};
\node[vertex] at (144:\r) {$8$};
\node[vertex] at (-144:\r) {$40$};
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}
\node at (.5,0) {$+$ \hspace{.1in} $48$};
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[xshift=1in]
\pgfmathsetmacro{\r}{1}
\node at (.1,0) {$K_4$};
\draw[edge] (-72:\r)--(0:\r);
\draw[edge] (0:\r)--(72:\r);
\draw[edge] (72:\r)--(144:\r);
\draw[edge] (144:\r) -- (-144:\r);
\draw[edge] (-144:\r) -- (-72:\r);
\node[edgelabel] at (-108:\r) {$5$};
\node[edgelabel] at (-36:\r) {$3$};
\node[edgelabel] at (36:\r) {$4$};
\node[edgelabel] at (108:\r) {$8$};
\node[edgelabel] at (180:\r) {$2$};
\node[vertex] at (-72:\r) {$0$};
\node[vertex] at (0:\r) {$0$};
\node[vertex] at (72:\r) {$0$};
\node[vertex] at (144:\r) {$0$};
\node[vertex] at (-144:\r) {$10$};
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}
\node at (3.25,0) {\hspace{1in}$=$\hspace{1in}};
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[xshift=2.5in]
\pgfmathsetmacro{\r}{1}
\draw[edge] (-72:\r)--(0:\r);
\draw[edge] (0:\r)--(72:\r);
\draw[edge] (72:\r)--(144:\r);
\draw[edge] (144:\r) -- (-144:\r);
\draw[edge] (-144:\r) -- (-72:\r);
\node[edgelabel] at (-108:\r) {$5$};
\node[edgelabel] at (-36:\r) {$3$};
\node[edgelabel] at (36:\r) {$4$};
\node[edgelabel] at (108:\r) {$8$};
\node[edgelabel] at (180:\r) {$2$};
\node[vertex] at (-72:\r) {$0$};
\node[vertex] at (0:\r) {$0$};
\node[vertex] at (72:\r) {$0$};
\node[vertex] at (144:\r) {$24$};
\node[vertex] at (-144:\r) {$600$};
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}
\begin{remark}
The same argument can be used to give the multiplication table for arbitrarily labeled 3-cycles using the triangulation \ basis (Def \ref{GSFUCdef}, Thrm \ref{GSFUCthm}). Given the basis elements $\mathcal{H}_0, \mathcal{H}_1,$ and $\mathcal{H}_2$ we have the following table
$$\mathcal{H}_0 = \left(\begin{array}{c} 1\\1\\1\end{array}\right), \mathcal{H}_1 = \left(\begin{array}{c} h_3^{(1)}\\ h_2^{(1)}\\0\end{array}\right), \mathcal{H}_2 = \left(\begin{array}{c} h_3^{(2)}\\ 0 \\0\end{array}\right)$$
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
~ & \vline & $\mathcal{H}_0$ & $\mathcal{H}_1$ & $\mathcal{H}_2$ \\
\hline
$\mathcal{H}_0$ & \vline & $\mathcal{H}_0$ & $\mathcal{H}_1$ & $\mathcal{H}_2$ \\
$\mathcal{H}_1$ & \vline & $\mathcal{H}_1$ & $h_{2}^{(1)}\mathcal{H}_1 + \Phi \mathcal{H}_2$ & $h_3^{(1)}\mathcal{H}_2$ \\
$\mathcal{H}_2$ & \vline & $\mathcal{H}_2$ & $h_3^{(1)}\mathcal{H}_2$ & $h_3^{(2)}\mathcal{H}_2$ \\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
where $\Phi = \frac{h_3^{(1)}(h_3^{(1)} -h_2^{(1)})}{h_3^{(2)}}$.
\end{remark}
Unlike with the King basis, we do not have nice formulas for entries of the triangulation \ basis. This leads to the following open question.
\begin{question}
Is there a positive or combinatorial formula for the multiplication table of general $n$-cycles ($i.e.$ not alternating sums from successively correcting each spline entry)?
\end{question}
|
\section{Introduction}
The luminosity function (LF) of galaxies provides one of the most basic statistical descriptions of a population of galaxies. It describes the number density of galaxies in a given luminosity interval. Generally, the LF is well described by a \citet*{Schechter1976ApJ...203..297S} function
\begin{equation}
\phi(L)\mathrm{d} L = \\\phi^* \left(\frac{L}{L^*}\right)^\alpha\exp\left(-\frac{L}{L^*}\right)\mathrm{d}\left(\frac{L}{L^*}\right)
\label{eq:schechter}
\end{equation}
with a normalization parameter $\phi^*$, an exponential cutoff at $L\gtrsim L^*$, and, a power law with faint-end-slope $\alpha$ for $L\ll L^*$. The parameters depend on wavelength considered, galaxy type (e.g., passive versus star forming), and cosmic time.
At high redshift, galaxies are typically identified either through their broadband colors, for example using the drop-out or Lyman-break technique \citep{Steidel1996ApJ...462L..17S}, or through narrow-band searches aimed at detecting emission lines \citep{Partridge1967ApJ...147..868P,Djorgovski1985ApJ...299L...1D}
In particular, young star forming galaxies emit a significant fraction of their radiation as Lyman-$\alpha$ (Ly$\alpha$) emission, and this method has been proved to be very efficient in finding samples out to $z\sim 7$ \citep[e.g.][]{2000ApJ...545L..85R,2001ApJ...563L...5R,Ouchi2008,2009ApJ...705..639B,2010ApJ...716L.200B,2010ApJ...714..255G,Kashikawa2011ApJ...734..119K,Hibon2012ApJ...744...89H,Ono2012ApJ...744...83O,Ota2012MNRAS.423..444O,2012ApJ...752L..28R,Shibuya2012ApJ...752..114S,2013Natur.502..524F,Konno2014arXiv1404.6066K}.
Galaxies that have been selected (found) on the basis of their Ly$\alpha$ lines are referred to as `Ly$\alpha$ emitters' (or LAEs). LAEs are useful because they are selected on having a strong Ly$\alpha$ line flux irrespective of their associated UV-continuum emission. Therefore, LAEs can be fainter in the continuum compared to Lyman-break galaxies, and complement galaxy samples obtained via broadband searches which have been extensively carried out with the Hubble Space Telescope out to $z\sim 10$ \citep[e.g.][]{2004ApJ...612L..93Y,2006AJ....132.1729B,2006ApJ...653...53B,2010MNRAS.403..938W,2011ApJ...727L..39T,2012A&A...547A..51G,2012ApJ...756..164F,Bouwens2014,2014arXiv1410.5439F,2014ApJ...786..108O,2014ApJ...786...57S}. Moreover, the sensitivity of the observed Ly$\alpha$ flux to intervening neutral hydrogen gas makes LAEs an excellent probe of the Epoch of Reionization \citep[see e.g.][for a review]{Dijkstra2014}.
Since the range of observed Ly$\alpha$ luminosities at high-$z$ typically extends only over $\sim 1\--1.5$ orders of magnitude, the shape of the Ly$\alpha$ LF is not strongly constrained and a fit with a Schechter function leads to significant degeneracy in the parameters. In particular the faint-end slope $\alpha_{\ifmmode{{\rm Ly}\alpha}\else Ly$\alpha$\ \fi}$ is essentially unconstrained: for example, \citet{Henry2012} used a sample of six (three) LAEs to find $\alpha_{\ifmmode{{\rm Ly}\alpha}\else Ly$\alpha$\ \fi}=-1.70^{+0.73}_{-0.57}$ ($\alpha_{\ifmmode{{\rm Ly}\alpha}\else Ly$\alpha$\ \fi}=-1.45^{+0.92}_{-0.70}$) at $z=5.7$. Other approaches include assuming a fixed value for $\alpha_{\ifmmode{{\rm Ly}\alpha}\else Ly$\alpha$\ \fi}$ and resorting to the data to constrain the other parameters \citep{2005MNRAS.359..895V,2007ApJ...671.1227D,Ouchi2008,Hu2010ApJ...725..394H,Kashikawa2011ApJ...734..119K, 2012ApJ...744..110C,2013MNRAS.431.3589Z}. In contrast, the ultraviolet (UV) LF of Lyman-break galaxies (LBGs) is much better constrained due to available data stretching over several orders of magnitude in luminosity \citep{UVLF2010MNRAS.403..960M,UVLF2011ApJ...728L..22Y,UVLF2011ApJ...737...90B,UVLF2012ApJ...760..108B,UVLF2012ApJ...759..135O,UVLF2012ApJ...761..177Y,UVLF2013MNRAS.429..150L,UVLF2013ApJ...768..196S}. For the faint end slope, the most recent by \citet{Bouwens2014} finds $\alpha_{UV}=-1.91\pm 0.09$ ($\alpha_{UV}=-1.64\pm 0.04$) at $z\sim 6$ ($z\sim 4$).
There exists a clear opportunity to connect LAEs and LBGs via the Ly$\alpha$ line emission properties of LBGs. \citet{Shapley2003ApJ...588...65S} provided a probability distribution function (PDF) of the rest-frame equivalent-width (EW) of the Ly$\alpha$ line in their sample of $\sim 800$ $z\sim 3$ LBGs. \citet{Dijkstra2012} showed that this observed PDF was well described by an exponential function, and that the characteristic scale-length of this function {\it increased} towards fainter UV-luminosities. While there do not exist equally well measured PDFs at higher redshifts and/or fainter UV-luminosities, recent studies have constrained both the redshift and UV-luminosity dependence of the so-called `Ly$\alpha$ fraction', which quantifies the fraction of LBGs for which the Ly$\alpha$ EW exceeds a certain value. The Ly$\alpha$ fractions -- which represent integrated versions of the full EW PDF -- increase from $z=2$ to $z=6$ at fixed $M_{\rm UV}$ \citep{Stark2010MNRAS.408.1628S, Cassata2014arXiv1403.3693C} and from UV-bright to UV-faint galaxies \citep{Stark2010MNRAS.408.1628S,2011ApJ...728L...2S, 2011ApJ...743..132P,Ono2012ApJ...744...83O,2012ApJ...744..179S}.
There have been several attempts to link the redshift evolution of LBGs and their Ly$\alpha$ fractions to LAE luminosity functions \citep{Dijkstra2012,Faisst2014ApJ...788...87F,Schenker2014}. In this paper, we follow the work of \citet{Dijkstra2012} and combine the most recent constraints on UV-LFs \& Ly$\alpha$ fractions to make predictions for \ifmmode{{\rm Ly}\alpha}\else Ly$\alpha$\ \fi LFs. \citet{Dijkstra2012} showed that this phenomenological model reproduces observed Ly$\alpha$ LFs and their redshift evolution remarkably well. Here, we focus specifically on the faint-end slope of the Ly$\alpha$ LF of LAEs, because ({\it i}) we can make robust predictions for this faint end slope, ({\it ii}) as we will show later, this faint end slope can be highly relevant for understanding the Epoch of Reionization.
This paper is structured as follows. In Sec.~\ref{sec:method}, we lay out our method. We present our results in Sec.~\ref{sec:results} and discuss them in Sec.~\ref{sec:discussion}. Finally, we conclude in Sec.~\ref{sec:conclusions}. The cosmological parameters we adopt are $\Omega_{\rm m}=0.3, \Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7, h=0.7, \sigma_8 = 0.9$.
\section{Method}
\label{sec:method}
The number density of LAEs with luminosities in the interval $[L_\alpha\pm\mathrm{d} L_\alpha/2]$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\phi_{\rm LAE}(L_\alpha)\mathrm{d} L_{\alpha} = \mathrm{d} L_\alpha F \!\!\int\limits_{M_{UV,{\rm min}}}^{M_{UV, {\rm max}}}\!\! \mathrm{d} M_{UV}\,\phi(M_{UV}) P(L_\alpha|M_{UV})
\label{eq:phiLalpha}
\end{equation}
Here, $\phi(M_{UV})\mathrm{d} M_{UV}$ denotes the number density of LBGs as a function of in the range $M_{\rm UV}\pm \mathrm{d} M_{\rm UV}/2$. This function can be represented by the Schechter function with parameters $(\alpha_{UV}, M_{UV}^*,\phi_{UV}^*)$.
The term $P(L_\alpha|M_{UV})\mathrm{d} L_\alpha$ is the conditional probability that a galaxy has a \ifmmode{{\rm Ly}\alpha}\else Ly$\alpha$\ \fi luminosity $L_{\alpha}$ given an absolute UV magnitude $M_{\rm UV}$. This conditional probability can be recast in terms of the equivalent width ($EW$) probability density function $P(EW|M_{UV})$ as $P(L_\alpha|M_{UV}) = P(EW|M_{UV})\frac{\partial EW}{\partial L_\alpha}$ if $EW > EW_{\rm LAE}$, where $L_{\alpha}$ and $EW$ are related as $L_{\alpha}=EW L_{\lambda}=EW [\nu L_{\nu}/\lambda]$. Here, the luminosity/flux densities, frequency and wavelength are evaluated just longward of the Ly$\alpha$ resonance at $\lambda=(1216+\epsilon)$\AA. We can extrapolate these flux/luminosities to their values where the UV-continuum measurements are usually made (see e.g. Dijkstra \& Westra 2010)\footnote{We use the relation $L_{\alpha}= C_1 EW L_{UV,\nu}$ where $L_{UV,\nu}\propto \nu^{-\beta-2}$ is the UV luminosity density $L_{UV,\nu}$ and $C_1 \equiv \nu_\alpha/\lambda_\alpha (\lambda_{UV}/\lambda_\alpha)^{-\beta-2}$ converts the flux density at $\lambda=(1216+\epsilon)$\AA\ to that at $\lambda_{UV}=1600$\AA, which is the wavelength where $L_{UV,\nu}$ was measured \citep{DW2010MNRAS.401.2343D}.}. Furthermore, $EW_{\rm LAE}$ denotes the equivalent width threshold that determines whether a galaxy would make it into an LAE sample. We adopt that $EW_{\rm LAE}=0$\AA, but note that some surveys adopt colour criteria for selecting LAEs as large as $EW_{\rm LAE}=64$\AA\ \citep[see][]{Dijkstra2012}. If $EW \le EW_{\rm LAE}$, then $P(L_\alpha|M_{UV}) = 0$ since in this case the galaxy does not qualify as an LAE.
This threshold more closely represents detection threshold for Ly$\alpha$ emitting galaxies in spectroscopic surveys\footnote{Note that in practise an EW cut is likely still needed to distinguish between LAEs and lower-$z$ interlopers, such as [OII] emitters. This EW cut can nevertheless be lower than $EW_{\rm LAE}\sim 20$\AA\ \citep{2015AAS...22533649L}} -- e.g., with \textit{MUSE} \citep{MUSE}, \textit{HETDEX} \citep{HETDEX} and/or \textit{VIMOS} \citep{Cassata2011A&A...525A.143C,Cassata2014arXiv1403.3693C}.
We have verified that our main results do not depend on this choice\footnote{We have verified that varying $EW_{\rm LAE}$ in the range $[0,\,50]\,$\AA\ changes $\alpha_{\ifmmode{{\rm Ly}\alpha}\else Ly$\alpha$\ \fi}$ by $\sim 0.02$.}.
The preceding factor $F$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:phiLalpha} is merely a normalization constant to fit the data and, hence, can be thought of as the ratio of predicted versus the total number of LAEs. This factor should ideally be $F=1$. However, \citet{Dijkstra2012} required that $F\sim 0.5$. The origin of this number is not known \citep[see][for an extensive discussion]{Dijkstra2012}\footnote{The value of $F$ depends weakly on the adopted UV Schechter function parameters. For example, \citet{2014arXiv1411.2976B} reported slightly different best-fit values, which drive $F$ up to $F\sim0.7\--0.8$. The \citet{2014arXiv1410.5439F} parameters, on the other hand, also suggest $F\sim 0.5$.}, but we stress it only affects the predicted normalization linearly and not the predicted faint-end slopes.
Hence, the key function in our analysis is $P(EW|M_{UV})$. Several functional forms have been explored in the literature. \citet{Schenker2014} compared the maximum likelihood values for several EW distributions to their \textit{Keck MOSFIRE} \citep{KeckMosfire} data, and concluded that the exponential distribution introduced by \citet{Dijkstra2012} provides an adequate fit. This functional form is
\begin{equation}
P(EW|M_{UV},z) =\mathcal{N} \exp\left[-\frac{EW}{EW_{c}(M_{UV},z)}\right]
\label{eq:PEW_MUV}
\end{equation}
with
$EW_{c}=EW_{c,0}+\mu_{M_{UV}} (M_{UV} + M_{UV,0}) + \mu_z (z + z_0)$
where $\mu_{M_{UV}}$, $\mu_z$, $M_{UV,0}$, $z_0$, and $EW_{c,0}$ are model parameters. These parameters were chosen to match the observations of \citep{Shapley2003ApJ...588...65S} and \citet{Stark2010MNRAS.408.1628S,2011ApJ...728L...2S} as closely as possible. Furthermore, $\mathcal{N}$ is a normalization constant which is forced to be zero outside of $[EW_{\rm min},\,EW_{\rm max}]$. Our choice of values for the model parameters is described in Sec.~\ref{sec:numerical-results} where we present the numerical results. In Appendix~\ref{sec:AppEWdist} we show explicitly that the main results in this paper are insensitive to both the functional form of $P(EW)$ and the parameterization of $EW_c$.
\section{Results}
\label{sec:results}
We first present results in which EW$_{\rm c}=$constant (in \S~\ref{sec:EWc_const}). This allows us to demonstrate that for models in which the Ly$\alpha$ fraction does not evolve with $M_{\rm UV}$, the faint end slope of the LF of LAEs approaches that of LBGs. We then present a simplified model in \S~\ref{sec:delta-func} in which the {\it mean} Ly$\alpha$ EW-PDF increases towards fainter UV-luminosity function. This model demonstrates quantitatively that the faint end slope of the LF of LAEs is steeper than that of LBGs if the Ly$\alpha$ fraction increases towards fainter UV-luminosities. In \S~\ref{sec:numerical-results} we present the results that we obtained from the EW-PDF given in Eq.~\eqref{eq:PEW_MUV}.
\begin{figure}
\centering \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{plots/fig1.pdf}
\caption{Upper panel: The predicted number of LAEs in the range $\log_{10}\left(L_\alpha/\,{\rm erg}\,{\rm s}\ifmmode{}^{-1}\else ${}^{-1}$\fi\right)\pm \mathrm{d}\log_{10}\left(L_\alpha/\,{\rm erg}\,{\rm s}\ifmmode{}^{-1}\else ${}^{-1}$\fi\right)$ using the UV LF evolution from \citet{Bouwens2014} taken at $z=5.7$ (black solid line). The grey dashed line marks the faint end slope ($\alpha_{\ifmmode{{\rm Ly}\alpha}\else Ly$\alpha$\ \fi}=-1.90$) and the dashed dotted lines show Schechter fits to our numerical findings.
Once the fit was carried out over the whole shown luminosity range (blue) and once only in $\log_{10}(L/\,{\rm erg}\,{\rm s}\ifmmode{}^{-1}\else ${}^{-1}$\fi) = [42, 43.5]$ (green). The red discs are the $z = 5.7$ observations by \citet{Ouchi2008} and the black arrows denote the \textit{MUSE} deep field and medium deep field as well as the \textit{JWST} limits at that redshift (see text for details). Lower panel: Relative deviation of the fits to the numerical results.}
\label{fig:LF}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Exemplary case with $EW_c = \mathrm{const.}$}
\label{sec:EWc_const}
We consider the case $P(EW|M_{UV}) = P(EW)$, i.e. $EW_c = \mathrm{const.} \equiv \lambda / C_1$. Furthermore, we set $\mathcal{N}=0$ for $EW<EW_{\rm LAE}$.
Under these assumptions we find
\begin{align}
\phi(L_\alpha)\mathrm{d} L_\alpha \propto &\; \int\limits_0^\infty L_{UV,\nu}^{\alpha-1}\exp\left[-\frac{L_{UV,\nu}}{L_{UV}^*} - \frac{L_\alpha}{\lambda L_{UV,\nu}}\right] \,\mathrm{d}L_{UV,\nu}\\
\propto &\; L_\alpha^{\alpha_{UV}/2} K_{-\alpha_{UV}}\left(2\sqrt{\frac{L_\alpha}{\lambda L_{UV}^*}}\right) \mathrm{d} L_\alpha \label{eq:nalpha-expolast}
\end{align}
where $K_n(x)$ is the modified Bessel function of the second kind and $L_{UV}^*$ is the luminosity corresponding to $M^*_{UV}$.
Eq.~\eqref{eq:nalpha-expolast} shows that the \ifmmode{{\rm Ly}\alpha}\else Ly$\alpha$\ \fi LF generally does not take-on a Schechter form. The slope of the LF is given by
\begin{equation}
\alpha_{\ifmmode{{\rm Ly}\alpha}\else Ly$\alpha$\ \fi}\equiv\frac{\mathrm{d}\log \phi(L_\alpha)}{\mathrm{d}\log L_\alpha}=-\frac{\sqrt{y} K_{\alpha_{UV} - 1}(2\sqrt{y})}{K_{\alpha_{UV}}(2\sqrt{y})}
\end{equation}
with $y\equiv L_\alpha/(L_{UV}^* \lambda)$. For $L_\alpha \ll L_{UV}^* \lambda$ we have $y \ll 1$, and we obtain to leading order $\alpha_{\ifmmode{{\rm Ly}\alpha}\else Ly$\alpha$\ \fi}\approx -\Gamma(1-\alpha_{UV})/\Gamma(-\alpha_{UV}) = \alpha_{UV}$. Thus, having a {\it constant $EW_c$ corresponds to an unchanged faint end slope, $a_{\ifmmode{{\rm Ly}\alpha}\else Ly$\alpha$\ \fi} = \alpha_{UV}$}.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{plots/fig2.pdf}
\caption{Evolution of the Schechter parameters of the UV LF from \citet{Bouwens2014} (as {\it blue dashed lines}) and the parameters of the computed Ly$\alpha$ LF ({\it black lines}). In particular, the {\it left panel} shows the characteristic luminosity $L^*$ (note the different normalization constants), the {\it central pane}l the faint end slope $\alpha$, and the {\it right panel} the overall normalization $\phi^*$. Predictions at $z>6$ (within the {\it shaded grey area}) do {\it not} account for reionization (see \S~\ref{sec:predgtrz6}). In this region, the {\it black solid lines} correspond to models with an uninterrupted EW evolution, whereas the {\it dashed-dotted lines} represent a model in which we freeze the EW evolution, i.e., $EW_c(z>6) = EW_c(z=6)$ (this assumption has been adopted in previous works).}
\label{fig:schechter_vs_z}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Exemplary case where $P(EW|M_{UV})$ evolves with $M_{UV}$}
\label{sec:delta-func}
If $EW_c$ depends on $M_{UV}$ a general analytic solution for $\phi(L_{\alpha})$ does not exist. For illustration purposes we first consider a case in which we replace Eq.~\eqref{eq:PEW_MUV} with a Dirac-$\delta$ distribution,
\begin{equation}
p(EW|L_{UV}) \propto \delta(EW - EW_d)\,,
\end{equation}
where $EW_d(L_{UV}) \equiv EW_{d,0} \left(L_{UV} / L_{UV}^*\right)^\gamma$. The parameter EW$_{\rm d}$ can be interpreted as the mean of the full PDF. This $\delta$-function PDF leads\footnote{For simplicity, we set the minimum and maximum UV luminosity to zero and infinity, respectively.} to
\begin{multline}
\phi(L_\alpha)\mathrm{d} L_\alpha \propto \mathrm{d} L_\alpha\times L_\alpha^{\alpha_{UV}/(\gamma + 1)} \\
\times \exp\left[- \left( \frac{L_\alpha}{C_1 EW_{d,0} L_{UV}^*}\right)^{1/(\gamma + 1)} \right].
\end{multline}
Here, the faint end slope is $\alpha_{\ifmmode{{\rm Ly}\alpha}\else Ly$\alpha$\ \fi} = \alpha_{UV}/(\gamma + 1)$.
he Ly$\alpha$ LF thus has a \textit{steeper} faint-end slope than the LBG LF, if $\gamma < 0$ (i.e. if $EW_d$ decreases towards fainter $L_{\rm UV}$, as has been observed).
Also note that we again obtain $\alpha_{\ifmmode{{\rm Ly}\alpha}\else Ly$\alpha$\ \fi} = \alpha_{UV}$ if $EW_d$ does not evolve with $M_{\rm UV}$.
\subsection{Realistic case with $P(EW|M_{UV})$ inferred from observations}
\label{sec:numerical-results}
For the model parameters of $P(EW|M_{\rm UV})$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:PEW_MUV} we adopt the values from \citet{Dijkstra2012}\footnote{Specifically the model parameters related to $EW_{c}$ are given by $(EW_{c,0}, \mu_{M_{UV}}, \mu_z, M_{\mathrm{UV},0}, z_0, F) = (23\,{\rm \AA}, 7\,{\rm \AA}, 6\,{\rm \AA}, 21.9, -4.0, 0.53)$.
The EW-PDF covers the range [$EW_{\rm min},EW_{\rm max}$]. Here, the lower limit $EW_{\rm min} \equiv -a_1$, where $a_1(M_{\mathrm{UV}})$ follows the form $a_1 = 20\,$\AA\ for $M_{UV}<-21.5$, $a_1=(20-6(M_{UV} + 21.5)^2)\,$\AA\ for $-21.5\le M_{UV}\le -19.0$ and $a_1=-17.5\,$\AA, otherwise (see Dijkstra \& Wyithe 2012). We used $EW_{\rm max}=1000\,$\AA\ but we verified that this choice does not affect our results quantitatively.\label{fn:model_params}}. Example EW-PDFs are shown in Appendix~\ref{sec:AppFiducialPEW}. For a more detailed motivation of this $P(EW)$ we refer the reader to \citet{Dijkstra2012}.
We integrate the UV-LF over the range $M_{UV,{\rm (min,max)}} = (-30,\, -12)$ when predicting Ly$\alpha$ luminosity functions, and discuss the impact of varying $M_{\rm max}$ in Sec.~\ref{sec:discussion}.
The redshift evolution of the best fit Schechter parameters of the UV LF is taken from \citet{Bouwens2014} and given as $M_{UV}^* = -20.89 + 0.12 z$, $\phi_{UV}^* = 0.48\times 10^{-0.19 (z-6)} 10^{-3}{\rm cMpc}^{-3}$, and, $\alpha_{UV} = -1.85 - 0.09 (z-6)$. Following these analyses, we use $\lambda_{UV} = 1600\,$\AA\ as rest frame wavelength in which the UV continuum was measured and assume a UV spectral slope $\beta=-1.7$. This choice for $\beta$ does not affect our results (see Appendix~\ref{sec:more-realistic-beta} for detailed discussion).
The upper panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:LF} shows the resulting number density of LAEs at $z=5.7$ in the luminosity range $\log_{10} L_\alpha \pm \mathrm{d}\log_{10}L_\alpha/2$, i.e., $\psi(L_{\alpha})\mathrm{d}\log_{10} L_{\alpha}$, as a function of $L_\alpha$. This quantity is related to $\phi(L_{\alpha})$ as $\psi(L_\alpha) = \phi(L_\alpha) L_\alpha \log 10$ (`$\log$' denotes the natural logarithm).
We compare these prediction to the data from \citet{Ouchi2008}.
In addition, we show the \textit{MUSE} detection limits\footnote{\textit{MUSE} survey limits taken from \url{http://muse.univ-lyon1.fr/IMG/pdf/science_case_gal _formation.pdf}.} for its medium deep field (MDF, limiting flux $F>1.1\times 10^{-18}\,{\rm erg}\,{\rm s}\ifmmode{}^{-1}\else ${}^{-1}$\fi {\rm cm}^{-2}$, integration time $T_{\rm int.}=10$h), and, deep field (DF, $F>3.9\times 10^{-19}\,{\rm erg}\,{\rm s}\ifmmode{}^{-1}\else ${}^{-1}$\fi {\rm cm}^{-2}$, $T_{\rm int.}=80$h) surveys as well as an exemplary \textit{JWST}\footnote{\textit{JWST} survey limits obtained from \url{http://www.stsci.edu/jwst/science/sensitivity/}} limit ($F\gtrsim 10^{-18}\,{\rm erg}\,{\rm s}\ifmmode{}^{-1}\else ${}^{-1}$\fi {\rm cm}^{-2}$, $T_{\rm int.}=10^4$\,s).
Figure.~\ref{fig:LF} also shows two Schechter function approximations to our numerical findings fitted over the full luminosity-range shown (in {\it blue}) and over $\log_{10}(L_\alpha/\,{\rm erg}\,{\rm s}\ifmmode{}^{-1}\else ${}^{-1}$\fi) = [40.5, 42]$ (in {\it green}). Although we do not expect the resulting \ifmmode{{\rm Ly}\alpha}\else Ly$\alpha$\ \fi LF to be a Schechter function (as shown in Sec.~\ref{sec:delta-func}), it provides a reasonable fit over the displayed luminosity range. This can also be seen in the lower panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:LF}, where we display the relative deviation of the fits to the LF.
Fig.~\ref{fig:schechter_vs_z} shows the redshift evolution of the Schechter best fit parameters (as {\it black lines}). Predictions for $z>6$ do not account for reionization effects and are calculated with an unaltered EW evolution (solid line) as well as an EW-PDF which does not evolve after $z=6$ (dash-dotted line). We discuss this result separately in \S~\ref{sec:predgtrz6}. For comparison, we plot the corresponding redshift parameterization of the UV LF by \citet{Bouwens2014} (as \textit{blue dashed lines}). The {\it left panel} shows that $L^*$ increases by a factor $\sim 2$ over the redshift range $z=3\--6$, which differs from the redshift evolution in the characteristic UV-luminosity which drops by $~20\%$. This difference is driven by the redshift evolution in the Ly$\alpha$ EW-PDF, which in turn was inferred from the observed redshift-evolution of Ly$\alpha$ `fractions' over this redshift range. The {\it central panel} shows that $\alpha_\ifmmode{{\rm Ly}\alpha}\else Ly$\alpha$\ \fi < \alpha_{UV}$. This is again a consequence of inferred redshift evolution of the Ly$\alpha$-EW PDF (see \S~\ref{sec:delta-func}). This figure also illustrates the close-to-linear $\alpha_\ifmmode{{\rm Ly}\alpha}\else Ly$\alpha$\ \fi$--$z$ relation. This evolution is mostly driven by the redshift evolution of $\alpha_{UV}$. Finally, the {\it right panel} shows the predicted redshift evolution in $\phi^*$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{plots/fig3.pdf}
\caption{$p(M_{UV}|L_\alpha) \propto p(L_\alpha|M_{UV})\phi(M_{UV})$ versus $M_{UV}$ for some exemplary values of $L_\alpha$. The black arrow shows the \textit{JWST} photometric limit quoted by \citet{Windhorst2006NewAR..50..113W} for $z\sim 6$ which corresponds to $T_{\rm int.}\sim 10^6$\,s integration time.}
\label{fig:pMUVLa}
\end{figure}
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:discussion}
\subsection{Low-$L$ turnover}
\label{sec:low-l-turnover}
The integral over $\phi(L_\alpha)\mathrm{d} L_\alpha$ diverges for $\alpha < -2$. We therefore expect that the luminosity function flattens or turns-over below some luminosity. The minimum luminosity that we can account for in our models is
\begin{equation}
L_{\alpha, {\rm min}} = EW_{\rm min}(M_{\rm UV,max})\ C_1 L_{{\rm UV, min}},
\end{equation} where $EW_{\rm min}=-a_1=17.5$\,\AA\ (see footnote~\ref{fn:model_params} in \S~\ref{sec:numerical-results}) denotes the minimum equivalent width in our EW-PDF at the maximum absolute UV-magnitude (i.e. the lowest UV-luminosity). For example, we obtain $L_{\alpha, {\rm min}}\sim 10^{39}\,{\rm erg}\,{\rm s}\ifmmode{}^{-1}\else ${}^{-1}$\fi$ for $M_{\mathrm{UV}, {\rm max}}=-12$. At this luminosity we expect the predicted Ly$\alpha$ luminosity to go to zero, as is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:low-l-bp}.
An estimate for where we may start to see departures from a power-law slope can be obtained by considering the conditional probability $p(M_{UV}|L_{\alpha})$. Bayes' theorem states that $p(M_{UV}|L_{\alpha}) \propto \phi(L_\alpha|M_{UV})\phi(M_{UV})$, of which we show examples in Fig.~\ref{fig:pMUVLa} for four different values of $L_{\alpha}$. This Figure illustrates for example that Ly$\alpha$ observations that probe a flux corresponding to $L_{\alpha}=10^{40}$ erg s$^{-1}$ -- a level that can be reached in \textit{MUSE} ultra deep fields -- effectively probe galaxies with $-14 < M_{\rm UV} < -11$, which are fainter than can be probed directly even with the \textit{JWST}. The \textit{JWST} detection limit shown in Figure~\ref{fig:pMUVLa} is taken from \citet{Windhorst2006NewAR..50..113W}. Figure~\ref{fig:pMUVLa} further shows that if the UV-LF flattens off at -- say -- $M_{\rm UV} ~\rlap{$>$}{\lower 1.0ex\hbox{$\sim$}} -12$ that then the effects should become noticeable in the predicted Ly$\alpha$ luminosity function around $L_{\alpha}=10^{40}$ erg s$^{-1}$, as here galaxies with $M_{\rm UV} \sim -12$ dominate the contribution to the Ly$\alpha$ LF.
In Figure~\ref{fig:low-l-bp} we make these points more explicit, and show the predicted faint end of the LAE LF for four values of $M_{UV,{\rm max}}$ (calculated with the UV LF parameters at $z=3.1$). For each curve we marked $L_{\alpha, {\rm min}}$ with {\it dotted lines}. For example, a potential UV turnover at $M_{UV}\sim -12$ leads to deviations\footnote{The first deviations in the \ifmmode{{\rm Ly}\alpha}\else Ly$\alpha$\ \fi LF can be found at $L_{\alpha, {\rm dev.}} = C_1 L_{UV}(x) EW_c(x)$ with $x\equiv M_{UV, {\rm max}} - \Delta M_{UV}$. Here, $\Delta M_{UV}$ describes the half width of $p(M_{UV}|L_{\alpha})$ at a chosen probability threshold.} of the \ifmmode{{\rm Ly}\alpha}\else Ly$\alpha$\ \fi LF at $L_\alpha\sim 10^{40}\,{\rm erg}\,{\rm s}\ifmmode{}^{-1}\else ${}^{-1}$\fi$ and a cutoff at $L_\alpha \sim 10^{39}\,{\rm erg}\,{\rm s}\ifmmode{}^{-1}\else ${}^{-1}$\fi$. Figure~\ref{fig:low-l-bp} also contains data points taken from \citet{Rauch2008ApJ...681..856R}. \citet{Rauch2008ApJ...681..856R} performed an ultra deep ($92$-hr) exposure with \textit{VLT}s \textit{FORS2} low resolution spectrograph. The goal of these observations was to detect fluorescent Ly$\alpha$ emission from optically thick clouds powered by the ionizing background. While their sensitivity turned out not to be good enough to detect this fluorescent emission (revised estimates of the ionizing background and the conversion efficiency into Ly$\alpha$), they detected numerous ultra faint Ly$\alpha$ emitting sources characterizing their LF down to $L_\alpha\sim 6\times 10^{40}\,{\rm erg}\,{\rm s}\ifmmode{}^{-1}\else ${}^{-1}$\fi$. We computed the uncertainties with the cosmic variance calculator of \citet{Trenti2008ApJ...676..767T}. These data-points fall on the predicted LF for $M_{\mathrm{UV, max}}=-16$.
However we caution that the turn-over occurs at the lowest luminosity data-point only, which might suffer from incompleteness (although it lies above the detection threshold).
In the same figure we provide the estimated \textit{MUSE} limits for the deep field (DF) and the gravitationally lensed ultra deep field (UDF) surveys.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{plots/fig4.pdf}
\caption{$\psi(L_\alpha)\mathrm{d} L_\alpha$ versus $L_\alpha$ at $z=3.1$ for different values of $M_{UV,{\rm max}}$ illustrating the cutoff at low \ifmmode{{\rm Ly}\alpha}\else Ly$\alpha$\ \fi luminosities.
The dashed and dotted lines show the ``cutoff'' and ``deviation'' points for each $M_{UV,{\rm max}}$ discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:discussion}. Data points are from \citet{Rauch2008ApJ...681..856R} taken at that redshift (see the text for a discussion on the error bars). And the black (grey) arrow denotes planned future \textit{MUSE} (ultra) deep field limits.}
\label{fig:low-l-bp}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Implications for the Epoch of Reionization}
\label{sec:reion}
Low luminosity galaxies are expected to play a major role in driving the reionization of the Universe \citep[e.g.][]{Robertson2010,Trenti2010, 2012MNRAS.423..862K, 2014MNRAS.443L..44B}. Determining the faint end of the LF such as its slope and a turnover luminosity is essential for constraining the volume emissivity of ionizing photons. However, even future experiments will have difficulties detecting these galaxies directly via their UV continuum flux. Current constraints rely, therefore, on extrapolation of local properties to higher redshifts \citep{Weisz2014}, (relatively few) gravitationally lensed objects \citep{Alavi2014ApJ...780..143A,2014ApJ...786...60A} or inferences from gamma-ray burst observations \citep{Trenti2012ApJ...749L..38T}. In this work, we have shown that the \ifmmode{{\rm Ly}\alpha}\else Ly$\alpha$\ \fi LF can provide an independent probe of the faint end of the UV LF, and that for example the \textit{MUSE} DF survey could already detect (or rule out) a turnover at $M_{UV}\lesssim -15$.
Recent studies have shown that \ifmmode{{\rm Ly}\alpha}\else Ly$\alpha$\ \fi escape may be correlated with the escape of ionizing photons \citep{Behrens2014,Verhamme2014}, as the escape of ionizing photons requires low HI-column density ($N_{\rm HI} < 10^{17}$ cm$^{-2}$) channels, which can also provide escape routes for Ly$\alpha$ photons. The fact that Ly$\alpha$ LFs are likely steeper than the UV LFs implies that the Ly$\alpha$ volume emissivity -- and therefore possibly the ionizing emissivity -- are weighted more strongly towards low luminosity galaxies. This is consistent with the expectation that ionizing photons escape more easily from lower mass -- and hence lower luminosity -- galaxies. A steep faint-end slope of the Ly$\alpha$ LF may therefore provide observational support for this scenario.
\subsection{Predictions for redshifts $z=6\-- 8$}
\label{sec:predgtrz6}
We extrapolated our predictions for the best-fit Schechter parameters of the LAE LF to $z>6$ in two ways (shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:schechter_vs_z}): \textit{(i)} in the first, we assume that the EW-PDF continues to evolve as inferred from the observations at $z=3\--6$. This model is represented by the {\it solid lines}, and, \textit{(ii)} in the second, we `freeze' the EW distribution for $z>6$ at the value it had at $z=6$ ({\it dashed lines}). This latter assumption has been common in previous works \citep[see e.g.][]{Dijkstra2011MNRAS.414.2139D,2013MNRAS.429.1695B,Jensen2013MNRAS.428.1366J,2014arXiv1412.4790C,Mesinger2014arXiv1406.6373M}. We show results for these two models to get a sense for the uncertainties on our predictions. We stress that we have purposefully {\it not} modelled the impact of reionization on the EW-PDF. Reionization is likely responsible for the observed `drop' in the observed Ly$\alpha$ fractions at $z>6$
\citep[e.g.][]{2011ApJ...743..132P,2012ApJ...744..179S,Ono2012ApJ...744...83O,Treu2013ApJ...775L..29T,Caruana2014MNRAS.443.2831C,Tilvi2014ApJ...794....5T}. Understanding this drop has been the main focus of previous works, and is outside the scope of this paper. Our predictions for \mbox{$z=6\-- 8$} are useful in a different way, as they provide predictions for the Ly$\alpha$ LFs of LAEs in the absence of reionization. Comparison to observed LFs at these redshifts highlight the impact of reionization.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusions}
We predicted Ly$\alpha$ luminosity functions (LFs) of Ly$\alpha$-selected galaxies (Ly$\alpha$ emitters, or LAEs) at $z=3\--6$ using the phenomenological model of \cite{Dijkstra2012}. This model combines observed UV-LFs of Lyman-break galaxies (LBGs), with observational constraints on the Ly$\alpha$ EW PDF of these LBGs, as a function of $M_{\rm UV}$ and redshift. The results from our analysis can be summarized as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item While Ly$\alpha$ luminosity functions of LAEs are generally not Schechter functions, these provide a good description over the luminosity range of $\log_{10}( L_{\alpha}/\,{\rm erg}\,{\rm s}\ifmmode{}^{-1}\else ${}^{-1}$\fi)=41-44$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig:LF}).
\item We predict Schechter function parameters at $z=3-6$ (shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:schechter_vs_z}). The faint end slope of the Ly$\alpha$ LF is steeper than that of the UV-LF of LBGs, with a median $\alpha_{Ly\alpha} < -2.0$ at $z~\rlap{$>$}{\lower 1.0ex\hbox{$\sim$}} 4$ (see the {\it central panel} in Fig.~\ref{fig:schechter_vs_z}). While the current work was in the advanced stage of completion, \citet{Dressler2014arXiv1412.0655D} posted a preprint in which they observationally infer a very steep faint end slope at $z\sim 5.7$ ($-2.35 < \alpha < -1.95$, also see \citet{Dressler2011ApJ...740...71D}). The central value $\alpha=-2.15$ is in excellent agreement with the value $\alpha\sim -2.1$ predicted in our framework.
\item The faint end of the LAE LF provides independent constraints on the very faint end of the UV-LF of LBGs. For example, the predicted LAE LF at Ly$\alpha$ luminosities $10^{40}$ erg s$^{-1}<L_{\alpha}~\rlap{$<$}{\lower 1.0ex\hbox{$\sim$}} 10^{41}$ erg s$^{-1}$ is sensitive to the UV-LF of LBGs in the range $-11>M_{\rm UV}>-15$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig:pMUVLa} and Fig.~\ref{fig:low-l-bp}). These LBGs are too faint to be detected directly (even with JWST). A turn-over in the Ly$\alpha$ LF of LAEs may signal a flattening of UV-LF of LBGs. We discuss implications of these results for the Epoch of Reionization in \S~\ref{sec:reion}.
\end{itemize}
We have verified that these results are insensitive to our assumed functional form of $P(EW)$ and how we parameterized its dependence on $z$ and $M_{\rm UV}$. Our predictions can be tested directly with various upcoming surveys.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We thank Masami Ouchi for kindly providing the data points shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:LF}. MD and MT thank Alan Dressler giving a presentation which inspired this work at the UCSB GLASS meeting in May 2014.
|
\section{Introduction}
Secant varieties have received growing attention in recent times, largely because of the fact that they provide a geometric model relevant to a wide variety of applications. The purpose of this note is to provide a case study in finding equations of secant varieties. For an introduction to secant varieties and their applications we invite the reader to consult \cite{CGO} and the vast collection of references therein. The 5 factor binary secant variety is particularly interesting in light of recent results of Bocci and Chiantini \cite{BC}, that $2 \times 2 \times 2 \times 2 \times 2$ tensors are not identifiable in rank 5, but the generic tensor of that format has exactly 2 decompositions. For $\geq 6$ factors, the binary Segre product is known to be $k$-identifiable for most of the possible values of $k$ below the generic rank, see \cite{BCO} and \cite{COV2014}.
Fix a field $\mathbf{k}$ of characteristic $0$. For $i =1,\dots, 5$, let $V_i$ be a $2$-dimensional vector space over $\mathbf{k}$. Let $\mathbf{V} = \bigotimes_{i=1}^5 V_i$.
Let $X$ be the $5$th secant variety of $\prod_{i=1}^5 \mathbf{P}(V_i)$ inside of $\mathbf{P}(\mathbf{V})$ (by the Segre embedding). The goal of this note is to prove\footnote{Our methods include probabilistic symbolic computations and numerical computations. Though they have been carefully tested and produce completely reproducible results, they are technically only true with high probability, or up to the numerical precision of the computers we use. To indicate reliance on such computations, we designate those theorems, corollaries, and propositions with a star.}
the following statement.
\begin{theoremst} \label{thm:CI}
The affine cone of $X$ is a complete intersection of two equations: one of degree $6$, and one of degree $16$.
\end{theoremst}
We speculate that the homogeneous coordinate ring of any secant variety of any Segre product of projective spaces is Cohen--Macaulay. Theorem~\ref{thm:CI} confirms this for $X$. Using flattening and inheritance \cite[Ch.~7]{LandsbergTensorBook}, we get the following corollary:
\begin{corollaryst} \label{cor:eqns}
Suppose $n\geq 5$. Let $V_{1},\dots, V_{n}$ be vector spaces, let $f_{6}$ and $f_{16}$ denote minimal generators of $\sigma_{5}((\mathbf{P}^{1})^{\times 5})$ and let $F_{6}$ and $F_{16}$, respectively, denote the natural liftings of $f_{6}$ and $f_{16}$ to $\mathbf{k}[V_{1}\otimes \dots\otimes V_{n}]$. Let $X$ be the fifth secant variety of
\[
\mathbf{P}(V_1) \times \cdots \times \mathbf{P}(V_n) \subset \mathbf{P}(V_1 \otimes \cdots \otimes V_n).
\]
Then the linear span of the $\mathbf{GL}(V_1) \times \cdots\times \mathbf{GL}(V_n) \rtimes \Sigma_{n}$-orbits of $F_{6}$ and $F_{16}$ are equations that vanish on $X$.
\end{corollaryst}
A \emph{flattening} of a tensor $A \in \mathbf{V}$ is a matrix constructed by viewing $A$ as a linear mapping from the dual of one subset of the 5 vector spaces to the complementary subset. The basic fact is that if $A$ has rank $r$, then a flattening $F(A)$ has rank $\le r$. So when non-trivial,
the $(r+1) \times (r+1)$ minors of flattenings provide equations of secant varieties. In our case the only possible sizes of flattenings are (up to transpose) $2\times 16$, or $4\times 8$, with maximum ranks $2$ and $4$ respectively, so they do not provide non-trivial equations for tensors of rank $5$.
A next source for equations of secant varieties are exterior (or Koszul) flattenings (see, for instance, \cite{CEO}) or, more generally, Young flattenings \cite{LanOtt11_Equations}. For basic background, we invite the reader to consult \cite{LandsbergTensorBook}. The basic idea of Young flattenings is to consider cases when the tensor product of a Schur module $\mathbf{S}_{\mu}\mathbf{V}:= \mathbf{S}_{\mu_{1}} V_{1} \otimes \mathbf{S}_{\mu_2}V_{2} \otimes \mathbf{S}_{\mu_{3}}V_{3} \otimes \mathbf{S}_{\mu_{4}}V_{4} \otimes \mathbf{S}_{\mu_{5}}V_{5}$ with $\mathbf{V}$ contains another Schur module $\mathbf{S}_{\nu}\mathbf{V}$, i.e., we have a linear map
\[
F_{\mu, \nu}\colon \mathbf{S}_{\mu}\mathbf{V} \to \mathbf{S}_{\nu}\mathbf{V}
\]
depending linearly on $A\in \mathbf{V}$. Subadditivity of matrix rank implies that if $F_{\mu,\nu}(A)$ has rank $p$ when $A$ has rank $1$ then $F_{\mu,\nu}(A)$ has rank at most $r\cdot p$ when $A$ has rank $r$. The art in this approach is to find good pairs of multi-partitions so that the dimensions of $\mathbf{S}_{\mu}\mathbf{V}$ and $\mathbf{S}_{\nu}\mathbf{V}$ are large with respect to $p$, so that the Young flattening has a chance to detect high rank tensors. In principle it is possible, but tedious, to list all possible Young flattenings and check which have a chance to provide meaningful equations. Because $V_{i}$ are all $2$-dimensional, there are not too many choices for $\mu$ and $\nu$, however our initial tries at finding Young flattenings that give non-trivial equations for the 5th secant variety were unsuccessful, and it seems that Young flattenings do not provide equations for this secant variety.
After looking for Young flattenings unsuccessfully, we attempted a systematic search for equations via interpolation informed by representation theory. Our approach relied on computer calculations, which we explain in \S\ref{sec:eqn}. The search for the equation of degree $6$ is rigorous, but the search for the degree $16$ equation is only correct up to high probability since we only show that it vanishes on sufficiently many pseudo-random points. Our search for equations was guided by our guess that this variety, having low codimension, would be defined by just a few equations, and because of the large symmetry group, that these equations would be semi-invariants. Our guesses are validated in \S\ref{sec:proof}, where we use these equations and one additional computer calculation on the degree of $X$ (which is also only valid up to high probability) to deduce Theorem~\ref{thm:CI}. In \S\ref{sec:complement} we provide a more detailed version of Corollary~\ref{cor:eqns} from a $\Delta$-module (in the sense of \cite{delta-mod}) point of view.
In particular, the equations that we find provide modules of equations for all other $5$th secant varieties of Segre products, both when the dimensions of the factors increase (by ``inheritance'') and when the number of factors increase (by flattening). As far as we know these equations do not come from any known construction (such as Young flattenings), so they provide interesting new classes of equations for secant varieties.
\subsection*{Acknowledgements}
We thank Bernd Sturmfels for suggesting this problem, J.M. Landsberg for helpful discussions, and Jon Hauenstein for providing {\tt Bertini} help. The software {\tt Bertini} \cite{BertiniSoftware}, {\tt Macaulay2} \cite{M2} and {\tt Maple} were helpful for this work.
Both authors acknowledge the hospitality of the Simons Institute for the Theory of Computing in Berkeley where this work was carried out.
SS was supported by a Miller research fellowship.
\section{A search for equations guided by symmetry} \label{sec:eqn}
\subsection{General idea} \label{sec:eqn-gen}
The variety $X$ that we are studying has low codimension so we expect its ideal to be cut out by few equations. In addition, the defining ideal of $X$ has a large symmetry group. If one polynomial is in the ideal of $X$, then so is the entire vector space of polynomials in the span of its orbit. So we expect $X$ to be cut out by a small number of semi-invariant polynomials.
In this section we describe how we use all available symmetry to cut down our search for equations.
Choose a basis $e_0, e_1$ for $V_i$ so that we can identify the coordinates of $\mathbf{P}(\mathbf{V})$ with $x_I$ where $I \in \{0,1\}^5$. Let $R$ denote the polynomial ring $\Sym(\mathbf{V}) \cong \mathbf{k}[x_{I} \mid I \in \{0,1\}^{5} ]$ and let $\mathcal I:=\mathcal I(X)$ be the ideal of equations vanishing on $X$. Since $R$ is graded, $R = \bigoplus_{d}R_{d}$, and we can compute $\mathcal{I}_{d}\subset R_{d}$ for each $d$. The most naive approach to determining $\mathcal I_{d}$ is to evaluate a basis of $R_{d}$ on $\dim R_{d}$ points of $X$ using the parametrization of $X$, store the results in a matrix $M$ and compute the kernel $\ker(M)= \mathcal{I}_{d}$. In practice we use pseudo-random points on $X$ with rational coefficients.
In exact arithmetic, non-vanishing is a certainty, but vanishing might yield a false-positive.
So this test gives an upper bound for $\dim \mathcal{I}_{d}$ and a probabilistic lower bound. The confidence in the lower bound may be increased by evaluating on more points of $X$. Alternatively, one can work over a function field over $\mathbf{k}$ of large enough transcendence degree (i.e., use parametrized points) where vanishing yields a genuine equation. The downside is that such computations are more expensive. This approach only works for small values of $d$ as the dimension of $R_{d}$ grows quickly. In particular, one can use it for $d=6$ (the lowest possible degree in which the equations of $\sigma_{5}$ can occur, a basic fact from the theory of prolongation \cite[Corollary 3.4]{LM04}) to discover the equation $f_6$ in \S\ref{app:f6}, but it will not work for $d=16$ (the largest degree we tested).
However, $R_d$ has an action of the group $\mathbf{SL}_2^{\times 5}$ and we suspected that $X$ is defined by invariants of $\mathbf{SL}_2^{\times 5}$. This gives a much smaller space of functions to search. Set $U_d = (\Sym^d \mathbf{V})^{\mathbf{SL}_2^{\times 5}}$ and $T_{d} = \mathbf{V}^{\otimes d}$.
For each even degree $d=2m$ the space of $\mathbf{SL}_2^{\times 5}$-invariants in $T_{d}$ has a basis consisting of quintuples of Young tableaux each of shape $(m,m)$ (there are no invariants in odd degree). A quintuple of tableau can be interpreted as a function on $\mathbf{V}$ by applying the Young symmetrizer associated to the quintuple of tableaux. Since $R_{d}$ is a quotient of $T_d$, it is spanned by linear combinations of quintuples of Young tableaux which now satisfy certain linear dependencies.
An explicit basis of $U_{d} \subset R_d$ may be found without explicit knowledge of all of the relations as follows. We can verify that a given set of quintuples of tableaux are linearly independent by evaluating them on dimension-many pseudo-random points of $\mathbf{V}$. If the matrix constructed in this way has full rank, then we have a basis of that space of invariants. If not, we continue selecting random quintuples until a basis is found.
Finally, the space $U_d$ has an additional action of $\Sigma_5$.
Assuming that there is a single minimal generator of $\mathcal{I}(X)$ in a given $U_d$, it must be a semi-invariant of $\Sigma_5$, so either an invariant or skew-invariant. Let $U_d^{\Sigma_5}$ (respectively $U_d^{\Sigma_5, {\rm sgn}}$) denote the subspace of $U_{d}$ of $\Sigma_{5}$-invariants (respectively skew-invariants).
In Figure~\ref{Ud} we list the dimensions of these spaces of invariants for degrees up to $16$. The results follow from standard character theory calculations whose explanation we will omit.
\begin{figure}\label{Ud}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l|l|l|l}
Degree $d$ & $\dim U_d$ & $\dim U_d^{\Sigma_5}$ & $\dim U_d^{\Sigma_5, {\rm sgn}}$ \\ \hline
2 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
4 & 5 & 1 & 0\\
6 & 1 & 0 & 1 \\
8 &36 & 4 & 0\\
10 & 15 & 0 & 2\\
12 & 228 & 12 & 2\\
14 & 231 & 2 & 9\\
16 & 1313 & 39 & 10
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{The dimensions of $U_d$, and its subspaces of $\Sigma_5$-invariants and skew-invariants.
}
\end{figure}
We focus our search for equations of $X$ in the space of semi-invariants for $\mathbf{SL}(2)^{\times 5}\rtimes\Sigma_5$.
We describe this procedure in the case $d=16$ in \S\ref{app:f16}. The following proposition is a summary of what we found:
\begin{propositionst} \label{prop:eqns}
There are minimal equations $f_6, f_{16}$ vanishing on $X$ of degrees $6$ and $16$. Both are invariant under $\mathbf{SL}_2^{\times 5}$. Furthermore, $f_6$ is a skew-invariant under $\Sigma_5$ while $f_{16}$ is a $\Sigma_5$-invariant.
\end{propositionst}
To clarify: $f_6$ was constructed explicitly and we verified symbolically that it vanishes on $X$ and that it is a skew-invariant. The polynomial $f_{16}$ was also constructed explicitly and verified to be a $\Sigma_5$-invariant, but we only verified that it vanishes on a large collection of pseudo-random points on $X$, and hence it belongs to the ideal of $X$ with high probability.
\subsection{The equation $f_6$} \label{app:f6}
Given a monomial in the $x_I$ (the coordinates on $\mathbf{P}(\mathbf{V})$), define its skew-symmetrization to be $c^{-1} \sum_{\sigma \in \Sigma_5} {\rm sgn}(\sigma) x_{\sigma(I)}$ where $c$ is the coefficient of $x_I$ in the sum. The polynomial $f_6$ has $864$ monomials and is the sum of the skew-symmetrizations of the following $15$ monomials:
\begin{align*}
-x_{00000} x_{01010} x_{01101} x_{10011} x_{10100} x_{11111} , \quad
x_{00000} x_{01100} x_{01111} x_{10010} x_{10111} x_{11001}, \\
-x_{00000} x_{01100} x_{01111} x_{10011} x_{10110} x_{11001} , \quad
x_{00000} x_{01101} x_{01110} x_{10011} x_{10110} x_{11001}, \\
-x_{00110} x_{01000} x_{01101} x_{10000} x_{10011} x_{11111} , \quad
x_{00100} x_{01010} x_{01111} x_{10000} x_{10111} x_{11001}, \\
x_{00100} x_{01000} x_{01111} x_{10011} x_{10110} x_{11001} , \quad
x_{00110} x_{01000} x_{01101} x_{10001} x_{10010} x_{11111}, \\
-x_{00100} x_{01010} x_{01111} x_{10001} x_{10111} x_{11000} , \quad
x_{00100} x_{01010} x_{01111} x_{10011} x_{10101} x_{11000}, \\
-x_{00101} x_{01010} x_{01111} x_{10000} x_{10110} x_{11001} , \quad
x_{00100} x_{01011} x_{01110} x_{10011} x_{10101} x_{11000}, \\
-x_{00110} x_{01001} x_{01100} x_{10001} x_{10010} x_{11111} , \quad
x_{00110} x_{01001} x_{01111} x_{10011} x_{10100} x_{11000}, \\
x_{00111} x_{01010} x_{01101} x_{10011} x_{10100} x_{11000}.
\end{align*}
There is an alternative description in terms of Young symmetrizers, following the same construction outlined in \cite{BatesOeding}. The Young symmetrizer algorithm takes as input a set of fillings of five Young diagrams, performs a series of skew-symmetrizations and symmetrizations, and produces as output a polynomial in the associated Schur module.
One can search over all possible shapes and fillings of tableaux for a fixed number of boxes and evaluate Young symmetrizers to find modules of equations in $\mathcal I (X)$. We describe this method more fully in the next section. In degree $6$ the situation is particularly nice. It turns out that there are 5 standard tableaux of shape $(3,3)$ and content $\{1,2,\dots,6\}$ and the following Schur module, which uses one of each of the 5 standard fillings, realizes the non-trivial copy of $\bigotimes_{i=1}^{5}(\mathbf{S}_{3,3}V_{i})$ inside of $\Sym^{6}(\mathbf{V})$:
\ytableausetup{smalltableaux}
\[
\mathbf{S}_{\ytableaushort{135,246}} V_{1} \otimes
\mathbf{S}_{\ytableaushort{134,256}} V_{2} \otimes
\mathbf{S}_{\ytableaushort{125,346}} V_{3} \otimes
\mathbf{S}_{\ytableaushort{124,356}} V_{4} \otimes
\mathbf{S}_{\ytableaushort{123,456}} V_{5}.
\]
From this description of the invariant, one can use the classical symbolic method to verify that a general point of the fifth secant variety must be a zero of this invariant (see \cite{RaicuGSS} for complete descriptions of this type of argument, or also \cite{Ottaviani09_Waring}).
This gives an unconditional proof that $f_{6}$ is in $\mathcal I(X)$. Moreover, in \S\ref{sec:complement} we explain how this description of $f_{6}$ also provides a generalization to 5th secant varieties of any larger number of Segre products of projective spaces of any dimensions.
\subsection{The equation $f_{16}$} \label{app:f16}
We follow the approach outlined in \S\ref{sec:eqn-gen}. Our search for new equations in degrees $8$, $10$, $12$, and $14$ did not yield any new equations, so we only describe our process in the degree $16$ case. We used {\tt Maple}, and the code for these computations may be found in the ancillary files accompanying the arXiv version of this paper. Using the approach, we conclude that there are no $\Sigma_{5}$ skew-invariants in $\mathcal{I}_{16}$. We found that $\dim(\mathcal{I}\cap U_{16}^{\Sigma_{5}}) \le 3$ and equals $3$ with high probability.
Note that for $f' \in U_{10}$, we have $f_6 f' \in U_{16}^{\Sigma_5}$ if and only if $f' \in U_{10}^{\Sigma_5, \sgn}$ since $f_6$ is a skew-invariant under $\Sigma_5$. Since $U_{10}^{\Sigma_{5},{\rm sgn}}$ is $2$-dimensional, we know that $f_{6}\cdot U_{10}^{\Sigma_{5}, \sgn}$ is a $2$-dimensional subspace of $U_{16}^{\Sigma_{5}}$. Since $\dim(\mathcal{I}\cap U_{16}^{\Sigma_{5}}) = 3$ (with high probability), we find that $\mathcal{I}$ has one additional minimal generator in degree $16$.
Let us describe in more detail the case of finding $\Sigma_{5}$-invariants, the skew-invariant case is similar. Let $Q_{1},Q_{2},\dots$ denote quintuples of Young tableaux all of shape $(8,8)$. The sum
\[
F_{i}:=\sum_{\sigma\in \Sigma_{5}} \sigma.Q_{i}
\]
is in $U_{16}^{\Sigma_{5}}$. The Young symmetrizer algorithm (see \cite{BatesOeding}) can be used to evaluate $F_{i}$ on a point of $\mathbf{V}$ to test if it is non-zero. Each evaluation took between 500 and 23000 seconds and up to approximately 10GB of RAM on our servers\footnote{One with 24 cores 2.8 GHz Intel Xeon processors with 144 GB RAM and another with 40 cores 2.8 GHz Intel Xeon processors with 256GB of RAM.}.
We continued this randomized search for non-zero elements of $U_{16}^{\Sigma_{5}}$ until $39$ linearly independent invariants were found (the list of quintuples of fillings, data points, and code can be found in the ancillary files). To verify independence, we chose $39$ pseudo-random points $v_{i} \in \mathbf{V}$ and verified that the matrix $M:= \left(F_{i}(v_{j})\right)$ has full rank. While each evaluation $F_{i}(v_{j})$ is expensive, they are all independent computations. The distributed computation took approximately 2-3 days of computational time to verify the independence of $F_{i}$.
We then took $45$ pseudo-random points $p_{i}\in X$ and computed the matrix $(F_{i}(p_{j}))$ (only $39$ points are strictly necessary, but we included $6$ more to increase the probability that our result is correct). This computation took an additional 2-3 days to complete. Finally we found that the matrix $\left(F_{i}(p_{j})\right)$ has rank $36$, so there is a $3$-dimensional space of invariants vanishing on $\{p_{j}\}_{j=1}^{45}$ and vanishing on all of $X$ with high probability.
An expression of a basis of the kernel of the transpose of $(F_{i}(p_{j}))$ gives, in turn, a basis of $\mathcal{I}_{16}\cap U_{16}^{\Sigma_{5}}$ via linear combinations of quintuples of symmetrized sums of tableaux. Modding out by the space of invariants generated by $f_{6}$, (in principle) one finds $f_{16}$.
\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:CI}} \label{sec:proof}
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:codim2}
$X$ has codimension $2$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
This follows from \cite[Theorem 4.1]{CGG}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemmast} \label{lem:bertini}
$\deg(X) \ge 96$.
\end{lemmast}
\begin{proof}
Computing the degree of an algebraic variety is a basic function of the software {\tt Bertini} \cite{BertiniSoftware}, see the ancillary files and \cite{BertiniBook}. We thank Jon Hauenstein for his help with this computation.
The idea is to intersect $X$ with a randomly chosen $\mathbf{P}^2$ and find $96$ points. One of the basic methods of numerical algebraic geometry (and {\tt Bertini}, in particular) is numerical homotopy continuation, which relies on high precision numerical path tracking to follow the paths traced out by a homotopy from a system of polynomial equations with known roots to the desired system. For more details on these types of computations applied to tensor decomposition, see \cite{DHO, HOOS}.
The points found are represented by floating point numbers, so only satisfy the equations approximately. Though these methods have been rigorously tested through countless examples, are open source and repeatable, there is still a chance that the computations yield a false positive result, so we only claim that the result holds with high probability, so the proof of the lemma may be read as evidence for the statement.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:CI}]
Using the notation from Proposition~\ref{prop:eqns}, let $Y = V(f_6, f_{16})$, which is a complete intersection. We have $X \subseteq Y$ and $\deg X \ge \deg Y= 96$.
Since $X$ is irreducible of codimension $2$ (Lemma~\ref{lem:codim2}), and $Y$ is equidimensional, $Y$ is also irreducible (otherwise the degree inequality would be violated). So $X$ is the reduced subscheme of $Y$. Also, this implies that they have the same degree, so $Y$ is generically reduced. Since $Y$ is Cohen--Macaulay, generically reduced is equivalent to reduced. Hence $X=Y$ is a complete intersection.
\end{proof}
\section{Generalizations via flattening and inheritance} \label{sec:complement}
As mentioned in the introduction, the equations $f_{6}$ and $f_{16}$ provide modules of equations for all other 5th secant varieties of Segre products, both when the dimensions of the factors increase (by ``inheritance'') and when the number of factors increase (by flattening). Inheritance for secant varieties was introduced in \cite{LM04}, and was reinvestigated many times since. Inheritance can be encoded in the formality of $\Delta$-modules \cite{delta-mod}; we hope that our description here provides an entry point to this formalism for the unfamiliar reader.
The assignment $(V_1, \dots, V_5) \mapsto \Sym(V_1 \otimes \cdots \otimes V_5)$ is a multivariate polynomial functor $R$ on $5$-tuples of vector spaces, as is the assignment of the coordinate ring of the $5$th secant variety of the corresponding Segre product. Similarly, there is a functor $T_{i,j}$ defined by
\[
T_{i,j}(V_1, \dots, V_5) = {\rm Tor}_i^{\Sym(V_1 \otimes \cdots \otimes V_5)}(R(V_1, \dots, V_5), \mathbf{k})_j
\]
(the Tor groups are ${\bf Z}$-graded, and the subscript denotes the $j$th homogeneous piece).
When $i=1$, this is the space of minimal generators in degree $j$ of the ideal of $R(V_1, \dots, V_5)$.
As a representation of $\mathbf{GL}_2$, a $\mathbf{SL}_2$-invariant of degree $2n$ is the Schur functor $\mathbf{S}_{n,n}$. So Proposition~\ref{prop:eqns} can be interpreted as saying that $\mathbf{S}_{3,3} \boxtimes \cdots \boxtimes \mathbf{S}_{3,3}$ appears with multiplicity $1$ in $T_{1,6}$ (coming from $f_6$) and $\mathbf{S}_{8,8} \boxtimes \cdots \boxtimes \mathbf{S}_{8,8}$ appears with multiplicity $1$ in $T_{1,16}$ (coming from $f_{16}$). The Koszul relation amongst $f_6$ and $f_{16}$ also shows that $\mathbf{S}_{11,11} \boxtimes \cdots \boxtimes \mathbf{S}_{11,11}$ appears with multiplicity $1$ in $T_{2,22}$. Furthermore, if any other product of Schur functors $\mathbf{S}_{\lambda^1} \boxtimes \cdots \boxtimes \mathbf{S}_{\lambda^5}$ appears in any $T_{i,j}$ then $\ell(\lambda^k) > 2$ for some $k$ since it vanishes when we evaluate on $(\mathbf{k}^2, \dots, \mathbf{k}^2)$.
There is another interpretation of our results using $\Delta$-modules (see \cite{delta-mod}): the $5$th secant variety of the Segre product of projective spaces is a $\Delta$-variety, and hence the assignment of a tuple of vector spaces to the space of degree $d$ equations vanishing on the $5$th secant variety is a finitely generated $\Delta$-module (which implies finitely presented using \cite[Theorem 9.1.3]{grobner}). For $d=6$, we have shown that $\mathbf{S}_{3,3} \boxtimes \cdots \boxtimes \mathbf{S}_{3,3}$ ($5$ copies) are minimal generators of this $\Delta$-module, and similarly for $d=16$ and $\mathbf{S}_{8,8} \boxtimes \cdots \boxtimes \mathbf{S}_{8,8}$.
|
\section{Introduction}
\IEEEPARstart{D}{istance} metric learning aims to train a valid distance metric which can enlarge the distances between samples of different classes and reduce the distances between samples of the same class \cite{bellet2013}. Metric learning is closely related to $k$-Nearest Neighbor ($k$-NN) classification \cite{weinberger2009LMNNJMLR}, clustering \cite{xing2002distance}, ranking \cite{mcfee2010metric,lim2013robust}, feature extraction \cite{zhang2011learning} and support vector machine (SVM) \cite{xu2013distance}, and has been widely applied to face recognition \cite{guillaumin2009LDML}, person re-identification \cite{kostinger2012large,li2013learning}, image retrieval \cite{hoi2008semi,yang2010boosting}, activity recognition \cite{tran2008human}, document classification \cite{lebanon2006metric}, and link prediction \cite{shaw2011learning}, etc. One popular metric learning approach is the Mahalanobis distance metric learning, which is to learn a linear transformation matrix $\mathbf{L}$ or a matrix $\mathbf{M}=\mathbf{L}^T\mathbf{L}$ from the training data. Given two samples $\mathbf{x}_i$ and $\mathbf{x}_j$, the Mahalanobis distance between them is defined as:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
d_{\mathbf{M}}^{2}\left( {{\mathbf{x}}_{i}},{{\mathbf{x}}_{j}} \right)& =\left\| \mathbf{L}({{\mathbf{x}}_{i}}-{{\mathbf{x}}_{j}}) \right\|_{2}^{2}\\
& ={{\left( {{\mathbf{x}}_{i}}-{{\mathbf{x}}_{j}} \right)}^{T}}\mathbf{M}\left( {{\mathbf{x}}_{i}}-{{\mathbf{x}}_{j}} \right).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\par
To satisfy the nonnegative property of a distance metric, $\mathbf{M}$ should be positive semidefinite (PSD). According to which one of $\mathbf{M}$ and $\mathbf{L}$ is learned, Mahalanobis distance metric learning methods can be grouped into two categories. Methods that learn $\mathbf{L}$, including neighborhood components analysis (NCA) \cite{goldberger2004NCA}, large margin components analysis (LMCA) \cite{torresani2006large} and neighborhood repulsed metric learning (NRML) \cite{lu2014neighborhood}, are mostly formulated as nonconvex optimization problems, which are solved by gradient descent based optimizers. Taking the PSD constraint into account, methods that learn $\mathbf{M}$, including large margin nearest neighbor (LMNN) \cite{weinberger2005LMNNNIPS} and maximally collapsing metric learning (MCML) \cite{globerson2005MCML}, are mostly formulated as convex semidefinite programming (SDP) problems, which can be optimized by standard SDP solvers \cite{weinberger2005LMNNNIPS}, projected gradient \cite{xing2002distance}, Boosting-like \cite{shen2012positive}, or Frank-Wolfe \cite{ying2012distance} algorithms. Davis \textit{et al.} \cite{davis2007information} proposed an information-theoretic metric learning (ITML) model with an iterative Bregman projection algorithm, which does not need projections onto the PSD cone. Besides, the use of online solvers for metric learning has been discussed in \cite{mensink2012metric,kostinger2012large,checkik2010large}.
\par
On the other hand, kernel methods \cite{belkin2006manifold,andrews2002support,evgeniou2004regularized,pekalska2009kernel,anand2014semisupervised,maji2013efficient} have been widely studied in many learning tasks, e.g., semi-supervised learning, multiple instance learning, multitask learning, etc. Kernel learning methods, such as support vector machine (SVM), exhibit good generalization performance. There are many open resources on kernel classification methods, and a variety of toolboxes and libraries have been released \cite{vapnik1995nature,chang2011,Platt1999,tsang2005core,bordes2007,teo2007scalable,shalev2011pegasos}. It is thus important to investigate the connections between metric learning and kernel classification and explore how to utilize the kernel classification resources in the research and development of metric learning methods.
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{Summary of main abbreviations}
\label{Abbrev}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|p{6cm}}
\hline
\bfseries Abbreviation & \bfseries Full Name \\
\hline
PSD & Positive semidefinite (matrix)\\
SDP & Semidefinite programming\\
$k$-NN & $k$-nearest neighbor (classification)\\
KKT & Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (condition)\\
SVM & Support vector machine\\
LMCA\cite{torresani2006large} & Large margin components analysis\\
LMNN\cite{weinberger2009LMNNJMLR} & Large margin nearest neighbor\\
NCA\cite{goldberger2004NCA} & Neighborhood components analysis\\
MCML\cite{globerson2005MCML} & Maximally collapsing metric learning\\
ITML\cite{davis2007information} & Information-theoretic metric learning\\
LDML\cite{guillaumin2009LDML} & Logistic discriminant metric learning\\
DML-eig\cite{ying2012distance} & Distance metric learning with eigenvalue optimization\\
PLML\cite{wang2012PLML} & Parametric local metric learning\\
KISSME\cite{kostinger2012large} & Keep it simple and straightforward metric learning\\
PCML & Positive-semidefinite constrained metric learning\\
NCML & Nonnegative-coefficient constrained metric learning\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\vspace{-5mm}
\end{table}
\par
In this paper, we propose a novel formulation of metric learning by casting it as a kernel classification problem, which allows us to effectively and efficiently learn distance metrics by iterated training of SVM. The off-the-shelf SVM solvers such as LibSVM \cite{chang2011} can be employed to solve the metric learning problem. Specifically, we propose two novel methods to bridge metric learning with the well-developed SVM techniques, and they are easy to implement. First, we propose a Positive-semidefinite Constrained Metric Learning (PCML) model, which can be solved via iterating between PSD projection and dual SVM learning. Second, by re-parameterizing the matrix $\mathbf{M}$, we transform the PSD constraint into a nonnegative coefficient constraint and consequently propose a Nonnegative-coefficient Constrained Metric Learning (NCML) model, which can be solved by iterated learning of two SVMs. Both PCML and NCML have globally optimal solutions, and our extensive experiments on UCI dataset classification, handwritten digit recognition, face verification and person re-identification clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of them.
\par
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section \ref{relatedwork} reviews the related works. Section \ref{pcml} presents the PCML model and the optimization algorithm. Section \ref{ncml} presents the model and algorithm of NCML. Section \ref{experimentalresults} presents the experimental results, and Section \ref{conclusion} concludes the paper.
\par
The main abbreviations used in this paper are summarized in Table 1.
\section{Related Work}
\label{relatedwork}
\par
Compared with nonconvex metric learning models \cite{goldberger2004NCA,torresani2006large,niu2012information}, convex formulation of metric learning \cite{weinberger2009LMNNJMLR,xing2002distance,globerson2005MCML,shen2012positive,ying2012distance} has drawn increasing attentions due to its desired properties such as global optimality. Most convex metric learning models can be formulated as SDP or quadratic SDP problems. Standard SDP solvers, however, are inefficient for metric learning, especially when the size of training samples is big or the feature dimension is high. Therefore, customized optimization algorithm needs to be developed for each specific metric learning model. For LMNN, Weinberger \textit{et al.} developed an efficient solver based on the sub-gradient descent and the active set techniques \cite{weinberger2008fast}. In ITML, Davis \textit{et al.} \cite{davis2007information} suggested an iterative Bregman projection algorithm. Iterative projected gradient descent method \cite{xing2002distance,jin2009regularized} has been widely employed for metric learning but it requires an eigenvalue decomposition in each iteration. Other algorithms such as block-coordinate descent \cite{qi2009efficient}, smooth optimization \cite{ying2009sparse}, and Frank-Wolfe \cite{ying2012distance} have also been studied for metric learning. Unlike the customized algorithms, in this work we formulate metric learning as a kernel classification problem and solve it using the off-the-shelf SVM solvers, which can guarantee the global optimality and the PSD property of the learned $\mathbf{M}$, and is easy to implement and efficient in training.
\par
Another line of work aims to develop metric learning algorithms by solving the Lagrange dual problems. Shen \textit{et al.} derived the Lagrange dual of the exponential loss based metric learning model, and proposed a boosting-like approach, namely BoostMetric, where the matrix $\mathbf{M}$ is learned as a linear positive combination of rank-one matrices \cite{shen2012positive,shen2009positive}. MetricBoost \cite{bi2011} and FrobMetric \cite{shen2011scalable,shen2014efficient} were further proposed to improve the performance of BoostMetric. Liu and Vemuri incorporated two regularization terms in the duality for robust metric learning \cite{liu2012robust}. Note that BoostMetric \cite{shen2012positive,shen2009positive}, MetricBoost \cite{bi2011}, and FrobMetric \cite{shen2011scalable} are proposed for metric learning with triplet constraints, whereas in many applications such as verification, only pairwise constraints are available in the training stage.
\par
Several SVM-based metric learning approaches \cite{nguyen2008metric,brunner2012,do2012metric,wang2014kernel} have also been proposed. Using SVM, Nguyen and Guo \cite{nguyen2008metric} formulated metric learning as a quadratic semidefinite programming problem, and suggested a projected gradient descent algorithm. The formulations of the proposed PCML and NCML in this work are different from the model in \cite{nguyen2008metric}, and they are solved by the dual problems with the off-the-shelf SVM solvers. Brunner \MakeLowercase{\textit{et al.}} \cite{brunner2012} proposed a pairwise SVM method to learn a dissimilarity function rather than a distance metric. Different from \cite{brunner2012}, the proposed PCML and NCML learn a distance metric and the matrix $\mathbf{M}$ is constrained to be a PSD matrix. Do \MakeLowercase{\textit{et al.}} \cite{do2012metric} studied SVM from a metric learning perspective and presented an improved variant of SVM classification. Wang \MakeLowercase{\textit{et al.}} \cite{wang2014kernel} developed a kernel classification framework for metric learning and proposed two learning models which can be efficiently implemented by the standard SVM solvers. However, they adopted a two-step greedy strategy to solve the models and neglected the PSD constraint in the first step. In this work, the proposed PCML and NCML models have different formulations from \cite{wang2014kernel}, and their solutions are globally optimal.
\begin{flushleft}
\section{Positive-semidefinite Constrained Metric Learning (PCML)}
\label{pcml}
\end{flushleft}
Denote by $\left\{ \left. \left( {{\mathbf{x}}_{i}},{{y}_{i}} \right) \right|i=1,2,\cdots ,N \right\}$ a training set, where ${{\mathbf{x}}_{i}}\in {{\mathbb{R}}^{d}}$ is the $i$th training sample, and $y_i$ is the class label of $\mathbf{x}_i$. The Mahalanobis distance between $\mathbf{x}_i$ and $\mathbf{x}_j$ can be equivalently written as:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
d_{\mathbf{M}}^{2}\left( {{\mathbf{x}}_{i}},{{\mathbf{x}}_{j}} \right)& =\operatorname{tr}\left( {{\mathbf{M}}^{T}}({{\mathbf{x}}_{i}}-{{\mathbf{x}}_{j}}){{({{\mathbf{x}}_{i}}-{{\mathbf{x}}_{j}})}^{T}} \right)\\
& =\left\langle \mathbf{M},\left( {{\mathbf{x}}_{i}}-{{\mathbf{x}}_{j}} \right){{\left( {{\mathbf{x}}_{i}}-{{\mathbf{x}}_{j}} \right)}^{T}} \right\rangle,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{M}$ is a PSD matrix, $\left\langle \mathbf{A},\mathbf{B} \right\rangle =\operatorname{tr}\left( {{\mathbf{A}}^{T}}\mathbf{B} \right)$ is defined as the Frobenius inner product of two matrices $\mathbf{A}$ and $\mathbf{B}$, and $\operatorname{tr}(\bullet )$ stands for the matrix trace operator. For each pair of $\mathbf{x}_i$ and $\mathbf{x}_j$, we define a matrix ${{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}}=({{\mathbf{x}}_{i}}-{{\mathbf{x}}_{j}}){{({{\mathbf{x}}_{i}}-{{\mathbf{x}}_{j}})}^{T}}$. With ${{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}}$, the Mahalanobis distance can be rewritten as $d_{\mathbf{M}}^{2}\left( {{\mathbf{x}}_{i}},{{\mathbf{x}}_{j}} \right)=\left\langle \mathbf{M},{{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}} \right\rangle $.
\subsection{PCML and Its Dual Problem}
Let $\mathcal{S}=\{\left(\mathbf{x}_i,\mathbf{x}_j\right): \text{the } \text{class } \text{labels } \text{of } \mathbf{x}_i \text{ and } \mathbf{x}_j \text{ are the }$ $\text{same}\}$ be the set of similar pairs, and let $\mathcal{D}=\{\left(\mathbf{x}_i,\mathbf{x}_j\right): \text{the class labels of } \mathbf{x}_i \text{ and } \mathbf{x}_j \text{ are different}\}$ be the set of dissimilar pairs. By introducing an indicator variable $h_{ij}$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
{{h}_{ij}}=\left\{ \begin{matrix}
1,\text{ if (}{{\mathbf{x}}_{i}}\text{, }{{\mathbf{x}}_{j}}\text{)}\in \mathcal{D} \\
-1,\text{ if (}{{\mathbf{x}}_{i}}\text{, }{{\mathbf{x}}_{j}}\text{)}\in \mathcal{S}, \\
\end{matrix} \right.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
the PCML model can be formulated as:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\underset{\mathbf{M},b,\boldsymbol{\xi }}{\mathop{\min }}\, \quad & \frac{1}{2}\left\| \mathbf{M} \right\|_{F}^{2}+C\sum\nolimits_{i,j}{{{\xi }_{ij}}} \\
\text{s}\text{.t}\text{.} \quad & {{h}_{ij}}\left( \left\langle \mathbf{M},{{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}} \right\rangle +b \right)\ge 1-{{\xi }_{ij}}, {{\xi }_{ij}}\ge 0,\ \forall i,j \\
& \mathbf{M}\succcurlyeq 0,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where ${{\xi }_{ij}}$ denotes the slack variables, $b$ denotes the bias, and ${{\left\| \centerdot \right\|}_{F}}$ denotes the Frobenius norm.
\par
The PCML model defined above is convex and can be solved using the standard SDP solvers. However, the high complexity of general-purpose interior-point SDP solver makes it only suitable for small-scale problems. In order to improve the efficiency, in the following we first analyze the Lagrange duality of the PCML model, and then propose an algorithm to iterate between SVM training and PSD projection to learn the Mahalanobis distance metric.
\par
By introducing the Lagrange multipliers $\boldsymbol{\lambda }$ and a PSD matrix $\mathbf{Y}$, the Lagrange dual of the problem in (4) can be formulated as:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\underset{\boldsymbol{\lambda },\mathbf{Y}}{\mathop{\max }}\, \quad & -\frac{1}{2}\left\| \sum\nolimits_{i,j}{{{\lambda }_{ij}}{{h}_{ij}}{{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}}}+\mathbf{Y} \right\|_{F}^{2}+\sum\nolimits_{i,j}{{{\lambda }_{ij}}} \\
\text{s}\text{.t}\text{.} \quad & \sum\nolimits_{i,j}{{{\lambda }_{ij}}{{h}_{ij}}}=0, 0\le {{\lambda }_{ij}}\le C,\ \forall i,j,\quad \mathbf{Y}\succcurlyeq 0.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Please refer to \textbf{Appendix A} for the detailed derivation of the dual problem. Based on the Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (KKT) conditions, the matrix $\mathbf{M}$ can be obtained by
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{M}=\sum\nolimits_{i,j}{{{\lambda }_{ij}}{{h}_{ij}}{{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}}}+\mathbf{Y}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
The strong duality allows us to first solve the equivalent dual problem in (5) and then obtain the matrix $\mathbf{M}$ by (6). However, due to the PSD constraint $\mathbf{Y}\succcurlyeq 0$, the problem in (5) is still difficult to optimize.
\subsection{Alternative Optimization Algorithm}
\par
To solve the dual problem efficiently, we propose an optimization approach by updating $\boldsymbol{\lambda }$ and $\mathbf{Y}$ alternatively. Given $\mathbf{Y}$, we introduce a new variable $\boldsymbol{\eta}$ with ${{\eta }_{ij}}=1-{{h}_{ij}}\left\langle {{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}},\mathbf{Y} \right\rangle =1-{{h}_{ij}}{{\left( {{\mathbf{x}}_{i}}-{{\mathbf{x}}_{j}} \right)}^{T}}\mathbf{Y}\left( {{\mathbf{x}}_{i}}-{{\mathbf{x}}_{j}} \right)$, and the subproblem on $\boldsymbol{\lambda }$ can be formulated as:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\label{PCMLlambda}
& \underset{\boldsymbol{\lambda }}{\mathop{\max }}\, -\frac{1}{2}\sum\nolimits_{i,j}{\sum\nolimits_{k,l}{{{\lambda }_{ij}}{{\lambda }_{kl}}{{h}_{ij}}{{h}_{kl}}\left\langle {{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}},{{\mathbf{X}}_{kl}} \right\rangle }}+\sum\nolimits_{i,j}{{{\eta }_{ij}}{{\lambda }_{ij}}} \\
& \quad\text{s.t.}\quad \sum\nolimits_{i,j}{{{\lambda }_{ij}}{{h}_{ij}}}=0, 0\le {{\lambda }_{ij}}\le C,\quad \forall i,j.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\par
The subproblem (\ref{PCMLlambda}) is a QP problem. We can define a kernel function of sample pairs as follows:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
K\left( \left( {{\mathbf{x}}_{i}},{{\mathbf{x}}_{j}} \right),\left( {{\mathbf{x}}_{k}},{{\mathbf{x}}_{l}} \right) \right) & =\left\langle {{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}},{{\mathbf{X}}_{kl}} \right\rangle \\
& ={{\left( {{\left( {{\mathbf{x}}_{i}}-{{\mathbf{x}}_{j}} \right)}^{T}}\left( {{\mathbf{x}}_{k}}-{{\mathbf{x}}_{l}} \right) \right)}^{2}}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Substituting (8) into (7), the subproblem on $\boldsymbol{\lambda}$ becomes a kernel-based classification problem, and can be efficiently solved by using the existing SVM solvers such as LibSVM \cite{chang2011}.
Given $\boldsymbol{\lambda }$, the subproblem on $\mathbf{Y}$ can be formulated as the projection of a matrix onto the convex cone of PSD matrices:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
& \underset{\mathbf{Y}}{\mathop{\min }}\,\quad \left\| \mathbf{Y}-{{\mathbf{Y}}_{0}} \right\|_{F}^{2},\quad \text{s}\text{.t}\text{.}\quad \mathbf{Y}\succcurlyeq 0,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where ${{\mathbf{Y}}_{0}}=-\sum\nolimits_{i,j}{{{\lambda }_{ij}}{{h}_{ij}}{{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}}}$. Through the eigen-decomposition of $\mathbf{Y}_0$, i.e., ${{\mathbf{Y}}_{0}}=\mathbf{U\Lambda }{{\mathbf{U}}^{T}}$ and $\boldsymbol{\Lambda }$ is the diagonal matrix of eigenvalues, the solution to the subproblem on $\mathbf{Y}$ can be explicitly expressed as $\mathbf{Y}=\mathbf{U}\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_{+}{{\mathbf{U}}^{T}}$, where $\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_{+}=\max \left( \boldsymbol{\Lambda },\mathbf{0} \right)$. Finally, the PCML algorithm is summarized in \textbf{Algorithm \ref{alg:PCML}}.
\begin{algorithm}[tb]
\caption{Algorithm of PCML}
\label{alg:PCML}
\begin{algorithmic}
\STATE {\bfseries Input:} $\mathcal{S}=\{\left(\mathbf{x}_i,\mathbf{x}_j\right): \text{the class labels of } \mathbf{x}_i \text{ and } \mathbf{x}_j$ $\text{ are the same}\},$ $\mathcal{D}=\{\left(\mathbf{x}_i,\mathbf{x}_j\right): \text{the class labels of } \mathbf{x}_i$ $\text{ and } \mathbf{x}_j \text{ are different}\},$ $\text{and}$ $h_{ij}.$
\STATE {\bfseries Output:} $\mathbf{M}$.
\STATE {\bfseries Initialize} ${{\mathbf{Y}}^{\left( 0 \right)}}$, $t\leftarrow 0$.
\REPEAT
\STATE 1. Update ${{\mathbf{\eta }}^{\left( t+1 \right)}}$ with $\eta _{ij}^{(t+1)}=1-{{h}_{ij}}\left\langle {{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}},{{\mathbf{Y}}^{(t)}} \right\rangle $.
\STATE 2. Update ${{\boldsymbol{\lambda }}^{\left( t+1 \right)}}$ by solving the subproblem (7) using an SVM solver.
\STATE 3. Update $\mathbf{Y}_{0}^{(t+1)}=-\sum\nolimits_{i,j}{\lambda _{ij}^{(t+1)}{{h}_{ij}}{{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}}}$.
\STATE 4. Update ${{\mathbf{Y}}^{(t+1)}}=\mathbf{U}^{(t+1)}\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_{+}^{(t+1)}{{\mathbf{U}^{(t+1)}}^{T}}$, where $\mathbf{Y}_{0}^{(t+1)}=\mathbf{U}^{(t+1)}\mathbf{\Lambda }^{(t+1)}{{\mathbf{U}^{(t+1)}}^{T}}$ and $\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_{+}^{(t+1)}=\max \left( \boldsymbol{\Lambda }^{(t+1)},\mathbf{0} \right)$.
\STATE 5. $t\leftarrow t+1$.
\UNTIL{convergence}
\STATE $\mathbf{M}=\sum\nolimits_{i,j}{{{\lambda }_{ij}^{(t-1)}}{{h}_{ij}}{{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}}}+\mathbf{Y}^{(t-1)}$.
\STATE {\bfseries return} $\mathbf{M}$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{Optimality Condition}
As shown in \cite{csisz1984information, gunawardana2005convergence}, the general alternating minimization approach will converge. By alternatively updating $\boldsymbol{\lambda }$ and $\mathbf{Y}$, the proposed algorithm can reach the global optimum of the problems in (4) and (5).
\par
The optimality condition of the proposed algorithm can be checked by the duality gap in each iteration, which is defined as the difference between the primal and dual objective values:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\text{DualGap}_\text{PCML}^{(n)}= & \frac{1}{2}\left\| {{\mathbf{M}}^{(n)}} \right\|_{F}^{2}+C\sum\nolimits_{i,j}{\xi _{ij}^{(n)}}-\sum\nolimits_{i,j}{\lambda _{ij}^{(n)}}\\
& +\frac{1}{2}\left\| \sum\nolimits_{i,j}{\lambda _{ij}^{(n)}{{h}_{ij}}{{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}}}+{{\mathbf{Y}}^{(n)}} \right\|_{F}^{2},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where ${{\mathbf{M}}^{(n)}}$, $\boldsymbol{\xi }_{{}}^{(n)}$, $\boldsymbol{\lambda }_{{}}^{(n)}$, and ${{\mathbf{Y}}^{(n)}}$ are feasible primal and dual variables, and $\text{DualGap}_{\text{PCML}}^{\left( n \right)}$ is the duality gap in the $n$th iteration. According to (6), we can derive that
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
{{\mathbf{M}}^{\left( n \right)}}=\sum\nolimits_{i,j}{\lambda _{ij}^{\left( n \right)}{{h}_{ij}}{{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}}}+{{\mathbf{Y}}^{\left( n \right)}}={{\mathbf{Y}}^{\left( n \right)}}-\mathbf{Y}_{0}^{\left( n \right)}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
As shown in Subsection 3.2, $\mathbf{Y}_{0}^{\left( n \right)}={{\mathbf{U}}^{\left( n \right)}}{{\mathbf{\Lambda }}^{\left( n \right)}}{{\mathbf{U}}^{\left( n \right)}}^{T}$, ${{\mathbf{Y}}^{\left( n \right)}}={{\mathbf{U}}^{\left( n \right)}}\mathbf{\Lambda }_{+}^{\left( n \right)}{{\mathbf{U}}^{\left( n \right)}}^{T}$, and hence ${{\mathbf{M}}^{\left( n \right)}}={{\mathbf{U}}^{\left( n \right)}}\mathbf{\Lambda }_{-}^{\left( n \right)}{{\mathbf{U}}^{\left( n \right)}}^{T}$, where $\mathbf{\Lambda }_{-}^{\left( n \right)}=\mathbf{\Lambda }_{+}^{\left( n \right)}-{{\mathbf{\Lambda }}^{\left( n \right)}}$. Thus, $\left\| {{\mathbf{M}}^{\left( n \right)}} \right\|_{F}^{2}$ can be computed by
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\left\| {{\mathbf{M}}^{\left( n \right)}} \right\|_{F}^{2} & =\operatorname{tr}\left( {{\mathbf{M}}^{\left( n \right)}}^{T}{{\mathbf{M}}^{\left( n \right)}} \right)\\
& =\operatorname{tr}\left( {{\mathbf{U}}^{\left( n \right)}}\mathbf{\Lambda }_{-}^{\left( n \right)}{{\mathbf{U}}^{\left( n \right)}}^{T}{{\mathbf{U}}^{\left( n \right)}}\mathbf{\Lambda }_{-}^{\left( n \right)}{{\mathbf{U}}^{\left( n \right)}}^{T} \right)\\
& =\operatorname{tr}\left( {{\mathbf{U}}^{\left( n \right)}}\mathbf{\Lambda }_{-}^{\left( n \right)2}{{\mathbf{U}}^{\left( n \right)}}^{T} \right) =\operatorname{tr}\left( \mathbf{\Lambda }_{-}^{\left( n \right)2} \right).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Substituting (11) and (12) into (10), the duality gap of PCML can be obtained as follows
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\text{DualGap}_{\text{PCML}}^{\left( n \right)}=C\sum\nolimits_{i,j}{\xi _{ij}^{\left( n \right)}}-\sum\nolimits_{i,j}{\lambda _{ij}^{\left( n \right)}}+\operatorname{tr}\left( \mathbf{\Lambda }{{_{-}^{\left( n \right)}}^{2}} \right).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\par
Based on the KKT conditions of the PCML dual problem in (5), $\xi _{ij}^{\left( n \right)}$ can be obtained by
\begin{equation}
\xi _{ij}^{\left( n \right)}=\left\{ \begin{aligned}
& 0, \forall \lambda _{ij}^{\left( n \right)}<C \\
& {{\left[ 1-{{h}_{ij}}\left( \left\langle {{\mathbf{M}}^{\left( n \right)}},{{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}} \right\rangle +{{b}^{\left( n \right)}} \right) \right]}_{+}}, \forall \lambda _{ij}^{\left( n \right)}=C,
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
{{b}^{\left( n \right)}}=\frac{1}{{{h}_{ij}}}-\left\langle {{\mathbf{M}}^{\left( n \right)}},{{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}} \right\rangle, \forall 0<\lambda _{ij}^{\left( n \right)}<C.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Please refer to \textbf{Appendix A} for the detailed derivation of $\xi _{ij}^{\left( n \right)}$ and ${{b}^{\left( n \right)}}$. The duality gap is always nonnegative and approaches to zero when the primal problem is convex. Thus, it can be used as the termination condition of the algorithm. Fig. \ref{Dualgap_PCML} plots the curve of duality gap versus the number of iterations on the \emph{PenDigits} dataset by PCML. One can see that the duality gap converges to zero in less than 20 iterations and our algorithm will reach the global optimum. In \textbf{Algorithm \ref{alg:PCML}}, we adopt the following termination condition:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\text{DualGap}_{\text{PCML}}^{\left( t \right)}<\varepsilon \cdot \text{DualGap}_{\text{PCML}}^{\left( 1 \right)},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\varepsilon $ is a small constant and we set $\varepsilon =0.01$ in the experiment.\\
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\columnwidth]{DualGap_PCML_PenDigits_C10.eps}
\caption{Duality gap vs. number of iterations on the \emph{PenDigits} dataset for PCML.}
\label{Dualgap_PCML}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Remarks}
{\bf Warm-start:} In the updating of $\boldsymbol{\lambda }$, we adopt a simple warm-start strategy. We use the solution of the previous iteration as the initialization of the next iteration. Since the previous solution can serve as a good guess, warm-start results in significant improvement in efficiency.
\par
{\bf Construction of pairwise constraints:} Based on the training set, we can introduce $N^2$ pairwise constraints in total. However, in practice we only need to choose a subset of pairwise constraints to reduce the computational cost. For each sample, we find its $k$ nearest neighbors to construct similar pairs and its $k$ farthest neighbors to construct dissimilar pairs. Thus, we only need $2kN$ pairwise constraints. By this strategy, we can reduce the scale of pairwise constraints from $O\left(N^2\right)$ to $O\left(kN\right)$. Since $k$ is usually small constant (=1$\sim$3) in practice, the computational cost of metric learning is much reduced. Similar strategy for constructing pairwise or triplet constraints can be found in \cite{weinberger2009LMNNJMLR, hoi2008semi}.
\par
{\bf Computational Complexity:} We use the LibSVM library for SVM training. The computational complexity of SMO-type algorithms \cite{Platt1999} is $O(k^2N^2d)$. For PSD projection, the complexity of conventional SVD algorithms is $O(d^3)$.
\begin{flushleft}
\section{Nonnegative-coefficient Constrained Metric Learning (NCML)}
\label{ncml}
\end{flushleft}
Given a set of rank-1 PSD matrices ${{\mathbf{M}}_{t}}={{\mathbf{m}}_{t}}\mathbf{m}_{t}^{T} \left( t=\text{ 1},\cdots ,T \right)$, a linear combination of ${{\mathbf{M}}_{t}}$ is defined as $\mathbf{M}=\sum\nolimits_{t}{{{\alpha }_{t}}{{\mathbf{M}}_{t}}}$, where ${{\alpha }_{t}}$ is the scalar combination coefficient. One can easily prove the following \textbf{Theorem 1}.
\par
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}
\begin{theorem}
If the scalar coefficient ${{\alpha }_{t}}\ge 0,\ \forall t$, the matrix $\mathbf{M}=\sum\nolimits_{t}{\alpha_t\mathbf{M}_t}$ is a PSD matrix, where ${{\mathbf{M}}_{t}}={{\mathbf{m}}_{t}}\mathbf{m}_{t}^{T}$ is a rank-1 PSD matrix.
\end{theorem}
\begin{IEEEproof}
Denote by $\mathbf{u}\in {{\mathbb{R}}^{d}}$ a random vector. Based on the expression of $\mathbf{M}$, we have:
\[
\begin{aligned}
{{\mathbf{u}}^{T}}\mathbf{Mu} & ={{\mathbf{u}}^{T}}\left( \sum\nolimits_{t}{{{\alpha }_{t}}{{\mathbf{m}}_{t}}\mathbf{m}_{t}^{T}} \right)\mathbf{u} \\
& =\sum\nolimits_{t}{{{\alpha }_{t}}{{\mathbf{u}}^{T}}{{\mathbf{m}}_{t}}\mathbf{m}_{t}^{T}\mathbf{u}} =\sum\nolimits_{t}{{{\alpha }_{t}}{{\left( {{\mathbf{u}}^{T}}{{\mathbf{m}}_{t}} \right)}^{2}}}.
\end{aligned}
\]
Since ${{\left( {{\mathbf{u}}^{T}}{{\mathbf{m}}_{t}} \right)}^{2}}\ge 0$ and ${{\alpha }_{t}}\ge 0,\ \forall t$, we have ${{\mathbf{u}}^{T}}\mathbf{Mu}\ge 0$. Therefore, $\mathbf{M}$ is a PSD matrix.
\end{IEEEproof}
\subsection{NCML and Its Dual Problem}
Motivated by \textbf{Theorem 1}, we propose to transform the PSD constraint in (4) by re-parameterizing the distance metric $\mathbf{M}$, and develop a nonnegative-coefficient constrained metric learning (NCML) method to learn the PSD matrix $\mathbf{M}$. Given the training data $\mathcal{S}$ and $\mathcal{D}$, a rank-1 PSD matrix $\mathbf{X}_{ij}$ can be constructed for each pair $\left(\mathbf{x}_i,\mathbf{x}_j\right)$. By assuming that the learned matrix should be the linear combination of $\mathbf{X}_{ij}$ with the nonnegative coefficient constraint, the NCML model can be formulated as:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
& \underset{\mathbf{M},b,\boldsymbol{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\xi }}{\mathop{\min }}\,\quad \frac{1}{2}\left\| \mathbf{M} \right\|_{F}^{2}+C\sum\nolimits_{i,j}{{{\xi }_{ij}}} \\
& \text{s}\text{.t}\text{.}\quad {{h}_{ij}}\left( \left\langle \mathbf{M},{{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}} \right\rangle +b \right)\ge 1-{{\xi }_{ij}},\quad {{\alpha }_{ij}}\ge 0,\ {{\xi }_{ij}}\ge 0,\ \forall i,j \\
& \quad \quad \mathbf{M}=\sum\nolimits_{i,j}{{{\alpha }_{ij}}{{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}}}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
By substituting $\mathbf{M}$ with $\sum\nolimits_{i,j}{{{\alpha }_{ij}}}{{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}}$, we reformulate the NCML model as follows:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
& \underset{\boldsymbol{\alpha },b,\boldsymbol{\xi }}{\mathop{\min }}\,\quad \frac{1}{2}\sum\nolimits_{i,j}{\sum\nolimits_{k,l}{{{\alpha }_{ij}}{{\alpha }_{kl}}\left\langle {{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}},{{\mathbf{X}}_{kl}} \right\rangle }}+C\sum\nolimits_{i,j}{{{\xi }_{ij}}} \\
& \text{s}\text{.t}\text{.}\quad {{h}_{ij}}\left( \sum\nolimits_{k,l}{{{\alpha }_{kl}}\left\langle {{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}},{{\mathbf{X}}_{kl}} \right\rangle }+b \right)\ge 1-{{\xi }_{ij}} \\
& \quad \quad {{\alpha }_{ij}}\ge 0,\ {{\xi }_{ij}}\ge 0,\ \forall i,j.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\par
By introducing the Lagrange multipliers $\boldsymbol{\eta }$ and $\boldsymbol{\beta }$, the Lagrange dual of the primal problem in (18) can be formulated as:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\underset{\boldsymbol{\eta },\boldsymbol{\beta }}{\mathop{\max }}\,\ & -\frac{1}{2}\sum\nolimits_{i,j}{\sum\nolimits_{k,l}{\left( {{\beta }_{ij}}{{h}_{ij}}+{{\eta }_{ij}} \right)\left( {{\beta }_{kl}}{{h}_{kl}}+{{\eta }_{kl}} \right)\left\langle {{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}},{{\mathbf{X}}_{kl}} \right\rangle }}\\
& +\sum\nolimits_{i,j}{{{\beta }_{ij}}} \\
\text{s}\text{.t}\text{.}\quad & \sum\nolimits_{k,l}{{{\eta }_{kl}}\left\langle {{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}},{{\mathbf{X}}_{kl}} \right\rangle }\ge 0,\ 0\le {{\beta }_{ij}}\le C,\ \forall i,j \\
& \sum\nolimits_{i,j}{{{\beta }_{ij}}{{h}_{ij}}}=0.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\par
Please refer to \textbf{Appendix B} for the detailed derivation of the dual problem. Based on the KKT conditions, the coefficient ${{\alpha }_{ij}}$ can be obtained by:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
{{\alpha }_{ij}}={{\beta }_{ij}}{{h}_{ij}}+{{\eta }_{ij}}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Thus, we can first solve the above dual problem, and then obtain the matrix $\mathbf{M}$ by
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{M}=\sum\nolimits_{i,j}{({{\beta }_{ij}}{{h}_{ij}}+{{\eta }_{ij}}}){{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Optimization Algorithm}
There are two groups of variables, $\boldsymbol{\eta }$ and $\boldsymbol{\beta }$, in problem (19). We adopt an alternative optimization approach to solve them. First, given $\boldsymbol{\eta }$, the variables ${\beta }_{ij}$ can be solved as follows:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\underset{\boldsymbol{\beta }}{\mathop{\max }}\,\ & -\frac{1}{2}\sum\nolimits_{i,j}{\sum\nolimits_{k,l}{{{\beta }_{ij}}{{\beta }_{kl}}{{h}_{ij}}{{h}_{kl}}\left\langle {{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}},{{\mathbf{X}}_{kl}} \right\rangle }}+\sum\nolimits_{i,j}{{{\delta }_{ij}}{{\beta }_{ij}}} \\
\text{s}\text{.t}\text{.} \quad & 0\le {{\beta }_{ij}}\le C,\ \forall i,j, \sum\nolimits_{i,j}{{{\beta }_{ij}}{{h}_{ij}}}=0,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\boldsymbol{\delta }$ is the variable with ${{\delta }_{ij}}=\left( 1-{{h}_{ij}}\sum\nolimits_{kl}{{{\eta }_{kl}}\left\langle {{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}},{{\mathbf{X}}_{kl}} \right\rangle } \right)$. Clearly, the subproblem on $\boldsymbol{\beta }$ is exactly the dual problem of SVM, and it can be efficiently solved by any standard SVM solvers, e.g., LibSVM \cite{chang2011}.
\par
Given $\boldsymbol{\beta }$, the subproblem on $\boldsymbol{\eta }$ can be formulated as follows:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
& \underset{\boldsymbol{\eta }}{\mathop{\min }}\,\quad \frac{1}{2}\sum\nolimits_{i,j}{\sum\nolimits_{k,l}{{{\eta }_{ij}}{{\eta }_{kl}}\left\langle {{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}},{{\mathbf{X}}_{kl}} \right\rangle }}+\sum\nolimits_{i,j}{{{\eta }_{ij}}{{\gamma }_{ij}}} \\
& \text{s}\text{.t}\text{.}\quad \sum\nolimits_{k,l}{{{\eta }_{ij}}\left\langle {{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}},{{\mathbf{X}}_{kl}} \right\rangle }\ge 0,\ \forall i,j,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where ${{\gamma }_{ij}}=\sum\nolimits_{kl}{{{\beta }_{kl}}{{h}_{kl}}\left\langle {{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}},{{\mathbf{X}}_{kl}} \right\rangle }$. To simplify the subproblem on $\boldsymbol{\eta }$, we derive the Lagrange dual of (23) based on the KKT condition:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
{{\eta }_{ij}}={{\mu }_{ij}}-{{h}_{ij}}{{\beta }_{ij}},\quad \forall i,j,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\boldsymbol{\mu }$ is the Lagrange dual multiplier. The Lagrange dual problem of (23) is formulated as follows:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
& \underset{\boldsymbol{\mu }}{\mathop{\max }}\,\quad -\frac{1}{2}\sum\nolimits_{i,j}{\sum\nolimits_{k,l}{{{\mu }_{ij}}{{\mu }_{kl}}\left\langle {{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}},{{\mathbf{X}}_{kl}} \right\rangle }}+\sum\nolimits_{i,j}{{{\gamma }_{ij}}}{{\mu }_{ij}} \\
& \text{s}\text{.t}\text{.}\quad {{\mu }_{ij}}\ge 0,\forall i,j.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Please refer to \textbf{Appendix C} for the detailed derivation. Clearly, problem (25) is a simpler QP problem than (23), which can be efficiently solved by the standard SVM solvers.
\par
By alternatively updating $\boldsymbol{\mu }$ and $\boldsymbol{\beta }$, we can solve the NCML dual problem (19). After obtaining the optimal solutions of $\boldsymbol{\mu }$ and $\boldsymbol{\beta }$, the optimal solution of $\boldsymbol{\alpha }$ in problem (18) can be obtained by
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
{{\alpha }_{ij}}={{\mu }_{ij}},\quad \forall i,j.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
We then have $\mathbf{M}=\sum\nolimits_{ij}{{{\alpha }_{ij}}}{{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}}$. The NCML algorithm is summarized in \textbf{Algorithm \ref{alg:NCML}}.
\begin{algorithm}[tb]
\caption{Algorithm of NCML}
\label{alg:NCML}
\begin{algorithmic}
\STATE {\bfseries Input:} Training set $\left\{ \left( {{\mathbf{x}}_{i}},{{\mathbf{x}}_{j}} \right),{{h}_{ij}} \right\}$.
\STATE {\bfseries Output:} The matrix $\mathbf{M}$.
\STATE {\bfseries Initialize} ${{\boldsymbol{\eta }}^{\left( 0 \right)}}$ with small random values, $t\leftarrow 0$.
\REPEAT
\STATE 1. Update ${{\boldsymbol{\delta }}^{\left( t+1 \right)}}$ with $\boldsymbol{\delta }_{ij}^{\left( t+1 \right)}=\left( 1-{{h}_{ij}}\sum\nolimits_{kl}{\eta _{kl}^{\left( t \right)}\left\langle {{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}},{{\mathbf{X}}_{kl}} \right\rangle } \right)$.
\STATE 2. Update ${{\boldsymbol{\beta }}^{\left( t+1 \right)}}$ by solving the subproblem (15) using an SVM solver.
\STATE 3. Update ${{\boldsymbol{\gamma }}^{\left( t+1 \right)}}$ with $\gamma _{ij}^{\left( t+1 \right)}=\sum\nolimits_{kl}{\beta _{kl}^{\left( t+1 \right)}{{h}_{kl}}\left\langle {{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}},{{\mathbf{X}}_{kl}} \right\rangle }$.
\STATE 4. Update ${{\boldsymbol{\mu }}^{\left( t+1 \right)}}$ by solving the subproblem (18) using an SVM solver.
\STATE 5. Update ${{\boldsymbol{\eta }}^{\left( t+1 \right)}}$ with $\eta _{ij}^{\left( t+1 \right)}\leftarrow \mu _{ij}^{\left( t+1 \right)}-{{h}_{ij}}\beta _{ij}^{\left( t+1 \right)}$.
\STATE 6. $t\leftarrow t+1$.
\UNTIL{convergence}
\STATE $\mathbf{M}=\sum\nolimits_{ij}{\mu _{ij}^{\left( t \right)}}{{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}}$.
\STATE {\bfseries return} $\mathbf{M}$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\par
Analogous to PCML, the updating of $\boldsymbol{\beta }$ and $\boldsymbol{\mu }$ in NCML can be speeded up by using the warm-start strategy. As shown in Fig. \ref{Dualgap_NCML}, the proposed NCML algorithm will converge in 10$\thicksim$15 iterations.
\subsection{Optimality Condition}
We check the duality gap of NCML to investigate the optimality condition of it. From the primal and dual objectives in (18) and (19), the NCML duality gap in the $n$th iteration is
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
& \text{DualGap}_{\text{NCML}}^{\left( n \right)}=\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{i,j,k,l}{{\alpha _{ij}^{\left( n \right)}\alpha _{kl}^{\left( n \right)}\left\langle {{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}},{{\mathbf{X}}_{kl}} \right\rangle }}+C\sum\limits_{i,j}{\xi _{ij}^{\left( n \right)}} \\
& +\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{i,j,k,l}{{\left( \beta _{ij}^{\left( n \right)}{{h}_{ij}}+\eta _{ij}^{\left( n \right)} \right)\left( \beta _{kl}^{\left( n \right)}{{h}_{kl}}+\eta _{kl}^{\left( n \right)} \right)\left\langle {{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}},{{\mathbf{X}}_{kl}} \right\rangle }}\\
& -\sum\limits_{i,j}{\beta _{ij}^{\left( n \right)}},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\alpha _{ij}^{\left( n \right)}$ and $\xi _{ij}^{\left( n \right)}$ are the feasible solutions to the primal problem, $\beta _{ij}^{\left( n \right)}$ and $\eta _{ij}^{\left( n \right)}$ are the feasible solutions to the dual problem, and $\text{DualGap}_{\text{NCML}}^{\left( n \right)}$ is the duality gap in the $n$th iteration. As $\eta _{ij}^{\left( n \right)}$ and $\mu _{ij}^{\left( n \right)}$ are the optimal solutions to the primal subproblem on $\boldsymbol{\eta }$ in (23) and its dual problem in (25), respectively, the duality gap of subproblem on $\boldsymbol{\eta }$ is zero, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
& \frac{1}{2}\sum\nolimits_{i,j}{\sum\nolimits_{k,l}{\eta _{ij}^{\left( n \right)}\eta _{kl}^{\left( n \right)}\left\langle {{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}},{{\mathbf{X}}_{kl}} \right\rangle }}+\sum\nolimits_{i,j}{\eta _{ij}^{\left( n \right)}\gamma _{ij}^{\left( n \right)}}\\
& +\frac{1}{2}\sum\nolimits_{i,j}{\sum\nolimits_{k,l}{\mu _{ij}^{\left( n \right)}\mu _{kl}^{\left( n \right)}\left\langle {{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}},{{\mathbf{X}}_{kl}} \right\rangle }}-\sum\nolimits_{i,j}{\gamma _{ij}^{\left( n \right)}}\mu _{ij}^{\left( n \right)}=0.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
As shown in (26), $\alpha _{ij}^{\left( n \right)}$ and $\mu _{ij}^{\left( n \right)}$ should be equal. We substitute (28) into (27) as follows:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\text{DualGap}_{\text{NCML}}^{\left( n \right)}=C\sum\nolimits_{i,j}{\xi _{ij}^{\left( n \right)}}-\sum\nolimits_{i,j}{\beta _{ij}^{\left( n \right)}}+\sum\nolimits_{i,j}{\mu _{ij}^{\left( n \right)}\gamma _{ij}^{\left( n \right)}}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\par
Based on the KKT conditions of the NCML dual problem in (19), $\xi _{ij}^{\left( n \right)}$ can be obtained by (\ref{xiijn}) (see page 7), where $\left[ z \right]=\max \left( z,0 \right)$ and $b^{(n)}$ can be obtained by\\
\begin{figure*}
\begin{equation}
\label{xiijn}
\xi _{ij}^{\left( n \right)}=\left\{ \begin{aligned}
& 0\quad \text{for}\ \text{all}\ \beta _{ij}^{\left( n \right)}<C \\
& {{\left[ 1-{{h}_{ij}}\left( \sum\nolimits_{k,l}{\alpha _{kl}^{\left( n \right)}\left\langle {{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}},{{\mathbf{X}}_{kl}} \right\rangle }+{{b}^{\left( n \right)}} \right) \right]}_{+}}={{\left[ \delta _{ij}^{\left( n+1 \right)}-{{h}_{ij}}\left( \gamma _{ij}^{\left( n \right)}+{{b}^{\left( n \right)}} \right) \right]}_{+}}\quad \text{for}\ \text{all}\ \beta _{ij}^{\left( n \right)}=C. \\
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation}
\end{figure*}
\begin{equation}
\label{bneq}
\begin{aligned}
{{b}^{\left( n \right)}} & =\frac{1}{{{h}_{ij}}}-\sum\nolimits_{k,l}{\alpha _{kl}^{\left( n \right)}\left\langle {{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}},{{\mathbf{X}}_{kl}} \right\rangle }\\
& =\frac{\delta _{ij}^{\left( n+1 \right)}}{{{h}_{ij}}}-\gamma _{ij}^{\left( n \right)}\quad \text{for}\ \text{all}\ 0<\beta _{ij}^{\left( n \right)}<C.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Please refer to \textbf{Appendix B} for the detailed derivation of $\xi _{ij}^{\left( n \right)}$ and ${{b}^{\left( n \right)}}$.
\par
Fig. \ref{Dualgap_NCML} plots the curve of duality gap versus the number of iterations on the \emph{PenDigits} dataset by NCML. One can see that the duality gap converges to zero in 15 iterations, and NCML reaches the global optimum. In the implementation of \textbf{Algorithm \ref{alg:NCML}}, we adopt the following termination condition:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\text{DualGap}_{\text{NCML}}^{\left( t \right)}<\varepsilon \cdot \text{DualGap}_{\text{NCML}}^{\left( 1 \right)},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\varepsilon $ is a small constant and we set $\varepsilon =0.01$ in the experiment.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\columnwidth]{DualGap_NCML_PenDigits_C10}
\caption{Duality gap vs. number of iterations on the \emph{PenDigits} dataset for NCML.}
\label{Dualgap_NCML}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Remarks}
{\bf Computational complexity:} We use the same strategy as that in PCML to construct the pairwise constraints for NCML. In each iteration, NCML calls for the SVM solver twice while PCML calls for it only once. When the SMO-type algorithm \cite{Platt1999} is adopted for SVM training, the computational complexity of NCML is $O\left(k^2N^2d\right)$. One extra advantage of NCML lies in its lower computational cost with respect to $d$, which involves the computation of $\left\langle {{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}},{{\mathbf{X}}_{kl}} \right\rangle $ and the construction of matrix $\mathbf{M}$. Since $\left\langle {{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}},{{\mathbf{X}}_{kl}} \right\rangle ={{\left( {{({{\mathbf{x}}_{i}}-{{\mathbf{x}}_{j}})}^{T}}({{\mathbf{x}}_{k}}-{{\mathbf{x}}_{l}}) \right)}^{2}}$, the cost of computing $\left\langle {{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}},{{\mathbf{X}}_{kl}} \right\rangle $ is $O\left(d\right)$. The cost of constructing the matrix $\mathbf{M}$ is less than $O\left(kNd^2\right)$, and this operation is required only once after the convergence of $\boldsymbol{\beta}$ and $\boldsymbol{\mu}$.
\par
{\bf Nonlinear extensions:} Note that $\left\langle {{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}},{{\mathbf{X}}_{kl}} \right\rangle = \operatorname{tr}\left( \mathbf{X}_{ij}^{T}{{\mathbf{X}}_{kl}} \right)$ can be treated as an inner product of two pairs of samples: $\left(\mathbf{x}_i, \mathbf{x}_j\right)$ and $\left(\mathbf{x}_k, \mathbf{x}_l\right)$. Analogous to PCML, if we can define a kernel $K\left( ({{\mathbf{x}}_{i}},{{\mathbf{x}}_{j}}),({{\mathbf{x}}_{k}},{{\mathbf{x}}_{l}}) \right)$ on $\left(\mathbf{x}_i, \mathbf{x}_j\right)$ and $\left(\mathbf{x}_k, \mathbf{x}_l\right)$, we can substitute $\left\langle {{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}},{{\mathbf{X}}_{kl}} \right\rangle $ with $K\left( ({{\mathbf{x}}_{i}},{{\mathbf{x}}_{j}}),({{\mathbf{x}}_{k}},{{\mathbf{x}}_{l}}) \right)$ to develop new linear or even nonlinear metric learning algorithms, and the Mahalanobis distance between any two samples $\mathbf{x}_m$ and $\mathbf{x}_n$ can be formulated as:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
& {{\left( {{\mathbf{x}}_{m}}-{{\mathbf{x}}_{n}} \right)}^{T}}\mathbf{M}\left( {{\mathbf{x}}_{m}}-{{\mathbf{x}}_{n}} \right)=\\
& \sum\nolimits_{i,j}{{{\alpha }_{ij}}K\left( \left( {{\mathbf{x}}_{i}},{{\mathbf{x}}_{j}} \right),\left( {{\mathbf{x}}_{m}},{{\mathbf{x}}_{n}} \right) \right).}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\par
Another nonlinear extension strategy is to define a kernel $k\left( {{\mathbf{x}}_{i}},{{\mathbf{x}}_{j}} \right)$ on $\mathbf{x}_i$ and $\mathbf{x}_j$. Since $\left\langle {{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}},{{\mathbf{X}}_{kl}} \right\rangle ={{\left(\mathbf{x}_{i}^{T}{{\mathbf{x}}_{k}}-\mathbf{x}_{i}^{T}{{\mathbf{x}}_{l}}-\mathbf{x}_{j}^{T}{{\mathbf{x}}_{k}}+\mathbf{x}_{j}^{T}{{\mathbf{x}}_{l}} \right)}^{2}}$, we can substitute $\left\langle {{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}},{{\mathbf{X}}_{kl}} \right\rangle $ with ${{\left( k\left( {{\mathbf{x}}_{i}},{{\mathbf{x}}_{k}} \right)-k\left( {{\mathbf{x}}_{i}},{{\mathbf{x}}_{l}} \right)-k\left( {{\mathbf{x}}_{j}},{{\mathbf{x}}_{k}} \right)+k\left( {{\mathbf{x}}_{j}},{{\mathbf{x}}_{l}} \right) \right)}^{2}}$ and formulate the Mahalanobis distance between $\mathbf{x}_m$ and $\mathbf{x}_n$ as:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
& {{\left( {{\mathbf{x}}_{m}}-{{\mathbf{x}}_{n}} \right)}^{T}}\mathbf{M}\left( {{\mathbf{x}}_{m}}-{{\mathbf{x}}_{n}} \right)\\
& =\sum\nolimits_{i,j}{{{\alpha }_{ij}}{{\left(
\begin{aligned}
& k\left( {{\mathbf{x}}_{i}},{{\mathbf{x}}_{m}} \right)-k\left( {{\mathbf{x}}_{i}},{{\mathbf{x}}_{n}} \right)\\
& -k\left( {{\mathbf{x}}_{j}},{{\mathbf{x}}_{m}} \right)+k\left( {{\mathbf{x}}_{j}},{{\mathbf{x}}_{n}} \right)
\end{aligned}
\right)}^{2}}}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
That is to say, NCML allows us to learn nonlinear metrics for histograms and structural data by designing proper kernel functions and incorporating appropriate regularizations on $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$. Metric learning for structural data beyond vector data has been recently receiving considerable research interests \cite{huang2011generalized, lim2013robust}, and NCML can provide a new perspective on this topic.
\par
{\bf SVM solvers:} Although our implementation is based on LibSVM, there are a number of well-studied SVM training algorithms, e.g., core vector machines \cite{tsang2005core}, LaRank \cite{bordes2007}, BMRM \cite{teo2007scalable}, and Pegasos \cite{shalev2011pegasos}, which can be utilized for large scale metric learning. Moreover, we can refer to the progresses in kernel methods \cite{belkin2006manifold,andrews2002support,evgeniou2004regularized} for developing semi-supervised, multiple instance, and multitask metric learning approaches.
\section{Experimental Results}
\label{experimentalresults}
We evaluate the proposed PCML and NCML models for $k$-NN classification ($k=1$) using 9 UCI datasets, 4 handwritten digit datasets, 2 face verification datasets and 2 person re-identification datasets. We compare PCML and NCML with the baseline Euclidean distance metric and 7 state-of-the-art metric learning models, including NCA \cite{goldberger2004NCA}, ITML \cite{davis2007information}, MCML \cite{globerson2005MCML}, LDML \cite{guillaumin2009LDML}, LMNN \cite{weinberger2009LMNNJMLR}, PLML \cite{wang2012PLML}, and DML-eig \cite{ying2012distance}. On each dataset, if the partition of training set and test set is not defined, we evaluate the performance of each method by 10-fold cross-validation, and the classification error rate and training time are obtained by averaging over 10 runs of 10-fold cross-validation. PCML and NCML are implemented using the LibSVM\footnote{\url{http://www.csie.ntu.edu.tw/~cjlin/libsvm/}} toolbox. The source codes of NCA\footnote{\url{http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~fowlkes/software/nca/}}, ITML\footnote{\url{http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~pjain/itml/}}, MCML\footnote{\url{http://homepage.tudelft.nl/19j49/Matlab_Toolbox_for_Dimensionality_Reduction.html}}, LDML\footnote{\url{http://lear.inrialpes.fr/people/guillaumin/code.php}}, LMNN\footnote{\url{http://www.cse.wustl.edu/~kilian/code/code.html}}, PLML\footnote{\url{http://cui.unige.ch/~wangjun/}}, and DML-eig\footnote{\url{http://empslocal.ex.ac.uk/people/staff/yy267/software.html}} are online available, and we tune their parameters to get the best results.
\subsection{Results on the UCI Datasets}
We first use 9 datasets from the UCI Machine Learning Repository \cite{frank2010uci} to evaluate the proposed models. The information of the 9 UCI datasets is summarized in Table \ref{UCI_description}. On the \emph{Satellite}, \emph{SPECTF Heart}, and \emph{Letter} datasets, the training set and test set are defined. On the other datasets, we use 10-fold cross-validation to evaluate the metric learning models.
\begin{table}[!t]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
\caption{The UCI datasets used in our experiments.}
\label{UCI_description}
\centering
\scriptsize
\begin{tabular}{m{1.8cm}m{1.6cm}m{1.0cm}m{1.3cm}m{0.8cm}}
\hline
\bfseries Dataset & \bfseries \begin{flushleft}\# of training samples\end{flushleft} & \bfseries \begin{flushleft}\# of test samples\end{flushleft} & \bfseries \begin{flushleft}Feature dimension\end{flushleft} & \bfseries \begin{flushleft}\# of classes\end{flushleft} \\
\hline
Breast Tissue & 96 & 10 & 9 & 6\\
Cardiotocography & 1,914 & 212 & 21 & 10\\
ILPD & 525 & 58 & 10 & 2\\
Letter & 16,000 & 4,000 & 16 & 26\\
Parkinsons & 176 & 19 & 22 & 2\\
Satellite & 4,435 & 2,000 & 36 & 6\\
Segmentation & 2,079 & 231 & 19 & 7\\
Sonar & 188 & 20 & 60 & 2\\
SPECTF Heart & 80 & 187 & 44 & 2\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\vskip -0in
\vspace{-5mm}
\end{table}
\par
The proposed PCML and NCML methods involve only one hyper-parameter, i.e., the regularization parameter $C$. We simply adopt the cross-validation strategy to select $C$ by investigating the influence of $C$ on the classification error rate. Fig. \ref{C_param} shows the curves of classification error rate versus $C$ for PCML and NCML on the \emph{SPECTF Heart} dataset. The curves on other datasets are similar. We can observe that when $C < 1$, the classification error rates of PCML and NCML will be low and stable. When $C$ is higher than $1$, the classification error rates jump dramatically. Thus, we set $C<1$ in our experiments.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\subfigure[]{
\includegraphics[width=0.46\columnwidth]{SPECTFHeart_C_PCML.eps}
}
\subfigure[]{
\includegraphics[width=0.46\columnwidth]{SPECTFHeart_C_NCML.eps}
}
\caption{Classification error rate (\%) versus $C$. (a) PCML; (b) NCML.}
\label{C_param}
\end{figure}
\par
We compare the classification error rates of the competing methods in Table \ref{UCI_errorrate}. On the \emph{Cardiotocography} and \emph{Segmentation} datasets, PCML achieves the lowest error rates. On the \emph{Segmentation} and \emph{SPECTF Heart} datasets, NCML achieves the lowest error rates. The average ranks of competing methods are listed in the last row of Table \ref{UCI_errorrate}. On each dataset, we rank the methods based on their error rates, i.e., we assign rank 1 to the method with the lowest error rate and rank 2 to the method with the second lowest error rate, and so on. The average rank is defined as the mean rank of one method over the nine datasets, which can provide a fair comparison of the learning methods \cite{demvsar2006statistical}. From Table \ref{UCI_errorrate}, we can see that both PCML and NCML achieve the first and second best average ranks, respectively, demonstrating strong classification capability for general classification tasks.
\begin{table*}[!t]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
\caption{Classification error rate (\%) on the UCI datasets.}
\label{UCI_errorrate}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccccc}
\hline
\bfseries Dataset & \bfseries Euclidean & \bfseries NCA & \bfseries ITML & \bfseries MCML & \bfseries LDML & \bfseries LMNN & \bfseries PLML & \bfseries DML-eig & \bfseries PCML & \bfseries NCML \\
\hline
Breast Tissue & \bfseries 31.00 & 41.27 & 35.82 & 32.09 & 48.00 & 34.37 & 34.13 & 33.13 & 38.00 & 35.37 \\
Cardiotocography & 21.40 & 21.16 & 18.67 & 22.29 & 22.26 & 19.21 & 18.54 & 29.31 & \bfseries 18.50 & 18.69 \\
ILPD & 35.69 & 34.65 & 35.35 & 35.49 & 35.84 & 34.12 & \bfseries 31.61 & 36.87 & 33.96 & 32.43 \\
Letter & 4.33 & \bfseries 2.47 & 3.80 & 4.20 & 11.05 & 3.45 & 3.28 & 3.85 & 2.67 & 2.72 \\
Parkinsons & \bfseries 4.08 & 6.63 & 6.13 & 9.84 & 7.15 & 5.26 & 8.84 & 7.82 & 5.68 & 7.26 \\
Satellite & 10.95 & 10.40 & 11.45 & 15.65 & 15.90 & \bfseries 10.05 & 11.85 & 10.90 & 11.15 & 11.10 \\
Segmentation & 2.86 & 2.51 & 2.73 & 2.60 & 2.86 & 2.64 & 2.68 & 2.97 & \bfseries 2.12 & \bfseries 2.12 \\
Sonar & 12.98 & 15.40 & 12.07 & 24.29 & 22.86 & \bfseries 11.57 & 12.07 & 15.07 & 12.71 & 13.29 \\
SPECTF Heart & 38.50 & 26.74 & 34.76 & 38.50 & 33.16 & 34.76 & 27.27 & 31.02 & 28.88 & \bfseries 25.67 \\
\hline
\emph{Average Rank} & \emph{5.78} & \emph{4.56} & \emph{5.44} & \emph{7.56} & \emph{8.44} & \emph{4.00} & \emph{4.33} & \emph{7.00} & \bfseries \emph{3.56} & \emph{3.89}\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\vskip -0in
\vspace{-5mm}
\end{table*}
\par
We then compare the training time of competing metric learning methods in Fig. \ref{UCI_TrainingTime}. All the experiments are run in a PC with 4 Intel Core i5-2410 CPUs (2.30 GHz) and 16GB RAM. Clearly, the proposed PCML and NCML are the fastest in most cases. Although DML-eig is faster than PCML on the \emph{Letter} dataset, its classification error rate on this dataset is much higher than PCML and NCML. On average, PCML and NCML are 23 and 18 times faster than PLML, the third fastest algorithm, respectively.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\vskip 0in
\begin{center}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{TrainingTime_UCI9_1.eps}}
\caption{Training time (s) of NCA, ITML, MCML, LDML, LMNN, DML-eig, PLML, PCML and NCML. From 1 to 9, the Dataset ID represents \emph{Breast Tissue}, \emph{Cardiotocography}, \emph{ILPD}, \emph{Letter}, \emph{Parkinsons}, \emph{Satellite}, \emph{Segmentation}, \emph{Sonar} and \emph{SPECTF Heart}.}
\label{UCI_TrainingTime}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.2in
\vspace{0mm}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Handwritten Digit Recognition}
We further evaluate the proposed methods on four handwritten digit datasets: \emph{MNIST}, \emph{Pen-based recognition of handwritten Digits data set (PenDigits)}, \emph{Semeion} and \emph{USPS}. Table \ref{Digits_description} summarizes the basic information of these four handwritten digit datasets. On the \emph{MNIST}, \emph{PenDigits}, and \emph{USPS} datasets, we use the defined training sets to train the metrics, and use the defined test sets to compute the classification error rates. On the \emph{Semeion} dataset, we use 10-fold cross-validation to evaluate the metric learning methods, and the classification error rate and training time are obtained by averaging over 10 runs of 10-fold cross-validation.
\begin{table}[!t]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
\caption{The handwritten digit datasets used in the experiments.}
\label{Digits_description}
\begin{center}
\centering\arraybackslash
\scriptsize
\begin{tabular}{m{0.9cm}m{1.6cm}m{1.1cm}m{1cm}m{1cm}m{0.8cm}}
\hline
\bfseries Dataset & \bfseries \begin{flushleft}\# of training samples\end{flushleft} & \bfseries \begin{flushleft}\# of test samples\end{flushleft} & \bfseries dimension & \bfseries \begin{flushleft}PCA dimension\end{flushleft} & \bfseries \begin{flushleft}\# of classes\end{flushleft} \\
\hline
MNIST & 60,000 & 10,000 & 784 & 100 & 10\\
PenDigits & 7,494 & 3,498 & 16 & N/A & 10\\
Semeion & 1,434 & 159 & 256 & 100 & 10\\
USPS & 7,291 & 2,007 & 256 & 100 & 10\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\par
As the dimensions of images in the \emph{MNIST}, \emph{Semeion} and \emph{USPS} datasets are relatively high, we use principal component analysis (PCA) to reduce the feature dimension to 100, and train the metrics in the PCA subspace. Table \ref{Digits_errorrate} lists the classification error rates of the ten competing methods on the four handwritten digit datasets. The last row of Table \ref{Digits_errorrate} lists the average ranks of the competing methods. We do not report the error rate and training time of MCML on the \emph{MNIST} dataset because MCML requires too large memory space (more than 30 GB) on this dataset and cannot run in our PC. From Table \ref{Digits_errorrate}, we can see that both PCML and NCML achieve the best average rank. Again, the results indicate that the proposed methods have better classification performance.
\begin{table*}[!t]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
\caption{Comparison of classification error rate (\%) on the handwritten digit datasets.}
\label{Digits_errorrate}
\vskip 0in
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccccc}
\hline
\bfseries Dataset & \bfseries Euclidean & \bfseries NCA & \bfseries ITML & \bfseries MCML & \bfseries LDML & \bfseries LMNN & \bfseries DML-eig & \bfseries PLML & \bfseries PCML & \bfseries NCML \\
\hline
MNIST & 2.87 & 5.46 & 2.89 & N/A & 6.05 & \bfseries 2.28 & 5.06 & 2.54 & 3.85 & 2.80 \\
PenDigits & 2.26 & 2.23 & 2.29 & 2.26 & 6.20 & 2.52 & 3.75 & 2.46 & \bfseries 2.06 & \bfseries 2.06 \\
Semeion & 8.54 & 8.60 & 5.71 & 11.23 & 11.98 & 6.09 & 5.72 & 7.66 & \bfseries 4.83 & 5.53 \\
USPS & \bfseries 5.08 & 5.68 & 6.33 & \bfseries 5.08 & 8.77 & 5.38 & 11.36 & 6.73 & 5.33 & 5.43 \\
\hline
\emph{Average Rank} & \emph{4.00} & \emph{6.25} & \emph{5.25} & \emph{4.67} & \emph{9.50} & \emph{4.50} & \emph{7.50} & \emph{5.75} & \bfseries \emph{2.75} & \bfseries \emph{2.75} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\vskip -0in
\vspace{-5mm}
\end{table*}
\par
All the experiments were executed in the same PC as used in Subsection 5.1. Fig. \ref{Digits_TrainingTime} compares the training time of NCA, ITML, MCML, LDML, LMNN, DML-eig, PLML, PCML, and NCML. Clearly, the proposed PCML and NCML methods are much faster than the other methods. On average, PCML and NCML are 61 and 27 times faster than PLML, the third fastest algorithm, respectively. One can conclude that PCML and NCML offer promising solutions to effective and efficient metric learning.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\vskip 0in
\begin{center}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{TrainingTime_Digits4_1.eps}}
\caption{Training time (s) of NCA, ITML, MCML, LDML, LMNN, DML-eig, PLML, PCML and NCML. From 1 to 4, the Dataset ID represents \emph{MNIST}, \emph{PenDigits}, \emph{Semeion} and \emph{USPS}.}
\label{Digits_TrainingTime}
\end{center}
\vskip -0in
\vspace{-5mm}
\end{figure}
\par
Finally, we compare the running time of PCML and NCML under different feature dimensions $d$. As analyzed in Subsections 3.4 and 4.4, the time complexities of PCML and NCML are $O(N^2d + d^3)$ and $O(N^2d)$, respectively. Fig. \ref{TrainTimePCA_Semeion} shows the training time on the \emph{Semeion} dataset with different PCA dimensions. We can see that when the dimension is lower than 110, the training time of NCML is longer than PCML. When the dimension is higher than 110, the training time of PCML increases and becomes longer than NCML.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\vskip 0in
\begin{center}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.7\columnwidth]{TrainTimePCA_Semeion.eps}}
\caption{Training time (s) vs. PCA dimension on the \emph{Semeion} dataset.}
\label{TrainTimePCA_Semeion}
\end{center}
\vskip -0in
\vspace{-5mm}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Face Verification}
In this subsection, we evaluate the proposed methods for face verification using two challenging face databases: Labeled Faces in the Wild (LFW) \cite{huang2007LFW} and Public Figures (PubFig) \cite{kumar2009attribute}.
\subsubsection{The LFW Database}
The face images in the LFW database were collected from the Internet and demonstrate large variations of pose, illumination, expression, etc. The database consists of 13,233 face images from 5,749 persons. Under the image restricted setting, the performance of a face verification method is evaluated by 10-fold cross validation. For each of the 10 runs, the database provides 300 positive pairs and 300 negative pairs for testing, and 5,400 image pairs for training. The verification rate and Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) curve of each method are obtained by averaging over the 10 runs.
\par
In our experiments, we use the SIFT \cite{lowe2004distinctive} features and the attribute features provided by \cite{guillaumin2009LDML} and \cite{kumar2009attribute} to evaluate the metric learning methods. Since the dimension of SIFT features is high (i.e., 128 $\times$ 3 $\times$ 9), PCA is used to reduce the feature dimension to 150. Under the restricted setting of the LFW database, we only know whether two images are matched or not for the given pairs. In the training stage, we use the training pairs to train a Mahalanobis distance metric. In the test stage, we compare the Mahalanobis distance of the test pair with a threshold $t$ to decide whether the two images are matched or not.
\par
We report the ROC curves of PCML, NCML, DML-eig \cite{ying2012distance}, ITML \cite{davis2007information}, KISSME \cite{kostinger2012large}, LDML \cite{guillaumin2009LDML} and Euclidean distance in Fig. \ref{LFW_ROC}. We also compare the verification accuracies of PCML and NCML and other metric learning methods by using the SIFT and the attribute features in Table \ref{LFW_RATE}. It can be seen that the proposed PCML and NCML methods perform much better than all the other competing methods. Using the combination of SIFT and Attribute features, the verification accuracies of PCML (\textbf{89.00\%}) and NCML (\textbf{89.50\%}) are higher than the third best method, i.e. DML-eig (85.65\%), by 3.35\% and 3.85\%, respectively. We also compare the training time of the competing methods in Table \ref{LFW_RATE}. The training time of PCML and NCML is shorter than the other methods except for KISSME. The reason is that KISSME is a one-pass training approach. Although KISSME is faster, its verification accuracy is much lower than PCML and NCML.
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\centering
\subfigure[SIFT]{
\includegraphics[width=0.6\columnwidth]{ROC-SIFT.eps}
}
\subfigure[Attribute]{
\includegraphics[width=0.6\columnwidth]{ROC-ATTR.eps}
}
\subfigure[SIFT + Attribute]{
\includegraphics[width=0.6\columnwidth]{ROC-COMB1.eps}
}
\caption{The ROC curves of different metric learning methods on the LFW-funneled dataset under the image restricted setting\cite{ying2012distance,kostinger2012large,guillaumin2009LDML}. (a) SIFT feature; (b) Attribute feature; (c) SIFT + Attribute feature.}
\label{LFW_ROC}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table}[!t]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
\caption{Verification accuracies (\%) and training time (s) of competing metric learning methods on the LFW-funneled dataset under the image restricted setting.}
\label{LFW_RATE}
\vskip 0in
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{m{1.2cm}|m{0.8cm}m{1cm}m{1.5cm}|m{0.8cm}m{1cm}}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\bfseries Method} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\bfseries Verification Accuracy (\%)} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\bfseries Training Time (s)}\\
\cline{2-6}
& \bfseries SIFT & \bfseries Attribute & \bfseries SIFT + Attribute & \bfseries SIFT & \bfseries Attribute\\
\hline
PCML & 85.70 & 84.70 & 89.00& 13.22 & 14.17\\
NCML & \textbf{86.45} & \textbf{85.45} & \textbf{89.50} & 31.62 & 27.55\\
DML-eig\cite{ying2012distance} & 81.27 & 80.13 & 85.65 & 1931.50 & 113.79\\
ITML\cite{kostinger2012large} & 82.40 & 82.98 & 85.50 & 3341.80 & 3222.40\\
LDML\cite{guillaumin2009LDML} & 79.27 & 83.40 & 86.02 & 1316.60 & 543.08\\
KISSME\cite{kostinger2012large} & 80.50 & 84.60 & 85.39 & 0.22 & 0.05\\
Euclidean & 68.10 & 75.25 & 76.53 & 0 & 0\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\subsubsection{The PubFig Database}
The PubFig database \cite{kumar2009attribute} contains 58,797 face images of 200 persons with large variations in pose, lighting, expression, scene, camera, imaging conditions and parameters, etc. In this database, the face verification methods are also evaluated using 10-fold cross validation. Among the given 20,000 image pairs, we randomly select 18,000 pairs for training and use the remaining 2,000 pairs for testing in each run. The ROC curves and verification rates are obtained by averaging over the 10 runs.
\par
We use the attribute features provided by \cite{kumar2009attribute} to evaluate the competing methods. Fig. \ref{PubFig_ROC} shows the ROC curves of PCML, NCML, KISSME \cite{kostinger2012large}, ITML \cite{davis2007information}, DML-eig \cite{ying2012distance}, Attribute Classifiers \cite{kumar2009attribute} and the baseline Euclidean distance. It can be seen that the performance of PCML and NCML is similar, and is superior to that of the other methods.
\par
We further report the verification rates of PCML, NCML and the other methods in Table \ref{PubFig_Rate}. One can see that PCML and NCML perform better than the other methods. The accuracies of PCML (\textbf{79.71\%}) and NCML (\textbf{79.75\%}) are higher than the third best method, i.e., Attribute Classifiers (78.65\%), by 1.06\% and 1.10\%, respectively. The training time of PCML, NCML and other metric learning methods is also listed in Table \ref{PubFig_Rate}. It can be seen that PCML and NCML are much faster than ITML and DML-eig.
\par
\begin{figure}[ht]
\vskip 0in
\begin{center}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.7\columnwidth]{PubFig_ROC.eps}}
\caption{The ROC curves of different methods on the PubFig database (the curves of PCML and NCML almost coincide).}
\label{PubFig_ROC}
\end{center}
\vskip -0in
\vspace{-5mm}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[!t]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
\caption{Verification accuracies (\%) and training time (s) of competing methods on the PubFig database.}
\label{PubFig_Rate}
\vskip 0in
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{m{2.7cm}m{2.3cm}m{2cm}}
\hline
\bfseries Methods & \bfseries \begin{flushleft}Verification Accuracy (\%)\end{flushleft} & \bfseries \begin{flushleft}Training Time (s)\end{flushleft}\\
\hline
PCML & 79.71 & 118.55\\
NCML & \textbf{79.75} & 216.38\\
KISSME\cite{kostinger2012large} & 77.60 & 0.09\\
ITML\cite{kostinger2012large} & 69.30 & 3796.50\\
Attribute Classifiers\cite{kumar2009attribute} & 78.65 & -\\
DML-eig\cite{ying2012distance} & 77.36 & 1132.30\\
Euclidean & 72.50 & 0\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\subsection{Person Re-identification}
In this subsection, we evaluate the performance of the proposed methods for person re-identification, i.e., recognizing a person at different locations and at different times \cite{gong2014person}. Two challenging person re-identification databases, the Viewpoint Invariant Pedestrian Recognition (VIPeR) database \cite{gray2008viewpoint} and the Context Aware Vision using Image-based Active Recognition for Re-Identification (CAVIAR4REID) database \cite{cheng2011custom} are used to assess the performance of the proposed methods.
\subsubsection{The VIPeR Database}
The VIPeR database contains 1,264 pedestrian images of 632 persons from two camera viewspoints (camera A and camera B). For each person, there are two images taken from different viewpoints with a change of 90 degrees. In our experiments, we randomly select 316 persons and use their images for training, and use the images of the other 316 persons for testing. For the testing images, we use the images taken by camera B as the probe set and the images from camera A as the gallery set. Finally, 10 partitions of training and test sets are constructed, and the average accuracy over the 10 test sets is computed as the final accuracy.
\begin{table}[!t]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
\caption{Person re-identification accuracies (\%) and training time (s) on the VIPeR dataset.}
\label{VIPeR_Rate}
\vskip 0in
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{p{1.2cm}|m{0.6cm}m{0.6cm}m{0.6cm}m{0.6cm}m{0.6cm}|m{1.2cm}}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Methods} & \multicolumn{5}{c|}{\bfseries Accuracy (\%)} & \multirow{2}{1.2cm}{\bfseries Training\\Time\\(s)}\\
\cline{2-6}
& \bfseries Rank 1 & \bfseries Rank 25 & \bfseries Rank 50 & \bfseries Rank 80 & \bfseries Rank 100\\
\hline
PCML & 19.40 & 80.60 & \textbf{93.77} & \textbf{97.25} & 98.23 & 4.94\\
NCML & \textbf{21.04} & \textbf{82.28} & 93.07 & \textbf{97.25} & \textbf{98.32} & 9.05\\
KISSME\cite{kostinger2012large} & 19.60 & 80.70 & 91.80 & 96.68 & 97.78 & 0.07\\
LMNN\cite{kostinger2012large} & 16.61 & 72.94 & 88.13 & 94.30 & 96.36 & 437.43\\
ITML\cite{kostinger2012large} & 15.66 & 74.21 & 88.29 & 95.41 & 96.99 & 1199.10\\
DML-eig\cite{ying2012distance} & 8.07 & 50.47 & 65.82 & 77.69 & 82.44 & 47.03\\
Euclidean & 10.90 & 44.94 & 60.76 & 70.09 & 74.37 & 0\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\par
We report the Cumulative Matching Characteristic (CMC) curves of the competing methods in Fig. \ref{VIPER_CMC}. We also compare their accuracies under different ranks in Table \ref{VIPeR_Rate}. From Fig. \ref{VIPER_CMC} and Table \ref{VIPeR_Rate}, one can see that both PCML and NCML outperform LMNN, ITML and Euclidean distance significantly under all ranks. When the rank is no more than 25, PCML performs similarly to KISSME, while NCML outperforms KISSME. When the rank is between 25 and 200, both PCML and NCML perform better than KISSME. The training time of the metric learning methods is also reported in Table \ref{VIPeR_Rate}. We can see that both PCML and NCML are much more efficient than LMNN and ITML in training.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\vskip 0in
\begin{center}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.6\columnwidth]{CMC_VIPeR1.eps}}
\caption{The CMC curves on the VIPeR dataset.}
\label{VIPER_CMC}
\end{center}
\vskip -0in
\vspace{-5mm}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{The CAVIAR4REID Database}
CAVIAR4REID consists of 1,220 pedestrian images from 72 persons, where the images are extracted from the shopping center scenario of the CAVIAR database \cite{cheng2011custom}. The database covers a large range of image resolution and pose variation. The minimum and maximum image sizes in the CAVIAR4REID database are $17\times39$ and $72\times144$, respectively. Following \cite{zhou2009hierarchical} and \cite{li2013learning}, we use the hierarchical Gaussian (HG) features to evaluate the metric learning methods.
\par
According to the evaluation protocol in \cite{li2013learning}, we randomly select 36 persons and use their images for training, and use the rest images for testing. For the testing images, we randomly select one image for each person to construct a probe set consisting of 36 images, and use the other test images as the gallery set. Finally, 10 partitions of training and test sets are constructed, and the final results are obtained by averaging over the 10 runs.
\par
We report the CMC curves of PCML, NCML, DML-eig \cite{ying2012distance}, KISSME \cite{kostinger2012large}, ITML \cite{davis2007information}, LMNN \cite{weinberger2005LMNNNIPS} and Euclidean distance in Fig. \ref{CAVIAR_CMC}. One can see that PCML and NCML perform the best and the second best among all the competing methods, respectively. Table \ref{CAVIAR4REID_Rate} lists the re-identification accuracies and training time by different methods. PCML and NCML perform better than the other metric learning methods under all the ranks. We also report the training times of the competing metric learning methods in Table \ref{CAVIAR4REID_Rate}. PCML and NCML are much faster than the other metric learning methods except for KISSME.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\vskip 0in
\begin{center}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.6\columnwidth]{CMC_CAVIAR4REID.eps}}
\caption{The CMC curves on the CAVIAR4REID dataset.}
\label{CAVIAR_CMC}
\end{center}
\vskip -0in
\vspace{-7mm}
\end{figure}
\par
\begin{table}[!t]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
\caption{Person re-identification accuracies (\%) and training time (s) on the CAVIAR4REID dataset.}
\label{CAVIAR4REID_Rate}
\vskip 0in
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{p{1.2cm}|m{0.9cm}m{0.9cm}m{1.1cm}m{1.1cm}|m{1.4cm}}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\bfseries Methods} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{\bfseries Accuracy (\%)} & \multirow{2}{1.4cm}{\bfseries Training Time (s)}\\
\cline{2-5}
& \bfseries Rank 1 & \bfseries Rank 5 & \bfseries Rank 10 & \bfseries Rank 15 \\
\hline
PCML & \textbf{32.86} & \textbf{61.26} & \textbf{76.06} & \textbf{85.34} & 11.47\\
NCML & 32.27 & 60.38 & 75.33 & 84.25 & 19.23\\
DML-eig\cite{ying2012distance} & 30.68 & 57.15 & 73.18 & 82.64 & 829.24\\
LMNN\cite{kostinger2012large} & 28.66 & 56.53 & 71.30 & 81.19 & 95.62\\
ITML\cite{kostinger2012large} & 31.48 & 59.56 & 74.83 & 84.15 & 2819.18\\
KISSME\cite{kostinger2012large} & 29.87 & 54.75 & 71.36 & 82.15 & 1.12\\
Euclidean & 27.98 & 50.67 & 66.25 & 77.54 & 0\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusion}
\label{conclusion}
We proposed two distance metric learning models, namely Positive-semidefinite Constrained Metric Learning (PCML) and Nonnegative-coefficient Constrained Metric Learning (NCML). The proposed models can guarantee the positive semidefinite property of the learned matrix $\mathbf{M}$, and can be solved efficiently by the existing SVM solvers. Experimental results on nine UCI machine learning repository datasets and four handwritten digit datasets showed that, compared with the state-of-the-art metric learning methods, including NCA \cite{goldberger2004NCA}, ITML \cite{davis2007information}, MCML \cite{globerson2005MCML}, LDML \cite{guillaumin2009LDML}, LMNN \cite{weinberger2009LMNNJMLR}, PLML \cite{wang2012PLML}, and DML-eig \cite{ying2012distance}, the proposed PCML and NCML methods can not only achieve higher classification accuracy, but also are much faster in training. On average, they are 35 and 21 times faster than PLML, the 3rd fastest metric learning method, respectively. The experimental results on LFW, PubFig, VIPeR and CAVIAR4REID databases indicate that the proposed methods also perform very well in vision tasks such as face verification and person re-identification, leading to higher verification rates and very competitive training efficiency.
\appendices
\section{The Dual of PCML}
The original problem of PCML is formulated as
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
& \underset{\mathbf{M},b,\boldsymbol{\xi }}{\mathop{\min }}\,\quad \frac{1}{2}\left\| \mathbf{M} \right\|_{F}^{2}+C\sum\nolimits_{i,j}{{{\xi }_{ij}}} \\
& \text{s}\text{.t}\text{.}\quad {{h}_{ij}}\left( \left\langle \mathbf{M},{{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}} \right\rangle +b \right)\ge 1-{{\xi }_{ij}}, {{\xi }_{ij}}\ge 0,\ \forall i,j \\
& \quad \quad \mathbf{M}\succcurlyeq 0.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Its Lagrangian is:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
& L\left( \boldsymbol{\lambda },\boldsymbol{\kappa },\mathbf{Y},\mathbf{M},b,\boldsymbol{\xi } \right)=\frac{1}{2}\left\| \mathbf{M} \right\|_{F}^{2}+C\sum\nolimits_{i,j}{{{\xi }_{ij}}}\\
& -\sum\nolimits_{i,j}{{{\lambda }_{ij}}\left[ {{h}_{ij}}\left( \left\langle \mathbf{M},{{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}} \right\rangle +b \right)-1+{{\xi }_{ij}} \right]} \\
& -\sum\nolimits_{i,j}{{{\kappa }_{ij}}{{\xi }_{ij}}}-\left\langle \mathbf{Y},\mathbf{M} \right\rangle,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{\lambda }$, $\mathbf{\kappa }$ and $\mathbf{Y}$ are the Lagrange multipliers which satisfy ${{\lambda }_{ij}}\ge 0$, ${{\kappa }_{ij}}\ge 0, \forall i,j$, and $\mathbf{Y}\succcurlyeq 0$. Converting the original problem to its dual problem needs the following KKT conditions:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial L\left( \boldsymbol{\lambda },\boldsymbol{\kappa },\mathbf{Y},\mathbf{M},b,\boldsymbol{\xi } \right)}{\partial \mathbf{M}}=\mathbf{0}
\Rightarrow \mathbf{M}-\sum\nolimits_{i,j}{{{\lambda }_{ij}}{{h}_{ij}}{{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}}}-\mathbf{Y}=\mathbf{0},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial L\left( \boldsymbol{\lambda },\boldsymbol{\kappa },\mathbf{Y},\mathbf{M},b,\boldsymbol{\xi } \right)}{\partial b}=0\Rightarrow \sum\nolimits_{i,j}{{{\lambda }_{ij}}{{h}_{ij}}}=0,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial L\left( \boldsymbol{\lambda },\boldsymbol{\kappa },\mathbf{Y},\mathbf{M},b,\boldsymbol{\xi } \right)}{\partial {{\xi }_{ij}}}=C-{{\lambda }_{ij}}-{{\kappa }_{ij}}=0\Rightarrow \\
0\le {{\lambda }_{ij}}\le C,\ \forall i,j,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
{{h}_{ij}}\left( \left\langle \mathbf{M},{{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}} \right\rangle +b \right)-1+{{\xi }_{ij}}\ge 0,\ {{\xi }_{ij}}\ge 0,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
{{\lambda }_{ij}}\ge 0,\ {{\kappa }_{ij}}\ge 0,\ \mathbf{Y}\succcurlyeq 0,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
{{\lambda }_{ij}}\left[ {{h}_{ij}}\left( \left\langle \mathbf{M},{{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}} \right\rangle +b \right)-1+{{\xi }_{ij}} \right]=0,\ {{\kappa }_{ij}}{{\xi }_{ij}}=0.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Equation (37) implies the following relationship between $\boldsymbol{\lambda }$, $\mathbf{Y}$ and $\mathbf{M}$:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{M}=\sum\nolimits_{i,j}{{{\lambda }_{ij}}{{h}_{ij}}{{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}}}+\mathbf{Y}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Substituting (37)$\sim$(39) back into the Lagrangian, we get the following Lagrange dual problem of PCML:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
& \underset{\mathbf{\lambda },\mathbf{Y}}{\mathop{\max }}\,\quad -\frac{1}{2}\left\| \sum\nolimits_{i,j}{{{\lambda }_{ij}}{{h}_{ij}}{{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}}}+\mathbf{Y} \right\|_{F}^{2}+\sum\nolimits_{i,j}{{{\lambda }_{ij}}} \\
& \text{ s}\text{.t}\text{.}\quad \sum\nolimits_{i,j}{{{\lambda }_{ij}}{{h}_{ij}}}=0, 0\le {{\lambda }_{ij}}\le C, \forall i,j,\quad \mathbf{Y}\succcurlyeq 0.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\par
As we can see from (43) and (44), $\mathbf{M}$ is explicitly determined by the training procedure, but $b$ is not. Nevertheless, $b$ can be easily found by using the KKT complementarity condition in (39) and (42), which show that ${{\xi }_{ij}}=0$ if ${{\lambda }_{ij}}<C$, and ${{h}_{ij}}\left( \left\langle \mathbf{M},{{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}} \right\rangle +b \right)-1+{{\xi }_{ij}}=0$ if ${{\lambda }_{ij}}>0$. Thus we can simply take any training point, for which $0<{{\lambda }_{ij}}<C$, to compute $b$ by
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
b=\frac{1}{{{h}_{ij}}}-\left\langle \mathbf{M},{{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}} \right\rangle ,\quad \text{for}\ \text{all}\ 0<{{\lambda }_{ij}}<C.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Note that it is numerically wiser to take the average over all such training data points to compute $b$. After $b$ is computed, we can compute ${{\xi }_{ij}}$ by
\begin{equation}
{{\xi }_{ij}}=\left\{ \begin{aligned}
& 0,\quad \text{for all}\ {{\lambda }_{ij}}<C \\
&{{\left[ 1-{{h}_{ij}}\left( \left\langle \mathbf{M},{{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}} \right\rangle +b \right) \right]}_{+}},\quad \text{for all}\ {{\lambda }_{ij}}=C,
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation}
where the term ${{\left[ z \right]}_{+}}=\max \left( z,0 \right)$ denotes the standard hinge loss.
\section{The Dual of NCML}
The original problem of NCML is as follows:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
& \underset{\boldsymbol{\alpha },b,\boldsymbol{\xi }}{\mathop{\min }}\,\quad \frac{1}{2}\sum\nolimits_{i,j}{\sum\nolimits_{k,l}{{{\alpha }_{ij}}{{\alpha }_{kl}}\left\langle {{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}},{{\mathbf{X}}_{kl}} \right\rangle }}+C\sum\nolimits_{i,j}{{{\xi }_{ij}}} \\
& \text{s}\text{.t}\text{.}\quad {{h}_{ij}}\left( \sum\nolimits_{k,l}{{{\alpha }_{kl}}\left\langle {{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}},{{\mathbf{X}}_{kl}} \right\rangle }+b \right)\ge 1-{{\xi }_{ij}} \\
& \quad \quad {{\xi }_{ij}}\ge 0, {{\alpha }_{ij}}\ge 0,\ \forall i,j.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Its Lagrangian can be defined as:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
& L\left( \boldsymbol{\beta },\boldsymbol{\sigma },\boldsymbol{\nu },\boldsymbol{\alpha },b,\boldsymbol{\xi } \right)=\frac{1}{2}\sum\nolimits_{i,j,k,l}{{{{\alpha }_{ij}}{{\alpha }_{kl}}\left\langle {{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}},{{\mathbf{X}}_{kl}} \right\rangle }}+C\sum\nolimits_{i,j}{{{\xi }_{ij}}} \\
& -\sum\nolimits_{i,j}{{{\beta }_{ij}}\left[ {{h}_{ij}}\left( \sum\nolimits_{kl}{{{\alpha }_{kl}}\left\langle {{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}},{{\mathbf{X}}_{kl}} \right\rangle }+b \right)-1+{{\xi }_{ij}} \right]}\\
& -\sum\nolimits_{i,j}{{{\nu }_{ij}}{{\xi }_{ij}}}-\sum\nolimits_{i,j}{{{\sigma }_{ij}}{{\alpha }_{ij}}},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{\beta }$, $\mathbf{\sigma }$ and $\mathbf{\nu }$ are the Lagrange multipliers which satisfy ${{\beta }_{ij}}\ge 0$, ${{\sigma }_{ij}}\ge 0$ and ${{\nu }_{ij}}\ge 0$, $\forall i,j$. Converting the original problem to its dual problem needs the following KKT conditions:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
& \frac{\partial L\left( \boldsymbol{\beta },\boldsymbol{\sigma },\boldsymbol{\nu },\boldsymbol{\alpha },b,\boldsymbol{\xi } \right)}{\partial {{\alpha }_{ij}}}=0\Rightarrow \\
& \sum\nolimits_{k,l}{{{\alpha }_{kl}}\left\langle {{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}},{{\mathbf{X}}_{kl}} \right\rangle }-\sum\nolimits_{k,l}{{{\beta }_{kl}}{{h}_{kl}}\left\langle {{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}},{{\mathbf{X}}_{kl}} \right\rangle }-{{\sigma }_{ij}}=0,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial L\left( \boldsymbol{\beta },\boldsymbol{\sigma },\boldsymbol{\nu },\boldsymbol{\alpha },b,\boldsymbol{\xi } \right)}{\partial b}=0\Rightarrow \sum\nolimits_{i,j}{{{\beta }_{ij}}{{h}_{ij}}}=0,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
& \frac{\partial L\left( \boldsymbol{\beta },\boldsymbol{\sigma },\boldsymbol{\nu },\boldsymbol{\alpha },b,\boldsymbol{\xi } \right)}{\partial {{\xi }_{ij}}}=0\Rightarrow C-{{\beta }_{ij}}-{{\nu }_{ij}}=0 \Rightarrow\\
& 0\le {{\beta }_{ij}}\le C,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
& {{h}_{ij}}\left( \sum\nolimits_{k,l}{{{\alpha }_{kl}}\left\langle {{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}},{{\mathbf{X}}_{kl}} \right\rangle }+b \right)-1+{{\xi }_{ij}}\ge 0,\\
&\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad {{\xi }_{ij}}\ge 0,\ {{\alpha }_{ij}}\ge 0,\ \forall i,j,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
{{\beta }_{ij}}\ge 0,\ {{\sigma }_{ij}}\ge 0,\ {{\nu }_{ij}}\ge 0,\quad \forall i,j,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
& {{\beta }_{ij}}\left[ {{h}_{ij}}\left( \sum\nolimits_{k,l}{{{\alpha }_{kl}}\left\langle {{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}},{{\mathbf{X}}_{kl}} \right\rangle }+b \right)-1+{{\xi }_{ij}} \right]=0, \\
&\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad {{\nu }_{ij}}{{\xi }_{ij}}=0,\ {{\sigma }_{ij}}{{\alpha }_{ij}}=0,\quad \forall i,j.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Here we introduce a coefficient vector $\boldsymbol{\eta }$, which satisfies ${{\sigma }_{ij}}=\sum\nolimits_{k,l}{{{\eta }_{kl}}\left\langle {{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}},{{\mathbf{X}}_{kl}} \right\rangle }$. Note that $\left\langle {{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}},{{\mathbf{X}}_{kl}} \right\rangle $ is a positive definite kernel. So we can guarantee that every $\boldsymbol{\eta }$ corresponds to a unique $\boldsymbol{\sigma }$, and vice versa. Equation (49) implies the following relationship between $\boldsymbol{\alpha }$, $\boldsymbol{\beta }$ and $\boldsymbol{\eta }$:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
{{\alpha }_{ij}}={{\beta }_{ij}}{{h}_{ij}}+{{\eta }_{ij}},\quad \forall i,j.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Substituting (49)$\sim$(51) back into the Lagrangian, we get the Lagrange dual problem of NCML as follows:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
& \underset{\boldsymbol{\eta },\boldsymbol{\beta }}{\mathop{\max }}\, -\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{i,j,k,l}{{\left( {{\beta }_{ij}}{{h}_{ij}}+{{\eta }_{ij}} \right)\left( {{\beta }_{kl}}{{h}_{kl}}+{{\eta }_{kl}} \right)\left\langle {{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}},{{\mathbf{X}}_{kl}} \right\rangle }} \\
& +\sum\limits_{i,j}{{{\beta }_{ij}}} \\
& \text{s}\text{.t}\text{.}\quad \sum\nolimits_{k,l}{{{\eta }_{kl}}\left\langle {{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}},{{\mathbf{X}}_{kl}} \right\rangle }\ge 0, 0\le {{\beta }_{ij}}\le C,\ \forall i,j \\
& \quad \quad \sum\nolimits_{i,j}{{{\beta }_{ij}}{{h}_{ij}}}=0.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\par
Analogous to PCML, we can use the KKT complementarity condition in (50) to compute $b$ and ${{\xi }_{ij}}$ in NCML. Equations (51) and (54) show that ${{\xi }_{ij}}=0$ if ${{\beta }_{ij}}<C$, and ${{h}_{ij}}\left( \sum\nolimits_{kl}{{{\alpha }_{kl}}\left\langle {{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}},{{\mathbf{X}}_{kl}} \right\rangle }+b \right)-1+{{\xi }_{ij}}=0$ if ${{\beta }_{ij}}>0$. Thus we can simply take any training data point, for which $0<{{\beta }_{ij}}<C$, to compute $b$ by
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
b=\frac{1}{{{h}_{ij}}}-\sum\nolimits_{k,l}{{{\alpha }_{kl}}\left\langle {{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}},{{\mathbf{X}}_{kl}} \right\rangle }.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
After obtain $b$, we can compute ${{\beta }_{ij}}$ by
\begin{equation}
{{\xi }_{ij}}=\left\{ \begin{aligned}
& 0,\forall\ {{\beta }_{ij}}<C \\
& {{\left[ 1-{{h}_{ij}}\left( \sum\nolimits_{k,l}{{{\alpha }_{kl}}\left\langle {{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}},{{\mathbf{X}}_{kl}} \right\rangle }+b \right) \right]}_{+}},\forall\ {{\beta }_{ij}}=C,
\end{aligned}\right.
\end{equation}
where the term ${{\left[ z \right]}_{+}}=\max \left( z,0 \right)$ denotes the standard hinge loss.
\section{The Dual of the Subproblem on $\boldsymbol{\eta}$ in NCML}
The subproblem on $\boldsymbol{\eta }$ is formulated as follows:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
& \underset{\boldsymbol{\eta }}{\mathop{\min }}\,\quad \frac{1}{2}\sum\nolimits_{i,j}{\sum\nolimits_{k,l}{{{\eta }_{ij}}{{\eta }_{kl}}\left\langle {{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}},{{\mathbf{X}}_{kl}} \right\rangle }}+\sum\nolimits_{i,j}{{{\eta }_{ij}}{{\gamma }_{ij}}} \\
& \text{s}\text{.t}\text{.}\quad \sum\nolimits_{k,l}{{{\eta }_{kl}}\left\langle {{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}},{{\mathbf{X}}_{kl}} \right\rangle }\ge 0,\ \forall i,j,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where ${{\gamma }_{ij}}=\sum\nolimits_{k,l}{{{\beta }_{kl}}{{h}_{kl}}\left\langle {{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}},{{\mathbf{X}}_{kl}} \right\rangle }$. Its Lagrangian is:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
& L\left( \boldsymbol{\mu },\boldsymbol{\eta } \right)=\frac{1}{2}\sum\nolimits_{i,j}{\sum\nolimits_{k,l}{{{\eta }_{ij}}{{\eta }_{kl}}\left\langle {{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}},{{\mathbf{X}}_{kl}} \right\rangle }}\\
& +\sum\nolimits_{i,j}{{{\eta }_{ij}}{{\gamma }_{ij}}}-\sum\nolimits_{i,j}{{{\mu }_{ij}}\sum\nolimits_{k,l}{{{\eta }_{kl}}\left\langle {{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}},{{\mathbf{X}}_{kl}} \right\rangle }},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\boldsymbol{\mu }$ is the Lagrange multiplier which satisfies ${{\mu }_{ij}}\ge 0, \forall i,j$. Converting the original problem to its dual problem needs the following KKT condition:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
& \frac{\partial L\left( \boldsymbol{\mu },\boldsymbol{\eta } \right)}{\partial {{\eta }_{ij}}}=0\Rightarrow \\
& \sum\nolimits_{k,l}{{{\eta }_{kl}}\left\langle {{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}},{{\mathbf{X}}_{kl}} \right\rangle }+{{\gamma }_{ij}}-\sum\nolimits_{k,l}{{{\mu }_{kl}}\left\langle {{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}},{{\mathbf{X}}_{kl}} \right\rangle }=0.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Equation (61) implies the following relationship between $\boldsymbol{\mu }$, $\boldsymbol{\eta }$ and $\boldsymbol{\beta }$:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
{{\eta }_{ij}}={{\mu }_{ij}}-{{h}_{ij}}{{\beta }_{ij}},\quad \forall i,j.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Substituting (61) and (62) back into the Lagrangian, we get the following Lagrange dual problem of the subproblem on $\boldsymbol{\eta }$:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
& \underset{\boldsymbol{\mu }}{\mathop{\max }}\,\quad -\frac{1}{2}\sum\nolimits_{i,j}{\sum\nolimits_{k,l}{{{\mu }_{ij}}{{\mu }_{kl}}\left\langle {{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}},{{\mathbf{X}}_{kl}} \right\rangle }}+\sum\nolimits_{i,j}{{{\gamma }_{ij}}{{\mu }_{ij}}}\\
& -\frac{1}{2}\sum\nolimits_{i,j}{\sum\nolimits_{k,l}{{{\beta }_{ij}}{{\beta }_{kl}}{{h}_{ij}}{{h}_{kl}}\left\langle {{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}},{{\mathbf{X}}_{kl}} \right\rangle }} \\
& \text{s}\text{.t}\text{.}\quad {{\mu }_{ij}}\ge 0,\forall i,j.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Since $\boldsymbol{\beta }$ is fixed in this subproblem, $\sum\nolimits_{i,j}{\sum\nolimits_{k,l}{{{\beta }_{ij}}{{\beta }_{kl}}{{h}_{ij}}{{h}_{kl}}\left\langle {{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}},{{\mathbf{X}}_{kl}} \right\rangle }}$ remains constant in (63). Thus we can omit this term and have the following simplified Lagrange dual problem:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
& \underset{\boldsymbol{\mu }}{\mathop{\max }}\,\quad -\frac{1}{2}\sum\nolimits_{i,j}{\sum\nolimits_{k,l}{{{\mu }_{ij}}{{\mu }_{kl}}\left\langle {{\mathbf{X}}_{ij}},{{\mathbf{X}}_{kl}} \right\rangle }}+\sum\nolimits_{i,j}{{{\gamma }_{ij}}{{\mu }_{ij}}} \\
& \text{s}\text{.t}\text{.}\quad {{\mu }_{ij}}\ge 0,\forall i,j.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\ifCLASSOPTIONcaptionsoff
\newpage
\fi
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
Classical parameter estimation methods of direction-of-arrival
(DOA), Doppler shifts, frequencies, time delays, etc. such as the
multiple signal classification (MUSIC) \cite{Schmidt86:MUSIC},
root-MUSIC \cite{Barabell83:root_Music}, and estimation of signal
parameters via rotational invariance techniques (ESPRIT)
\cite{Roy89:ESPRIT} are based on estimating the signal and noise
subspaces from the sample data covariance matrix. It is well-known
that these methods suffer from performance breakdown for a small
number of samples or low signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) values where
the expected estimation error departs from the Cram\'{e}r-Rao bound
(CRB)\cite{Scharf95:prob_subspace_swap}. The SNR region at which
this phenomenon happens is known as the threshold region.
The fidelity of the sample data covariance matrix to the true data
covariance matrix plays a critical role in a successful estimation.
At the low SNR and/or small sample size region, the sample data
covariance matrix can largely deviate from the true one. There are
various methods introduced in the literature which target at
improving the estimation of the covariance matrix
\cite{Carlson88:diagonal_loading,
Eldar10:Shrinkage_MMSE,Pillai89:Forward_Backward,
Evans82:Spatial_Smoothing,Mestre08:TSP_DOA,
Gershman97:Pseudo_random_DOA, Vasylyshyn13:Pseudo_noise_rootMusic,
Qian14:impro_uni_r_Music_Pseudo_noise}.
Diagonal loading \cite{Carlson88:diagonal_loading} and
shrinkage-based \cite{Eldar10:Shrinkage_MMSE} methods improve the
estimate of the data covariance matrix by scaling and shifting the
eigenvalues of the sample data covariance matrix. However, the
eigenvectors are kept unchanged. As a result, the estimated signal
and noise projection matrices from the improved covariance matrices
are exactly the same as those obtained from the sample data
covariance matrix. Therefore, these methods are not really
beneficial for the subspace-based parameter estimation algorithms.
Data covariance matrix estimation can be also improved by the
means of using forward-backward averaging (FB)
\cite{Pillai89:Forward_Backward} and spatial smoothing-based
techniques \cite{Evans82:Spatial_Smoothing}. The effect of FB is
known to be equivalent to approximately doubling the number of
samples. Thus, the covariance estimate improves accordingly. The
spatial smoothing technique can also be interpreted as virtually
increasing the number of samples at the cost of averaging over
sub-arrays of smaller size compared to the whole array.
These approaches can also decorrelate pairs (in case of FB) or more
correlated source signals.
In \cite{Mestre08:TSP_DOA}, techniques from random matrix theory
have been developed to improve the performance of the MUSIC
algorithm. The introduced method considers the asymptotic situation
when both the sample size and the number of array elements tend to
infinity at the same rate. It is then inferred that the improved
method gives a more accurate description of the situation when these
two quantities are finite and comparable in magnitude. However, the
performance of the introduced method is not satisfactory at the
small sample size scenario \cite{MSH_13:i_root_Music}.
A more promising approach to remedy the performance breakdown at the
threshold region was introduced in
\cite{Gershman97:Pseudo_random_DOA} and has been further improved in
\cite{Vasylyshyn13:Pseudo_noise_rootMusic} and
\cite{Qian14:impro_uni_r_Music_Pseudo_noise}. These methods are
based on a technique called pseudo-noise resampling which uses
synthetically generated pseudo-noise to perturb the original noise.
The pseudo-noise is added to the observed data, and a new estimate
of the covariance matrix is obtained, which leads to new DOA
estimates. This process is repeated for a number of times, and the
final DOAs are determined based on the bank of the DOA estimates.
In this paper, we tackle the problem of the performance breakdown at
the threshold region by considering the structure of the sample data
covariance matrix and the dynamics of the root-MUSIC algorithm. It
is shown in \cite{Mestre08:TSP_sub_leak} that the performance
breakdown problem is associated with the inter-subspace leakage
``whereby a small portion of the true signal eigenvector resides in
the sample noise subspace (and vice versa)''. The notion of leakage
comes originally from the performance assessment strategy based on
the first order approximation of the estimation error caused by the
perturbed subspace estimate, which happens because of the additive
noise contribution
\cite{Li93:Perform_unification,Xu02:Perturbation_Subspace,
Liu08:Perturbation_SVD,Haart14:ESPRIT_leakage}. This approach
directly models the leakage of the noise subspace into signal
subspace and allows to compute the corresponding perturbation matrix
between the components of the subspaces. Here, we formally define
the \textit{subspace leakage} notion as a Frobenius norm of the
perturbation matrix, and we present its theoretical derivation. We
propose a two-step method which improves the performance of the
root-MUSIC algorithm by modifying the sample data covariance matrix
such that the amount of the subspace leakage is reduced.
Furthermore, we introduce a phenomenon named as \textit{root-swap}
which occurs in the root-MUSIC algorithm at the threshold region and
degrades the performance of the parameter estimation. A new method
is then proposed to alleviate this problem.
It will be shown that there are undesirable by-products in the
sample data covariance matrix that tend to zero as the number of
samples goes to infinity. However, for a limited number of samples,
these terms can have significant values leading to a large amount of
subspace leakage. One possible approach to remedy the effect of the
undesirable components is to consider the \textit{eigenvalue
perturbation} caused by these terms. The incorporation of this
knowledge into the estimation method can result in better estimates
of the signal and noise subspaces. In this paper, we propose a
two-step algorithm in order to reduce the effect of the undesirable
terms. The introduced method is based on estimating the parameters
at the first step and modifying the covariance matrix using the
estimated parameters at the second step. We will theoretically
derive the subspace leakage at both steps. Then, it will be shown
using numerical examples that the subspace leakage is reduced at the
second step leading to better performance.
In the root-MUSIC method, the estimation error of the roots has a
variance which is proportional to the variance of noise over the
number of samples \cite{Proakis92:root_Music_performance}.
Therefore, at the threshold region, the variance of the estimation
error can have a significant value which in turn can result in a
swap between a root corresponding to a signal source with another
root which is not associated with any signal source. We dub this
phenomenon as root-swap. Then, a new method is proposed to remedy
this problem. The introduced method considers different combinations
of the roots as the candidates for the signal sources. These
candidates are then evaluated using the stochastic maximum
likelihood (SML) function, and the combination that minimizes the
objective function is picked up for the parameter estimates.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. The system model is
given and the root-MUSIC algorithm is briefly reviewed in
Section~\ref{sec:Sys_Mod_Sub_Leak}. The two-step and root-swap
algorithms are proposed in
Section~\ref{sec:Proposed_2_step_root_swap}. Subspace leakage is
defined and theoretically derived in Section~\ref{sec:Sub_leak}.
Numerical examples and simulation results are given in
Section~\ref{sec:Sim_Sub_Leak}. Section~\ref{sec:conclude} concludes
the paper. Appendix~\ref{sec:appndx_root_swap_prob} gives an
approximation for the probability of root-swap, and finally, the
details of the subspace leakage derivation for the two-step
root-MUSIC algorithm are presented in
Appendices~\ref{sec:appndx_SL1} and \ref{sec:appndx_SL2}.
\section{System Model and Background}
\label{sec:Sys_Mod_Sub_Leak}
An example of a noise-corrupted linear superposition of $K$ undamped
exponentials received by $M$ ($M > K$) antennas is the array
processing model. Thus, consider $K$ number of narrowband plane
waves impinging on a uniform linear array (ULA) from directions
$\theta_1,~\theta_2,\cdots,~\theta_K$. Without loss of generality,
assume $-\pi/2 \leq \theta_1 \leq \theta_2 \leq \cdots \leq \theta_K
\leq \pi/2$. The antenna elements are separated from each other by a
distance of $d \leq \lambda / 2$ where $\lambda$ is the wavelength
of the plane wave impinging on the array. The steering vector of the
array $\ba(\theta) \in \mathbb{C}^{M \times 1}$ is then given as
\begin{equation}
\ba(\theta) \triangleq \left[1,~e^{-j2 \pi (d/\lambda)
\sin(\theta)},\cdots,~e^{-j2 \pi (M-1)(d/\lambda)
\sin(\theta)}\right]^T \label{eq:steering_vec}
\end{equation}
where $\left(\cdot\right)^T$ stands for the transposition operator.
At time instant $t \in \mathbb{N}$, the received vector $\bx(t) \in
\mathbb{C}^{M \times 1}$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\bx(t) = \sum_{i = 1}^K \ba(\theta_i) s_i(t) + \bn(t)
\label{eq:sys_mod_1}
\end{equation}
where $s_i(t) \in \mathbb{C}$ is the amplitude of the $i$-th wave
(source) and $\bn(t) \in \mathbb{C}^{M \times 1}$ is the noise
vector at time $t$. By arranging the amplitudes of the sources in
the vector $\bs(t) = \left[s_1(t),s_2(t),\cdots,s_K(t)\right]^T \in
\mathbb{C}^{K \times 1}$ and forming the Vandermonde matrix $\bA =
\left[\ba(\theta_1),~\ba(\theta_2),\cdots,~\ba(\theta_K)\right] \in
\mathbb{C}^{M \times K}$, the model \eqref{eq:sys_mod_1} can be
rewritten in matrix-vector form as
\begin{equation}
\bx(t) = \bA \bs(t) + \bn(t). \label{eq:sys_mod_2}
\end{equation}
We consider the noise vector $\bn(t)$ to be independent from the
sources and noise vectors at other time instances and to have the
circularly-symmetric complex jointly-Gaussian distribution
$\mathcal{N}_C(0,\sigma_{\text{n}}^2\bI_M)$ where $\bI_M$ is the
identity matrix of size $M$. Considering the system model
\eqref{eq:sys_mod_2}, the data covariance matrix $\bR \in
\mathbb{C}^{M \times M}$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\bR \triangleq E\left\{\bx(t) \bx^H(t) \right\} = \bA\bS\bA^H +
\sigma_{\text{n}}^2\bI_M \label{eq:R_model}
\end{equation}
where $\bS = E \left\{\bs(t) \bs^H(t) \right\} \in \mathbb{C}^{K
\times K}$ is the source covariance matrix and
$\left(\cdot\right)^H$ and $E\{\cdot\}$ stand for the Hermitian
transposition and the expectation operators, respectively.
Let $\lambda_1 \leq \lambda_2 \leq \cdots \leq \lambda_M$ be the
eigenvalues of $\bR$ arranged in nondecreasing order, and let
$\bg_1,~\bg_2,\cdots,~\bg_{M-K}$ be the noise eigenvectors
associated with $\lambda_1,~\lambda_2,\cdots,~\lambda_{M-K}$ and
$\be_1,~\be_2,\cdots,~\be_K$ be the signal eigenvectors
corresponding to
$\lambda_{M-K+1},~\lambda_{M-K+2},\cdots,~\lambda_M$. Let also $\bG
\in \mathbb{C}^{M \times (M-K)}$ and $\bE \in \mathbb{C}^{M \times
K}$ be defined as $\bG \triangleq
\left[\bg_1,~\bg_2,\cdots,~\bg_{M-K}\right]$ and $\bE \triangleq
\left[\be_1,~\be_2,\cdots,~\be_K\right]$. The range spaces of $\bG$
and $\bE$ represent the true noise and signal subspaces,
respectively.
Let $N$ number of snapshots (samples) be available. The basic method
for estimating the data covariance matrix from the samples $\bx(t)$
($1 \leq t\leq N$) is
\begin{equation}
\widehat{\bR} \triangleq \frac{1}{N}\sum_{t=1}^N \bx(t) \bx^H(t)
\label{eq:Rhat_conventional}
\end{equation}
where $\widehat{\bR} \in \mathbb{C}^{M \times M}$ is the sample data
covariance matrix. Consider the eigendecomposition of
$\widehat{\bR}$. Let
$\hat{\bg}_1,~\hat{\bg}_2,\cdots,~\hat{\bg}_{M-K}$ be the estimated
noise eigenvectors and
$\hat{\be}_1,~\hat{\be}_2,\cdots,~\hat{\be}_K$ be the estimated
signal eigenvectors. Form $\widehat{\bG} \in \mathbb{C}^{M \times
(M-K)}$ and $\widehat{\bE} \in \mathbb{C}^{M \times K}$ by placing
the estimated noise and signal eigenvectors as the columns of
$\widehat{\bG}$ and $\widehat{\bE}$, respectively. The range spaces
of $\widehat{\bG}$ and $\widehat{\bE}$ represent the estimations of
the noise and signal subspaces, respectively.
Recalling \eqref{eq:steering_vec} and defining $z \triangleq e^{j2
\pi (d/\lambda) \sin(\theta)}$, the steering vector can be rewritten
as $\ba(z) =
\left[1,z^{-1},\cdots,z^{-(M-1)}\right]^T\,\hspace{-2mm}$. In the
root-MUSIC method, the roots of the equation $\ba^T(z^{-1})
\widehat{\bG} \widehat{\bG}^H \hspace{-1mm} \ba(z)\hspace{-1mm} = 0$
which are located inside the unit circle are considered. These roots
are sorted based on their distance to the unit circle, and the first
$K$ number of the roots which are closer to the unit circle are
picked. The estimates of the DOAs denoted by
$\hat{\theta}_1,~\hat{\theta}_2,\cdots,~\hat{\theta}_K$ are then
obtained by multiplying the angles of the selected roots by
$\lambda/(2 \pi d)$ and taking the inverse sinusoid function of the
results.
\section{Proposed Methods}
\label{sec:Proposed_2_step_root_swap}
\subsection{Two-step root-MUSIC algorithm}
Let us start by expanding \eqref{eq:Rhat_conventional} using
\eqref{eq:sys_mod_2} as follows
\begin{eqnarray}
\hspace{-3mm}\widehat{\bR} \hspace{-3mm} &=& \hspace{-3mm}
\frac{1}{N}\sum_{t=1}^N \left( \bA \bs(t) + \bn(t) \right)
\left(\bA \bs(t) + \bn(t)\right)^H \nonumber \\
\hspace{-3mm} \hspace{-3mm} &=& \hspace{-3mm} \bA \left\{
\frac{1}{N}\sum_{t=1}^N \bs(t) \bs^H(t) \right\} \bA^H +
\frac{1}{N}\sum_{t=1}^N
\bn(t) \bn^H(t) \nonumber \\
\hspace{-3mm} \hspace{-3mm} && \hspace{-3mm} + \bA \left\{
\frac{1}{N}\sum_{t=1}^N \bs(t) \bn^H(t) \right\} + \left\{
\frac{1}{N}\sum_{t=1}^N \bn(t) \bs^H(t) \right\} \bA^H.
\label{eq:Rhat_expand_2}
\end{eqnarray}
Comparing \eqref{eq:Rhat_expand_2} with \eqref{eq:R_model}, it can
be observed that the expansion of $\widehat{\bR}$ consists of four
terms while the model for $\bR$ comprises two summands. The first
two terms of $\widehat{\bR}$ given by \eqref{eq:Rhat_expand_2} can
be considered as estimates for the two summands of $\bR$, which
represent the signal and noise components, respectively. The last
two terms of $\widehat{\bR}$ in \eqref{eq:Rhat_expand_2} are
undesirable by-products which can be viewed as estimates for the
correlation between the signal and noise vectors. In the system
model under study, we consider the noise vectors to be zero-mean and
also independent of the signal vectors. Therefore, the signal and
noise components are uncorrelated to each other. As a result, for a
large enough number of samples $N$, the last two terms in
\eqref{eq:Rhat_expand_2} tend to zero. However, the number of
available samples can be limited in practical applications. In this
case, the last two terms in \eqref{eq:Rhat_expand_2} may have
significant values, which causes the estimates of the signal and
noise subspaces to deviate from the true signal and noise subspaces.
The main idea of our two-step root-MUSIC algorithm is to modify the
sample data covariance matrix at the second step based on the DOA
estimates obtained at the first step. The modified covariance matrix
is obtained by deducting a scaled version of the estimated
undesirable terms from the sample data covariance matrix.
We derive the steps of the proposed method for a general source
covariance matrix $\bS$, so that correlated sources can also be
handled by the algorithm. Furthermore, the proposed method can
also be beneficial in the case that the assumption on no correlation
between the source and noise vectors is not fully met. This is
achieved by estimating and removing the correlation terms between
the source and noise vectors from the sample data covariance matrix.
The steps of the proposed method are listed in Table \ref{alg:1}.
The algorithm starts by computing the sample data covariance matrix
\eqref{eq:Rhat_conventional}. Then, DOAs are estimated using the
root-MUSIC algorithm. The superscript $(\cdot)^{(1)}$ refers to the
estimation made at the first step. At the second step, the
Vandermonde matrix is formed using the available estimates of the
DOAs. Then, the amplitudes of the sources are estimated such that
the squared norm of the differences between the observations and the
estimates are minimized. The corresponding problem is formulated
as
\begin{equation}
\hat{\bs}(t) = \text{arg}~\min_{\bs} \| \bx(t) - \widehat{\bA} \bs
\|_2^2. \label{eq:obj_est_err}
\end{equation}
The minimization of \eqref{eq:obj_est_err} is performed using the
least squares (LS) technique and the corresponding solution is given
as
\begin{equation}
\hat{\bs}(t) = \left(\widehat{\bA}^H \widehat{\bA}\right)^{-1}
\widehat{\bA}^H \bx(t).
\end{equation}
The noise component is then estimated as the difference between the
estimated signal and the observation made by the array, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\hat{\bn}(t) = \bx(t) - \widehat{\bA} \hat{\bs}(t).
\end{equation}
After estimating the signal and noise vectors, the third term in
\eqref{eq:Rhat_expand_2} can be found as
\begin{eqnarray}
\bT \hspace{-2mm} & \triangleq & \hspace{-2mm} \widehat{\bA} \left\{
\frac{1}{N}\sum_{t=1}^N
\hat{\bs}(t) \hat{\bn}^H(t) \right\} \nonumber \\
& = & \hspace{-2mm} \widehat{\bA} \Bigg\{ \frac{1}{N}\sum_{t=1}^N
\left(\widehat{\bA}^H \widehat{\bA}\right)^{-1} \widehat{\bA}^H
\bx(t) \left( \bx^H(t) - \bx^H(t) \widehat{\bA}
\left(\widehat{\bA}^H \widehat{\bA}\right)^{-1}
\widehat{\bA}^H \right) \Bigg\} \nonumber \\
& = & \hspace{-2mm} \widehat{\bP}_A \left\{ \frac{1}{N}\sum_{t=1}^N
\bx(t) \bx^H(t) \left( \bI_M - \widehat{\bP}_A \right) \right\}
\nonumber \\
& = & \hspace{-2mm} \widehat{\bP}_A \widehat{\bR}
\widehat{\bP}_A^{\bot} \label{eq:T_PARPAbot}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{equation}
\widehat{\bP}_A \triangleq \widehat{\bA} \left(\widehat{\bA}^H
\widehat{\bA}\right)^{-1} \widehat{\bA}^H
\end{equation}
is an estimation for the projection matrix of the signal subspace,
and
\begin{equation}
\widehat{\bP}_A^{\bot} \triangleq \bI_M - \widehat{\bP}_A
\label{eq:PAhatbot_I_PAhat}
\end{equation}
is an estimation for the projection matrix of the noise subspace.
The forth term in \eqref{eq:Rhat_expand_2} is equal to the Hermitian
of the third term, i.e., $\bT^H$. Finally, the modified data
covariance matrix is obtained by deducting a scaled version of the
estimated terms from the initial sample data covariance matrix as
follows
\begin{equation}
\widehat{\bR}^{(2)} = \widehat{\bR} - \gamma \left( \bT+ \bT^H
\right).\label{eq:step2_Rhat2}
\end{equation}
The scaling factor $\gamma$ in \eqref{eq:step2_Rhat2} is a real
number between zero and one. Ideally, the value of $\gamma$ would be
equal to $1$ if the estimates of the undesirable terms were
perfect. However, estimation errors are inevitable, and therefore,
we have introduced $\gamma$ to deal with the imperfections. The
scaling factor $\gamma$ can be considered as a reliability factor
which takes a value close to $1$ for an estimate of $\bT$ with small
error and a small value if an estimate of $\bT$ is erroneous. Given
a value for $\gamma$, the modified data covariance matrix
$\widehat{\bR}^{(2)}$ is computed and the DOAs are estimated again
using the root-MUSIC algorithm.
The value of $\gamma$ can be fixed to a predetermined value before
running the algorithm, or it can be obtained based on the
observations. Since $\gamma$ is a real number between zero and one,
we can consider different values for $\gamma$ taken on a grid (e.g.
$\gamma = 0,~0.1,~0.2,\cdots,~1$). For each value of $\gamma$, a set
of DOA estimates is obtained based on the modified data covariance
matrix. Next, we determine which value of $\gamma$ results in a
better estimation. This can be done by choosing a set of DOA
estimates that has a higher likelihood of being the set of true
DOAs. In other words, we use the maximum likelihood (ML) criterion
to evaluate the quality of the estimated DOAs. Since the system model
given in \eqref{eq:R_model} is stochastic, we use the stochastic ML
(SML) objective function given by \cite{Stoica90:Stoch_Max_Like}
\begin{equation}
F_{SML}(\gamma) = \ln \det \left( \widehat{\bP}_A^{(2)}
\widehat{\bR} \widehat{\bP}_A^{(2)} + \frac{\text{Tr}
\left\{\widehat{\bP}_A^{\bot(2)} \widehat{\bR} \right\} }{M - K}
\widehat{\bP}_A^{\bot(2)} \right) \label{eq:SML_obj_func}
\end{equation}
where $\text{Tr} \left\{ \cdot \right\}$ stands for the trace
operator, $\widehat{\bP}_A^{(2)}$ is an estimation of the projection
matrix of the signal subspace obtained from the estimated DOAs based
on the modified data covariance matrix and
$\widehat{\bP}_A^{\bot(2)} = \bI_M - \widehat{\bP}_A^{(2)}$. The
objective function in \eqref{eq:SML_obj_func} is evaluated for each
value of $\gamma$. Then, the set of DOA estimates corresponding to
the value of $\gamma$ that minimizes \eqref{eq:SML_obj_func} is
chosen as the output of the algorithm.
\begin{table}[t
\caption{Two-step root-MUSIC algorithm}\label{alg:1}\vspace{-5mm}
\begin{center} \normalsize{
\begin{tabular}{l}
\hline
\textbf{Inputs}:\\
\hspace{1mm} $M,~d,~\lambda,~N,~K,$ and\\
\hspace{1mm} received vectors $\bx(1),~\bx(2),\cdots,~\bx(N)$\\
\textbf{Outputs}:\\
\hspace{1mm} Estimates $\hat{\theta}_1^{(2)},~\hat{\theta}_2^{(2)},
\cdots,~\hat{\theta}_K^{(2)}$ \vspace{0.5mm} \\
\hline
\textbf{Step 1}:\\
\hspace{1mm} $\widehat{\bR} =
\frac{1}{N}\sum_{t=1}^N \bx(t) \bx^H(t)$ \vspace{0.5mm} \\
\hspace{1mm}
$\left\{\hat{\theta}_1^{(1)},~\hat{\theta}_2^{(1)},\cdots,~\hat{\theta}_K^{(1)}
\right\}
\leftarrow \text{root-MUSIC}\left(\widehat{\bR},K,d,\lambda \right)$\\
\textbf{Step 2:}\\
\hspace{1mm} $\widehat{\bA} =
\left[\ba\left(\hat{\theta}_1^{(1)}\right),~
\ba\left(\hat{\theta}_2^{(1)}\right),\cdots,~
\ba\left(\hat{\theta}_K^{(1)}\right)\right]$ \vspace{1.0mm} \\
\hspace{1mm} $\widehat{\bP}_A = \widehat{\bA} \left(\widehat{\bA}^H
\widehat{\bA}\right)^{-1} \widehat{\bA}^H$ \\
\hspace{1mm} $\widehat{\bP}_A^{\bot} = \bI_M -
\widehat{\bP}_A$ \\
\hspace{1mm} $\bT = \widehat{\bP}_A
\widehat{\bR} \widehat{\bP}_A^{\bot} $\\
\hspace{1mm} \textbf{Determine $\gamma$ as the minimizer of}
\eqref{eq:SML_obj_func} \\
\hspace{2mm} $\widehat{\bR}^{(2)} = \widehat{\bR} - \gamma \left(
\bT+
\bT^H \right)$\\
\hspace{2mm}
$\left\{\hat{\theta}_1^{(2)},~\hat{\theta}_2^{(2)},
\cdots,~\hat{\theta}_K^{(2)}\right\}
\leftarrow \text{root-MUSIC}\left(\widehat{\bR}^{(2)},
K, d, \lambda \right)$ \vspace{1mm}\\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\subsection{Root-swap root-MUSIC algorithm}
Consider the root-MUSIC polynomial $\ba^T(z^{-1}) \bG \bG^H \ba(z)$
which is formed by the noise eigenvectors obtained from the
eigendecomposition of the data covariance matrix $\bR$. This
polynomial has $K$ number of roots on the unit circle which
correspond to the signal sources. Let these $K$ roots be denoted by
$z_1,~z_2,\cdots,~z_K$ and be referred to as the true signal roots.
The polynomial also has additional $M - K - 1$ number of roots
inside the unit circle. Let these roots be referred to as the true
noise roots and be denoted by $z_{K+1},~z_{K+2},\cdots,~z_{M-1}$.
An estimation for the root-MUSIC polynomial can be formed using the
noise eigenvectors obtained from the sample data covariance matrix
$\widehat{\bR}$. Let us assume that in the estimation of the noise
and signal subspaces, no subspace swap has occurred
\cite{Scharf95:prob_subspace_swap}. The estimated polynomial is
given by $\ba^T(z^{-1}) \widehat{\bG} \widehat{\bG}^H \ba(z)$. This
polynomial has $M-1$ number of roots inside the unit circle. Let
$\hat{z}_1,~\hat{z}_2,\cdots,~\hat{z}_{K}$ be the roots of the
estimated root-MUSIC polynomial which correspond to
$z_1,~z_2,\cdots,~z_K$. We refer to these roots as the estimated
signal roots. Furthermore, let
$\hat{z}_{K+1},~\hat{z}_{K+2},\cdots,~\hat{z}_{M-1}$ be the roots
corresponding to $z_{K+1},~z_{K+2},\cdots,~z_{M-1}$. These roots are
referred to as the estimated noise roots.
In the root-MUSIC method, we do not have the knowledge about which
of the roots of the estimated root-MUSIC polynomial correspond to
the true signal roots. The conventional rule is to select $K$ number
of the estimated roots which are closer to the unit circle as the
estimates for the true signal roots. Then, the DOAs are estimated
based on the angles of these roots.
Due to the finiteness of the available samples, the estimated roots
obtained from the sample data covariance matrix $\widehat{\bR}$
deviate from their corresponding true roots obtained from the true
data covariance matrix $\bR$. Let $r_i$ and $\hat{r}_i$ represent
the magnitudes of $z_i$ and $\hat{z}_i$ for $1 \leq i \leq M-1$,
respectively. Furthermore, let $\Delta r_i \triangleq \hat{r}_i -
r_i$ be the difference between the magnitude of the $i$-th estimated
root and the magnitude of the corresponding true root. It is shown
in \cite{Proakis92:root_Music_performance} that $\Delta r_i$ (for
the signal roots) has a variance which is proportional to
$\sigma_{\text{n}}^2 / N$. Therefore, $\Delta r_i$ can have a
significant value for a small number of samples and a large value of
$\sigma_{\text{n}}^2$ (low SNR region). Consequently, there can be a
considerable probability that an estimated signal root takes a
smaller magnitude than an estimated noise root. We refer to this
phenomenon as a root-swap. The root-swap probability is
approximately found in Appendix~\ref{sec:appndx_root_swap_prob} as
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \hspace{-15mm} P(\text{root-swap}) \approx 1 - \prod_{k=1}^K
\prod_{m=K+1}^{M-1} Q\left( \frac{-1 + r_m + \sigma_k
\sqrt{M-K-(3/4)} }{\sqrt{\sigma_k^2 / 4}} \right)
\label{eq:root_swap_prob_approx_final}
\end{eqnarray}
where $Q\left( \cdot \right)$ is the tail probability of the
standard normal distribution and $\sigma_k^2/4$ is the variance of
$\Delta r_k$, and it is proportional to $\sigma_{\text{n}}^2 / N$.
In the case that the root-swap happens, selecting the first closest
$K$ roots to the unit circle results in picking a noise root instead
of a signal root. To deal with this problem, we propose an algorithm
that considers different combinations of the roots as candidates for
signal roots. The method is dubbed the root-swap root-MUSIC
algorithm.
The root-MUSIC polynomial has $M-1$ number of roots inside the unit
circle. Our goal is to find the roots which have a higher likelihood
of being associated with the $K$ sources. Consider choosing $K$
number of roots out of the $M-1$ roots inside the unit circle. There
are $N_c \triangleq (M - 1)! / \left( K! (M - K - 1)! \right)$
different possible combinations. Let $\Gamma \triangleq \left\{
\Theta_1,~\Theta_2,~\cdots,~\Theta_{N_c} \right\}$ where $\Theta_i$
($1 \leq i \leq N_c$) is a set containing the DOA estimates obtained
from the $i$-th combination of the roots. Then, the root-swap
root-MUSIC method estimates the DOAs as
\begin{equation}
\left\{ \hat{\theta}_1,~\hat{\theta}_2,\cdots,~\hat{\theta}_K
\right\} = \text{arg}~\min_{\Theta \in \Gamma} F_{SML}\left( \Theta
\right)
\end{equation}
where $F_{SML}\left( \Theta \right)$ is the SML function given by
\begin{equation}
F_{SML}(\Theta) = \ln \det \left( \bP_{\Theta} \widehat{\bR}
\bP_{\Theta} + \frac{\text{Tr} \left\{\bP_{\Theta}^{\bot}
\widehat{\bR} \right\} }{M - K} \bP_{\Theta}^{\bot} \right)
\end{equation}
and $\bP_{\Theta}$ is the signal projection matrix obtained from
$\Theta$ as
\begin{equation}
\bP_{\Theta} \triangleq \bA(\Theta) \left(\bA^H(\Theta)
\bA(\Theta)\right)^{-1} \bA^H(\Theta).
\end{equation}
The complexity of the introduced root-swap root-MUSIC method can be
reduced by pre-eliminating some of the roots. Specifically, let $p
\leq K$ roots closest to the unit circle be picked, and let $q$
number of roots closest to the origin (furthest from the unit
circle) be ignored. Our task is to choose $K - p$ number of roots
out of $M - p - q -1$ roots. Then, there are $N_{\rm r} \triangleq
(M - p - q - 1)! / \left( (K - p)! (M - K - q - 1)! \right)$
different possible combinations which is significantly smaller
than $N_{\rm c}$. The rest of the algorithm is the same as above
except for that here each combination contains $K - p$ number
of roots. Therefore, in order to evaluate the SML function, the
fixed $p$ pre-selected roots are added to each combination.
\section{Subspace Leakage}
\label{sec:Sub_leak}
The performance breakdown of the subspace based DOA estimation
methods in the threshold region has been associated with the
subspace leakage. In this section, we study the subspace leakage
for both steps of the proposed two-step root-MUSIC algorithm.
\subsection{Definition}
Recall the matrices $\bG$ and $\bE$ which are composed of the true
noise and signal eigenvectors obtained from the eigendecomposition
of the data covariance matrix $\bR$. Note that the matrix of the
eigenvectors $\bQ_R = \left[ \bG~\bE \right] \in \mathbb{C}^{M
\times M}$ is a unitary matrix $\left( \bQ_R \bQ_R^H = \bI_M
\right)$, therefore
\begin{equation}
\bG \bG^H + \bE \bE^H = \bI_M
\end{equation}
or
\begin{equation}
\bP^{\bot} + \bP = \bI_M \label{eq:P_orth+P=I}
\end{equation}
where, $\bP^{\bot} \triangleq \bG \bG^H$ and $\bP \triangleq \bE
\bE^H$ are the true projection matrices of the noise and signal
subspaces.
Ideally, the estimation of each signal eigenvector $\hat{\be}_k$ $(1
\leq k \leq K)$ would perfectly fall in the true signal subspace. In
practice, however, the energy of the projection of $\hat{\be}_k$
into the noise subspace $\| \bP^{\bot} \hat{\be}_k \|_2^2$ is almost
surely nonzero, which can be viewed as the leakage of $\hat{\be}_k$
into the true noise subspace.
We define the subspace leakage as the average value of the energy of
the estimated signal eigenvectors leaked into the true noise
subspace, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\rho \triangleq \frac{1}{K} \sum_{k = 1}^K \| \bP^{\bot} \hat{\be}_k
\|_2^2.
\end{equation}
Note that $\bP^{\bot}$ is the orthogonal projection matrix.
Therefore, $\rho$ can be written as
\begin{equation}
\rho = \frac{1}{K} \sum_{k = 1}^K \hat{\be}_k^H \bP^{\bot}
\hat{\be}_k. \label{eq:sim1_rho_def}
\end{equation}
Using \eqref{eq:P_orth+P=I} and some algebra, the expression
\eqref{eq:sim1_rho_def} can be simplified to
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho \hspace{-2mm} & = & \hspace{-2mm} \frac{1}{K} \sum_{k = 1}^K
\hat{\be}_k^H \left( \bI_M - \bP \right)
\hat{\be}_k \nonumber \\
& = & \hspace{-2mm} 1 - \frac{1}{K} \sum_{k = 1}^K \text{Tr} \left\{
\hat{\be}_k \hat{\be}_k^H
\bP \right\} \nonumber \\
& = & \hspace{-2mm} 1 - \frac{1}{K} \text{Tr} \left\{ \left( \sum_{k
= 1}^K \hat{\be}_k \hat{\be}_k^H \right)
\bP \right\} \nonumber \\
& = & \hspace{-2mm} 1 - \frac{1}{K} \text{Tr} \left\{ \widehat{\bP}
\bP \right\} \label{eq:sub_leak_def}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\widehat{\bP} \triangleq \widehat{\bE} \widehat{\bE}^H$ is
the estimated signal projection matrix.
\subsection{Analysis of two-step root-MUSIC algorithm}
The estimated signal and noise projection matrices obtained from the
eigendecomposition of the sample data covariance matrix
$\widehat{\bR}$ are deviated from the true signal and noise
projection matrices. Let $\Delta \bR \triangleq \widehat{\bR} - \bR$
be the estimation error of the data covariance matrix, and let
\begin{eqnarray}
\bV \hspace{-2mm} & \triangleq & \hspace{-2mm}
\bR - \sigma_{\text{n}}^2\bI_M = \bA\bS\bA^H \nonumber \\
& = & \hspace{-2mm} \sum_{k = 1}^K \left( \lambda_{M - K + k} -
\sigma_{\text{n}}^2 \right) \be_k \be_k^H. \label{eq:V_R_sigma2I}
\end{eqnarray}
Denote the pseudo-inverse of $\bV$ as $\bV^{\dag} \in \mathbb{C}^{M
\times M}$. It is given by
\begin{equation}
\bV^{\dag} = \sum_{k = 1}^K \frac{1}{\lambda_{M - K + k} -
\sigma_{\text{n}}^2} \be_k \be_k^H. \label{eq:pseudoinverse_V}
\end{equation}
Let $\rho_1$ and $\rho_2$ be the subspace leakage due to the error
in the estimation of the signal and noise subspaces obtained from
$\widehat{\bR}$ and $\widehat{\bR}^{(2)}$, respectively. Note that
$\rho_1$ only depends on $\bR$ and $\Delta \bR$, and it is not
specific to the proposed two-step root-MUSIC algorithm.
It is shown in Appendix~\ref{sec:appndx_SL1} that $\rho_1$ and its
expected value are given by
\begin{equation}
\rho_1 = \frac{1}{K} \text{Tr} \left\{ \bV^{\dag} \Delta \bR
\bP^{\bot} \Delta \bR \bV^{\dag} \right\}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
E\left\{ \rho_1 \right\} = \frac{\sigma_{\text{n}}^2 \left( M - K
\right)}{NK} \sum_{k = 1}^K \frac{\lambda_{M - K + k}}{\left(
\lambda_{M - K + k} - \sigma_{\text{n}}^2 \right)^2 }
\label{eq:E_rho1_final_simplified}
\end{equation}
respectively.
It can be seen from \eqref{eq:E_rho1_final_simplified} that the
expected value of the subspace leakage is proportional to
$\sigma_{\text{n}}^2 /N$. Therefore, the amount of the subspace
leakage can be significant for a small number of samples or low SNR
values. The variance of $\rho_1$ has also been studied in
\cite{MSH15:Sub_Leak}, and it has been shown that $\text{Var}
\left(\rho_1 \right)$ is in the order of $1/N^2$.
The subspace leakage at the second step of the two-step root-MUSIC
algorithm is computed in Appendix~\ref{sec:appndx_SL2} and is given
by
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho_2 \hspace{-2mm} & = & \hspace{-2mm} \left( 1 - 2\gamma +
\gamma^2 \right) \rho_1 + \frac{ 2 \left( \gamma - \gamma^2 \right)
}{K} Re \left\{ \text{Tr} \left\{ \bV^{\dag} \Delta \bR \bP^{\bot}
d\bP \right\} \right\} + \frac{\gamma^2}{K} \text{Tr} \left\{ d\bP
\bP^{\bot} d\bP \right\}
\end{eqnarray}
where $Re \left\{ \cdot \right\}$ stands for the real part operator,
and $d\bP$ is the first order term in the Taylor series expansion of
$\widehat{\bP}_A$ around the true DOAs. It is also shown in
Appendix~\ref{sec:appndx_SL2} that the expected value of $\rho_2$
for a fixed value of $\gamma$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
E \left\{ \rho_2 \right\} \hspace{-2mm} & = & \hspace{-2mm} \left( 1
- 2\gamma + \gamma^2 \right) E \left\{ \rho_1 \right\} \nonumber \\
&& \hspace{-2mm} + \frac{ 2 \left( \gamma - \gamma^2 \right)
\sigma_{\text{n}}^2 }{NK} Re \left\{ \sum_{k = 1}^K
\frac{\ba_k^{(1)H} \bP^{\bot} \frac{\partial \bA}{\partial \omega_k}
\left( \bA^H \bA \right)^{-1} \bA^H \bV^{\dag} \bR \bV^{\dag}
\ba_k}{2 j \left( \ba_k^{(1)H} \bP^{\bot} \ba_k^{(1)} \right)}
\right\} \nonumber \\
&& \hspace{-2mm} + \frac{\gamma^2 \sigma_{\text{n}}^2}{2NK} \sum_{k
= 1}^K \sum_{i = 1}^K \frac{\text{Tr} \left\{ \left( \frac{\partial
\bA}{\partial \omega_k} \right)^H \bP^{\bot} \frac{\partial
\bA}{\partial \omega_i} \left( \bA^H \bA \right)^{-1} \right\}}{
\left( \ba_k^{(1)H} \bP^{\bot} \ba_k^{(1)} \right) \left(
\ba_i^{(1)H} \bP^{\bot} \ba_i^{(1)} \right)} Re \left\{ \ba_i^H
\bV^{\dag} \bR \bV^{\dag} \ba_k \ba_k^{(1)H} \bP^{\bot} \ba_i^{(1)}
\right\} \nonumber \\
\label{eq:E_rho2_final_simplified}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\omega_k \triangleq 2 \pi (d/\lambda) \sin(\theta_k)$,
$\ba_k$ is a shorthand notation for $\ba(\theta_k)$, and
$\ba_k^{(1)} \in \mathbb{C}^{M \times 1}$ is defined as
\begin{equation}
\ba_k^{(1)} \triangleq \hspace{-1mm} - \hspace{-1mm} \left[0,~e^{-j
\omega_k},~2 e^{-j 2 \omega_k},~\cdots,~(M-1) e^{-j (M-1) \omega_k}
\right]^T. \label{eq:a1_k}
\end{equation}
It can be seen in \eqref{eq:E_rho2_final_simplified} that for
$\gamma = 0$, $E \left\{ \rho_2 \right\}$ reduces to $E \left\{
\rho_1 \right\}$ as expected, and for $\gamma = 1$, the first two
terms in \eqref{eq:E_rho2_final_simplified} are equal to zero.
\section{Numerical Examples and Simulation Results}
\label{sec:Sim_Sub_Leak}
In this section, the performance of the proposed two-step
root-MUSIC and the root-swap root-MUSIC algorithms is investigated
and compared with the performance of the unitary root-MUSIC method
\cite{Gershman00:unitary_root_Music} and the improved unitary
root-MUSIC algorithm based on pseudo-noise resampling
\cite{Qian14:impro_uni_r_Music_Pseudo_noise}. We also consider the
combination of the proposed methods with the other methods in order
to achieve further performance improvement. Compared to the
root-MUSIC method, the unitary root-MUSIC algorithm has a lower
computational complexity as it uses the eigendecomposition of a
real-valued covariance matrix. Furthermore, the unitary root-MUSIC
algorithm has better performance for the case that the sources are
correlated. The improved unitary root-MUSIC algorithm based on
pseudo-noise resampling increases the estimator complexity, but it
is advantageous in removing the outliers, which results in better
performance.
We consider $K = 2$ sources impinging on an array of $M = 10$
antenna elements from directions $\theta_1 = 35\,^{\circ} \times
(\pi/180)$ and $\theta_2 = 37\,^{\circ} \times (\pi/180)$. The
interelement spacing is set to $d = \lambda/2$ and the number of
snapshots is $N = 10$. Each source vector $\bs(t)$ is considered to
be independent from the source vectors at other time instances and
to have the circularly-symmetric complex jointly-Gaussian
distribution $\mathcal{N}_C(0,\bS)$. The source covariance matrix
$\bS$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\bS = \sigma_{\text{s}}^2 \left[ \begin{array}{cc}
1 & r \\
r & 1
\end{array} \right] \nonumber
\end{equation}
where $0 \leq r \leq 1$ is the correlation coefficient. The SNR is
defined as $\text{SNR} \triangleq
10\log_{10}\left(\sigma_{\text{s}}^2/\sigma_{\text{n}}^2\right)$.
The performance of the proposed algorithms is investigated by
considering the subspace leakage, mean squared error (MSE),
probability of source resolution, and conditional mean squared error
(CMSE). Source resolution is defined as the event when both DOAs are
estimated within one degree of their corresponding true values,
i.e., the difference between the true value of each DOA and its
estimated value is less than $1\,^{\circ} \times (\pi/180)$. The
CMSE is defined as the expected value of the estimation error
conditioned on successful source resolution, i.e.,
\raisebox{0pt}[5mm][3mm]{$E\left\{\sum_{k=1}^K\| \hat{\theta}_k -
\theta_k \|_2^2 ~\Big|~ \text{successful source resolution}
\right\}$}. The reason for using the CMSE is to further investigate
the accuracy of the algorithms after making successful detection. We
estimate the probability of root-swap, subspace leakage, MSE,
probability of source resolution, and CMSE using the Monte Carlo
method with $10^5$ number of trials. Two cases are considered in the
simulations: 1) the two sources are uncorrelated, i.e., $r = 0$, and
2) the two sources are correlated with a correlation coefficient of
$r = 0.9$.
Let us start by investigating the probability of root-swap in the
root-MUSIC algorithm for the case of the uncorrelated sources. The
probability of root-swap is estimated using the Monte Carlo
simulations. Its approximate value is also obtained using
\eqref{eq:root_swap_prob_approx_final}. The corresponding curves are
shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:RS_M10_N10_c0}. It can be seen that at the
low SNR region, the chance that a root-swap occurs is quite
significant, which results in the performance breakdown of the
root-MUSIC algorithm. This problem justifies the need for a method
to deal with the root-swap phenomenon. In this paper, we proposed
the root-swap root-MUSIC algorithm which instead of picking the
roots closer to the unit circle, selects the roots based on the SML
criterion. In Fig.~\ref{fig:RS_M10_N10_c0}, we thus also draw a
curve which shows the probability that the selected roots by the ML
criterion include a noise root. This situation is considered as a
breakdown, and therefore, the corresponding probability is called
the probability of ML failure. As can be seen, this probability is
significantly smaller than the probability of root-swap. As a
result, it is expected that the root-swap root-MUSIC algorithm
outperforms the conventional root-MUSIC method. This will be shown
in the rest of this section.
\begin{figure}[t]
\psfrag{SNR}{SNR (dB)} \psfrag{RS}{Probability}
\includegraphics[width=25cm]{SubLeakFigs/RS_M10_N10_c0.eps}
\vspace{-5mm} \caption{Probability of root-swap and probability of
ML failure versus SNR for uncorrelated sources.
\label{fig:RS_M10_N10_c0}}\vspace{-3mm}
\end{figure}
The subspace leakage in the two-step root-MUSIC algorithm for the
case of the uncorrelated sources is investigated next. The expected
value of the subspace leakage is estimated using
\eqref{eq:sub_leak_def} and the Monte Carlo simulations. The
approximate value for the subspace leakage is also obtained from the
theoretical derivations in \eqref{eq:E_rho1_final_simplified} and
\eqref{eq:E_rho2_final_simplified}. The value of $\gamma$ is fixed
at $0.5$. The results are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:SL_M10_N10_c0}. The
solid lines represent the subspace leakage at the first step, and
the dashed lines depict the subspace leakage at the second step of
the proposed two-step root-MUSIC algorithm. It can be seen that the
curves obtained from the simulations are very close to those
obtained from our theoretical derivations at high SNR values. At the
low SNR region, the curve associated with the theoretical
approximation at the second step deviates from the curve obtained by
simulations. The reason is that in the derivations, the first order
Taylor series expansion is used. More accurate results can be
obtained by using higher order Taylor series. However, the
computations can become intractable. In
Fig.~\ref{fig:SL_M10_N10_c0}, it can be observed from both
theoretical and simulation results that the subspace leakage from
the modified covariance matrix at the second step is significantly
smaller than the subspace leakage from the sample data covariance
matrix at the first step. This is achieved by removing the
undesirable terms from the sample data covariance matrix leading to
an estimate of the signal projection matrix that is closer to the
true signal projection matrix, which is equivalent to a lower
subspace leakage at the second step.
\begin{figure}[t]
\psfrag{SNR}{SNR (dB)} \psfrag{SL}{Subspace leakage (dB)}
\includegraphics[width=25cm]{SubLeakFigs/SL_M10_N10_c0.eps}
\vspace{-5mm} \caption{Subspace leakage versus SNR for uncorrelated
sources. The solid and dashed lines represent the subspace leakage
at the first and second steps of the proposed two-step root-MUSIC
algorithm, respectively. \label{fig:SL_M10_N10_c0}}\vspace{-3mm}
\end{figure}
We next consider the performance of the proposed two-step algorithm
when applied to the root-MUSIC \cite{Barabell83:root_Music}, unitary
root-MUSIC \cite{Gershman00:unitary_root_Music}, improved unitary
root-MUSIC with pseudo-noise resampling
\cite{Qian14:impro_uni_r_Music_Pseudo_noise}, root-swap unitary
root-MUSIC, and root-swap unitary root-MUSIC with pseudo-noise
resampling methods. The unitary root-MUSIC algorithm takes benefit
from the forward-backward averaging \cite{Pillai89:Forward_Backward}
which is approximately equivalent to doubling the number of samples.
For the cases that the pseudo-noise resampling is used, $P$
represents the number of times that the resampling process has been
performed. In the figures, the root-MUSIC, unitary root-MUSIC, and
root-swap unitary root-MUSIC methods are denoted by R-MUSIC,
UR-MUSIC, and RSUR-MUSIC, respectively. The value of the scaling
factor $\gamma$ is obtained by minimizing the SML function as
described in the two-step root-MUSIC method. In the root-swap
algorithm, the parameters $p$ and $q$ are set to $p = 1$ and $q =
0$, which means the closest root to the unit circle is picked up and
paired with other roots one at a time in order to find the pair of
DOA estimates that minimizes the SML function. In this case, the
number of different possible combinations of the roots is $N_r = 8$.
The number of samples used for the pseudo-noise resampling method is
set to $P = 50$. According to our simulations, using more number of
samples would not yield in any considerable improvement in the
performance.
The MSE versus SNR performance of the methods tested for the case of
the uncorrelated sources is presented in
Fig.~\ref{fig:MSE_M10_N10_c0}. The corresponding CRB
\cite{Stoica01:Stocastic_CRB_array_proc} is also shown in the
figure. For the R-MUSIC method, the modification of the covariance
matrix in the second step of the introduced two-step method shifts
the MSE curve by almost half~a~dB to the left. For the UR-MUSIC
method the improvement is more significant and is about one~dB. For
the rest of the methods, there is no considerable change in the MSE
performance. However, as it will be shown in the next figures, the
modification of the covariance matrix has benefits in terms of the
CMSE performance and probability of source resolution for these
methods. It can also be seen from Fig.~\ref{fig:MSE_M10_N10_c0} that
the proposed RSUR-MUSIC algorithm performs about $2$~dB better than
the UR-MUSIC method, while imposing only a small amount of
computational complexity for evaluating the SML function for $N_r =
8$ different combinations of the roots. The best performance is
achieved by the RSUR-MUSIC algorithm combined with the pseudo-noise
resampling method.
\begin{figure}[t]
\psfrag{SNR}{SNR (dB)} \psfrag{MSE}{MSE (dB)}
\includegraphics[width=25cm]{SubLeakFigs/MSE_M10_N10_c0.eps}
\vspace{-5mm} \caption{MSE versus SNR for uncorrelated sources. The
solid and dashed lines are based on the first and second steps of
the proposed two-step method, respectively. The methods used in the
two-step algorithm are R-MUSIC, UR-MUSIC, and RSUR-MUSIC methods.
$P$ is the number of samples used for the pseudo-noise resampling
algorithm. \label{fig:MSE_M10_N10_c0}}\vspace{-3mm}
\end{figure}
Fig.~\ref{fig:PD_M10_N10_c0} shows probability of source resolution
versus SNR for the uncorrelated sources. For the R-MUSIC method, the
second step of the two-step algorithm improves the performance by
$1$ to $2$~dB. The rest of the algorithms have almost the same
performance with the root-swap based methods slightly outperforming
the other algorithms at low SNR values. It is observed that the
second step of the two-step algorithm results in about $1$~dB
improvement in the performance.
\begin{figure}[t]
\psfrag{SNR}{SNR (dB)} \psfrag{PD}{Probability of source resolution}
\includegraphics[width=25cm]{SubLeakFigs/PD_M10_N10_c0.eps}
\vspace{-5mm} \caption{Probability of source resolution versus SNR
for uncorrelated sources. The solid and dashed lines are based on
the first and second steps of the proposed two-step method,
respectively. The methods used in the two-step algorithm are
R-MUSIC, UR-MUSIC, and RSUR-MUSIC methods.
\label{fig:PD_M10_N10_c0}}\vspace{-3mm}
\end{figure}
Finally, Fig.~\ref{fig:CMSE_M10_N10_c0} illustrates the performance
of the algorithms tested for the uncorrelated sources in terms of
the CMSE. The R-MUSIC method is significantly improved by the
two-step method with an improvement ranging from $5$~dB at low SNR
values to $1$~dB at high SNR values. The rest of the algorithms show
similar performance, and the application of the two-step method
leads to up to $2$~dB improvement in the CMSE performance.
\begin{figure}[t]
\psfrag{SNR}{SNR (dB)} \psfrag{CMSE}{CMSE (dB)}
\includegraphics[width=25cm]{SubLeakFigs/CMSE_M10_N10_c0.eps}
\vspace{-5mm} \caption{CMSE versus SNR for uncorrelated sources. The
solid and dashed lines are based on the first and second steps of
the proposed two-step method, respectively. The methods used in the
two-step algorithm are R-MUSIC, UR-MUSIC, and RSUR-MUSIC methods.
\label{fig:CMSE_M10_N10_c0}}\vspace{-3mm}
\end{figure}
The results for the case of the correlated sources with $r = 0.9$
are depicted in Figs.~\ref{fig:RS_M10_N10_c09} to
\ref{fig:CMSE_M10_N10_c09}. Similar observations are made from these
figures as those discussed for the case of the uncorrelated sources.
Compared to the uncorrelated case, the performance breakdown occurs
at a higher SNR value. This makes the importance of the improved
methods more significant, as there is a higher chance that the
actual SNR of a system falls in the breakdown region. As seen from
the figures for the correlated sources, the proposed methods prove
to be helpful in dealing with the performance breakdown problem. The
gain obtained by the improved methods is also more significant
compared to the case of the uncorrelated sources. For instance, the
MSE improvement achieved by the two-step root-MUSIC method for the
uncorrelated sources is about half a dB, while in the case of the
correlated sources, the MSE curve is shifted by more than $2$~dB to
the left. Similarly, more significant performance gains are obtained
for the probability of source resolution and also the CMSE.
\begin{figure}[t]
\psfrag{SNR}{SNR (dB)} \psfrag{RS}{Probability}
\includegraphics[width=25cm]{SubLeakFigs/RS_M10_N10_c09.eps}
\vspace{-5mm} \caption{Probability of root-swap and probability of
ML failure versus SNR for correlated sources with $r = 0.9$.
\label{fig:RS_M10_N10_c09}}\vspace{-3mm}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\psfrag{SNR}{SNR (dB)} \psfrag{SL}{Subspace leakage (dB)}
\includegraphics[width=25cm]{SubLeakFigs/SL_M10_N10_c09.eps}
\vspace{-5mm} \caption{Subspace leakage versus SNR for correlated
sources with $r = 0.9$. The solid and dashed lines represent the
subspace leakage at the first and second steps of the proposed
two-step R-MUSIC algorithm, respectively.
\label{fig:SL_M10_N10_c09}}\vspace{-3mm}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\psfrag{SNR}{SNR (dB)} \psfrag{MSE}{MSE (dB)}
\includegraphics[width=25cm]{SubLeakFigs/MSE_M10_N10_c09.eps}
\vspace{-5mm} \caption{MSE versus SNR for correlated sources with $r
= 0.9$. The solid and dashed lines are based on the first and second
steps of the proposed two-step method, respectively. The methods
used in the two-step algorithm are R-MUSIC, UR-MUSIC, and RSUR-MUSIC
methods. \label{fig:MSE_M10_N10_c09}}\vspace{-3mm}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\psfrag{SNR}{SNR (dB)} \psfrag{PD}{Probability of source resolution}
\includegraphics[width=25cm]{SubLeakFigs/PD_M10_N10_c09.eps}
\vspace{-5mm} \caption{Probability of source resolution versus SNR
for correlated sources with $r = 0.9$. The solid and dashed lines
are based on the first and second steps of the proposed two-step
method, respectively. The methods used in the two-step algorithm are
R-MUSIC, UR-MUSIC, and RSUR-MUSIC methods.
\label{fig:PD_M10_N10_c09}}\vspace{-3mm}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\psfrag{SNR}{SNR (dB)} \psfrag{CMSE}{CMSE (dB)}
\includegraphics[width=25cm]{SubLeakFigs/CMSE_M10_N10_c09.eps}
\vspace{-5mm} \caption{CMSE versus SNR for the correlated sources
with $r = 0.9$. The solid and dashed lines are based on the first
and second steps of the proposed two-step method, respectively. The
methods used in the two-step algorithm are R-MUSIC), UR-MUSIC, and
RSUR-MUSIC methods. \label{fig:CMSE_M10_N10_c09}}\vspace{-3mm}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}\label{sec:conclude}
The performance breakdown of the subspace based DOA estimation
methods in the threshold region where the SNR and/or sample size is
low has been studied in this paper. The subspace leakage as the main
cause of the performance breakdown was formally defined and
theoretically derived. The two-step algorithm has been proposed in
order to reduce the amount of subspace leakage. The introduced
method is based on estimating the DOAs at the first step and
modifying the covariance matrix using the estimated DOAs at the
second step. We have theoretically derived the subspace leakage at
both steps, and have shown that the subspace leakage is reduced at
the second step of the proposed method leading to better
performance. The algorithm can also be extended to the third step by
further modifying the covariance matrix based on the improved
estimates obtained at the second step. We have investigated the
performance of the algorithm for further steps through simulations
(not included in the paper). However, the achieved improvement is
marginal and does not justify the added complexity.
The behavior of the root-MUSIC algorithm in the threshold region has
been also studied, and a phenomenon called root-swap has been
observed to contribute to the performance breakdown. Then, an
improved method has been introduced to remedy this problem by
considering different combinations of the roots and picking up the
one that minimizes the SML function.
The performance improvement achieved by the proposed methods has
also been demonstrated using numerical examples and simulation
results. We also combined the proposed algorithms with the
previously introduced methods in the literature, which resulted in
further improvement in the performance.
\appendices
\section{Probability of Root-Swap Approximation}
\label{sec:appndx_root_swap_prob}
The root-swap is defined as the event when at least one of the
estimated signal roots $\hat{z}_k$ ($1 \leq k \leq K$) has a smaller
magnitude than the magnitude of an estimated noise root $\hat{z}_m$
($K+1 \leq m \leq M-1$), i.e., $\hat{r}_k < \hat{r}_m$. Let us
denote the probability of the event that $\hat{r}_k < \hat{r}_m$ by
$p_{km}$. The complement of this event represents the case when the
$k$-th estimated signal root has not been swapped with the $m$-th
estimated noise root, and its probability is given by $1-p_{km}$.
Let us denote the probability of root-swap by $P(\text{root-swap})$.
The complement of the root-swap event is the event when none of the
estimated signal roots has been swapped with an estimated noise
root, and its probability is given by $1-P(\text{root-swap})$.
Assuming that the individual root-swap events are independent from
each other, we have
\begin{equation}
1-P(\text{root-swap}) = \prod_{k=1}^K \prod_{m=K+1}^{M-1} \left( 1 -
p_{km} \right). \label{eq:root_swap_comp_prob}
\end{equation}
In the sequel, we derive an approximation for $p_{km}$. Noting that
$r_k = 1$ for the true signal roots, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
p_{km} \hspace{-2mm} &=& \hspace{-2mm} P \left( \hat{r}_m >
\hat{r}_k \right) \nonumber \\
&=& \hspace{-2mm} P \left( \Delta r_m - \Delta r_k > 1 - r_m
\right). \label{eq:indiv_root_swap_prob}
\end{eqnarray}
In order to proceed with the computation of $p_{km}$, we consider
the distributions of $\Delta r_m$ and $\Delta r_k$. It is shown in
\cite{Proakis92:root_Music_performance} that $\Delta r_k$ ($1 \leq
k \leq K$) follows the $- \left( \sigma_k / \sqrt{2} \right) \sqrt{
\chi^2\left( 2(M-K)-1\right)}$ distribution where $\chi^2\left( \ell
\right)$ denotes a chi-square distribution with $\ell$ degrees of
freedom and $\sigma_k^2$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\sigma_k^2 = \frac{\sigma_{\text{n}}^2}{N \left( \ba_k^{(1)H}
\bP^{\bot} \ba_k^{(1)} \right) } \sum_{i = 1}^K \frac{\lambda_{M - K
+ i}}{\left( \lambda_{M - K + i} - \sigma_{\text{n}}^2 \right)^2}
\left| \be_i^H \ba_k \right|^2
\end{equation}
where $\bP^{\bot}$ is the true projection matrix of the noise
subspace and $\ba_k^{(1)}$ is given by \eqref{eq:a1_k}.
We next consider the distribution of $\Delta r_m$. In
\cite{Proakis92:root_Music_performance}, the distribution of $\Delta
r_k$ is computed using a second order Taylor expansion of the
estimated root-MUSIC polynomial around the true signal roots (which
are located on the unit circle). The computation of the distribution
of $\Delta r_m$ requires the analysis to be performed around the true
noise roots which are located inside the unit circle. The second
order expansions of $\ba(\hat{z}_k)$ and $\ba^T(\hat{z}_k^{-1})$
around the true signal root $z_k$ are given by
\cite{Proakis92:root_Music_performance}
\begin{eqnarray}
\ba(\hat{z}_k) \hspace{-2mm} & \approx & \hspace{-2mm} \ba_k + j
\ba_k^{(1)} \Delta \omega_k + \ba_k^{(1)} \Delta r_k \nonumber \\
\ba^T(\hat{z}_k^{-1}) \hspace{-2mm} & \approx & \hspace{-2mm}
\ba_k^H - j \ba_k^{(1)H} \Delta \omega_k - \ba_k^{(1)H} \Delta r_k
\label{eq:2_order_taylor_steer_vec_signal}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Delta \omega_k$ is the difference between the angle of the
$k$-th estimated root and the angle of the corresponding true root.
For the $m$-th noise root, let $\ba_m$ be defined as
\begin{equation}
\ba_m \triangleq \left[1,~e^{-j
\omega_m},\cdots,~e^{-j(M-1)\omega_m} \right]^T
\end{equation}
where $\omega_m$ is the angle of $z_m$. Let also $\ba_m^{(1)}$ be
defined similar to \eqref{eq:a1_k} with $\omega_k$ replaced with
$\omega_m$. Then, the second order expansions of $\ba(\hat{z}_m)$
and $\ba^T(\hat{z}_m^{-1})$ around the true noise root $z_m$ are
given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\hspace{-5mm} \ba(\hat{z}_m) \hspace{-3mm} & \approx & \hspace{-3mm}
\bR_m^{-1} \left( \ba_m + j
\ba_m^{(1)} \Delta \omega_m + \ba_m^{(1)} \left(\frac{\Delta r_m}{r_m}
\right) \right) \nonumber \\
\hspace{-5mm} \ba^T(\hat{z}_m^{-1}) \hspace{-3mm} & \approx &
\hspace{-3mm} \left( \ba_m^H - j \ba_m^{(1)H} \Delta \omega_m -
\ba_m^{(1)H} \left(\frac{\Delta r_m}{r_m}\right) \right)
\hspace{-1mm} \bR_m \label{eq:2_order_taylor_steer_vec_noise}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\bR_m$ is a $M \times M$ diagonal matrix with its diagonal
elements equal to $1,~r_m,\cdots,~r_m^{(M-1)}$. Since the Taylor
expansion for the steering vectors of the roots on the circle and
the expansion for the roots inside the circle, i.e.,
\eqref{eq:2_order_taylor_steer_vec_signal} and
\eqref{eq:2_order_taylor_steer_vec_noise} have similar structures,
it is reasonable to assume that $\Delta r_k$ and $\Delta r_m / r_m$
also have similar distributions. Then, the variance of $\Delta r_m$ is
in the order of the variance of $\Delta r_k$ multiplied by $r_m^2$.
Since $r_m < 1$, the variance of $\Delta r_m$ is smaller than the
variance of $\Delta r_k$. In order to simplify the computation of
$p_{km}$, we ignore the effect of $\Delta r_m$ and approximate
$p_{km}$ by
\begin{equation}
p_{km} \approx P \left( - \Delta r_k > 1 - r_m \right).
\label{eq:indiv_root_swap_prob_approx}
\end{equation}
This is equivalent to using the probability $P \left( \hat{r}_k <
r_m \right)$ as an approximation for $p_{km}$. Since we have the
distribution of $\Delta r_k$, we can compute $p_{km}$ using
\eqref{eq:indiv_root_swap_prob_approx}. When $M - K \gg 1$,
$\Delta r_k$ follows approximately a normal distribution
$\mathcal{N}\left( -\sigma_k \sqrt{M-K-(3/4)}, \sigma_k^2 / 4
\right)$ \cite{Proakis92:root_Music_performance}. Using
\eqref{eq:indiv_root_swap_prob_approx}, the probability $p_{km}$
can be approximated by
\begin{equation}
p_{km} \approx Q\left( \frac{1- r_m - \sigma_k \sqrt{M-K-(3/4)}
}{\sqrt{\sigma_k^2 / 4}} \right).
\label{eq:indiv_root_swap_prob_approx_Gaussian}
\end{equation}
Finally, the approximation of the probability of root-swap
$P(\text{root-swap})$ is found by using the approximation
\eqref{eq:indiv_root_swap_prob_approx_Gaussian}, the expression
\eqref{eq:root_swap_comp_prob}, and the fact that $Q(-x) = 1
- Q(x)$ as
\begin{eqnarray}
&& P(\text{root-swap}) \approx 1 - \prod_{k=1}^K \prod_{m=K+1}^{M-1}
Q\left( \frac{-1 + r_m + \sigma_k \sqrt{M-K-(3/4)}
}{\sqrt{\sigma_k^2 / 4}} \right).
\end{eqnarray}
It completes the derivation.
\section{Subspace Leakage at the First Step}
\label{sec:appndx_SL1}
Let us start with the computation of $\rho_1$. Let $\Delta \bP
\triangleq \widehat{\bP} - \bP$ be the estimation error of the
signal projection matrix. Then, using the properties that $\bP^2 =
\bP$ and $\text{Tr} \left\{ \bP \right\} = K$, the expression
\eqref{eq:sub_leak_def} for the first step of the two-step
root-MUSIC algorithm can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho_1 \hspace{-2mm} & = & \hspace{-2mm} 1 - \frac{1}{K} \text{Tr}
\left\{ \left( \bP + \Delta \bP \right)
\bP \right\} \nonumber \\
& = & \hspace{-2mm} 1 - \frac{1}{K} \left( K + \text{Tr} \left\{
\Delta \bP
\bP \right\} \right) \nonumber \\
& = & \hspace{-2mm} - \frac{1}{K} \text{Tr} \left\{ \Delta \bP \bP
\right\}.\label{eq:rho1_Tr_DeltaPP}
\end{eqnarray}
It is shown in \cite{Proakis92:root_Music_performance} that the
series expansion of $\widehat{\bP}$ based on $\Delta \bR$ is given
by
\begin{equation}
\widehat{\bP} = \bP + \delta \bP + \cdots + \delta^n \bP + \cdots
\label{eq:Phat_series_exp}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\delta \bP = \bP^{\bot} \Delta \bR \bV^{\dag} + \bV^{\dag} \Delta
\bR \bP^{\bot} \label{eq:Phat_series_exp_deltaP}
\end{equation}
and the rest of the terms are related by the following recurrence
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta^n \bP \hspace{-2mm} & = & \hspace{-2mm} -\bP^{\bot} \left(
\delta^{n-1} \bP \right) \Delta \bR \bV^{\dag} + \bP^{\bot} \Delta
\bR \left( \delta^{n-1} \bP \right)
\bV^{\dag} \nonumber \\
&& \hspace{-2mm} - \bV^{\dag} \Delta \bR \left( \delta^{n-1} \bP
\right) \bP^{\bot} + \bV^{\dag} \left( \delta^{n-1} \bP \right)
\Delta \bR \bP^{\bot} \nonumber \\
&& \hspace{-2mm} - \sum_{i = 1}^{n - 1} \bP \left( \delta^i \bP
\right) \left( \delta^{n-i} \bP \right) \bP \nonumber \\
&& \hspace{-2mm} + \sum_{i = 1}^{n - 1} \bP^{\bot} \left( \delta^i
\bP \right) \left( \delta^{n-i} \bP \right) \bP^{\bot}.
\label{eq:Phat_series_exp_deltanP}
\end{eqnarray}
The following lemma will be further used.
\theoremstyle{plain}
\newtheorem{lemma_PVdag}{Lemma}[]
\begin{lemma_PVdag}\label{lem:PVdag}
The columns of $\bV^{\dag}$ belong to the signal subspace, i.e.,
$\bP \bV^{\dag} = \bV^{\dag}$.
\end{lemma_PVdag}
\begin{proof}
The proof follows by multiplying $\bP$ by $\bV^{\dag}$ and then
substituting $\bP$ with $\bE \bE^H$ and $\bV^{\dag}$ with
\eqref{eq:pseudoinverse_V}.
\end{proof}
In a similar way to Lemma~\ref{lem:PVdag}, it can also be shown that
\begin{equation}
\bV \bV^{\dag} = \bV^{\dag} \bV = \bP. \label{eq:VVdag_VdagV_P}
\end{equation}
Using \eqref{eq:rho1_Tr_DeltaPP}, the series expansion of
$\widehat{\bP}$ in \eqref{eq:Phat_series_exp}, expressions
\eqref{eq:Phat_series_exp_deltaP} and
\eqref{eq:Phat_series_exp_deltanP} up to the $\delta^2 \bP$ term,
and the facts that $\bP \bP^{\bot} = \bP^{\bot} \bP =
\boldsymbol{0}$ and $\bP \bP = \bP$, we can write $\rho_1$ as
\begin{equation}
\rho_1 = - \frac{1}{K} \text{Tr} \left\{ -\bP \left( \delta \bP
\right) \left( \delta \bP \right)
\right\}.\label{eq:rho1_Tr_PDeltaPDeltaP}
\end{equation}
Then, $\rho_1$ is computed by substituting
\eqref{eq:Phat_series_exp_deltaP} in
\eqref{eq:rho1_Tr_PDeltaPDeltaP}, using $\bP^{\bot} \bP^{\bot} =
\bP^{\bot}$, and Lemma~\ref{lem:PVdag} as
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho_1 \hspace{-2mm} & = & \hspace{-2mm} \frac{1}{K} \text{Tr}
\Big\{ \bP \left( \bP^{\bot} \Delta \bR \bV^{\dag} + \bV^{\dag}
\Delta \bR \bP^{\bot} \right) \left( \bP^{\bot} \Delta \bR
\bV^{\dag} + \bV^{\dag} \Delta
\bR \bP^{\bot} \right) \Big\} \nonumber \\
& = & \hspace{-2mm} \frac{1}{K} \text{Tr} \left\{ \bP \bV^{\dag}
\Delta \bR \bP^{\bot} \bP^{\bot} \Delta \bR \bV^{\dag} \right\} \nonumber \\
& = & \hspace{-2mm} \frac{1}{K} \text{Tr} \left\{ \bV^{\dag} \Delta
\bR \bP^{\bot} \Delta \bR \bV^{\dag}
\right\}.\label{eq:rho1_Tr_VdagDeltaRPbot}
\end{eqnarray}
Computation of the expected value of the subspace leakage requires
considering the statistical properties of $\Delta \bR$. We use the
following two properties in our derivations
\cite{Proakis92:root_Music_performance}.
\theoremstyle{plain}
\newtheorem{lemma_EDeltaR}[lemma_PVdag]{Lemma}
\begin{lemma_EDeltaR}\label{lem:EDeltaR}
For all matrices $\bA_1,~\bA_2 \in \mathbb{C}^{M \times M}$, we have
\begin{equation}
E\left\{ \Delta \bR \bA_1 \Delta \bR \right\} = \frac{1}{N}
\text{Tr} \left\{ \bR \bA_1 \right\} \bR \label{eq:DeltaR_lemma_P1}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
E\big\{ \text{Tr} \left\{ \Delta \bR \bA_1 \right\} \text{Tr}
\left\{ \Delta \bR \bA_2 \right\} \big\} = \frac{1}{N} \text{Tr}
\left\{ \bR \bA_1 \bR \bA_2 \right\}. \label{eq:DeltaR_lemma_P2}
\end{equation}
\end{lemma_EDeltaR}
Using \eqref{eq:rho1_Tr_VdagDeltaRPbot} and
\eqref{eq:DeltaR_lemma_P1}, the expected value of $\rho_1$ can be
computed as
\begin{eqnarray}
E\left\{ \rho_1 \right\} \hspace{-2mm} & = & \hspace{-2mm}
\frac{1}{K} \text{Tr} \left\{ \bV^{\dag} E\left\{ \Delta \bR
\bP^{\bot} \Delta \bR \right\} \bV^{\dag} \right\} \nonumber \\
& = & \hspace{-2mm} \frac{1}{K} \text{Tr} \left\{ \bV^{\dag}
\frac{1}{N} \text{Tr} \left\{ \bR \bP^{\bot} \right\} \bR \bV^{\dag}
\right\} \nonumber \\
& = & \hspace{-2mm} \frac{1}{NK} \text{Tr} \left\{ \bP^{\bot} \bR
\right\} \text{Tr} \left\{ \bV^{\dag} \bV^{\dag} \bR \right\}.
\label{eq:E_rho1_Tr_PbotR_Tr_VdagVdagR}
\end{eqnarray}
Since the range space of the matrix $\bA$ is the same as the signal
subspace, we have $\bP^{\bot} \bA = \boldsymbol{0}$. As a result,
$\text{Tr} \left\{ \bP^{\bot} \bR \right\}$ can be simplified as
\begin{eqnarray}
\text{Tr} \left\{ \bP^{\bot} \bR \right\} \hspace{-2mm} & = &
\hspace{-2mm} \text{Tr} \left\{ \bP^{\bot} \left( \bA\bS\bA^H
+ \sigma_{\text{n}}^2\bI_M \right) \right\} \nonumber \\
& = & \hspace{-2mm} \text{Tr} \left\{ \sigma_{\text{n}}^2 \bP^{\bot}
\right\} = \sigma_{\text{n}}^2 \text{Tr} \left\{ \bI_M -
\bP \right\} \nonumber \\
& = & \hspace{-2mm} \sigma_{\text{n}}^2 \left( M - K \right).
\label{eq:Tr_PbotR}
\end{eqnarray}
Furthermore, using \eqref{eq:pseudoinverse_V} and the fact that the
eigenvectors of $\bR$ are orthonormal, the product $\bV^{\dag}
\bV^{\dag} \bR$ can be written as
\begin{equation}
\bV^{\dag} \bV^{\dag} \bR = \sum_{k = 1}^K \frac{\lambda_{M - K +
k}}{\left( \lambda_{M - K + k} - \sigma_{\text{n}}^2 \right)^2 }
\be_k \be_k^H
\end{equation}
which results in
\begin{equation}
\text{Tr} \left\{ \bV^{\dag} \bV^{\dag} \bR \right\} = \sum_{k =
1}^K \frac{\lambda_{M - K + k}}{\left( \lambda_{M - K + k} -
\sigma_{\text{n}}^2 \right)^2 }. \label{eq:Tr_VdagVdagR}
\end{equation}
Finally, $E\left\{ \rho_1 \right\}$ is obtained by substituting
\eqref{eq:Tr_PbotR} and \eqref{eq:Tr_VdagVdagR} in
\eqref{eq:E_rho1_Tr_PbotR_Tr_VdagVdagR} as
\begin{equation}
E\left\{ \rho_1 \right\} = \frac{\sigma_{\text{n}}^2 \left( M - K
\right)}{NK} \sum_{k = 1}^K \frac{\lambda_{M - K + k}}{\left(
\lambda_{M - K + k} - \sigma_{\text{n}}^2 \right)^2 }.
\end{equation}
\section{Subspace Leakage at the Second Step}\label{sec:appndx_SL2}
The subspace leakage at the second step of the two-step root-MUSIC
algorithm can be obtained through the same steps taken for the
computation of $\rho_1$. Referring to
\eqref{eq:rho1_Tr_VdagDeltaRPbot}, the subspace leakage $\rho_2$ is
given by
\begin{equation}
\rho_2 = \frac{1}{K} \text{Tr} \left\{ \bV^{\dag} \Delta \bR^{(2)}
\bP^{\bot} \Delta \bR^{(2)} \bV^{\dag} \right\}
\label{eq:rho2_Tr_VdagDeltaRPbot}
\end{equation}
where $\Delta \bR^{(2)} \triangleq \widehat{\bR}^{(2)} - \bR$ is the
estimation error of the covariance matrix at the second step of the
algorithm. Using \eqref{eq:step2_Rhat2}, the estimation error
$\Delta \bR^{(2)}$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\Delta \bR^{(2)} = \Delta \bR - \gamma \left( \bT+ \bT^H \right).
\label{eq:DeltaR_2}
\end{equation}
Recalling \eqref{eq:T_PARPAbot}, we have $\bT = \widehat{\bP}_A
\widehat{\bR} \widehat{\bP}_A^{\bot}$.
Consider the first order Taylor series expansion of
$\widehat{\bP}_A$ around the true DOAs given by
\begin{equation}
\widehat{\bP}_A \approx \bP_A + d\bP \label{eq:Taylor1_PAhat}
\end{equation}
where $\bP_A \triangleq \bA \left( \bA^H \bA \right)^{-1} \bA^H$ is
equal to the true signal projection matrix\footnote{Note that
although $\bP_A$ is equal to $\bP$, the estimates $\widehat{\bP}_A$
and $\widehat{\bP}$ are obtained in different ways and are not
essentially equal to each other.}, i.e., $\bP_A = \bP$, and $d\bP$
is given by
\begin{equation}
d\bP = \sum_{k = 1}^K \frac{\partial \bP_A}{\partial \omega_k}
\Delta \omega_k. \label{eq:dP_partialP_Deltaomega}
\end{equation}
Here $\Delta \omega_k \triangleq \hat{\omega}_k - \omega_k$ is the
estimation error of $\omega_k$ with $\hat{\omega}_k \triangleq 2 \pi
(d/\lambda) \sin(\hat{\theta}_k)$.
Note that for any square and invertible matrix $\bB$, the partial
derivative of $\bB^{-1}$ with respect to the variable $\omega$ is
given by \cite{Peterson12:matrix_cookbook}
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial \bB^{-1}}{\partial \omega} = - \bB^{-1}
\frac{\partial \bB}{\partial \omega}
\bB^{-1}.\label{eq:lemma_mat_inv_diff}
\end{equation}
Using \eqref{eq:lemma_mat_inv_diff}, the partial derivative
$\partial \bP_A /
\partial \omega_k$ can be computed as
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\partial \bP_A}{\partial \omega_k} \hspace{-2mm} & = &
\hspace{-2mm} \frac{\partial \bA}{\partial \omega_k} \left( \bA^H
\bA \right)^{-1} \bA^H + \bA \frac{\partial \left( \bA^H \bA
\right)^{-1}}{\partial \omega_k} \bA^H + \bA \left( \bA^H \bA
\right)^{-1} \left( \frac{\partial \bA}{\partial \omega_k}
\right)^H \nonumber \\
& = & \hspace{-2mm} \frac{\partial \bA}{\partial \omega_k} \left(
\bA^H \bA \right)^{-1} \bA^H - \bA \left( \bA^H \bA \right)^{-1}
\left( \left( \frac{\partial \bA}{\partial \omega_k} \right)^H \bA +
\bA^H \frac{\partial \bA}{\partial \omega_k} \right) \left( \bA^H
\bA
\right)^{-1} \bA^H \nonumber \\
&& \hspace{-2mm} + \bA \left( \bA^H \bA \right)^{-1} \left(
\frac{\partial \bA}{\partial \omega_k} \right)^H.
\end{eqnarray}
Then, using \eqref{eq:P_orth+P=I} and $\bP = \bA \left( \bA^H \bA
\right)^{-1} \bA^H$, the partial derivative $\partial \bP_A /
\partial \omega_k$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\partial \bP_A}{\partial \omega_k} \hspace{-2mm} & = &
\hspace{-2mm} \bP^{\bot} \frac{\partial \bA}{\partial \omega_k}
\left( \bA^H \bA \right)^{-1} \bA^H + \bA \left( \bA^H \bA
\right)^{-1} \left( \frac{\partial \bA}{\partial \omega_k} \right)^H
\bP^{\bot}. \label{eq:partial_PA_partial_omegak}
\end{eqnarray}
The estimation error of $\omega_k$, i.e., $\Delta \omega_k$ in
\eqref{eq:dP_partialP_Deltaomega}, can be written based on $\Delta
\bR$ as \cite{Proakis92:root_Music_performance}
\begin{equation}
\Delta \omega_k = \frac{\ba_k^{(1)H} \bP^{\bot} \Delta \bR
\bV^{\dag} \ba_k - \ba_k^H \bV^{\dag} \Delta \bR \bP^{\bot}
\ba_k^{(1)}}{2 j \left( \ba_k^{(1)H} \bP^{\bot} \ba_k^{(1)}
\right)}. \label{eq:Delta_omega_k}
\end{equation}
The first order Taylor series expansion of $\widehat{\bP}_A^{\bot}$
is obtained using \eqref{eq:PAhatbot_I_PAhat} and
\eqref{eq:Taylor1_PAhat} as
\begin{equation}
\widehat{\bP}_A^{\bot} \approx \bP_A^{\bot} - d\bP
\label{eq:Taylor1_PAhatbot}
\end{equation}
where $\bP_A^{\bot} \triangleq \bI_M - \bP_A$.
The matrix $\bT$ can be then computed using expressions
\eqref{eq:T_PARPAbot}, \eqref{eq:Taylor1_PAhat}, and
\eqref{eq:Taylor1_PAhatbot} with keeping only the first order terms
and noting that $\bP_A = \bP$, $\bP_A^{\bot} = \bP^{\bot}$, and $\bP
\bR \bP^{\bot} = \boldsymbol{0}$ as
\begin{eqnarray}
\bT \hspace{-2mm} & = & \hspace{-2mm} \left( \bP_A + d\bP \right)
\left( \bR + \Delta R \right) \left( \bP_A^{\bot} - d\bP \right)
\nonumber \\
& \approx & \hspace{-2mm} - \bP \bR d\bP + \bP \Delta R \bP^{\bot} +
d\bP \bR \bP^{\bot}. \label{eq:T_approx_first_order}
\end{eqnarray}
We can now compute $\rho_2$ using expressions
\eqref{eq:rho2_Tr_VdagDeltaRPbot}, \eqref{eq:DeltaR_2}, and
\eqref{eq:T_approx_first_order} as
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho_2 \hspace{-2mm} & = & \hspace{-2mm} \frac{1}{K} \text{Tr}
\Big\{ \bV^{\dag} \left( \Delta \bR - \gamma \left( \bT+ \bT^H
\right) \right) \bP^{\bot} \left( \Delta \bR - \gamma \left( \bT+
\bT^H \right) \right) \bV^{\dag} \Big\} \nonumber \\
& = & \hspace{-2mm} \frac{1}{K} \text{Tr} \Big\{ \bV^{\dag} \big(
\Delta \bR - \gamma \big( - \bP \bR d\bP + \bP \Delta R \bP^{\bot} +
d\bP \bR \bP^{\bot} - d\bP \bR \bP + \bP^{\bot} \Delta R \bP \nonumber \\
&& \hspace{29mm} + \bP^{\bot} \bR d\bP \big) \big) \bP^{\bot} \big(
\Delta \bR - \gamma \big( - \bP \bR d\bP + \bP \Delta R \bP^{\bot} + d\bP \bR \bP^{\bot} \nonumber \\
&& \hspace{29mm} - d\bP \bR \bP + \bP^{\bot} \Delta R \bP +
\bP^{\bot} \bR d\bP \big) \big) \bV^{\dag} \Big\}.
\end{eqnarray}
Then, using expressions \eqref{eq:dP_partialP_Deltaomega},
\eqref{eq:partial_PA_partial_omegak}, and the fact that $\bP
\bP^{\bot} = \bP^{\bot} \bP = \bV^{\dag} \bP^{\bot} = \bP^{\bot}
\bV^{\dag} = \boldsymbol{0}$ to eliminate the terms that equal zero,
$\rho_2$ is computed as
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho_2 \hspace{-2mm} & = & \hspace{-2mm} \frac{1}{K} \text{Tr}
\Big\{ \bV^{\dag} \big( \Delta \bR - \gamma \big( - \bP \bR d\bP +
\bP \Delta R \bP^{\bot} + d\bP \bR \bP^{\bot} \big) \big) \nonumber \\
&& \hspace{14mm} \times \bP^{\bot} \big( \Delta \bR - \gamma \big( -
d\bP \bR \bP + \bP^{\bot} \Delta R \bP + \bP^{\bot} \bR d\bP \big)
\big) \bV^{\dag} \Big\}. \label{eq:rho2_Taylor_Expansion}
\end{eqnarray}
Expanding the terms in \eqref{eq:rho2_Taylor_Expansion} and using
the fact that $\bP \bV^{\dag} = \bV^{\dag} \bP = \bV^{\dag}$ results
in the following expression for $\rho_2$
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho_2 \hspace{-3mm} & = & \hspace{-3mm} \frac{1}{K} \text{Tr}
\Big\{ \bV^{\dag} \Delta \bR \bP^{\bot} \Delta \bR \bV^{\dag} -
\hspace{-0.5mm} \gamma \big( \hspace{-0.8mm} - \hspace{-0.8mm}
\bV^{\dag} \Delta \bR \bP^{\bot} d\bP \bR \bV^{\dag} + \bV^{\dag}
\Delta \bR \bP^{\bot} \Delta \bR \bV^{\dag} \hspace{-0.5mm}
\hspace{-0.5mm} \nonumber \\
&& \hspace{4mm} + \bV^{\dag} \Delta \bR \bP^{\bot} \bR d\bP
\bV^{\dag} - \bV^{\dag} \bR d\bP \bP^{\bot} \Delta \bR \bV^{\dag} +
\bV^{\dag}
\Delta \bR \bP^{\bot} \Delta \bR \bV^{\dag} \nonumber \\
&& \hspace{4mm} + \bV^{\dag} d\bP \bR \bP^{\bot} \Delta \bR
\bV^{\dag} \big) + \gamma^2 \big( \bV^{\dag} \bR d\bP \bP^{\bot}
d\bP \bR \bV^{\dag} - \bV^{\dag} \bR d\bP \bP^{\bot} \Delta \bR
\bV^{\dag}\nonumber \\
&& \hspace{4mm} - \bV^{\dag} \bR d\bP \bP^{\bot} \bR d\bP \bV^{\dag}
- \bV^{\dag} \Delta \bR \bP^{\bot} d\bP \bR \bV^{\dag} + \bV^{\dag}
\Delta \bR \bP^{\bot} \Delta \bR
\bV^{\dag} \nonumber \\
&& \hspace{4mm} + \bV^{\dag} \Delta \bR \bP^{\bot} \bR d\bP
\bV^{\dag} - \bV^{\dag} d\bP \bR \bP^{\bot} d\bP \bR \bV^{\dag} +
\bV^{\dag} d\bP \bR \bP^{\bot} \Delta \bR
\bV^{\dag} \nonumber \\
&& \hspace{4mm} + \bV^{\dag} d\bP \bR \bP^{\bot} \bR d\bP \bV^{\dag}
\big)
\Big\}.\nonumber \\
\label{eq:rho2_big_expansion}
\end{eqnarray}
By reordering the terms in \eqref{eq:rho2_big_expansion}, the
subspace leakage $\rho_2$ can be further rewritten as
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho_2 \hspace{-3mm} & = & \hspace{-3mm} \frac{1}{K} \text{Tr}
\Big\{ \left( 1 -2\gamma + \gamma^2 \right) \bV^{\dag} \Delta \bR
\bP^{\bot} \Delta \bR \bV^{\dag} + \left( \gamma^2 - \gamma \right)
\big( - \bV^{\dag} \Delta \bR \bP^{\bot} d\bP \bR
\bV^{\dag} \nonumber \\
&& \hspace{4mm} + \bV^{\dag} \Delta \bR \bP^{\bot} \bR d\bP
\bV^{\dag} - \bV^{\dag} \bR d\bP \bP^{\bot} \Delta \bR \bV^{\dag} +
\bV^{\dag} d\bP \bR \bP^{\bot} \Delta \bR \bV^{\dag} \big)
\nonumber \\
&& \hspace{4mm} + \gamma^2 \big( \bV^{\dag} \bR d\bP \bP^{\bot} d\bP
\bR \bV^{\dag} - \bV^{\dag} \bR d\bP \bP^{\bot} \bR d\bP \bV^{\dag}
- \bV^{\dag} d\bP \bR \bP^{\bot} d\bP \bR \bV^{\dag} \nonumber \\
&& \hspace{4mm} + \bV^{\dag} d\bP \bR \bP^{\bot} \bR d\bP \bV^{\dag}
\big) \Big\}.\label{eq:rho2_reordered_expansion}
\end{eqnarray}
The terms multiplied by $\left( \gamma^2 - \gamma \right)$ in
\eqref{eq:rho2_reordered_expansion} can be simplified using
expressions \eqref{eq:V_R_sigma2I}, \eqref{eq:VVdag_VdagV_P}, and
the fact that $\bP^{\bot} \bV = \boldsymbol{0}$ as
\begin{eqnarray}
&& - \bV^{\dag} \Delta \bR \bP^{\bot} d\bP \left( \bV +
\sigma_{\text{n}}^2\bI_M \right) \bV^{\dag} + \bV^{\dag} \Delta \bR
\bP^{\bot} \left( \bV + \sigma_{\text{n}}^2\bI_M \right) d\bP
\bV^{\dag} \nonumber \\
&& - \bV^{\dag} \left( \bV + \sigma_{\text{n}}^2\bI_M \right) d\bP
\bP^{\bot} \Delta \bR \bV^{\dag} + \bV^{\dag} d\bP \left( \bV +
\sigma_{\text{n}}^2\bI_M \right) \bP^{\bot} \Delta \bR \bV^{\dag}
\nonumber \\
&& = - \bV^{\dag} \Delta \bR \bP^{\bot} d\bP \bP - \bP d\bP
\bP^{\bot} \Delta \bR \bV^{\dag}.\label{eq:rho2_gamma2_gamma_terms}
\end{eqnarray}
In a similar way, the terms multiplied by $\gamma^2$ in
\eqref{eq:rho2_reordered_expansion} can be simplified to
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \bV^{\dag} \bR d\bP \bP^{\bot} d\bP \left( \bV +
\sigma_{\text{n}}^2\bI_M \right) \bV^{\dag} - \bV^{\dag} \bR d\bP
\bP^{\bot} \left( \bV + \sigma_{\text{n}}^2\bI_M \right) d\bP \bV^{\dag} \nonumber \\
&& - \bV^{\dag} d\bP \bR \bP^{\bot} d\bP \left( \bV +
\sigma_{\text{n}}^2\bI_M \right) \bV^{\dag} + \bV^{\dag} d\bP \bR
\bP^{\bot} \left( \bV + \sigma_{\text{n}}^2\bI_M \right) d\bP
\bV^{\dag}
\nonumber \\
&& = \bV^{\dag} \bR d\bP \bP^{\bot} d\bP \bP - \bV^{\dag} d\bP \bR
\bP^{\bot} d\bP \bP \nonumber \\
&& = \bV^{\dag} \left( \bV + \sigma_{\text{n}}^2\bI_M \right) d\bP
\bP^{\bot} d\bP \bP - \bV^{\dag} d\bP \left( \bV +
\sigma_{\text{n}}^2\bI_M \right) \bP^{\bot} d\bP \bP \nonumber \\
&& = \bP d\bP \bP^{\bot} d\bP \bP
\end{eqnarray}
which using the fact that $\bP^{\bot} d\bP \bP^{\bot} =
\boldsymbol{0}$ (see \eqref{eq:dP_partialP_Deltaomega} and
\eqref{eq:partial_PA_partial_omegak}) can be further simplified to
\begin{eqnarray}
\bP d\bP \bP^{\bot} d\bP \bP \hspace{-2mm} & = & \hspace{-2mm}
\left( \bI_M -\bP^{\bot} \right) d\bP \bP^{\bot} d\bP \left(
\bI_M -\bP^{\bot} \right) \nonumber \\
& = & \hspace{-2mm} d\bP \bP^{\bot} d\bP.
\label{eq:rho2_gamma2_terms}
\end{eqnarray}
Finally, using expressions \eqref{eq:rho1_Tr_VdagDeltaRPbot},
\eqref{eq:rho2_reordered_expansion},
\eqref{eq:rho2_gamma2_gamma_terms}, \eqref{eq:rho2_gamma2_terms},
and Lemma~\ref{lem:PVdag}, the subspace leakage $\rho_2$ is computed
as
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho_2 \hspace{-2.5mm} & = & \hspace{-2.5mm} \left( 1 - 2\gamma +
\gamma^2 \right) \rho_1 + \frac{ 2 \left( \gamma - \gamma^2 \right)
}{K} Re \left\{ \text{Tr} \left\{ \bV^{\dag} \Delta \bR \bP^{\bot}
d\bP \right\} \right\} + \frac{\gamma^2}{K} \text{Tr} \left\{ d\bP
\bP^{\bot} d\bP \right\}. \label{eq:rho2_final_simplified}
\end{eqnarray}
Computation of the expected value of $\rho_2$ involves finding the
expected value of the two trace functions in
\eqref{eq:rho2_final_simplified}. Using expressions
\eqref{eq:dP_partialP_Deltaomega} and
\eqref{eq:partial_PA_partial_omegak}, the expected value of the
first trace function in \eqref{eq:rho2_final_simplified} is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
E \left\{ \text{Tr} \left\{ \bV^{\dag} \Delta \bR \bP^{\bot} d\bP
\right\} \right\} = E \left\{ \text{Tr} \left\{ \Delta \bR \sum_{k
= 1}^K \bP^{\bot} \frac{\partial \bA}{\partial \omega_k} \left(
\bA^H \bA \right)^{-1} \bA^H \Delta \omega_k \bV^{\dag} \right\}
\right\}. \label{eq:trace1_0_rho2}
\end{eqnarray}
Then, by substituting \eqref{eq:Delta_omega_k} in
\eqref{eq:trace1_0_rho2}, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \hspace{-16mm} E \left\{ \text{Tr} \left\{ \bV^{\dag} \Delta \bR
\bP^{\bot} d\bP \right\} \right\} = E \Bigg\{ \text{Tr} \Bigg\{
\sum_{k = 1}^K \Delta \bR \bP^{\bot} \frac{\partial \bA}{\partial
\omega_k} \left( \bA^H
\bA \right)^{-1} \bA^H \bV^{\dag} \nonumber \\
&& \hspace{15mm} \times \frac{1}{2 j \left( \ba_k^{(1)H} \bP^{\bot}
\ba_k^{(1)} \right)} \Big( \ba_k^{(1)H} \bP^{\bot} \Delta \bR
\bV^{\dag} \ba_k - \ba_k^H \bV^{\dag} \Delta \bR \bP^{\bot}
\ba_k^{(1)} \Big) \Bigg\} \Bigg\}. \label{eq:trace1_1_rho2}
\end{eqnarray}
The order of the summation and trace operator in
\eqref{eq:trace1_1_rho2} can be swaped. Moreover, the last two terms
can be written using the trace operator as
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \hspace{-15mm} E \left\{ \text{Tr} \left\{ \bV^{\dag} \Delta \bR
\bP^{\bot} d\bP \right\} \right\} = E \Bigg\{ \sum_{k = 1}^K
\frac{1}{2 j \left(
\ba_k^{(1)H} \bP^{\bot} \ba_k^{(1)} \right)} \nonumber \\
&& \hspace{30mm} \times \text{Tr} \Bigg\{ \Delta \bR \bP^{\bot}
\frac{\partial \bA}{\partial \omega_k} \left( \bA^H \bA \right)^{-1}
\bA^H \bV^{\dag} \Bigg\} \Big( \text{Tr} \left\{ \Delta \bR
\bV^{\dag} \ba_k \ba_k^{(1)H} \bP^{\bot} \right\} \nonumber \\
&& \hspace{30mm} - \text{Tr} \left\{ \Delta \bR \bP^{\bot}
\ba_k^{(1)} \ba_k^H \bV^{\dag} \right\} \Big) \Bigg\}.
\label{eq:trace1_2_rho2}
\end{eqnarray}
The expression in \eqref{eq:trace1_2_rho2} can be computed using
\eqref{eq:DeltaR_lemma_P2} as
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \hspace{-15mm} E \left\{ \text{Tr} \left\{ \bV^{\dag} \Delta \bR
\bP^{\bot} d\bP \right\} \right\} = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{k = 1}^K
\frac{1}{2 j \left(
\ba_k^{(1)H} \bP^{\bot} \ba_k^{(1)} \right)} \nonumber \\
&& \hspace{30mm} \times \Bigg( \text{Tr} \Bigg\{ \bR \bP^{\bot}
\frac{\partial \bA}{\partial \omega_k} \left( \bA^H \bA \right)^{-1}
\bA^H \bV^{\dag} \bR \bV^{\dag}
\ba_k \ba_k^{(1)H} \bP^{\bot} \Bigg\} \nonumber \\
&& \hspace{30mm} - \text{Tr} \Bigg\{ \bR \bP^{\bot} \frac{\partial
\bA}{\partial \omega_k} \left( \bA^H \bA \right)^{-1} \bA^H
\bV^{\dag} \bR \bP^{\bot} \ba_k^{(1)} \ba_k^H \bV^{\dag} \Bigg\}
\Bigg). \label{eq:rho2_E_Tr_VdagDRPbotdP}
\end{eqnarray}
The second trace function in \eqref{eq:rho2_E_Tr_VdagDRPbotdP}
equals zero as $\bV^{\dag} \bR \bP^{\bot} = \boldsymbol{0}$. Then,
expression \eqref{eq:rho2_E_Tr_VdagDRPbotdP} can be rewritten as
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \hspace {-12mm} E \left\{ \text{Tr} \left\{ \bV^{\dag} \Delta \bR
\bP^{\bot} d\bP \right\} \right\} = \frac{\sigma_{\text{n}}^2}{N}
\sum_{k = 1}^K \frac{\ba_k^{(1)H} \bP^{\bot} \frac{\partial
\bA}{\partial \omega_k} \left( \bA^H \bA \right)^{-1} \bA^H
\bV^{\dag} \bR \bV^{\dag} \ba_k}{2 j \left( \ba_k^{(1)H} \bP^{\bot}
\ba_k^{(1)} \right)} \label{eq:rho2_E_Tr_VdagDRPbotdP_simplified}
\end{eqnarray}
where we used the equality $\bP^{\bot} \bR = \sigma_{\text{n}}^2
\bP^{\bot}$.
In a similar way, using expressions
\eqref{eq:dP_partialP_Deltaomega} and
\eqref{eq:partial_PA_partial_omegak}, the expected value of the
second trace function in \eqref{eq:rho2_final_simplified} is given
by
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \hspace{-15mm} E \left\{ \text{Tr} \left\{ d\bP \bP^{\bot} d\bP
\right\} \right\} = \nonumber \\
&& E \Bigg\{ \text{Tr} \Bigg\{ \sum_{k = 1}^K \sum_{i = 1}^K \bA
\left( \bA^H \bA \right)^{-1} \left( \frac{\partial \bA}{\partial
\omega_k} \right)^H \bP^{\bot} \frac{\partial \bA}{\partial
\omega_i} \left( \bA^H \bA \right)^{-1} \bA^H \Delta \omega_k \Delta
\omega_i\Bigg\} \Bigg\}. \label{eq:rho2_E_Tr_dPPbotdP_1}
\end{eqnarray}
Then, by substituting \eqref{eq:Delta_omega_k} in
\eqref{eq:rho2_E_Tr_dPPbotdP_1}, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
E \left\{ \text{Tr} \left\{ d\bP \bP^{\bot} d\bP \right\} \right\}
\hspace{-2mm} & = & \hspace{-2mm} E \Bigg\{ \text{Tr} \Bigg\{
\sum_{k = 1}^K \sum_{i = 1}^K \bA \left( \bA^H \bA \right)^{-1}
\left( \frac{\partial \bA}{\partial \omega_k} \right)^H \bP^{\bot}
\frac{\partial \bA}{\partial \omega_i} \left( \bA^H \bA \right)^{-1}
\bA^H \nonumber \\
&& \hspace{2mm} \times \frac{1}{2 j \left( \ba_k^{(1)H} \bP^{\bot}
\ba_k^{(1)} \right)} \times \frac{1}{2 j \left( \ba_i^{(1)H}
\bP^{\bot} \ba_i^{(1)} \right)} \nonumber \\
&& \hspace{2mm} \times \Big( \text{Tr} \left\{ \Delta \bR \bV^{\dag}
\ba_k \ba_k^{(1)H} \bP^{\bot} \right\} - \text{Tr} \left\{ \Delta
\bR \bP^{\bot} \ba_k^{(1)} \ba_k^H \bV^{\dag} \right\} \Big)
\nonumber \\
&& \hspace{2mm} \times \Big( \text{Tr} \left\{ \Delta \bR \bV^{\dag}
\ba_i \ba_i^{(1)H} \bP^{\bot} \right\} - \text{Tr} \left\{ \Delta
\bR \bP^{\bot} \ba_i^{(1)} \ba_i^H \bV^{\dag} \right\} \Big) \Bigg\}
\Bigg\} \nonumber \\
\end{eqnarray}
which is computed using \eqref{eq:DeltaR_lemma_P2} and the fact that
$\bP^{\bot} \bR \bV^{\dag} = \boldsymbol{0}$ as
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \hspace{-15mm} E \left\{ \text{Tr} \left\{ d\bP \bP^{\bot} d\bP
\right\} \right\} = \frac{\sigma_{\text{n}}^2}{2N} \sum_{k = 1}^K
\sum_{i = 1}^K \frac{\text{Tr} \left\{ \left( \frac{\partial
\bA}{\partial \omega_k} \right)^H \bP^{\bot} \frac{\partial
\bA}{\partial \omega_i} \left( \bA^H \bA \right)^{-1} \right\}}{
\left( \ba_k^{(1)H} \bP^{\bot} \ba_k^{(1)} \right) \left(
\ba_i^{(1)H} \bP^{\bot} \ba_i^{(1)} \right)} \nonumber \\
&& \hspace{52mm} \times Re \left\{ \ba_i^H \bV^{\dag} \bR \bV^{\dag}
\ba_k \ba_k^{(1)H} \bP^{\bot} \ba_i^{(1)} \right\}.
\label{eq:rho2_E_Tr_dPPbotdP}
\end{eqnarray}
Finally, the expected value of $\rho_2$ for a fixed value of
$\gamma$ is obtained using expressions
\eqref{eq:rho2_final_simplified},
\eqref{eq:rho2_E_Tr_VdagDRPbotdP_simplified}, and
\eqref{eq:rho2_E_Tr_dPPbotdP} as
\begin{eqnarray}
E \left\{ \rho_2 \right\} \hspace{-2mm} & = & \hspace{-2mm} \left( 1
- 2\gamma + \gamma^2 \right) E \left\{ \rho_1 \right\} \nonumber \\
&& \hspace{-2mm} + \frac{ 2 \left( \gamma - \gamma^2 \right)
\sigma_{\text{n}}^2 }{NK} Re \left\{ \sum_{k = 1}^K
\frac{\ba_k^{(1)H} \bP^{\bot} \frac{\partial \bA}{\partial \omega_k}
\left( \bA^H \bA \right)^{-1} \bA^H \bV^{\dag} \bR \bV^{\dag}
\ba_k}{2 j \left( \ba_k^{(1)H} \bP^{\bot} \ba_k^{(1)} \right)}
\right\} \nonumber \\
&& \hspace{-2mm} + \frac{\gamma^2 \sigma_{\text{n}}^2}{2NK} \sum_{k
= 1}^K \sum_{i = 1}^K \frac{\text{Tr} \left\{ \left( \frac{\partial
\bA}{\partial \omega_k} \right)^H \bP^{\bot} \frac{\partial
\bA}{\partial \omega_i} \left( \bA^H \bA \right)^{-1} \right\}}{
\left( \ba_k^{(1)H} \bP^{\bot} \ba_k^{(1)} \right) \left(
\ba_i^{(1)H} \bP^{\bot} \ba_i^{(1)} \right)} Re \left\{ \ba_i^H
\bV^{\dag} \bR \bV^{\dag} \ba_k \ba_k^{(1)H} \bP^{\bot} \ba_i^{(1)}
\right\}.\nonumber \\
\end{eqnarray}
It concludes the derivation.
\begin{comment}
\section*{Acknowledgment}
The authors would like to thank...
\end{comment}
\ifCLASSOPTIONcaptionsoff
\newpage
\fi
|
\section{INTRODUCTION}
The dueling bandit is a variation of the classic multi-armed bandit problem in which the actions are noisy comparisons between arms, rather than observations from the arms themselves \citep{karmedduelingbandit}. Each action provides $1$ bit indicating which of two arms is probably better. For example, the arms could represent objects and the bits could be responses from people asked to compare pairs of objects.
In this paper, we focus on the pure {\em exploration} problem of finding the ``best'' arm from noisy pairwise comparisons. This problem is different from the {\em explore-exploit} problem studied in \citet{karmedduelingbandit}. There can be different notions of ``best'' in the dueling framework, including the Condorcet and Borda criteria (defined below).
Most of the dueling-bandit algorithms are primarily concerned with finding the Condorcet winner
(the arm that is probably as good or better than every other arm).
There are two drawbacks to this. First, a Condorcet winner does not exist unless the underlying probability matrix governing the outcomes of pairwise comparisons satisfies certain restrictions. These restrictions may not be met in many situations. In fact, we show that a Condorcet winner doesn't exist in our experiment with real data presented below. Second, the best known upper bounds on the sample complexity of finding the Condorcet winner (assuming it exists) grow quadratically (at least) with the number of arms. This makes Condorcet algorithms impractical for large numbers of arms.
To address these drawbacks, we consider the Borda criterion instead. The Borda
score of an arm is the probability that the arm is preferred to another arm
chosen uniformly at random. A Borda winner (arm with the largest Borda score)
always exists for every possible probability matrix. We assume throughout this paper that there exists a unique Borda winner. Finding the Borda winner with probability at least $1-\delta$ can be reduced to solving an instance of the standard multi-armed bandit problem resulting in a sufficient sample complexity of $\mathcal{O}\left(\sum_{i>1} (s_1-s_i)^{-2} \log\left( \log((s_1-s_i)^{-2})/\delta\right) \right)$, where $s_i$ denotes Borda score of arm $i$ and
$s_1>s_2>\cdots>s_n$ are the scores in descending order \citep{karnin2013almost,lilucb}. In favorable cases, for instance, if $s_1-s_i
\geq c$, a constant for all $i>1$, then this sample complexity is linear in $n$ as opposed to the quadratic sample complexity necessary to find the Condorcet winner. In this paper we show that this upper bound is essentially tight, thereby apparently ``closing'' the Borda winner identification problem. However, in this paper we consider a specific type of structure that is motivated by its existence in real datasets that complicates this apparently simple story. In particular, we show that the reduction to a standard multi-armed bandit problem can result in very bad performance when compared to an algorithm that exploits this observed structure.
We explore the sample complexity dependence in more detail and consider
structural constraints on the matrix (a particular form of sparsity natural to
this problem) that can significantly reduce the sample complexity. The sparsity model
captures the commonly observed behavior in elections in which there are a small
set of ``top'' candidates that are competing to be the winner but only differ on
a small number of attributes, while a large set of ``others'' are mostly irrelevant
as far as predicting the winner is concerned in the sense that they would always
lose in a pairwise matchup against one of the ``top'' candidates.
This motivates a new algorithm called Successive Elimination with Comparison
Sparsity (SECS). SECS takes advantage of this structure by determining which of
two arms is better on the basis of their performance with respect to a sparse
set of ``comparison'' arms. Experimental results with real data demonstrate the
practicality of the sparsity model and show that SECS can provide significant
improvements over standard approaches.
The main contributions of this paper are as follows:\\[-14pt]
\begin{itemize}
\item A distribution dependent lower bound for the sample complexity of identifying the Borda winner that essentially shows that the Borda reduction to the standard multi-armed bandit problem (explained in detail later) is essentially optimal up to logarithmic factors, given no prior structural information.
\item A new structural assumption for the $n$-armed
dueling bandits problem in which the top arms can be distinguished by duels with a sparse set of other arms.
\item An algorithm for the dueling bandits problem under this assumption, with
theoretical performance guarantees showing significant sample complexity improvements compared to naive reductions to standard multi-armed bandit algorithms.
\item Experimental results, based on real-world applications, demonstrating
the superior performance of our algorithm compared to existing methods.
\end{itemize}
\section{PROBLEM SETUP}
\label{problemsetupsection}
The \textit{n-armed dueling bandits problem} \citep{karmedduelingbandit} is a modification of the \textit{n-armed bandit problem}, where instead of pulling a single arm, we choose a pair of arms $(i,j)$ to duel, and receive one bit indicating which of the two is better or preferred, with the probability of $i$ winning the duel is equal to a constant $p_{i,j}$ and that of $j$ equal to $p_{j,i}=1-p_{i,j}$. We define the \textit{probabilty matrix} $P=[p_{i,j}]$, whose $(i,j)$th entry is $p_{i,j}$.
Almost all existing $n$-armed dueling bandit methods \citep{karmedduelingbandit, beatthemean, rucb,urvoy2013generic,ailon2014reducing} focus on the explore-exploit problem and furthermore make a variety of assumptions on the preference matrix $P$. In
particular, those works assume the existence of a Condorcet winner: an arm, $c$, such that
$p_{c,j}>\frac{1}{2}$ for all $j \neq c$. The \textit{Borda} winner is an arm $b$
that satisfies $\sum_{j\neq b} p_{b,j} \geq \sum_{j\neq i} p_{i,j}$ for all $i=1,\cdots,n$. In
other words, the Borda winner is the arm with the highest average probability of
winning against other arms, or said another way, the arm that has the highest
probability of winning against an arm selected uniformly at random from the
remaining arms. The Condorcet winner has been given more attention than the
Borda, the reasons being: 1) Given a choice between the Borda and the Condorcet
winner, the latter is preferred in a direct comparison between the two. 2) As
pointed out in \citet{urvoy2013generic,rucb} the Borda winner can be found by reducing the dueling bandit problem to a standard multi-armed bandit problem as follows.
\begin{definition} \label{bordareduction}{\em Borda Reduction.} The action of pulling arm $i$ with reward $\frac{1}{n-1}\sum_{j\neq i} p_{i,j}$ can be simulated by dueling arm $i$ with another arm chosen uniformly at random.
\end{definition}
However, we feel that the Borda problem has received far less attention than it
deserves. Firstly, the Borda winner \textit{always exists}, the Condorcet does
not. For example, a Condorcet winner does not exist in the MSLR-WEB10k datasets considered in this paper. Assuming the existence of a Condorcet winner severely restricts the class
of allowed $P$ matrices: only those $P$ matrices are allowed which have a row
with all entries $\geq \frac{1}{2}$. In fact,
\citet{karmedduelingbandit,beatthemean} require that the comparison probabilities
$p_{i,j}$ satisfy additional transitivity conditions that are often violated in
practice. Secondly, there are many cases where the Borda winner and the
Condorcet winner are distinct, and the Borda winner would be preferred in many
cases. Lets assume that arm $c$ is the Condorcet winner, with
$p_{c,i}=0.51$ for $i\neq c$. Let arm $b$ be the Borda winner with $p_{b,i}=1$ for
$i\neq b,c$, and $p_{b,c}=0.49$. It is reasonable that arm $c$ is only marginally
better than the other arms, while arm $b$ is significantly preferred over all
other arms except against arm $c$ where it is marginally rejected. In this
example - chosen extreme to highlight the pervasiveness of situations where the
Borda arm is preferred - it is clear that arm $b$ should be the winner: think of
the arms representing objects being contested such as t-shirt designs, and the
$P$ matrix is generated by showing users a pair of items and asking them to
choose the better among the two. This example also shows that the Borda winner
is more robust to estimation errors in the $P$ matrix (for instance, when the
$P$ matrix is estimated by asking a small sample of the entire population to vote
among pairwise choices). The Condorcet winner is sensitive to entries in
the Condorcet arm's row that are close to $\frac{1}{2}$, which is not the case for
the Borda winner. Finally, there are important cases (explained
next) where the winner can be found in fewer number of duels than would be
required by Borda reduction.
\section{MOTIVATION} \label{motivationSection}
\begin{table*}
\begin{equation}
P_1 =
\begin{blockarray}{cccccccc}
& 1 & 2 & 3 & \cdots & n & s_i & s_1-s_i\\
\begin{block}{c(ccccc)cc} 1 & \frac{1}{2} & \frac{1}{2}&
\frac{3}{4} & \cdots & \frac{3}{4}+\epsilon &
\frac{\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon}{n-1}+\frac{3}{4}\frac{n-2}{n-1} & 0 \\ \\ 2
& \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2} & \frac{3}{4} & \cdots &
\frac{3}{4} &
\frac{\frac{1}{2}}{n-1}+\frac{3}{4}\frac{n-2}{n-1} & \frac{\epsilon}{n-1} \\ \\ 3 &
\frac{1}{4} & \frac{1}{4} & \frac{1}{2} & \cdots & \frac{1}{2} &
\frac{1}{2}\frac{n-2}{n-1} & \frac{\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon}{n-1}+\frac{1}{4}\frac{n-2}{n-1} \\ \\ \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots &
\ddots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots \\ \\ n & \frac{1}{4}-\epsilon & \frac{1}{4} &
\frac{1}{2} & \cdots & \frac{1}{2} &
-\frac{\epsilon}{n-1}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{n-2}{n-1} &
\frac{\frac{1}{2}+2\epsilon}{n-1}+\frac{1}{4}\frac{n-2}{n-1} \\
\end{block}
\end{blockarray}
\label{badP1matrix}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
P_2 =
\begin{blockarray}{cccccccc}
& 1 & 2 & 3 & \cdots & n & s_i & s_1-s_i\\
\begin{block}{c(ccccc)cc} 1 & \frac{1}{2} &
\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\epsilon}{n-1} & \frac{3}{4}+\frac{\epsilon}{n-1}
& \cdots & \frac{3}{4}+\frac{\epsilon}{n-1} &
\frac{\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon}{n-1}+\frac{3}{4}\frac{n-2}{n-1} & 0 \\
\\
2 & \frac{1}{2}-\frac{\epsilon}{n-1} & \frac{1}{2} & \frac{3}{4} &
\cdots & \frac{3}{4} &
\frac{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{\epsilon}{n-1}}{n-1}+\frac{3}{4}\frac{n-2}{n-1} &
\frac{\epsilon}{n-1} + \frac{\epsilon}{(n-1)^2} \\ \\
3 & \frac{1}{4}-\frac{\epsilon}{n-1} & \frac{1}{4} & \frac{1}{2} &
\cdots & \frac{1}{2} & \frac{-\frac{\epsilon}{n-1}}{n-1}+
\frac{1}{2}\frac{n-2}{n-1} &
\frac{\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon+\frac{\epsilon}{n-1}}{n-1}+
\frac{1}{4}\frac{n-2}{n-1} \\ \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots & \vdots &
\vdots \\ \\ n & \frac{1}{4} -\frac{\epsilon}{n-1} & \frac{1}{4} &
\frac{1}{2} & \cdots & \frac{1}{2} &
\frac{-\frac{\epsilon}{n-1}}{n-1} + \frac{1}{2}\frac{n-2}{n-1} &
\frac{\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon+\frac{\epsilon}{n-1}}{n-1}+
\frac{1}{4}\frac{n-2}{n-1} \\
\end{block}
\end{blockarray}
\label{badP2matrix}
\end{equation}
\end{table*}
We define the \textit{Borda score} of an arm $i$ to be the probability of the
$i^{\text{th}}$ arm winning a duel with another arm chosen uniformly at random:
\begin{equation*} s_i = \tfrac{1}{n-1}\sum\limits_{j\neq i}p_{i,j} \, .
\end{equation*} Without loss of generality, we assume that $s_1 > s_2 \geq \dots
\geq s_n$ but that this ordering is unknown to the algorithm. As mentioned
above, if the Borda reduction is used then the dueling bandit problem becomes a
regular multi-armed bandit problem and lower bounds for the multi-armed bandit problem
\citep{kaufmann2014complexity,mannortsitsiklis} suggest that the number of samples
required should scale like $\Omega \left( \sum_{i\neq 1}\frac{1}{(s_1-s_i)^2}
\log \frac{1}{\delta} \right)$, which depends only on the Borda scores, and not
the individual entries of the preference matrix. This would imply that any preference
matrix $P$ with Borda scores $s_i$ is just as hard as another matrix $P'$ with
Borda scores $s_i'$ as long as $(s_1-s_i) = (s_1'-s_i')$. Of course, this lower bound only applies to algorithms using the Borda reduction, and not any algorithm for identifying the Borda winner that may, for instance, collect the duels in a more deliberate way. Next we consider specific $P$ matrices that exhibit two very different kinds of structure but have the same differences in Borda scores which motivates the structure considered in this paper.
\subsection{Preference Matrix $P$ known up to permutation of indices}
Shown below in equations (\ref{badP1matrix}) and (\ref{badP2matrix}) are two preference matrices $P_1$ and $P_2$ indexed by the number of arms $n$ that essentially have
the same Borda gaps -- $(s_1-s_i)$ is either like $\frac{\epsilon}{n}$ or
approximately $1/4$ -- but we will argue that $P_1$ is much ``easier'' than $P_2$ in a
certain sense (assume $\epsilon$ is an unknown constant, like $\epsilon =1/5$). Specifically,
if given $P_1$ and $P_2$ up to a permutation of the labels of their indices (i.e. given $\Lambda P_1 \Lambda^T$ for some unknown permutation matrix $\Lambda$), how many comparisons does it take to find the Borda winner in each case for different values of $n$?
Recall from above that if we ignore the fact that we know the matrices up to a
permutation and use the Borda reduction technique, we can use a
multi-armed bandit algorithm (e.g. \citet{karnin2013almost,lilucb}) and find the best arm for both
$P_1$ and $P_2$ using $O \left( {n^2} \log(\log(n)) \right)$ samples. We next
argue that given $P_1$ and $P_2$ up to a permutation, there exists an algorithm
that can identify the Borda winner of $P_1$ with just $O(n \log(n))$ samples
while the identification of the Borda winner for $P_2$ requires at least
$\Omega(n^2)$ samples. This shows that given the probability matrices up to a permutation, the sample complexity of identifying the Borda winner does not rely just on the Borda differences, but on the particular structure of the probability matrix.
Consider $P_1$. We claim that there exists a procedure that exploits the
structure of the matrix to find the best arm of $P_1$ using just $O(n
\log(n))$ samples. Here's how: For each arm, duel it with $32\log
\frac{n}{\delta}$ other arms chosen uniformly at random. By Hoeffding's
inequality, with probability at least $1-\delta$ our empirical estimate of the
Borda score will be within $1/8$ of its true value for all $n$ arms and we can
remove the bottom $(n-2)$ arms due to the fact that their Borda gaps exceed $1/4$.
Having reduced the possible winners to just two arms, we can identify which rows
in the matrix they correspond to and duel each of these two arms against all of the
remaining $(n-2)$ arms $O(\frac{1}{\epsilon^2})$ times to find out which one
has the larger Borda score using just $O\left(
\frac{2(n-2)}{\epsilon^2} \right)$ samples, giving an overall sample complexity
of $O\left( n \log n \right)$. We have improved the sample complexity from $O(n^2 \log(\log(n)))$ using the Borda
reduction to just $O(n \log(n))$.
Consider $P_2$. We claim that given this matrix up to a permutation of its indices, no algorithm can determine the winner of $P_2$ without
requesting $\Omega(n^2)$ samples. To see this, suppose an oracle has made the
problem easier by reducing the problem down to just the top two rows of the
$P_2$ matrix. This is a binary hypothesis test for which Fano's inequality implies that to guarantee that the probability of error is not above some constant level, the number of samples to identify the Borda winner must scale like $\min_{j \in [n] \setminus \{1,2\}} \frac{1}{KL(p_{1,j},p_{2,j})} \geq \min_{j \in [n] \setminus \{1,2\}} \frac{c}{(p_{1,j}-p_{2,j})^2} = \Omega( (n/\epsilon)^2 )$ where the inequality holds for some $c$ by Lemma~\ref{klbernoulliupperbound} in the Appendix.
We just argued that the
structure of the $P$ matrix, and not just the Borda gaps, can dramatically
influence the sample complexity of finding the Borda winner. This leads us to
ask the question: if we don't know anything about the $P$ matrix beforehand (i.e. do not know the matrix up to a permutation of its indices), can
we learn and exploit this kind of structural information in an online fashion
and improve over the Borda reduction scheme? The answer is no, as we
argue next.
\subsection{Distribution-Dependent Lower Bound}
\label{lowerboundsection}
We prove a distribution-dependent lower bound on the complexity of finding the
best Borda arm for a general $P$ matrix. This is a result important in its own
right as it shows that the lower bound obtained for an algorithm using the Borda reduction is tight, that is, this result implies that barring any structural assumptions, the Borda reduction is optimal.
\begin{definition}
{\em $\delta$-PAC dueling bandits algorithm}: A $\delta$-PAC dueling
bandits algorithm is an algorithm that selects duels between arms and based on the outcomes finds the Borda winner with probability
greater than or equal to $1-\delta$.
\end{definition}
The techniques used to prove the following result are inspired from Lemma 1 in
\citet{kaufmann2014complexity} and Theorem 1 in \citet{mannortsitsiklis}.
\begin{theorem}
(Distribution-Dependent Lower Bound)
Consider a matrix $P$ such that $\frac{3}{8} \leq p_{i,j} \leq \frac{5}{8},
\forall i,j \in [n]$ with $n \geq 4$. Let $\tau$ be the total number of duels. Then for
$\delta \leq 0.15$, any $\delta$-PAC dueling bandits algorithm to find the
Borda winner has $$\mathbb{E}_P[\tau] \geq C \log
\frac{1}{2\delta}
\sum\limits_{i \neq 1}^{} \frac{1}{(s_1-s_i)^2} $$ where $s_i = \frac{1}{n-1}\sum_{j \neq
i} p_{i,j}$ denotes the Borda score of arm $i$. Furthermore, $C$ can be chosen to be
$1/90$.\\
\end{theorem}
The proof can be found in the supplementary material.
In particular, this implies that for the preference matrix $P_1$ in
\eqref{badP1matrix}, any algorithm that makes no assumption about the structure
of the $P$ matrix requires $\Omega \left( n^2 \right)$ samples. Next we argue that the particular structure found in $P_1$ is an extreme case of a more general structural phenomenon found in real datasets and that it is a natural structure to assume and design algorithms to exploit.
\subsection{Motivation from Real-World Data}
The matrices $P_1$ and $P_2$ above illustrate a key structural aspect that can
make it easier to find the Borda winner. If the arms with the top Borda scores
are distinguished by duels with a small subset of the arms (as exemplified in
$P_1$), then finding the Borda winner may be easier than in the general case.
Before formalizing a model for this sort of structure, let us look at two
real-world datasets, which motivate the model.
We consider the Microsoft Learning to Rank web search datasets MSLR-WEB10k
\citep{letor} and MQ2008-list \citep{letor2} (see the experimental section for a
descrptions). Each dataset is used to construct a corresponding probability
matrix $P$. We use these datasets to test the hypothesis that comparisons with
a small subset of the arms may suffice to determine which of two arms has a
greater Borda score.
Specifically, we will consider the Borda score of the best arm (arm $1$) and
every other arm.
For any other arm $i>1$ and any positive integer $k
\in [n-2]$,
let $\Omega_{i,k}$ be a set of cardinality $k$ containing the indices $j \in [n]\setminus \{1,i\}$ with the $k$ largest
discrepancies $|p_{1,j}-p_{i,j}|$. These are the duels that, individually,
display the greatest differences between arm $1$ and $i$. For each $k$, define
$\alpha_i(k)=2(p_{1,i}-\tfrac{1}{2}) + \sum_{j\in \Omega_{i,k}} (p_{1,j}-p_{i,j})$. If the hypothesis
holds, then the duels with a small number of (appropriately chosen) arms should
indicate that arm $1$ is better than arm $i$. In other words, $\alpha_i(k)$
should become and stay positive as soon as $k$ reaches a relatively small
value.
Plots of these $\alpha_i$ curves for two datasets are presented in
Figures~\ref{modelFit}, and indicate that the Borda winner is apparent for small
$k$. This behavior is explained by the fact that the individual discrepancies
$|p_{1,j}-p_{i,j}|$, decay quickly when ordered from largest to smallest, as
shown in Figure~\ref{des}.
The take away message is that it is unnecessary to estimate the difference or
gap between the Borda scores of two arms. It suffices to compute the {\em
partial} Borda gap based on duels with a small subset of the arms. An
appropriately chosen subset of the duels will correctly indicate which arm has a
larger Borda score. The algorithm proposed in the next section automatically
exploits this structure.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{alpha2}
\caption{Plots of $\alpha_i(k)=2(p_{1,i}-\tfrac{1}{2}) + \sum_{j\in \Omega_{i,k}} (p_{1,j}-p_{1,j})$ vs.
$k$ for $30$ randomly chosen arms (for visualization purposes); MSLR-WEB10k on
left, MQ2008-list on right. The curves are strictly positive after a small
number of duels.}
\label{modelFit}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{d1}
\caption{Plots of discrepancies $|p_{1,j}-p_{i,j}|$ in descending order for $30$
randomly chosen arms (for visualization purposes); MSLR-WEB10k on left,
MQ2008-list on right.}
\label{des}
\end{figure}
\section{ALGORITHM AND ANALYSIS}
\begin{algorithm*}
Input sparsity level $k \in [n-2]$, time gate $T_0 \geq 0$ \\
Start with active set $A_1 = \{1,2,\cdots,n \}$, $t=1$\\
Let $C_t = \sqrt{ \frac{2\log(4 n^2 t^2 / \delta)}{t/n} } + \frac{ 2 \log(4n^2t^2/\delta)}{3t/n}$\\
\While{$|A_t|>1$}{
Choose $I_t$ uniformly at random $[n]$.\\
\For{$j \in A_t$}{
Observe $Z_{j,I_t}^{(t)}$ and update $\widehat{p}_{j,I_t,t} = \frac{n}{t}
\sum_{\ell=1}^t Z_{j,I_\ell}^{(\ell)} \mathbf{1}_{I_\ell = I_t}$, $\widehat{s}_{j,t} =
\frac{ n/(n-1) }{t} \sum_{\ell=1}^t Z_{j,I_\ell}^{(\ell)}$.\\
}
$\displaystyle A_{t+1} = A_t \setminus \bigg\{ j \in A_t : \exists i \in A_t \text{ with }\ \ $\\ \quad\, \hspace{.4in} $ \, 1) \ \ \ \mathbf{1}_{\{t > T_0\}} \, \widehat{\Delta}_{i,j,t}\left( \arg\max_{\Omega \subset [n] : |\Omega| = k} \widehat{\nabla}_{i,j,t}(\Omega) \right) ~> ~6 (k+1) C_t$ \\ \indent\hspace{.3in}$\text{ \textbf{OR} } \ \ \ 2) \ \ \ \widehat{s}_{i,t} > \widehat{s}_{j,t} + \frac{n}{n-1}\sqrt{ \frac{2 \log(4 n t^2/\delta)}{t} } \bigg\}$\\
$t \leftarrow t+1$\\
}
\caption{Sparse Borda Algorithm}
\end{algorithm*}
In this section we propose a new algorithm that exploits the kind of structure just described above and prove a sample complexity bound. The algorithm is inspired by the Successive Elimination (SE) algorithm of \citet{even2006action} for standard multi-armed bandit problems. Essentially, the proposed algorithm below implements SE with the Borda reduction and an additional elimination criterion that exploits sparsity (condition 1 in the algorithm). We call the algorithm Successive Elimination with Comparison Sparsity (SECS).
We will use $\mathbf{1}_E$ to denote the indicator of the event $E$ and $[n] = \{1,2,\dots,n\}$. The algorithm maintains an active set of arms $A_t$ such that if $j \notin A_t$ then the algorithm has concluded that arm $j$ is not the Borda winner. At each time $t$, the algorithm chooses an arm $I_t$ uniformly at random from $[n]$ and compares it with all the arms in $A_t$. Note that $A_{k} \subseteq A_{\ell}$ for all $k \geq \ell$. Let $Z_{i,j}^{(t)} \in \{0,1\}$ be independent Bernoulli random variables with $\mathbb{E}[Z_{i,j}^{(t)}] = p_{i,j}$, each denoting the outcome of ``dueling'' $i,j \in [n]$ at time $t$ (define $Z_{i,j}^{(t)}=0$ for $i=j$). For any $t \geq 1$, $i \in [n]$, and $j \in A_t$ define
\begin{align*}
\widehat{p}_{j,i,t} = \frac{n}{t}
\sum_{\ell=1}^t Z_{j,I_\ell}^{(\ell)} \mathbf{1}_{I_\ell = i}
\end{align*}
so that $\mathbb{E}\left[ \widehat{p}_{j,i,t} \right] = p_{j,i}$. Furthermore, for any $t \geq1$, $j \in A_t$ define
\begin{align*}
\widehat{s}_{j,t} =
\frac{ n/(n-1) }{t} \sum_{\ell=1}^t Z_{j,I_\ell}^{(\ell)}
\end{align*}
so that $\mathbb{E}\left[ \widehat{s}_{j,t} \right] = s_{j}$.
For any $\Omega \subset [n]$ and $i,j \in [n]$ define
\begin{align*}
\Delta_{i,j}(\Omega) &= 2(p_{i,j}-\tfrac{1}{2}) + \sum_{\omega \in \Omega: \omega \neq i \neq j} ( p_{i,\omega} - p_{j,\omega} )\\
\widehat{\Delta}_{i,j,t}(\Omega) &= 2( \widehat{p}_{i,j,t} -\tfrac{1}{2}) + \sum_{\omega \in \Omega: \omega \neq i \neq j} ( \widehat{p}_{i,\omega,t} - \widehat{p}_{j,\omega,t} ) \\
{\nabla}_{i,j}(\Omega) &= \sum_{\omega \in \Omega: \omega \neq i \neq j} | {p}_{i,\omega} - {p}_{j,\omega} | \\
\widehat{\nabla}_{i,j}(\Omega) &= \sum_{\omega \in \Omega: \omega \neq i \neq j} | \widehat{p}_{i,\omega,t} - \widehat{p}_{j,\omega,t} | \ .
\end{align*}
The quantity $\Delta_{i,j}(\Omega)$ is the {\em partial} gap between the Borda scores for $i$ and $j$, based on only the comparisons with the arms in $\Omega$. Note that $\frac{1}{n-1}\Delta_{i,j}([n]) = s_i - s_j$.
The quantity $ \arg\max_{\Omega \subset [n] : |\Omega| = k} {\nabla}_{i,j}(\Omega) $ selects the indices $\omega$ yielding the largest discrepancies $|p_{i,\omega} -p_{j,\omega}|$. $\widehat{\Delta}$ and $\widehat{\nabla}$ are empirical analogs of these quantities.
\begin{definition}
For any $i \in [n] \setminus 1$ we say the set $\{ (p_{1,\omega}-p_{i,\omega}) \}_{\omega \neq 1 \neq i}$ is $(\gamma,k)$-approximately sparse if
\begin{align*}
\displaystyle \max_{\Omega \in [n] : |\Omega| \leq k}\nabla_{1,i}(\Omega \setminus \Omega_i) \ \leq \ \gamma \Delta_{1,i}(\Omega_i)
\end{align*}
where $\displaystyle\Omega_i = \arg\max_{\Omega \subset[n] : |\Omega|=k} \nabla_{1,i}( \Omega )$.
\end{definition}
Instead of the strong assumption that the set $\{ (p_{1,\omega}-p_{i,\omega}) \}_{\omega \neq 1 \neq i}$ has no more than $k$ non-zero coefficients, the above definition relaxes this idea and just assumes that the absolute value of the coefficients outside the largest $k$ are small relative to the partial Borda gap. This definition is inspired by the structure described in previous sections and will allow us to find the Borda winner faster.
The parameter $T_0$ is specified (see Theorem~\ref{sparseTheorem}) to guarantee that all arms with sufficiently large gaps $s_1-s_i$ are eliminated by time step $T_0$ (condition 2). Once $t > T_0$, condition 1 also becomes active and the algorithm starts removing arms with large partial Borda gaps, exploiting the assumption that the top arms can be distinguished by comparisons with a sparse set of other arms. The algorithm terminates when only one arm remains.
\begin{theorem} \label{sparseTheorem}
Let $k \geq 0$ and $T_0>0$ be inputs to the above algorithm and let $R$ be the solution to $\frac{32 }{R^2} \log\left( \frac{32 n/ \delta}{R^2 } \right) = T_0$. If for all $i \in [n] \setminus 1$, at least one of the following holds:
\begin{enumerate}
\item$\{ (p_{1,\omega}-p_{i,\omega}) \}_{\omega \neq 1 \neq i}$ is $(\tfrac{1}{3},k)$-approximately sparse,
\item $(s_1-s_i) \geq R$,
\end{enumerate}
then with probability at least $1- 3\delta$, the algorithm returns the best arm after no more than
\begin{align*}
c \sum_{j > 1} \min\Big\{ \max\left\{ \tfrac{1 }{R^2} \log\left( \tfrac{ n/
\delta}{R^2 } \right), \tfrac{ (k+1)^2 / n }{ \Delta_{j}^2} \log\left( \tfrac{
n / \delta }{ \Delta_{j}^{2} } \right) \right\} ,\\
\tfrac{ 1 }{ \Delta_{j}^{2}}
\log\left( \tfrac{ n / \delta }{ \Delta_{j}^{2} } \right) \Big\}
\end{align*}
samples where $\Delta_{j}:= s_{1} - s_j$ and $c>0$ is an absolute constant.
\end{theorem}
The second argument of the $\min$ is precisely the result one would obtain by running Successive Elimination with the Borda reduction \citep{even2006action}. Thus, under the stated assumptions, the algorithm never does worse than the Borda reduction scheme. The first argument of the $\min$ indicates the potential improvement gained by exploiting the sparsity assumption. The first argument of the $\max$ is the result of throwing out the arms with large Borda differences and the second argument is the result of throwing out arms where a {\em partial} Borda difference was observed to be large.
To illustrate the potential improvements, consider the $P_1$ matrix discussed above, the theorem implies that by setting $T_0 = \frac{32 }{R^2} \log\left( \frac{32 n/ \delta}{R^2 } \right) $ with $R = \frac{1/2 + \epsilon}{n-1} + \frac{1}{4} \frac{n-2}{n-1} \approx \frac{1}{4}$ and $k=1$ we obtain a sample complexity of $O( \epsilon^{-2} n \log(n))$ for the proposed algorithm compared to the standard Borda reduction sample complexity of $\Omega(n^2)$.
In practice it is difficult optimize the choice of $T_0$ and $k$, but motivated by the results shown in the experiments section, we recommend setting $T_0=0$ and $k=5$ for typical problems.
\section{EXPERIMENTS}
The goal of this section is not to obtain the best possible sample complexity results for the specified datasets, but to show the {\em relative} performance gain of exploiting structure using the proposed SECS algorithm with respect to the Borda reduction. That is, we just want to measure the effect of exploiting sparsity while keeping all other parts of the algorithms constant. Thus, the algorithm we compare to that uses the simple Borda reduction is simply the SECS algorithm described above but with $T_0 = \infty$ so that the sparse condition never becomes activated. Running the algorithm in this way, it is very closely related to the Successive Elimination algorithm of \citet{even2006action}. In what follows, our proposed algorithm will be called SECS and the benchmark algorithm will be denoted as just the Borda reduction (BR) algorithm.
We experiment on both simulated data and two real-world datasets. During all experiments, both the BR and SECS algorithms were run with $\delta=0.1$. For the SECS algorithm we set $T_0=0$ to enable condition 1 from the very beginning (recall for BR we set $T_0 = \infty$). Also, while the algorithm has a constant factor of 6 multiplying $(k+1)C_t$, we feel that the analysis that led to this constant is very loose so in practice we recommend the use of a constant of $1/2$ which was used in our experiments. While the change of this constant invalidates the guarantee of Theorem~\ref{sparseTheorem}, we note that in all of the experiments to be presented here, neither algorithm ever failed to return the best arm. This observation also suggests that the SECS algorithm is robust to possible inconsistencies of the model assumptions.
\subsection{Synthetic Preference matrix}
\label{synth}
Both algorithms were tasked with finding the best arm using the $P_1$ matrix of \eqref{badP1matrix} with $\epsilon = 1/5$ for problem sizes equal to $n=10,20,30,40,50,60,70,80$ arms. Inspecting the $P_1$ matrix, we see that a value of $k=1$ in the SECS algorithm suffices so this is used for all problem sizes. The entries of the preference matrix $P_{i,j}$ are used to simulate comparisons between the respective arms and each experiment was repeated 75 times.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[trim=0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm, clip=true, scale = 0.4]{P1.png}
\caption{Comparison of the Borda reduction algorithm and the proposed SECS algorithm ran on the $P_1$ matrix for different values of $n$. Plot is on log-log scale so that the sample complexity grows like $n^s$ where $s$ is the slope of the line.}
\label{SyntheticResults}
\end{figure}
Recall from Section~\ref{motivationSection} that any algorithm using the Borda reduction on the $P_1$ matrix has a sample complexity of $\Omega(n^2)$. Moreover, inspecting the proof of Theorem~\ref{sparseTheorem} one concludes that the BR algorithm has a sample complexity of $O(n^2 \log(n))$ for the $P_1$ matrix. On the other hand, Theorem~\ref{sparseTheorem} states that the SECS algorithm should have a sample complexity no worse than $O( n \log(n) )$ for the $P_1$ matrix. Figure \ref{SyntheticResults} plots the sample complexities of SECS and BR on a log-log plot. On this scale, to match our sample complexity hypotheses, the slope of the BR line should be about $2$ while the slope of the SECS line should be about $1$, which is exactly what we observe.
\subsection{Web search data}
We consider two web search data sets. The first is the MSLR-WEB10k Microsoft Learning to Rank data set \citep{letor} that is characterized by approximately 30,000 search queries over a number of documents from search results. The data also contains the values of 136 features and corresponding user labelled relevance factors with respect to each query-document pair. We use the training set of Fold 1, which comprises of about 2,000 queries. The second data set is the MQ2008-list from the Microsoft Learning to Rank 4.0 (MQ2008) data set \citep{letor2}. We use the training set of Fold 1, which has about 550 queries. Each query has a list of documents with 46 features and corresponding user labelled relevance factors.
For each data set, we create a set of rankers, each corresponding to a feature from the feature list. The aim of this task is be to determine the feature whose ranking of query-document pairs is the most relevant. To compare two rankers, we randomly choose a pair of documents and compare their relevance rankings with those of the features. Whenever a mismatch occurs between the rankings returned by the two features, the feature whose ranking matches that of the relevance factors of the two documents ``wins the duel''. If both features rank the documents similarly, the duel is deemed to have resulted in a tie and we flip a fair coin. We run a Monte Carlo simulation on both data sets to obtain a preference matrix $P$ corresponding to their respective feature sets. As with the previous setup, the entries of the preference matrices ($[P]_{i,j}=p_{i,j}$) are used to simulate comparisons between the respective arms and each experiment was repeated 75 times.
From the MSLR-WEB10k data set, a single arm was removed for our experiments as its Borda score was unreasonably close to the arm with the best Borda score and behaved unlike any other arm in the dataset with respect to its $\alpha_i$ curves, confounding our model.
For these real datasets, we consider a range of different $k$ values for the SECS algorithm. As noted above, while there is no guarantee that the SECS algorithm will return the true Borda winner, in all of our trials for all values of $k$ reported we never observed a single error. This is remarkable as it shows that the correctness of the algorithm is insensitive to the value of $k$ on at least these two real datasets. The sample complexities of BR and SECS on both datasets are reported in Figure~\ref{realData}. We observe that the SECS algorithm, for small values of $k$, can identify the Borda winner using as few as {\em half} the number required using the Borda reduction method. As $k$ grows, the performance of the SECS algorithm becomes that of the BR algorithm, as predicted by Theorem~\ref{sparseTheorem}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{subfloat}[MSLR-WEB10k]{
\centering
\includegraphics[trim=0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm, clip=true, scale = 0.4]{P135.png}
}
\begin{subfloat}[MQ2008]{
\centering
\includegraphics[trim=.25cm 0cm 0cm 0cm, clip=true, scale = 0.4]{P46.png}
}
\end{subfloat}%
\end{subfloat}
\caption{Comparison of an action elimination-style algorithm using the Borda reduction (denoted as BR) and the proposed SECS algorithm with different values of $k$ on the two datasets.}
\label{realData}
\end{figure}
Lastly, the preference matrices of the two data
sets support the argument for finding the Borda winner over the Condorcet
winner. The MSLR-WEB10k data set has no Condorcet winner arm. However, while the MQ2008 data set has a Condorcet winner, when we consider the Borda scores of the arms, it ranks second.
|
\section{Introduction}
In an article entitled
``Renormalization and quantum field theory''~\cite{Borcherds-10},
Richard Borcherds described a rigorous approach to
renormalized perturbative quantum field theory in curved
spacetimes. Borcherds' approach is closely related to the causal
algebraic formalism~\cite{Brunetti2}, and it employs
sheaf theory and Hopf algebras to
achieve a particularly elegant and compact picture of
quantum field theory (QFT). In particular, the combinatorial aspects
of quantization and renormalization
are completely taken care of by a Hopf algebraic structure.
Moreover, Borcherds' approach has definite advantages when it comes
to generalization.
For example, the use of Hopf algebras is particularly powerful
to deal with systems involving an initial state which is not
quasi-free~\cite{BFP} and many of its tools
(for example vector bundles and Hopf algebras)
have natural noncommutative analogues that can be used to investigate
noncommutative versions of quantum field theory.
In the present paper, which is a sketch of a more
detailed article in preparation, we extend parts of Borcherds' approach
by replacing his graded commutative normal product of classical
fields by a tensor product which (i) allows us to
formulate a fully geometric version of second quantization,
(ii) provides a manageable topology for the
many-body algebra, (iii) enables us to second quantize any
cocommutative Hopf algebra bundle.
\section{Hopf algebra bundles}
In this section we introduce some concepts that are
used in Borcherds' approach to QFT.
Classical fields are sections of vector bundles over the
space-time manifold $M$.
We first reformulate Borcherds' sheaves into
more familiar sections of vector bundles.
Let $M$ be a smooth manifold and
$F\overset{\pi}{\rightarrow} M$ a smooth vector bundle
over $M$~\cite{LeeDiff}.
We denote by
$\phi_\alpha: \pi^{-1}(U_\alpha)\to U_\alpha\times V$
the local trivializations (where $V$ is a vector space) and by
$t_{\alpha\beta}$ the transition functions such that
$\phi_\alpha\circ\phi_\beta^{-1}(x,v)=(x,t_{\alpha\beta}(x)v)$,
where $\phi_\alpha\circ\phi_\beta^{-1}:
(U_\alpha\cap U_\beta) \times V \to
(U_\alpha\cap U_\beta) \times V$ and where the isomorphism
$t_{\alpha\beta}(x)$
is an element of $GL(V)$.
A vector bundle is an \emph{algebra bundle} if
the fiber model $V$ is an algebra over ${\mathbb{K}}$
(where ${\mathbb{K}}$ is ${\mathbb{R}}$ or ${\mathbb{C}}$) and if the
transition functions are algebra isomorphisms:
$t_{\alpha\beta}(x)(u \cdot v)=
t_{\alpha\beta}(x)(u) \cdot t_{\alpha\beta}(x)(v)$.
An algebra bundle is a \emph{Hopf algebra bundle} if
$V$ is a Hopf algebra over ${\mathbb{K}}$ and the transition
functions are Hopf algebra morphisms.
In particular, the coproduct sends $V$ to
$V\otimes V$, which is the fiber of the
(internal) tensor product of
vector bundles $F\otimes F\overset{\pi'}{\rightarrow} M$~\cite{LeeDiff}.
The space of sections $\Gamma(M,F)$ is an infinite-dimensional
vector space, but it is also a module over the ring $C^\infty(M)$
of ${\mathbb{K}}$-valued smooth functions: as such, it admits a (locally)
finite basis which allows to use simple linear algebra tools.
If $F$ is an algebra bundle, then the space of sections
$\Gamma(M,F)$ is an algebra over the ring $C^\infty(M)$:
if $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2$ are such sections with
$\phi_\alpha\big(\sigma_1(x)\big)=(x,v_1)$ and
$\phi_\alpha\big(\sigma_2(x)\big)=(x,v_2)$, then
$\phi_\alpha\big(\sigma_1\cdot\sigma_2 (x)\big)=(x,v_1\cdot v_2)$.
Similarly, the space of sections of a Hopf algebra
bundle is a Hopf algebra over the ring $C^\infty(M)$.
In particular, the coproduct is now a map
from $\Gamma(M,F)$ to
$\Gamma(M,F\otimes F)\cong\Gamma(M,F)\hat\otimes_{C^\infty(M)}
\Gamma(M,F)$.
Borcherds starts from a vector bundle
$E\overset{\pi}{\rightarrow} M$ of finite rank
whose sections
are the classical fields of the model. To define Lagrangian densities
as polynomials in the field and its derivatives, he
considers the infinite jet bundle
$JE\overset{\pi}{\rightarrow} M$
and the Hopf algebra bundle $S(JE^*)
\overset{\pi}{\rightarrow} M$, which describes
the polynomial functions on $JE$.
For example, the element $L=
f+g_\mu+h_{\mu\nu}+k$, where
$f\in \Gamma(M,E^*)$, $g^\mu\in
\Gamma(M,J^1E^*)$, $h^{\mu\nu}\in \Gamma(M,S^2(J^1E^*))$
and $k\in \Gamma(M,S^4(E^*))$,
corresponds to the Lagrangian
density $L(\varphi)=\langle f,\varphi\rangle +
\langle g^\mu ,\varphi_\mu\rangle
+ \langle h^{\mu\nu} ,\varphi_\mu\varphi_\nu\rangle
+\langle k,\varphi\varphi\varphi\varphi\rangle$,
where $\varphi$ is a field, $\varphi_\mu$ its derivatives
and $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle$ is the duality pairing
between $\Gamma(M,S(JE^*))$ and $\Gamma(M,S(JE))$ induced
by the duality pairing between $JE^*$ and $JE$.
This Hopf algebra is commutative and cocommutative.
Note that the topological properties of this
algebra must be carefully taken into account because
$JE^*$ is an infinite-dimensional Fr\'echet manifold.
In the next section, we shall consider a
general Hopf algebra bundle $F\overset{\pi}{\rightarrow} M$ whose sections
play the role of Lagrangian densities, where
$F=S(JE^*)$ in Borcherds' case.
\section{The Fock Hopf algebra of classical fields}
Second quantization starts from the construction of an algebra
containing classical fields defined on any number of spacetime points.
The commutative product of this many-body algebra is called
the normal product, and it will be
deformed to define a quantum field algebra.
In Borcherds' paper, the algebra corresponding to the
normal product of QFT is the symmetric algebra
$S_{\mathbb{K}}(\Gamma(M,F))$ on the space of sections, which is too big to have
a reasonable topology and which is no longer
geometric, in the sense that
$S_{\mathbb{K}}(\Gamma(M,F))$ is not the space of sections
of a bundle over a manifold.
This is because this manifold should be
the quotient of $M^n$ by the action of the
symmetric group on $n$ elements, which is generally not a
topological manifold~\cite{Wagner-80}.
To solve that problem, note that for any bundle
$F\overset{\pi}{\rightarrow} M$
there exists an external tensor product of bundles
$F\boxtimes F \overset{\pi\times \pi}{\longrightarrow} M\times M$
whose space of sections
describes the (completed) tensor product of sections (over ${\mathbb{K}}$),
$\Gamma(M\times M,F\boxtimes F) \cong
\Gamma(M,F) \hat{\otimes}_{{\mathbb{K}}} \Gamma(M,F)$, that is,
$\sigma(x_1,x_2) = \sum \sigma_1(x_1) \otimes \sigma_2(x_2)$.
Moreover, since $\Gamma(M,F)$ is a Hopf algebra
over $C^\infty(M)$, then
$\Gamma(M\times M,F\boxtimes F)$ is a Hopf algebra over
$C^\infty(M^2)$. Similarly,
\begin{dfn}
If $F\overset{\pi}{\rightarrow} M$ is a Hopf algebra bundle,
the normal product of classical fields over
$n$ spacetime points is described by the
\emph{normal product algebra} $\Gamma(M^n,F^{\boxtimes n})$, which
is a Hopf algebra over $C^\infty(M^n)$.
\end{dfn}
Therefore, our normal product is encoded in the tensor product
of sections, corresponding to the external tensor
product of bundles.
From a physical point of view, if $F=S(JE^*)$ is the bundle
of polynomial Lagrangians of $E$-valued fields, the external
tensor product $\boxtimes$ describes exactly the normal product of
field polynomials at 2 points of $M$: e.g. the normal
product$\varphi^4(x_1) \partial_\mu \varphi(x_2) \partial^\mu
\varphi(x_2)$
corresponds to the section
$\sigma(x_1,x_2) = \big( (x_1,x_2),\varphi^4 \otimes
\partial_\mu \varphi \partial^\mu \varphi \big)$
of the bundle $F\boxtimes F$ over the point $(x_1,x_2)\in M\times M$.
The exterior tensor product can be performed on any number $n$
of copies of the bundle $F$, giving the Hopf bundle
$F^{\boxtimes n} \overset{\pi^n}{\longrightarrow} M^n$.
To describe QFT, then, we need to define a single algebra which contains
all numbers of points. The difficulty is that the algebras
$\Gamma(M^n,F^{\boxtimes n})$ are defined
over different rings $C^\infty(M^n)$, one for each $n$.
It turns out that this problem was solved a long time
ago by Bourbaki.
The first step is to build a ring
$R=\varinjlim C^\infty(M^n)$~\cite{Bourbaki-AlgebraI},
which is the inductive limit of the rings
$C^\infty(M^n)$ corresponding to the map
$\phi_{mn}:C^\infty(M^m)\to C^\infty(M^n)$, with $m \le n$,
defined by
$\phi_{mn}(f)(x_1,\dots,x_n)=f(x_1,\dots,x_m)$.
The inductive limit of algebras over different rings
is also defined by Bourbaki~\cite{Bourbaki-AlgebraI}
and its extension to Hopf algebras is straightforward.
Thus, we obtain a Hopf algebra which is reminiscent of
the Fock space in the sense that it contains any number of points.
\begin{dfn}
If $F\overset{\pi}{\rightarrow} M$ is a Hopf algebra bundle,
the \emph{Fock Hopf algebra} is the inductive limit of
Hopf algebras
${H_{\mathrm{Fock}}}=\varinjlim \Gamma(M^n,F^{\boxtimes n})$, which
is a Hopf algebra over the ring
${R_{\mathrm{Fock}}}=\varinjlim C^\infty(M^n)$.
\end{dfn}
Note that the Fock Hopf algebra is commutative
iff $F$ is commutative.
The Hopf algebra structure on the Fock algebra is used to perform
its deformation quantization.
We can now wonder whether the Fock Hopf algebra is a space of sections of
a bundle over some infinite dimensional manifold.
When $M$ can be described by a single
chart to ${\mathbb{R}}^d$, then the answer is yes
and the manifold is $\varprojlim M^n$, which is
a Fr\'echet manifold built on $\varprojlim ({\mathbb{R}}^d)^n$.
If $M$ needs several charts, then the projective limit
topology is not compatible with the structure of a Fr\'echet manifold
and we need more general concepts of infinite-dimensional
manifolds.
We can also wonder whether the definition of
$\phi_{mn}$ is not too arbitrary. Instead of picking up the
$m$ first points of $(x_1,\dots,x_n)$, we can define an inductive
limit corresponding to any subset of $m$ elements, but by doing so
we recover exactly ${H_{\mathrm{Fock}}}$ and ${R_{\mathrm{Fock}}}$ (because the family of sets
$\{1,\dots,n\}$ is cofinal in the family of subsets of
${\mathbb{N}}$~\cite{Kothe-I}) so we stick to the
simpler definition because countable inductive limits
have better properties than uncountable ones.
\section{Deformation quantization of ${H_{\mathrm{Fock}}}$}
It remains to quantize the Fock Hopf algebra to recover the
operator product of standard quantum field theory as a special case.
A convenient method to do so is to use
quantum groups, that Drinfeld created as a quantization
of algebras~\cite{Drinfeld-86}. His foundation paper
even cites the quantization method of Berezin, Vey, Lichnerowicz, Flato
and Sternheimer (i.e. deformation quantization or star product).
However, the quantization of fields does not use
Drinfeld's quasitriangular structure but its dual,
the \emph{Laplace pairing}, which was
first defined by Lyubashenko~\cite{Lyubashenko-86}.
Rota and Stein called it a Laplace pairing because,
for anticommuting variables, its definition is equivalent
to the Laplace identity of determinants~\cite{RotaStein94}.
Borcherds calls it a \emph{bicharacter}.
\subsection{Laplace pairing}
The problem is now that the Fock Hopf algebra is made of products
of polynomials of smooth sections and their derivatives, whereas
the quantum field amplitudes are distributions.
Therefore, we need to introduce the space
${\mathcal{D}'_{\mathrm{Fock}}}=\varinjlim {\mathcal{D}}'(M^n)$, which is the
inductive limit of the spaces of distributions on $M^n$.
The Laplace pairing is
an ${R_{\mathrm{Fock}}}$-linear map $(\cdot|\cdot): {H_{\mathrm{Fock}}}\otimes_{{R_{\mathrm{Fock}}}}
{H_{\mathrm{Fock}}} \to {\mathcal{D}'_{\mathrm{Fock}}}$,
such that, for $a$, $b$ and $c$ in ${H_{\mathrm{Fock}}}$,
$(1|a)=(a|1)={\varepsilon}(a)$ and
$(a|bc) = \sum (a\ix1|b) (a\ix2|c)$ and
$(ab|c) = \sum (a|c\ix1) (b|c\ix2)$.
Since the terms $(a\ix1|b) (a\ix2|c)$ and
$(a|c\ix1) (b|c\ix2)$ involve distributions,
the product is only done when wavefront set
conditions are satisfied~\cite{HormanderI}.
In the case of standard quantum field theory,
where ${H_{\mathrm{Fock}}}$ is built from the fiber $F=S(JE^*)$, the Laplace pairing is
determined for $f$ and $g$ in $\Gamma(M,E^*)$ by
$(f\otimes 1|1\otimes g)=\langle f\otimes g,D_+\rangle$, where
$D_+\in {\mathcal{D}}'(M^2,E^{{\scriptscriptstyle{\boxtimes}} 2})$
is the Wightman propagator.
This can also be written in a more physical way as
$(\varphi \otimes 1|1\otimes \varphi)=D_+$ or in a non-rigorous
way $(\varphi(x)|\varphi(y))=D_+(x,y)$ in the fiber over $(x,y)$.
This definition is extended to derivatives
of fields by
$(\partial^\alpha \varphi \otimes 1|1\otimes \partial^\beta\varphi)=
\partial^\alpha\partial^\beta D_+$, where
$\alpha$ and $\beta$ are multi-indices.
This pairing is well defined because of the
structural theorem~\cite{Grosser-01}
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\mathcal{D}}'(M^2,E^{{\scriptscriptstyle{\boxtimes}} 2}) &=&
\Big(\Gamma_c(M^2,
(E^*)^{{\scriptscriptstyle{\boxtimes}} 2})\Big)'
\cong \mathcal{D}'(M^2)\otimes_{C^\infty(M^2)}
\Gamma(M^2, E^{{\scriptscriptstyle{\boxtimes}} 2})
\\
&\cong &
\mathcal{L}_{C^\infty(M^2)}
\big(\Gamma(M^2,
(E^*)^{{\scriptscriptstyle{\boxtimes}} 2}),\mathcal{D}'(M^2)\big).
\end{eqnarray*}
\subsection{Star product}
Quantum group quantization was first defined by Rota and
Stein~\cite{RotaStein94}, then developed by
Fauser and coworkers~\cite{Fauser,BrouderQG,BrouderMN}.
Its equivalence with the star product was
proved by Hirshfeld~\cite{Hirshfeld}.
Borcherds does not define this product.
\begin{dfn}
Let $F\overset{\pi}{\rightarrow} M$ be a Hopf algebra bundle
and ${H_{\mathrm{Fock}}}$ the corresponding Fock Hopf algebra.
Then,
${C_{\mathrm{Fock}}}=\varinjlim {\mathcal{D}}'(M^n)\otimes_{C^\infty(M^n)}
\Gamma(M^n,F^{\boxtimes n})$ is a
${H_{\mathrm{Fock}}}$-Hopf module where the coaction $\beta$ is defined
on $c=u\otimes h$ by
$\beta c=\sum c'\otimes c''=
\sum (u\otimes h\ix1)\otimes h\ix2$.
The \emph{star product} on ${C_{\mathrm{Fock}}}$ is
defined by
\begin{eqnarray}
c\star d &=& \sum c'd' (c''|d''),
\end{eqnarray}
where $(c''|d'')$ is identified with $(c''|d'')\otimes 1$.
If the Hopf algebra is cocommutative, the
star product is associative.
\end{dfn}
If we consider the example
$c=u\otimes h$ and $d=v\otimes k$ we find
$c\star d=\sum uv (h\ix2|k\ix2) \otimes h\ix1 k\ix1$.
The product $ab (h\ix1|k\ix2)$ is a product
of three distributions which is well-defined
by the wavefront set condition~\cite{HormanderI}
for standard quantum field theory~\cite{Brunetti2}.
Note that ${C_{\mathrm{Fock}}}$ equipped with the star product is
a sort of generalized Frobenius algebra, in the
sense that $(c\star d|e)=(c|d\star e)$~\cite{BrouderMN}.
For example if $c=(1{\scriptstyle{\otimes}} 1) \otimes (\varphi{\scriptstyle{\otimes}} 1)$ and
$d=(1{\scriptstyle{\otimes}} 1) \otimes (1{\scriptstyle{\otimes}} \varphi)$, then
$c\star d=(1{\scriptstyle{\otimes}} 1) \otimes (\varphi{\scriptstyle{\otimes}} \varphi)
+ D_+\otimes (1{\scriptstyle{\otimes}} 1)$ and we recover
Wick's theorem usually written
$\varphi(x)\star\varphi(y)={:}\varphi(x)\varphi(y){:}+D_+(x,y)$
in QFT textbooks. This completes the quantization of
the Fock Hopf algebra, i.e. the second quantization
of the Hopf algebra bundle $F$.
\subsection{The time-ordered product}
The last step to obtain Green functions of QFT
is to define time-ordered products.
We do this by following the causal approach developed
by Stueckelberg, Bogoliubov, Epstein, Glaser~\cite{Epstein}
and finally Brunetti and Fredenhagen~\cite{Brunetti2}.
Then, the time-ordered product becomes a comodule
morphism $T:{C_{\mathrm{Fock}}}\to {C_{\mathrm{Fock}}}$
and the Wick expansion
of time-ordered products takes the simple form
$T(c)=\sum t(c')c"$, where
$t(c)=(1\otimes \epsilon) (T(c))$ ~\cite{BrouderMN}.
The time-ordered product is defined recursively by
the \emph{causality relation}\footnote{
Borcherds' Gaussian property is a consequence of
the causality relation~\cite{Epstein}.}
saying that $T(cd)=T(c)\star T(d)$ if the
spacetime support of $c$ is not earlier than
the spacetime support of $d$.
By Stora's lemma\footnote{It can easily be inferred from a remark by
Bergbauer~\cite{Bergbauerdip} that
Stora's lemma only requires a (closed) partial
order on $M$, which is taken to be the causal order
in applications to Lorentzian manifolds.},
the causality
relation and the partial order imply that $T$ is defined
recursively except on the diagonals, where the
distributions have to be extended~\cite{Brunetti2}.
The ambiguity of this extension is organized
by the renormalization group.
\section{Conclusion}
A second quantization method was described for
any theory whose Lagrangian density is an element of
a cocommutative Hopf algebra bundle.
Fermions can be taken into account by using
a graded cocommutative Hopf
algebra~\cite{BrouderQG}.
Since we do not require the Hopf algebra to be commutative,
we expect this approach to play a role in the
second quantization of noncommutative geometry.
|
\section{Introduction}
\subsection{Bailey pairs}
A \emph{Bailey pair} relative to $a$ is a pair of sequences $(\alpha_n,\beta_n)_{n \geq 0}$ satisfying
\begin{equation} \label{pairdef}
\beta_n = \sum_{k=0}^n \frac{\alpha_k}{(q)_{n-k}(aq)_{n+k}},
\end{equation}
or equivalently
\begin{equation} \label{pairdefbis}
\alpha_n = (1-aq^{2n}) \sum_{j=0}^n \frac{(aq)_{n+j-1}(-1)^{n-j}q^{\binom{n-j}{2}}}{(q)_{n-j}}\beta_j.
\end{equation}
Here we have used the standard $q$-hypergeometric notation,
\begin{equation*}
(a)_n = (a;q)_n = \prod_{k=1}^{n} (1-aq^{k-1}),
\end{equation*}
valid for $n \in \mathbb{N} \cup \{\infty\}$. The \emph{Bailey lemma} says that if $(\alpha_n,\beta_n)$ is a Bailey pair relative to $a$, then so is $(\alpha_n',\beta_n')$, where
\begin{equation} \label{alphaprimedef}
\alpha'_n = \frac{(\rho_1)_n(\rho_2)_n(aq/\rho_1 \rho_2)^n}{(aq/\rho_1)_n(aq/\rho_2)_n}\alpha_n
\end{equation}
\noindent and
\begin{equation} \label{betaprimedef}
\beta'_n = \sum_{k=0}^n\frac{(\rho_1)_k(\rho_2)_k(aq/\rho_1 \rho_2)_{n-k} (aq/\rho_1 \rho_2)^k}{(aq/\rho_1)_n(aq/\rho_2)_n(q)_{n-k}} \beta_k.
\end{equation}
A useful limiting form of the Bailey lemma is found by putting \eqref{alphaprimedef} and \eqref{betaprimedef} into \eqref{pairdef} and letting $n \to \infty$, giving
\begin{equation} \label{limitBailey}
\sum_{n \geq 0} (\rho_1)_n(\rho_2)_n (aq/\rho_1 \rho_2)^n \beta_n = \frac{(aq/\rho_1)_{\infty}(aq/\rho_2)_{\infty}}{(aq)_{\infty}(aq/\rho_1 \rho_2)_{\infty}} \sum_{n \geq 0} \frac{(\rho_1)_n(\rho_2)_n(aq/\rho_1 \rho_2)^n }{(aq/\rho_1)_n(aq/\rho_2)_n}\alpha_n.
\end{equation}
For more on Bailey pairs and the Bailey lemma, see \cite{An1,An2,war}.
This paper has its origins in the following two Bailey pairs discovered by Bringmann and Kane \cite{Br-Ka1}. First, $(a_n,b_n)$ is a Bailey pair relative to $1$, where
\begin{equation} \label{a2n}
a_{2n} = (1-q^{4n})q^{2n^2-2n}\sum_{j=-n}^{n-1}q^{-2j^2-2j},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{a2n+1}
a_{2n+1} = -(1-q^{4n+2})q^{2n^2}\sum_{j=-n}^{n} q^{-2j^2},
\end{equation}
\noindent and
\begin{equation} \label{bn}
b_n = \frac{(-1)^n(q;q^2)_{n-1}}{(q)_{2n-1}} \chi(\text{$n \neq 0$}) \footnote{As usual, $\chi(X) = 1$ if $X$ is true and $0$ if $X$ is false.},
\end{equation}
\noindent and second, $(\alpha_n,\beta_n)$ is a Bailey pair relative to $q$, where
\begin{equation} \label{alpha2n}
\alpha_{2n} = \frac{1}{1-q}\left(q^{2n^2+2n}\sum_{j=-n}^{n-1}q^{-2j^2-2j} + q^{2n^2}\sum_{j=-n}^{n} q^{-2j^2}\right),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{alpha2n+1}
\alpha_{2n+1} = -\frac{1}{1-q}\left(q^{2n^2+4n+2}\sum_{j=-n}^{n} q^{-2j^2} + q^{2n^2+2n}\sum_{j=-n-1}^n q^{-2j^2-2j}\right),
\end{equation}
\noindent and
\begin{equation} \label{betan}
\beta_n = \frac{(-1)^n(q;q^2)_n}{(q)_{2n+1}}.
\end{equation}
These are highly reminiscent of three Bailey pairs discovered by Andrews \cite{An3} in his study of Ramanujan's seventh order mock theta functions. Namely, he showed that $(\mathcal{A}_n(0),\mathcal{B}_n(0))$ and $(\mathcal{A}_n(1),\mathcal{B}_n(1))$ form Bailey pairs relative to $1$, where
\begin{equation} \label{mathcalA2n(0)}
\mathcal{A}_{2n}(0) = q^{3n^2+n}\sum_{j=-n}^{n}q^{-j^2} - q^{3n^2-n}\sum_{j=-n+1}^{n-1} q^{-j^2},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{mathcalA2n+1(0)}
\mathcal{A}_{2n+1}(0) = -q^{3n^2+4n+1}\sum_{j=-n-1}^{n} q^{-j^2-j} + q^{3n^2+2n}\sum_{j=-n}^{n-1} q^{-j^2-j},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{mathcalBn(0)}
\mathcal{B}_n(0) = \frac{1}{(q^{n+1})_{n}},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{mathcalA2n(1)}
\mathcal{A}_{2n}(1) = - (1-q^{4n})q^{3n^2-2n}\sum_{j=-n}^{n-1}q^{-j^2-j},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{mathcalA2n+1(1)}
\mathcal{A}_{2n+1}(1) = (1-q^{4n+2})q^{3n^2+n}\sum_{j=-n}^{n}q^{-j^2},
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation} \label{mathcalBn(1)}
\mathcal{B}_n(1) = \frac{1}{(q^n)_n}\chi(n \neq 0),
\end{equation}
while $(\mathcal{A}_n(2),\mathcal{B}_n(2))$ is a Bailey pair relative to $q$, where
\begin{equation} \label{mathcalA2n(2)}
\mathcal{A}_{2n}(2) = \frac{1}{1-q}\left(q^{3n^2+2n}\sum_{j=-n}^{n-1}q^{-j^2-j} + q^{3n^2+n}\sum_{j=-n}^{n} q^{-j^2}\right),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{mathcalA2n+1(2)}
\mathcal{A}_{2n+1}(2) = -\frac{1}{1-q}\left(q^{3n^2+5n+2}\sum_{j=-n}^{n} q^{-j^2} + q^{3n^2+4n+1}\sum_{j=-n-1}^n q^{-j^2-j}\right),
\end{equation}
\noindent and
\begin{equation} \label{mathcalBn(2)}
\mathcal{B}_n(2) = \frac{1}{(q^{n+1})_{n+1}}.
\end{equation}
Our first goal in this paper is to prove the following results, which will lead to more Bailey pairs like those of Bringmann-Kane and Andrews. Note that Theorem \ref{main3} is simply an application of Theorem \ref{main1} followed by an application of Theorem \ref{main2}.
\begin{theorem} \label{main1}
If $(\alpha_n,\beta_n)$ is a Bailey pair relative to $1$ with $\alpha_0 = \beta_0=1$, then $(\alpha'_n,\beta'_n)$ is also a Bailey pair relative to $1$, where $\alpha'_0=\beta'_0 = 0$,
\begin{equation} \label{aeven}
\alpha'_{2n} = -(1-q^{4n})q^{2n^2-2n}\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}q^{-2j^2-2j}\alpha_{2j+1},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{aodd}
\alpha'_{2n+1} = -(1-q^{4n+2})q^{2n^2}\sum_{j=0}^{n}q^{-2j^2}\alpha_{2j},
\end{equation}
and for $n \geq 1$,
\begin{equation} \label{b1}
\beta'_n = -\frac{\beta_{n-1}}{1-q^{2n-1}}.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem} \label{main2}
Suppose that $(\alpha_n,\beta_n)$ is a Bailey pair relative to $1$ with $\alpha_0=\beta_0=0$. Then $(\alpha'_n,\beta'_n)$ is a Bailey pair relative to $q$, where
\begin{equation} \label{a2}
\alpha'_n = \frac{1}{1-q}\left(-\frac{\alpha_{n+1}}{1-q^{2n+2}} + \frac{q^{2n}\alpha_n}{1-q^{2n}}\right)
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation} \label{b2}
\beta'_n = -\beta_{n+1}.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem} \label{main3}
If $(\alpha_n,\beta_n)$ is a Bailey pair relative to $1$ with $\alpha_0 = \beta_0=1$, then $(\alpha''_n,\beta''_n)$ is a Bailey pair relative to $q$, where
\begin{equation}
\alpha''_{2n} = \frac{1}{1-q}\left(q^{2n^2}\sum_{j=0}^{n}q^{-2j^2}\alpha_{2j} - q^{2n^2+2n}\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}q^{-2j^2-2j}\alpha_{2j+1}\right),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\alpha''_{2n+1} = \frac{1}{1-q}\left(q^{2n^2+2n}\sum_{j=0}^{n}q^{-2j^2-2j}\alpha_{2j+1} - q^{2n^2+4n+2}\sum_{j=0}^{n}q^{-2j^2}\alpha_{2j}\right),
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\beta''_n = \frac{\beta_{n}}{1-q^{2n+1}}.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
An application of Theorem \ref{main1} or \ref{main3} to a ``typical" Bailey pair (from Slater's list \cite{Sl1}, for example) will give a positive definite quadratic form in the power of $q$ occurring in $\alpha_n$. However, there are a few cases where we obtain an indefinite quadratic form. For example, using Theorems \ref{main1} and \ref{main3} and the following Bailey pair relative to $1$ from Slater's list \cite[p. 468]{Sl1},
\begin{equation*}
\alpha_n=
\begin{cases}
1, &\text{if $n=0$}, \\
2(-1)^n, &\text{otherwise}
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
\noindent and
\begin{equation*}
\beta_n = \frac{(-1)^n}{(q^2;q^2)_n},
\end{equation*}
we recover the Bailey pairs of Bringmann and Kane in \eqref{a2n}--\eqref{betan}. Some other examples are recorded in Corollaries \ref{paircor1}--\ref{paircor3}. Andrews' Bailey pairs in \eqref{mathcalA2n(1)}--\eqref{mathcalBn(2)} do not seem to be simple applications of Theorems \ref{main1}--\ref{main3}, but they can be deduced from \eqref{a2n}--\eqref{betan} using a change of base formula. We discuss this in Section \ref{Andrews'pairs}. For another treatment of these pairs, see \cite{An4}.
\subsection{Mock theta functions}
An important difference between the pairs of Andrews and those of Bringmann-Kane is that the former yield mock theta functions when substituted into \eqref{limitBailey}, while the latter do not. However, as we showed in \cite{Lo-Os1}, the Bailey pairs of Bringmann and Kane \emph{do} give rise to mock theta functions after an appropriate application of the Bailey lemma. These mock theta functions are $q$-hypergeometric double sums.
To recall them, we need some special functions. We use
the classical theta series
\begin{equation*} \label{j}
j(x,q):= \sum_{n \in \mathbb{Z}} (-x)^{n}q^{\binom{n}{2}} = (x)_{\infty} (q/x)_{\infty} (q)_{\infty},
\end{equation*}
and for brevity, we write
\noindent $J_{m}:= J_{m, 3m}$ with $J_{a,m} := j(q^{a}, q^{m})$, and $\overline{J}_{a,m}:=j(-q^{a}, q^{m})$.
We also use the Hecke-type series
\begin{equation} \label{fdef}
f_{a,b,c}(x,y,q) : = \left(\sum_{r,s \geq 0} - \sum_{r,s < 0}\right) (-1)^{r+s} x^r y^s q^{a \binom{r}{2} + brs + c \binom{s}{2}},
\end{equation}
which is an indefinite theta series when $ac < b^2$. Here, we assume $a$, $c>0$. Finally, we employ the Appell-Lerch series
\begin{equation} \label{Appell-Lerch}
m(x,q,z) := \frac{1}{j(z,q)} \sum_{r \in \mathbb{Z}} \frac{(-1)^r q^{\binom{r}{2}} z^r}{1-q^{r-1} xz},
\end{equation}
\noindent where $x$, $z \in \mathbb{C}^{*}:=\mathbb{C} \setminus \{ 0 \}$ with neither $z$ nor $xz$ an integral power of $q$. The Appell-Lerch series is a ``mock Jacobi form" which specializes to a mock theta function when $x$ and $z$ are of the form $\zeta q^{\frac{m}{n}}$ with $\zeta$ a root of unity \cite{Za1,Zw1}. Recall that a mock theta function is the holomorphic part of a weight $1/2$ harmonic weak Maass form $f(\tau)$ (as usual, $q := e^{2 \pi i \tau}$ where $\tau=x + iy \in \mathbb{H}$) whose image of under the operator $\xi_{\frac{1}{2}} := 2iy^{\frac{1}{2}} \frac{\overline{\partial}}{\partial \overline{\tau}}$ is a unary theta function \cite{On1,Za1}.
The main result in \cite{Lo-Os1} contains identities equivalent to the following.
\begin{theorem}{\cite[Theorem 1.3]{Lo-Os1}}
\begin{align}
\mathcal{W}_1(q) &:= \sum_{n \geq 1} \sum_{n \geq j \geq 1} \frac{(-1)_j (q; q^2)_{j-1} (-1)^{j} q^{n^2 + \binom{j+1}{2}}}{(-q)_n (q)_{n-j} (q)_{2j-1}} \nonumber \\
&= \frac{-2q^2}{(q)_{\infty}}f_{3,5,3}(q^5,q^5,q) \nonumber \\
&= 4m(-q^{17},q^{48},q^{24}) - 4q^{-5}m(-q,q^{48},q^{24}) - 2q^2\frac{J_8J_{12}J_{96}J_{7,16}\overline{J}_{4,24}J_{6,48}J_{30,96}}{J_{24}J_{48}J_{3,8}J_{2,12}J_{14,96}J_{46,96}}, \label{mockW1} \\
\mathcal{W}_2(q) &:= {\sum\limits_{n \geq 1}}^{*} \sum_{n \geq j \geq 1}\frac{(q; q^2)_n (-1)_{j} (q; q^2)_{j-1} (-1)^{n+j} q^{\binom{j+1}{2}}}{(-q)_{n} (q)_{n-j} (q)_{2j-1}} \nonumber \\
&= \frac{q(q;q^2)_{\infty}}{(q^2;q^2)_{\infty}}f_{1,3,1}(-q^2,-q^2,q) \nonumber \\
&= 4m(-q,q^8,q^4) + q\frac{J_{1,8}^2J_{3,8}^3J_{2,16}}{J_8^4J_{16}}, \label{mockW2} \\
\mathcal{W}_3(q) &:= \sum_{n \geq 1} \sum_{n \geq j \geq 1} \frac{(q; q^2)_{n} (-1;q^2)_j (q^2; q^4)_{j-1} (-1)^{n+j} q^{n^2 + j^2 + j}}{(-q^2; q^2)_{n} (q^2; q^2)_{n-j} (q^2; q^2)_{2j-1}}\nonumber \\
&= \frac{2q^3(q;q^2)_{\infty}}{(q^2;q^2)_{\infty}}f_{1,2,1}(-q^7,-q^7,q^4) \nonumber \\
&= 4m(-q,q^{12},q^4) + 2q^3\frac{\overline{J}_{1,12}^2}{\overline{J}_{1,4}}, \label{mockW3} \\
\mathcal{W}_4(q) &:= \sum_{n \geq 0} \sum_{n \geq j \geq 0} \frac{(-q)_{j} (q; q^2)_{j} (-1)^j q^{n^2 + n + \binom{j+1}{2}}}{(-q)_n (q)_{n-j} (q)_{2j+1}} \nonumber \\
&= \frac{1}{(q)_{\infty}}f_{3,5,3}(q^3,q^3,q) \nonumber \\
&= -2q^{-4}m(-q^5,q^{48},q^{24}) - 2q^{-2}m(-q^{11},q^{48},q^{24}) + \frac{J_8J_{12}J_{96}J_{3,16}\overline{J}_{4,24}J_{6,48}J_{18,96}J_{30,96}}{J_{24}J_{48}J_{1,8}J_{2,12}J_{6,96}J_{26,96}J_{38,96}}. \label{mockW4}
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
In particular, $\mathcal{W}_1(q)$--$\mathcal{W}_4(q)$ are mock theta functions. We remark that the series defining $\mathcal{W}_{2}(q)$ does not converge. However, similar to the classical sixth order mock theta function $\mu(q)$ \cite{AH}, the sequence of even partial sums and the sequence of odd partial sums both converge. We define $\mathcal{W}_{2}(q)$ as the average of these two values. This averaging is denoted here and throughout by the notation ${\sum\limits_{}}^{*}$.
The second goal of this paper is to use Bailey pairs arising from Theorems \ref{main1} and \ref{main3} to obtain many more mock theta functions like $\mathcal{W}_1(q)$--$\mathcal{W}_4(q)$. Just as with the pairs of Bringmann and Kane, this first requires one application of the Bailey lemma, and so the mock theta functions we obtain are $q$-hypergeometric double sums. We record these mock theta functions in three separate results, corresponding to three sets of Bailey pairs. We first express the double sums in terms of the indefinite theta series \eqref{fdef} and then in terms of the Appell-Lerch series \eqref{Appell-Lerch}.
\begin{theorem} \label{mockthm1}
The following are mock theta functions.
\begin{align}
\mathcal{M}_{1}(q) &:= \sum_{n \geq 1} \sum_{n \geq j \geq 1} \frac{(-1)_j(-1)^jq^{n^2+\binom{j}{2}}}{(-q)_n(q)_{n-j}(q^2;q^2)_{j-1}(1-q^{2j-1})} \nonumber \\
&= -\frac{2q}{(q)_{\infty}}f_{3,5,3}(q^4,q^6,q) \nonumber \\
&= 4q^{-3} m(-q^7, q^{48}, q^{24}) + 4m(-q^{25}, q^{48}, q^{-24}) - 2 - 2\frac{J_8J_{12}J_{96}J_{1,16}\overline{J}_{4,24}J_{6,48}J_{18,96}}{J_{24}J_{48}J_{3,8}J_{2,12}J_{2,96}J_{34,96}}, \label{mock1-1} \\
\mathcal{M}_{2}(q) &:= {\sum\limits_{n \geq 1}}^{*} \sum_{n \geq j \geq 1} \frac{(q;q^2)_n(-1)_j(-1)^{n+j}q^{\binom{j}{2}}}{(-q)_n(q)_{n-j}(q^2;q^2)_{j-1}(1-q^{2j-1})} \nonumber \\
&= \frac{(q;q^2)_{\infty}}{(q^2;q^2)_{\infty}}f_{1,3,1}(-q,-q^3,q) \nonumber \\
&= 4m(-q^5,q^8,q^4) -2 - \frac{J_{1,8}^3J_{3,8}^2J_{6,16}}{J_8^4J_{16}}, \label{mock1-2} \\
\mathcal{M}_{3}(q) &:= \sum_{n \geq 1} \sum_{n \geq j \geq 1} \frac{(q;q^2)_n(-1;q^2)_j(-1)^{n+j}q^{n^2+j^2-j}}{(-q^2;q^2)_n(q^2;q^2)_{n-j}(q^4;q^4)_{j-1}(1-q^{4j-2})} \nonumber \\
&= \frac{2q(q;q^2)_{\infty}}{(q^2;q^2)_{\infty}}f_{1,2,1}(-q^5,-q^9,q^4) \nonumber \\
&= 4m(-q^7, q^{12},q^4) - 2 + 2\frac{J_{12}^3\overline{J}_{5,12}}{J_{4,12}\overline{J}_{1,12}\overline{J}_{3,12}}, \label{mock1-3} \\
\mathcal{M}_{4}(q) &:= \sum_{n \geq 0} \sum_{n \geq j \geq 0} \frac{(-1)^jq^{n^2+n+\binom{j}{2}}}{(-q)_n(q)_{n-j}(q)_{j}(1-q^{2j+1})} \nonumber \\
&= \frac{1}{(q)_{\infty}}f_{3,5,3}(q^2,q^4,q) \nonumber \\
&= 2m(-q^{29}, q^{48},q^{24}) - 1 - 2q^{-1} m(-q^{13}, q^{48}, q^{-24}) +q\frac{J_8J_{12}J_{96}^3J_{5,16}\overline{J}_{4,24}J_{6,48}J_{18,48}}{J_{24}J_{48}^2J_{1,8}J_{2,12}J_{10,96}J_{22,96}J_{42,96}}, \label{mock1-4} \\
\mathcal{M}_{5}(q) &:= \sum_{n \geq 0} \sum_{n \geq j \geq 0} \frac{(-1)^{j}q^{\binom{n+1}{2}+\binom{j}{2}}}{(q)_{n-j}(q)_{j}(1-q^{2j+1})}\nonumber \\
&= \frac{(-q)_{\infty}}{(q)_{\infty}} f_{1,2,1}(q,q^3,q^2) \nonumber \\
&= 2m(q^5, q^6,q^2) - 1 -q\frac{J_6^3}{J_{2,6}J_{3,6}}. \label{mock1-5}
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem} \label{mockthm2}
The following are mock theta functions.
\begin{align}
\mathcal{M}_{6}(q) &:= \sum_{n \geq 1} \sum_{n \geq j \geq 1} \frac{(-1)^jq^{n^2+\binom{j+1}{2}}}{(q)_{n-j}(q)_{j-1}(1-q^{2j-1})} \nonumber \\
&= -\frac{q^2}{(q)_{\infty}}f_{3,7,3}(q^5,q^6,q) \nonumber \\
&= m(-q^{49}, q^{120}, q^{-3}) - q^{-3} m(-q^{89}, q^{120}, q^{-3}) + q^{-3} + q^{-14} m(-q^{119}, q^{120}, q^3) - q^{-14} \nonumber \\
&- q^{-1} m(-q^{79}, q^{120}, q^3) + q^{-1} - q^{-11}\frac{J_{12,48}J_{16,40}J_{2,20}J_{3,40}\overline{J}_{17,40}J_{40}}{J_1J_{3,120}\overline{J}_{6,40}J_{20}J_{80}} \nonumber \\
& + q^{-4}\frac{J_{24,48}J_{1,40}J_{4,40}\overline{J}_{1,40}J_{8,20}\overline{J}_{4,40}J_{18,40}J_{80}}{J_1J_{3,120}\overline{J}_{6,40}\overline{J}_{2,40}J_{20}^2J_{40}} \nonumber \\
&+ q^{-12}\frac{J_{24,48}J_{1,40}J_{4,40}\overline{J}_{1,40}J_{8,20}\overline{J}_{16,40}J_{42,80}^2}{J_1J_{3,120}\overline{J}_{6,40}\overline{J}_{2,40}J_{20}^2J_{80}}, \label{mock2-1} \\
\mathcal{M}_{7}(q)
&:= \sum_{n \geq 1} \sum_{n \geq j \geq 1} \frac{(-1)_n(-1)^jq^{\binom{n+1}{2}+ \binom{j+1}{2}}}{(q)_{n-j}(q)_{j-1}(1-q^{2j-1})} \nonumber \\
&= -\frac{2q^2(-q)_{\infty}}{(q)_{\infty}}f_{1,3,1}(q^4,q^5,q^2) \nonumber \\
&= 2q^{-1} m(-q, q^{16}, q^{-1}) - 2q^{-1}\frac{J_{4,8}J_{16,32}J_{1,16}J_{14,32}}{J_{1,2}\overline{J}_{2,16}\overline{J}_{0,16}}, \label{mock2-2} \\
\mathcal{M}_{8}(q)
&:= 2{\sum\limits_{n \geq 1}}^{*} \sum_{n \geq j \geq 1} \frac{(q;q^2)_n(-1)^{n+j}q^{\binom{j+1}{2}}}{(q)_{n-j}(q)_{j-1}(1-q^{2j-1})} \nonumber \\
&= \frac{q(q;q^2)_{\infty}}{(q^2;q^2)_{\infty}}f_{1,5,1}(-q^2,-q^3,q) \nonumber \\
&= 2m(-q^7,q^{24},q^6) + 2q^{-2}m(-q,q^{24},q^{-6}) + q \frac{J_1J_{3,8}J_{2,16}}{J_2J_{16}}, \\
\mathcal{M}_{9}(q)
&:= \sum_{n \geq 1} \sum_{n \geq j \geq 1}\frac{(q;q^2)_n(-1)^{n+j}q^{n^2+j^2+j}}{(q^2;q^2)_{n-j}(q^2;q^2)_{j-1}(1-q^{4j-2})} \nonumber \\
&= \frac{q^3(q;q^2)_{\infty}}{(q^2;q^2)_{\infty}}f_{1,3,1}(-q^7,-q^9,q^4) \nonumber \\
&= m(-q^8, q^{32}, q^{-2}) - q^{-1}\frac{J_{64}^2J_{28,64}}{J_{32}J_{4,64}} + q^{-1}\frac{J_{8,16}J_{32,64}J_{4,32}J_{24,64}}{\overline{J}_{1,4}\overline{J}_{6,32}\overline{J}_{2,32}}, \label{mock2-4} \\
\mathcal{M}_{10}(q)
&:= \sum_{n \geq 1} \sum_{n \geq j \geq 1}\frac{(-1)_{2n}(-1)^{j}q^{n+j^2+j}}{(q^2;q^2)_{n-j}(q^2;q^2)_{j-1}(1-q^{4j-2})} \nonumber \\
&= -\frac{2q^3(-q)_{\infty}}{(q)_{\infty}}f_{1,5,1}(q^5,q^7,q^2) \nonumber \\
&= -2q^{-1} m(-q^{10}, q^{48}, q^{-2}) -2q^{-4} m(-q^2, q^{48}, q^{-2}) - 4q^{-3}\frac{J_{8,32}J_{20,48}\overline{J}_{22,48}J_{2,24}J_{6,48}J_{96}}{J_{1,2}\overline{J}_{8,48}\overline{J}_{0,48}J_{24}J_{2,48}} \nonumber \\
&+ 2q^{6}\frac{J_{16,32}J_{4,48}\overline{J}_{2,48}J_{10,24}\overline{J}_{4,48}J_{20,48}J_{96}}{J_{1,2}\overline{J}_{8,48}\overline{J}_{0,48}J_{24}^2J_{48}} + 2q^{-4}\frac{J_{16,32}J_{4,48}\overline{J}_{2,48}J_{10,24}\overline{J}_{20,48}J_{44,96}^2}{J_{1,2}\overline{J}_{8,48}\overline{J}_{0,48}J_{24}^2J_{96}}, \label{mock2-5} \\
\mathcal{M}_{11}(q)
&:= \sum_{n \geq 0} \sum_{n \geq j \geq 0} \frac{(-1)^jq^{n^2+n+\binom{j+1}{2}}}{(q)_{n-j}(q)_{j}(1-q^{2j+1})} \nonumber \\
&= \frac{1}{(q)_{\infty}}f_{3,7,3}(q^3,q^4,q) \nonumber \\
&= q^{-8} m(-q^{17}, q^{120}, q^{-3}) + q^{-6} m(-q^{23}, q^{120}, q^3) - q^{-1} m(-q^{47}, q^{120}, q^3) \nonumber \\
&+ q^{-12} m(-q^7, q^{120}, q^3) + q^{-9}\frac{J_{12,48}J_{1,40}J_{8,40}\overline{J}_{19,40}J_{6,20}\overline{J}_{12,40}J_{18,40}J_{40}^2}{J_1J_{3,120}\overline{J}_{14,40}\overline{J}_{10,40}J_{20}^3J_{80}} \nonumber \\
&+q^{-4}\frac{J_{12,48}J_{1,40}J_{8,40}\overline{J}_{19,40}J_{6,20}\overline{J}_{8,40}J_{19,40}^2\overline{J}_{1,40}^2}{J_1J_{3,120}\overline{J}_{14,40}\overline{J}_{10,40}J_{20}^3J_{40}J_{80}} \nonumber \\
& - q^{-4}\frac{J_{24,48}J_{1,40}J_{12,40}\overline{J}_{1,40}J_{4,20}\overline{J}_{12,40}J_{18,40}J_{80}}{J_1J_{3,120}\overline{J}_{14,40}\overline{J}_{10,40}J_{20}^2J_{40}} - q^{-8}\frac{J_{24,48}J_{1,40}J_{12,40}\overline{J}_{1,40}J_{4,20}\overline{J}_{8,40}J_{38,80}^2}{J_1J_{3,120}\overline{J}_{14,40}\overline{J}_{10,40}J_{20}^2J_{80}} , \label{mock2-6} \\
\mathcal{M}_{12}(q)
&:= \sum_{n \geq 0} \sum_{n \geq j \geq 0} \frac{(-q)_n(-1)^jq^{\binom{n+1}{2} + \binom{j+1}{2}}}{(q)_{n-j}(q)_{j}(1-q^{2j+1})} \nonumber \\
&= \frac{(-q)_{\infty}}{(q)_{\infty}} f_{1,3,1}(q^2,q^3,q^2) \nonumber \\
&= -q^{-1} m(-q^3, q^{16}, q) + q\frac{J_{4,8}J_{16,32}J_{5,16}J_{6,32}}{J_{1,2}\overline{J}_{6,16}\overline{J}_{4,16}}. \label{mock2-7}
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem} \label{mockthm3}
The following are mock theta functions.
\begin{align}
\mathcal{M}_{13}(q) &:= \sum_{n \geq 1} \sum_{n \geq j \geq 1} \frac{(-1)^jq^{n^2+\binom{j}{2}}}{(q)_{n-j}(q)_{j-1}(1-q^{2j-1})} \nonumber \\
&= -\frac{q}{(q)_{\infty}}f_{3,7,3}(q^4,q^7,q) \nonumber \\
&= m(-q^{59}, q^{120}, q^{-9}) - q^{-7} m(-q^{19}, q^{120}, q^{-9}) - q^{-4} m(-q^{29}, q^{120}, q^9) \nonumber \\
&- q^{-10} m(-q^{11}, q^{120}, q^{-9}) - q^{-8}\frac{J_{12,48}J_{3,40}J_{16,40}\overline{J}_{17,40}J_{2,20}\overline{J}_{4,40}J_{14,40}J_{40}^2}{J_1J_{9,120}\overline{J}_{10,40}\overline{J}_{2,40}J_{20}^3J_{80}} \nonumber \\
&-q^{-9}\frac{J_{12,48}J_{3,40}J_{16,40}\overline{J}_{17,40}J_{2,20}\overline{J}_{16,40}J_{17,40}^2\overline{J}_{3,40}^2}{J_1J_{9,120}\overline{J}_{10,40}\overline{J}_{2,40}J_{20}^3J_{40}J_{80}} \nonumber \\
&+ q^{-2}\frac{J_{24,48}J_{3,40}J_{4,40}\overline{J}_{3,40}J_{8,20}\overline{J}_{4,40}J_{14,40}J_{80}}{J_1J_{9,120}\overline{J}_{10,40}\overline{J}_{2,40}J_{20}^2J_{40}} \nonumber \\
&+ q^{-10}\frac{J_{24,48}J_{3,40}J_{4,40}\overline{J}_{3,40}J_{8,20}\overline{J}_{16,40}J_{34,80}^2}{J_1J_{9,120}\overline{J}_{10,40}\overline{J}_{2,40}J_{20}^2J_{80}}, \label{mock3-1} \\
\mathcal{M}_{14}(q)
&:= \sum_{n \geq 1} \sum_{n \geq j \geq 1} \frac{(-1)_n(-1)^jq^{\binom{n+1}{2}+\binom{j}{2}}}{(q)_{n-j}(q)_{j-1}(1-q^{2j-1})} \nonumber \\
&= -\frac{2q(-q)_{\infty}}{(q)_{\infty}}f_{1,3,1}(q^3,q^6,q^2) \nonumber \\
&= 2m(-q^7, q^{16}, q^{-3}) - 2\frac{J_{4,8}J_{16,32}J_{1,16}J_{14,32}}{J_{1,2}\overline{J}_{2,16}\overline{J}_{4,16}}, \label{mock3-2} \\
\mathcal{M}_{15}(q)
&:=2{\sum\limits_{n \geq 1}}^{*} \sum_{n \geq j \geq 1} \frac{(q;q^2)_n(-1)^{n+j}q^{\binom{j}{2}}}{(q)_{n-j}(q)_{j-1}(1-q^{2j-1})} \nonumber \\
&= \frac{(q;q^2)_{\infty}}{(q^2;q^2)_{\infty}}f_{1,5,1}(-q,-q^4,q) \nonumber \\
&= 2m(-q^{13}, q^{24}, q^{2}) - 2q^{-1} m(-q^5, q^{24}, q^{2}) + \frac{J_1J_{1,8}J_{6,16}}{J_2J_{16}}, \\
\mathcal{M}_{16}(q)
&:= \sum_{n \geq 1} \sum_{n \geq j \geq 1} \frac{(q;q^2)_n(-1)^{n+j}q^{n^2+j^2-j}}{(q^2;q^2)_{n-j}(q^2;q^2)_{j-1}(1-q^{4j-2})} \nonumber \\
&= \frac{q(q;q^2)_{\infty}}{(q^2;q^2)_{\infty}}f_{1,3,1}(-q^5,-q^{11},q^4) \nonumber \\
&= - q^{-1} m(-q^8, q^{32}, q^{-6}) + \frac{1}{2} + \frac{J_{32}^3 J_{10,32} \overline{J}_{6,32}}{J_{6,32} J_{16,32} \overline{J}_{0,32} \overline{J}_{10,32}} + q^{-1}\frac{J_{8,16}J_{32,64}J_{4,32}J_{24,64}}{\overline{J}_{1,4}\overline{J}_{2,32}\overline{J}_{10,32}}, \label{mock3-4} \\
\mathcal{M}_{17}(q)
&:= \sum_{n \geq 1} \sum_{n \geq j \geq 1}\frac{(-1)_{2n}(-1)^{j}q^{n+j^2-j}}{(q^2;q^2)_{n-j}(q^2;q^2)_{j-1}(1-q^{4j-2})} \nonumber \\
&= -\frac{2q(-q)_{\infty}}{(q)_{\infty}}f_{1,5,1}(q^3,q^9,q^2) \nonumber \\
& = 2m(-q^{22}, q^{48}, q^{-6}) + 2q^{-1} m(-q^{14}, q^{48}, q^{-6}) - 2q^{3}\frac{J_{8,32}J_{20,48}\overline{J}_{18,48}J_{2,24}\overline{J}_{4,48}J_{12,48}J_{48}^2}{J_{1,2}\overline{J}_{16,48}\overline{J}_{8,48}J_{24}^3J_{96}} \nonumber \\
&- 2q^{-1}\frac{J_{8,32}J_{20,48}\overline{J}_{18,48}J_{2,24}\overline{J}_{20,48}J_{18,48}^2\overline{J}_{6,48}^2}{J_{1,2}\overline{J}_{16,48}\overline{J}_{8,48}J_{24}^3J_{48}J_{96}} + 2q^{10}\frac{J_{16,32}J_{4,48}\overline{J}_{6,48}J_{10,24}\overline{J}_{4,48}J_{12,48}J_{96}}{J_{1,2}\overline{J}_{16,48}\overline{J}_{8,48}J_{24}^2J_{48}} \nonumber \\
&+ 2\frac{J_{16,32}J_{4,48}\overline{J}_{6,48}J_{10,24}\overline{J}_{20,48}J_{36,96}^2}{J_{1,2}\overline{J}_{16,48}\overline{J}_{8,48}J_{24}^2J_{96}}, \label{mock3-5} \\
\mathcal{M}_{18}(q)
&:= \sum_{n \geq 0} \sum_{n \geq j \geq 0} \frac{(-1)^jq^{n^2+n+\binom{j}{2}}}{(q)_{n-j}(q)_{j}(1-q^{2j+1})} \nonumber \\
&= \frac{1}{(q)_{\infty}}f_{3,7,3}(q^2,q^5,q) \nonumber \\
&= m(-q^{67}, q^{120}, q^{-9}) + q^{-9} m(-q^{13}, q^{120}, q^9) - q^{-2} m(-q^{37}, q^{120}, q^9) \nonumber \\
&- q^{-1} m(-q^{43}, q^{120}, q^{-9}) + q^{-7}\frac{J_{12,48}J_{3,40}J_{8,40}\overline{J}_{17,40}J_{6,20}\overline{J}_{12,40}J_{14,40}J_{40}^2}{J_1J_{9,120}\overline{J}_{18,40}\overline{J}_{6,40}J_{20}^3J_{80}} \nonumber \\
&+ q^{-4}\frac{J_{12,48}J_{3,40}J_{8,40}\overline{J}_{17,40}J_{6,20}\overline{J}_{8,40}J_{17,40}^2\overline{J}_{3,40}^2}{J_1J_{9,120}\overline{J}_{18,40}\overline{J}_{6,40}J_{20}^3J_{40}J_{80}} \nonumber \\
&- q^{-3}\frac{J_{24,48}J_{3,40}J_{12,40}\overline{J}_{3,40}J_{4,20}\overline{J}_{12,40}J_{14,40}J_{80}}{J_1J_{9,120}\overline{J}_{18,40}\overline{J}_{6,40}J_{20}^2J_{40}} \nonumber \\
&- q^{-7}\frac{J_{24,48}J_{3,40}J_{12,40}\overline{J}_{3,40}J_{4,20}\overline{J}_{8,40}J_{34,80}^2}{J_1J_{9,120}\overline{J}_{18,40}\overline{J}_{6,40}J_{20}^2J_{80}}, \label{mock3-6} \\
\mathcal{M}_{19}(q)
&:= \sum_{n \geq 0} \sum_{n \geq j \geq 0} \frac{(-q)_n(-1)^jq^{\binom{n+1}{2}+\binom{j}{2}}}{(q)_{n-j}(q)_{j}(1-q^{2j+1})} \nonumber \\
&= \frac{(-q)_{\infty}}{(q)_{\infty}}f_{1,3,1}(q,q^4,q^2) \nonumber \\
&= m(-q^{11}, q^{16}, q^{-3}) + q\frac{J_{4,8}J_{16,32}J_{5,16}J_{6,32}}{J_{1,2}\overline{J}_{8,16}\overline{J}_{2,16}}. \label{mock3-7}
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
It will have been noticed that some of the expressions in Theorems \ref{mockthm1}--\ref{mockthm3} are considerably more involved than others. For instance, equation \eqref{mock3-6} involves four Appell-Lerch series and four modular forms while equation \eqref{mock3-7} involves only one of each. This depends on the indefinite theta function $f_{n,n+p,n}(x,y,q)$. In general, the number of Appell-Lerch series grows with $n$ and the number of modular forms grows with $p$.
The final goal of the paper is to give identities involving some of the double sums in Theorems \ref{mockthm1}--\ref{mockthm3} and ``classical" mock theta functions. Namely, we express the double sums $\mathcal{M}_{2}(q)$, $\mathcal{M}_{5}(q)$, $\mathcal{M}_{9}(q)$, and $\mathcal{M}_{16}(q)$ in terms of the mock theta functions
$$
T_{0}(q) := \sum_{n \geq 0} \frac{q^{(n+1)(n+2)} (-q^2;q^2)_{n}}{(-q; q^2)_{n+1}},
$$
$$
\omega(q) := \sum_{n \geq 0} \frac{q^{2n(n+1)}}{(q;q^2)_{n+1}^2},
$$
$$
A(q) := \sum_{n \geq 0} \frac{q^{n+1} (-q^2; q^2)_n}{(q;q^2)_{n+1}},
$$
\noindent and
$$
U_1(q) := \sum_{n \geq 0} \frac{q^{(n+1)^2} (-q;q^2)_n}{(-q^2;q^4)_{n+1}},
$$
\noindent of ``orders" 8, 3, 2, and 8, respectively (see \cite{GM1}). A similar identity was found in \cite{Lo-Os1}, namely
\begin{equation*} \label{id0}
\mathcal{W}_{2}(q)= 2q T_1(q) -q S_{1}(q)
\end{equation*}
\noindent where
$$
S_1(q) := \sum_{n \geq 0} \frac{q^{n(n+2)} (-q; q^2)_n}{(-q^2; q^2)_n}
$$
\noindent and
$$
T_1(q) := \sum_{n \geq 0} \frac{q^{n(n+1)} (-q^2; q^2)_n}{(-q; q^2)_{n+1}}
$$
\noindent are mock theta functions of order 8 \cite{GM1}.
\begin{corollary} \label{mockid} We have the following identities.
\begin{align}
\mathcal{M}_2(q) &= 4T_0(q) + 2 - 2\frac{J_8^3J_{4,8}}{J_{2,8}^2\overline{J}_{1,8}} + \frac{J_{2,4}J_{8,16}J_{1,8}J_{6,16}}{\overline{J}_{1,4}\overline{J}_{1,8}\overline{J}_{3,8}}, \\ \label{id1}
\mathcal{M}_5(q) &= 1 +q\omega(q), \\ \label{id2}
\mathcal{M}_{9}(q) &= -A(-q^{8}) + \frac{J_{32}^3J_{14,32}\overline{J}_{10,32}}{J_{16,32}J_{2,32}\overline{J}_{6,32}\overline{J}_{8,32}} - q^{-1}\frac{J_{64}^2J_{28,64}}{J_{32}J_{4,64}} + q^{-1}\frac{J_{8,16}J_{32,64}J_{4,32}J_{24,64}}{\overline{J}_{1,4}\overline{J}_{6,32}\overline{J}_{2,32}}, \\ \label{id3}
\mathcal{M}_{16}(q) &= \frac{1}{2} + q^{-1} U_1(q^8) - q^{-1} \frac{J_{32}^3 \overline{J}_{10,32} J_{14,32}}{\overline{J}_{16,32} J_{6,32} J_{8,32} \overline{J}_{2,32}}
+ \frac{J_{32}^3 J_{10,32} \overline{J}_{6,32}}{J_{6,32} J_{16,32} \overline{J}_{0,32} \overline{J}_{10,32}} \\
& + q^{-1} \frac{J_{8,16} J_{32,64} J_{4,32} J_{24,64}}{\overline{J}_{1,4} \overline{J}_{2,32} \overline{J}_{10,32}}. \label{id4}
\end{align}
\end{corollary}
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we prove Theorems \ref{main1} and \ref{main2} and record some corollaries. In Section 3, we establish a change of base lemma and deduce Andrews' Bailey pairs from those of Bringmann and Kane. In Section 4, we recall important work of Hickerson and Mortenson on mock theta functions \cite{Hi-Mo1} and then prove Theorems \ref{mockthm1}--\ref{mockthm3} and Corollary \ref{mockid}.
In \cite{realLo-Os}, we consider applications of Theorems \ref{main1}--\ref{main3} to $q$-hypergeometric double sums related to real quadratic fields, in the spirit of \cite{adh}.
\section{Proofs of Theorems \ref{main1} and \ref{main2}}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{main1}]
First note that the sequence $\alpha_n'$ in (\ref{aeven}) and (\ref{aodd}) is uniquely defined by $\alpha_0' = 0$, $\alpha_1' = -(1-q^2)$, and
\begin{equation} \label{uniquedef}
\frac{\alpha_{n+2}'}{1-q^{2n+4}} - \frac{q^{2n}\alpha_n'}{1-q^{2n}} = -\alpha_{n+1}.
\end{equation}
Suppose that the $\beta_n'$ are given by (\ref{b1}). Then the corresponding $\alpha_n'$ satisfy the initial conditions. Moreover, using \eqref{pairdefbis} we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{\alpha_{n+2}'}{1-q^{2n+4}} - \frac{q^{2n}\alpha_n'}{1-q^{2n}} &=& \sum_{j=1}^{n+2}\frac{(q)_{n+j+1}q^{\binom{n-j+2}{2}}(-1)^{n+j}}{(q)_{n-j+2}}\beta_j' - \sum_{j=1}^{n}\frac{(q)_{n+j-1}q^{\binom{n-j}{2}+2n}(-1)^{n+j}}{(q)_{n-j}}\beta_j' \\
&=& \sum_{j=1}^{n+2} \frac{(q)_{n+j-1}(-1)^{n+j}q^{\binom{n-j}{2}+2n}}{(q)_{n-j+2}}\Big((1-q^{n+j})(1-q^{n+j+1})q^{-2j+1} \\ &\phantom{-}& \hskip2.5in -(1-q^{n-j+2})(1-q^{n-j+1})\Big)\beta_j' \\
&=& -\sum_{j=1}^{n+2}\frac{q^{\binom{n-j}{2}+2n}(-1)^{n+j}(q)_{n+j-1}}{(q)_{n-j+2}}\left((1-q^{2n+2})(1-q^{-2j+1})\right) \beta_j'\\
&=& (1-q^{2n+2})\sum_{j=0}^{n+1} \frac{q^{\binom{n-j-1}{2}+2n-2j-1}(q)_{n+j}(-1)^{n+j+1}}{(q)_{n-j+1}}(1-q^{2j+1})\beta_{j+1}' \\
&=& -(1-q^{2n+2})\sum_{j=0}^{n+1}\frac{q^{\binom{n+1-j}{2}}(q)_{n+j}(-1)^{n+j+1}}{(q)_{n+1-j}} \beta_j \\
&=& - \alpha_{n+1}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{main2}]
Let $a=q$ and let $\beta'_n$ be defined as in (\ref{b2}). Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
\alpha'_n &=& \frac{(-1)^n}{1-q}\sum_{j=0}^n \frac{(q)_{n+j}(-1)^jq^{\binom{n-j}{2}}}{(q)_{n-j}}\beta'_j\left(1-q^{n+j+1} + q^{n+j+1}(1-q^{n-j})\right) \\
&=& \frac{(-1)^n}{1-q}\left(\sum_{j=0}^n\frac{(q)_{n+j+1}(-1)^jq^{\binom{n-j}{2}}}{(q)_{n-j}}\beta'_j + \sum_{j=0}^{n-1}\frac{(q)_{n+j}(-1)^jq^{\binom{n-j}{2}+n+j+1}}{(q)_{n-j-1}}\beta'_j\right) \\
&=& \frac{1}{1-q}\left(-\sum_{j=1}^{n+1}\frac{(q)_{n+j}(-1)^{n+j+1}q^{\binom{n-j+1}{2}}}{(q)_{n-j+1}}\beta_j + \sum_{j=1}^{n}\frac{(q)_{n+j-1}(-1)^{n-j}q^{\binom{n-j}{2}+2n}}{(q)_{n-j}}\beta_j\right) \\
&=& \frac{1}{1-q}\left(-\frac{\alpha_{n+1}}{1-q^{2n+2}} + \frac{q^{2n}\alpha_n}{1-q^{2n}}\right),
\end{eqnarray*}
which establishes the result.
\end{proof}
Note that the proof of Theorem \ref{main1} implies an inverse result. Since the $\alpha_n'$ are uniquely defined by the $\alpha_n$ in \eqref{uniquedef} together with the initial conditions $\alpha_0' = 0$ and $\alpha_1' = -(1-q^2)$, we have the following.
\begin{theorem} \label{main1inverse}
If $(\alpha_n',\beta_n')$ form a Bailey pair relative to $1$ with $\alpha_0' = 0$ and $\alpha_1' = -(1-q^2)$, then $(\alpha_n,\beta_n)$
also form a Bailey pair relative to $1$, where $\alpha_0 = \beta_0 = 1$,
\begin{equation}
\alpha_n = \frac{-1}{1-q^{2n+2}}\alpha_{n+1}' + \frac{q^{2n-2}}{1-q^{2n-2}}\alpha_{n-1}',
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\beta_n = -(1-q^{2n+1})\beta_{n+1}'.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
We finish this section with three corollaries of Theorems \ref{main1} and \ref{main3}, giving three sets of two Bailey pairs involving indefinite quadratic forms. These come from three Bailey pairs in Slater's list \cite{Sl1}. These are not the only three pairs from Slater's list which lead to indefinite quadratic forms in Theorems \ref{main1} and \ref{main3}, but we have limited ourselves to those we will use in the sequel.
First, on p. 468 of \cite{Sl1} we find the Bailey pair relative to $1$,
\begin{equation*}
\alpha_n =
\begin{cases}
1, &\text{if $n=0$}, \\
(-1)^n(q^n + q^{-n}), &\text{otherwise},
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
\noindent and
\begin{equation*}
\beta_n = \frac{(-1)^nq^{-n}}{(q^2;q^2)_n}.
\end{equation*}
\noindent Applying Theorems \ref{main1} and \ref{main3} we have the following.
\begin{corollary} \label{paircor1}
The sequences $(a_n,b_n)$ form a Bailey pair relative to $1$, where
\begin{equation} \label{aevenslater1}
a_{2n} = (1-q^{4n})q^{2n^2-2n+1}\sum_{j=-n}^{n-1}q^{-2j^2},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{aoddslater1}
a_{2n+1} = -(1-q^{4n+2})q^{2n^2}\sum_{j=-n}^{n}q^{-2j^2-2j},
\end{equation}
\noindent and
\begin{equation} \label{bslater1}
b_n =
\begin{cases}
0, &\text{if $n=0$},\\
\frac{(-1)^nq^{-n+1}}{(q^2;q^2)_{n-1}(1-q^{2n-1})}, &\text{otherwise},
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\noindent and the sequences $(\alpha_n,\beta_n)$ form a Bailey pair relative to $q$, where
\begin{equation} \label{aevenslater1q}
\alpha_{2n} = \frac{1}{1-q}\left(q^{2n^2}\sum_{j=-n}^{n}q^{-2j^2-2j} + q^{2n^2+2n+1}\sum_{j=-n}^{n-1}q^{-2j^2}\right),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{aoddslater1q}
\alpha_{2n+1} = -\frac{1}{1-q}\left(q^{2n^2+2n+1}\sum_{j=-n-1}^{n}q^{-2j^2} + q^{2n^2+4n+2}\sum_{j=-n}^{n}q^{-2j^2-2j}\right),
\end{equation}
\noindent and
\begin{equation} \label{bslater1q}
\beta_n = \frac{(-1)^nq^{-n}}{(q^2;q^2)_{n}(1-q^{2n+1})}.
\end{equation}
\end{corollary}
Next, on p. 468 of \cite{Sl1} we find the Bailey pair relative to $1$,
\begin{equation*}
\alpha_n =
\begin{cases}
1, &\text{if $n=0$}, \\
(-1)^nq^{-\binom{n+1}{2}}(1+q^n), &\text{otherwise},
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
\beta_n = \frac{(-1)^nq^{-\binom{n+1}{2}}}{(q)_n}.
\end{equation*}
Applying Theorems \ref{main1} and \ref{main3} we have the following.
\begin{corollary} \label{paircor2}
The sequences $(a_n,b_n)$ form a Bailey pair relative to $1$, where
\begin{equation} \label{aevenslater2}
a_{2n} = (1-q^{4n})q^{2n^2-2n}\sum_{j=-n}^{n-1}q^{-4j^2-3j},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{aoddslater2}
a_{2n+1} = -(1-q^{4n+2})q^{2n^2}\sum_{j=-n}^{n}q^{-4j^2-j},
\end{equation}
\noindent and
\begin{equation} \label{bslater2}
b_n =
\begin{cases}
0, &\text{if $n=0$},\\
\frac{(-1)^nq^{-\binom{n}{2}}}{(q)_{n-1}(1-q^{2n-1})}, &\text{otherwise},
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\noindent and the sequences $(\alpha_n,\beta_n)$ form a Bailey pair relative to $q$, where
\begin{equation} \label{aevenslater2q}
\alpha_{2n} = \frac{1}{1-q}\left(q^{2n^2}\sum_{j=-n}^{n}q^{-4j^2-j} + q^{2n^2+2n}\sum_{j=-n}^{n-1}q^{-4j^2-3j}\right),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{aoddslater2q}
\alpha_{2n+1} = -\frac{1}{1-q}\left(q^{2n^2+2n}\sum_{j=-n-1}^{n}q^{-4j^2-3j} + q^{2n^2+4n+2}\sum_{j=-n}^{n}q^{-4j^2-j}\right),
\end{equation}
\noindent and
\begin{equation} \label{bslater2q}
\beta_n = \frac{(-1)^nq^{-\binom{n+1}{2}}}{(q)_{n}(1-q^{2n+1})}.
\end{equation}
\end{corollary}
Finally, on p. 468 of \cite{Sl1} we find the Bailey pair relative to $1$,
\begin{equation*}
\alpha_n =
\begin{cases}
1, &\text{if $n=0$}, \\
(-1)^nq^{-n(n+3)/2}(1+q^{2n}), &\text{otherwise},
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
\beta_n = \frac{(-1)^nq^{-n(n+3)/2}}{(q)_n}.
\end{equation*}
Applying Theorems \ref{main1} and \ref{main3} we find the following.
\begin{corollary} \label{paircor3}
The sequences $(a_n,b_n)$ form a Bailey pair relative to $1$, where
\begin{equation} \label{aevenslater3}
a_{2n} = (1-q^{4n})q^{2n^2-2n+1}\sum_{j=-n}^{n-1}q^{-4j^2-j},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{aoddslater3}
a_{2n+1} = -(1-q^{4n+2})q^{2n^2}\sum_{j=-n}^{n}q^{-4j^2-3j},
\end{equation}
\noindent and
\begin{equation} \label{bslater3}
b_n =
\begin{cases}
0, &\text{if $n=0$},\\
\frac{(-1)^nq^{-\binom{n+1}{2}+1}}{(q)_{n-1}(1-q^{2n-1})}, &\text{otherwise},
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\noindent and the sequences $(\alpha_n,\beta_n)$ form a Bailey pair relative to $q$, where
\begin{equation} \label{aevenslater3q}
\alpha_{2n} = \frac{1}{1-q}\left(q^{2n^2}\sum_{j=-n}^{n}q^{-4j^2-3j} + q^{2n^2+2n+1}\sum_{j=-n}^{n-1}q^{-4j^2-j}\right),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{aoddslater3q}
\alpha_{2n+1} = -\frac{1}{1-q}\left(q^{2n^2+2n+1}\sum_{j=-n-1}^{n}q^{-4j^2-j} + q^{2n^2+4n+2}\sum_{j=-n}^{n}q^{-4j^2-3j}\right),
\end{equation}
\noindent and
\begin{equation} \label{bslater3q}
\beta_n = \frac{(-1)^nq^{-n(n+3)/2}}{(q)_{n}(1-q^{2n+1})}.
\end{equation}
\end{corollary}
\section{The seventh order Bailey pairs of Andrews} \label{Andrews'pairs}
We begin with a change of base lemma for Bailey pairs. For other results of this nature, see \cite{Be-Wa1} and \cite{Br-Is-St1}.
Throughout this section we emphasize the base by saying that a pair of sequences satisfying \eqref{pairdef} is a Bailey pair relative to $(a,q)$.
\begin{lemma} \label{basechange}
If $(\alpha_n,\beta_n)$ is a Bailey pair relative to $(1,q)$, then $(\alpha_n',\beta_n')$ is a Bailey pair relative to $(1,q^2)$, where
\begin{equation} \label{basechangealpha}
\alpha_n' = \frac{1}{2}(1+q^{2n})q^{n^2-n}\alpha_n
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation} \label{basechangebeta}
\beta_n' = \frac{1}{(-1)_{2n}}\sum_{k=0}^n\frac{q^{k^2-k}}{(q^2;q^2)_{n-k}}\beta_k.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We will need the fact that
\begin{equation} \label{littlefact1}
(q^{-n})_k = \frac{(q)_n}{(q)_{n-k}}(-1)^kq^{\binom{k}{2} - nk}
\end{equation}
along with the identity
\begin{equation} \label{littlefact2}
\sum_{k=0}^{n-r}\frac{(-1)^kq^{2nk}(q^{-(n-r)})_k(-q^{-(n-r)})_k}{(q)_k(q^{2r+1})_k} = \frac{(1+q^{2r})(q)_{2r}(-1)_{2n}}{2(q^2;q^2)_{n+r}},
\end{equation}
which follows from a short calculation using the case $z= -q^{2n}$, $a=q^{-n+r}$, $b = -q^{-n+r}$, and $c = q^{2r+1}$ of the second Heine transformation \cite{Ga-Ra1},
\begin{equation}
\sum_{n \geq 0} \frac{(a)_n(b)_n}{(c)_n(q)_n}z^n = \frac{(c/b)_{\infty}(bz)_{\infty}}{(c)_{\infty}(z)_{\infty}}\sum_{n \geq 0} \frac{(\frac{abz}{c})_n(b)_n}{(bz)_n(q)_n} \left(\frac{c}{b}\right)^n.
\end{equation}
Now, beginning with \eqref{basechangebeta}, we have
\begin{align*}
\beta_n' &= \frac{1}{(-1)_{2n}}\sum_{k=0}^n\frac{q^{k^2-k}}{(q^2;q^2)_{n-k}}\beta_k \\
&= \frac{1}{(-1)_{2n}}\sum_{k=0}^n\frac{q^{k^2-k}}{(q^2;q^2)_{n-k}}\sum_{r=0}^k \frac{1}{(q)_{k-r}(q)_{k+r}}\alpha_r \\
&= \frac{1}{(-1)_{2n}}\sum_{r=0}^{n}\alpha_r \sum_{k=r}^{n} \frac{q^{k^2-k}}{(q^2;q^2)_{n-k}}\frac{1}{(q)_{k-r}(q)_{k+r}} \\
&= \frac{1}{(-1)_{2n}}\sum_{r=0}^{n}\alpha_r \sum_{k=0}^{n-r} \frac{q^{k^2+2kr+r^2-k-r}}{(q^2;q^2)_{n-k-r}(q)_{k}(q)_{k+2r}} \\
&= \frac{1}{(-1)_{2n}}\sum_{r=0}^{n}\frac{q^{r^2-r}}{(q)_{2r}}\alpha_r \sum_{k=0}^{n-r} \frac{q^{k^2+2kr-k}}{(q^2;q^2)_{n-k-r}(q)_{k}(q^{2r+1})_{k}} \\
&= \frac{1}{(-1)_{2n}}\sum_{r=0}^{n}\frac{q^{r^2-r}}{(q)_{2r}(q^2;q^2)_{n-r}}\alpha_r \sum_{k=0}^{n-r} \frac{(-1)^kq^{2nk}(q^{-2(n-r)};q^2)_k}{(q)_{k}(q^{2r+1})_{k}} \hskip.4in \text{(by \eqref{littlefact1})} \\
&= \frac{1}{(-1)_{2n}}\sum_{r=0}^{n}\frac{q^{r^2-r}}{(q)_{2r}(q^2;q^2)_{n-r}}\alpha_r \sum_{k=0}^{n-r} \frac{(-1)^kq^{2nk}(q^{-(n-r)})_k(-q^{-(n-r)})_k}{(q)_{k}(q^{2r+1})_{k}} \\
&= \sum_{r=0}^n \frac{(1+q^{2r}) q^{r^2-r}}{2(q^2;q^2)_{n-r}(q^2;q^2)_{n+r}}\alpha_r \hskip.4in \text{(by \eqref{littlefact2})}.
\end{align*}
This implies the statement of the theorem.
\end{proof}
Now we insert the Bailey pair in \eqref{a2n}--\eqref{bn} into Lemma \ref{basechange}. We obtain a Bailey pair relative to $(1,q^2)$, where
\begin{equation*}
a_{2n}' = \frac{1}{2}(1-q^{8n})q^{6n^2-4n}\sum_{j=-n}^{n-1}q^{-2j^2-2j},
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
a_{2n+1}' = -\frac{1}{2}(1-q^{8n+4})q^{6n^2+2n}\sum_{j=-n}^n q^{-2j^2},
\end{equation*}
$b_0' = 0$, and for $n \geq 1$,
\begin{align*}
b_n' &= \frac{1}{(-1)_{2n}}\sum_{k=1}^n\frac{(-1)^kq^{k^2-k}(q;q^2)_{k-1}}{(q)_{2k-1}(q^2;q^2)_{n-k}} \\
&= \frac{-1}{(-1)_{2n}}\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\frac{(-1)^kq^{k^2+k}(q;q^2)_{k}}{(q)_{2k+1}(q^2;q^2)_{n-k-1}} \\
&= \frac{-1}{(-1)_{2n}(q^2;q^2)_{n-1}(1-q)}\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\frac{q^{2nk}(q^{-2(n-1)};q^2)_k (q;q^2)_{k}}{(q^2;q^2)_k(q^3;q^2)_k} \hskip.4in \text{(by \eqref{littlefact1})} \\
&= \frac{-1}{(-1)_{2n}(q;q^2)_n} \\
&= \frac{-1}{2(q^{2n};q^2)_n},
\end{align*}
where the penultimate equality follows from the case $q=q^2$, $n= n-1$, $a=q$, and $c=q^3$ of the $q$-Chu-Vandermonde summation \cite{Ga-Ra1}
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{k= 0}^n \frac{(a)_k(q^{-n})_k}{(q)_k(c)_k}\left(\frac{cq^n}{a}\right)^k = \frac{(c/a)_n}{(c)_n}.
\end{equation*}
Now multiplying $(a_n',b_n')$ by $-2$ and replacing $q$ by $q^{1/2}$ gives Andrews' Bailey pair \eqref{mathcalA2n(1)}--\eqref{mathcalBn(1)}. Finally, multiplying \eqref{mathcalA2n(1)}--\eqref{mathcalBn(1)} by $-1$, then applying Theorem \ref{main2} and Theorem \ref{main1inverse} gives the pairs \eqref{mathcalA2n(2)}--\eqref{mathcalBn(2)} and \eqref{mathcalA2n(0)}--\eqref{mathcalBn(0)}, respectively.
\section{Proofs of Theorems \ref{mockthm1}--\ref{mockthm3} and Corollary \ref{mockid}}
The approach for proving Theorems \ref{mockthm1}--\ref{mockthm3} is as follows. We first apply (\ref{alphaprimedef}) and (\ref{betaprimedef}) to Corollaries \ref{paircor1}--\ref{paircor3} to obtain new Bailey pairs, then use (\ref{limitBailey}) in various ways to obtain identities expressing $q$-hypergeometric double sums in terms of the indefinite theta series (\ref{fdef}). Next, to deduce that these $q$-hypergeometric double sums are mock theta functions, we apply the following three explicit results of Hickerson and Mortenson which express (\ref{fdef}) in terms of the Appell-Lerch series (\ref{Appell-Lerch}). Define
\begin{equation} \label{g}
\begin{aligned}
g_{a,b,c}(x, y, q, z_1, z_0) & := \sum_{t=0}^{a-1} (-y)^t q^{c\binom{t}{2}} j(q^{bt} x, q^a) m\left(-q^{a \binom{b+1}{2} - c \binom{a+1}{2} - t(b^2 - ac)} \frac{(-y)^a}{(-x)^b}, q^{a(b^2 - ac)}, z_0 \right)\\
& + \sum_{t=0}^{c-1} (-x)^t q^{a \binom{t}{2}} j(q^{bt} y, q^c) m\left(-q^{c\binom{b+1}{2} - a\binom{c+1}{2} - t(b^2 -ac)} \frac{(-x)^c}{(-y)^b}, q^{c(b^2 - ac)}, z_1\right).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Following \cite{Hi-Mo1}, we use the term ``generic" to mean that the parameters do not cause poles in the Appell-Lerch sums or in the quotients of theta functions.
\begin{theorem}{\cite[Theorem 1.6]{Hi-Mo1}} \label{hm1} Let $n$ be a positive integer. For generic $x$, $y \in \mathbb{C}^{*}$
\begin{equation*}
f_{n, n+1, n}(x, y, q) = g_{n, n+1, n}(x, y, q, y^n / x^n, x^n / y^n).
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}{\cite[Theorem 1.9]{Hi-Mo1}} \label{hm2} Let $n$ be an odd positive integer. For generic $x$, $y \in \mathbb{C}^{*}$
\begin{equation*}
f_{n, n+2, n}(x, y, q) = g_{n, n+2, n}(x, y, q, y^n / x^n, x^n / y^n) - \Theta_{n,2}(x,y,q)
\end{equation*}
\noindent where
\begin{equation*}
\Theta_{n,2}(x,y,q) := \frac{y^{(n+1)/2} J_{2n, 4n} J_{4(n+1), 8(n+1)} j(y/x, q^{4(n+1)}) j(q^{n+2} xy, q^{4(n+1)}) j(q^{2n} / x^2 y^2, q^{8(n+1)})}{q^{(n^2-3)/2} x^{(n-3)/2} j(y^n / x^n, q^{4n(n+1)}) j(-q^{n+2} x^2, q^{4(n+1)}) j(-q^{n+2} y^2, q^{4(n+1)})}.
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}{\cite[Theorem 1.11]{Hi-Mo1}} \label{hm3} Let $n$ be an odd positive integer. For generic $x$, $y \in \mathbb{C}^{*}$
\begin{equation*}
f_{n, n+4, n}(x, y, q) = g_{n, n+4, n}(x, y, q, y^n / x^n, x^n / y^n) - \Theta_{n,4}(x,y,q)
\end{equation*}
\noindent where
\begin{equation*}
\Theta_{n,4}(x,y,q) := \frac{q^{-(n^2 + n -3)} x^{-(n-3)/2} y^{(n+1)/2} j(y/x, q^{4(2n+4)})}{j(y^n / x^n, q^{4n(2n+4)}) j(-q^{2n+8} x^4, q^{4(2n+4)}) j(-q^{2n+8}, q^{4(2n+4)})} \Bigl\{ J_{4n,16n} S_1 - qJ_{8n,16n} S_2 \Bigr \},
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
S_1 &:= \frac{j(q^{6n+16} x^2 y^2, q^{4(2n+4)}) j(-q^{2(2n+4)} y/x, q^{4(2n+4)}) j(q^{n+4} xy, q^{2(2n+4)})}{J_{2(2n+4}^3 J_{8(2n+4)}} \\
& \cdot \Biggl \{ j(-q^{2n+8} x^2 y^2, q^{4(2n+4)}) j(q^{2(2n+4)}, q^{4(2n+4)}) J_{4(2n+4)}^2 \\
& + \frac{q^{n+4} x^2 j(-q^{6n+16} x^2 y^2, q^{4(2n+4)}) j(q^{2(2n+4)} y/x, q^{4(2n+4)})^2 j(-y/x, q^{4(2n+4)})^2}{J_{4(2n+4}} \Biggr \}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
\noindent and
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
S_2 &:= \frac{j(q^{2n+8} x^2 y^2, q^{4(2n+4)}) j(-y/x, q^{4(2n+4)}) j(q^{3n+8} xy, q^{2(2n+4)})}{J_{2(2n+4)}^2} \\
& \cdot \Biggl \{ \frac{q^{n+1} j(-q^{2n+8} x^2 y^2, q^{4(2n+4)}) j(q^{2(2n+4)} y^2 / x^2, q^{4(2n+4)}) J_{8(2n+4)}}{y J_{4(2n+4)}} \\
& + \frac{qx j(-q^{6n+16} x^2 y^2, q^{4(2n+4)}) j(q^{4(2n+4)} y^2 / x^2, q^{8(2n+4)})^2}{J_{8(2n+4}} \Biggr \}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
Finally, we use the fact that specializations of Appell-Lerch series are well-known to be mock theta functions \cite{Za1}, \cite[Ch. 1]{Zw1}.
To simplify expressions arising in Theorems \ref{hm1}--\ref{hm3}, we require certain facts about $j(x,q)$ and $m(x,q,z)$. From the definition of $j(x,q)$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{j1}
j(q^{n} x, q) = (-1)^{n} q^{-\binom{n}{2}} x^{-n} j(x,q)
\end{equation}
\noindent where $n \in \mathbb{Z}$ and
\begin{equation} \label{j2}
j(x,q) = j(q/x, q) = -x j(x^{-1}, q).
\end{equation}
Next, some relevant properties of the sum $m(x, q, z)$ are given in the following (see (3.2b), (3.2c) of Proposition 3.1, (3.3) of Corollary 3.2 and Theorem 3.3 in \cite{Hi-Mo1}).
\begin{proposition} \label{mprops} For generic $x$, $z$, $z_0$, $z{'} \in \mathbb{C}^{*}$,
\begin{equation} \label{m1}
m(x,q,z)=x^{-1} m(x^{-1}, q, z^{-1}),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{m2}
m(qx, q, z)=1-xm(x,q,z),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{mprod}
m(q, q^2, -1) = \frac{1}{2}
\end{equation}
\noindent and
\begin{equation} \label{m3}
m(x, q, z) = m(x, q, z_0) + \frac{z_0 J_1^3 j(z / z_{0}, q) j(x z z_{0}, q)}{j(z_0, q) j(z, q) j(xz_0, q) j(xz, q)}.
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
We are now ready to proceed to the proofs of Theorems \ref{mockthm1}--\ref{mockthm3}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{mockthm1}]
Applying equations \eqref{alphaprimedef} and \eqref{betaprimedef} with $(a,\rho_1,\rho_2) = (1,-1,\infty)$ to (\ref{aevenslater1})--(\ref{bslater1}) and $(q,-q,\infty)$ to (\ref{aevenslater1q})--(\ref{bslater1q}) gives a Bailey pair relative to $1$,
\begin{equation} \label{a1n'even}
a'_{2n} = 2(1-q^{2n})q^{4n^2-n+1}\sum_{j=-n}^{n-1}q^{-2j^2},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{a1n'odd}
a'_{2n+1} = -2(1-q^{2n+1})q^{4n^2+3n+1}\sum_{j=-n}^{n}q^{-2j^2-2j},
\end{equation}
\noindent and
\begin{equation} \label{b1n'}
b'_n = \frac{1}{(-q)_n}\sum_{j=1}^n \frac{(-1)_j(-1)^jq^{\binom{j}{2}+1}}{(q)_{n-j}(q^2;q^2)_{j-1}(1-q^{2j-1})},
\end{equation}
\noindent and a Bailey pair relative to $q$,
\begin{equation} \label{al1n'evenq}
\alpha'_{2n} = \frac{1}{1-q}\left(q^{4n^2+n}\sum_{j=-n}^{n}q^{-2j^2-2j} + q^{4n^2+3n+1}\sum_{j=-n}^{n-1}q^{-2j^2}\right),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{a1n'oddq}
\alpha'_{2n+1} = -\frac{1}{1-q}\left(q^{4n^2+5n+2}\sum_{j=-n-1}^{n}q^{-2j^2} + q^{4n^2+7n+3}\sum_{j=-n}^{n}q^{-2j^2-2j}\right),
\end{equation}
\noindent and
\begin{equation} \label{be1n'}
\beta'_n = \frac{1}{(-q)_n}\sum_{j=0}^n \frac{(-1)^jq^{\binom{j}{2}}}{(q)_{n-j}(q)_{j}(1-q^{2j+1})},
\end{equation}
\noindent respectively. Now to prove \eqref{mock1-1}, we insert the Bailey pair $(a_n',b_n')$ from equations \eqref{a1n'even}--\eqref{b1n'} into \eqref{limitBailey} with $\rho_1$, $\rho_2 \to \infty$. This gives
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
q\mathcal{M}_{1}(q) & = \sum_{n \geq 0} q^{n^2} b_n'(q) = \frac{1}{(q)_{\infty}} \sum_{n \geq 0} q^{n^2} a_n'(q) \\
& = \frac{1}{(q)_{\infty}} \Biggl( \sum_{n \geq 0} q^{4n^2} a_{2n}'(q) + \sum_{n \geq 0} q^{4n^2 + 4n + 1} a_{2n+1}'(q) \Biggr) \\
& = \frac{2}{(q)_{\infty}} \Biggl( \sum_{n \geq 0} q^{8n^2 - n+1} \sum_{j=-n}^{n-1} q^{-2j^2} - \sum_{n \geq 0} q^{8n^2 + n+1} \sum_{j=-n}^{n-1} q^{-2j^2} \\
& - \sum_{n \geq 0} q^{8n^2 + 7n + 2} \sum_{j=-n}^{n} q^{-2j^2 - 2j} + \sum_{n \geq 0} q^{8n^2 + 9n + 3} \sum_{j=-n}^{n} q^{-2j^2 - 2j} \Biggr). \\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
\noindent After replacing $n$ with $-n$ in the second sum and $n$ with $-n-1$ in the fourth sum, we let $n=(r+s+1)/2$, $j=(r-s-1)/2$ in the first two sums and $n=(r+s)/2$, $j=(r-s)/2$ in the latter two sums to find
\begin{equation} \label{m1tof}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}_{1}(q)
& = \frac{2q}{(q)_{\infty}} \Biggl( \Bigl( \sum_{\substack{r, s \geq 0 \\ r \not\equiv s \imod{2} }} - \sum_{\substack{r, s < 0 \\ r \not\equiv {s \imod{2}} }} \Bigr) q^{\frac{3}{2} r^2 + 5rs + \frac{9}{2} r + \frac{3}{2} s^2 + \frac{5}{2} s} \\
& - \Bigl( \sum_{\substack{r, s \geq 0 \\ r \equiv s \imod{2} }} - \sum_{\substack{r, s < 0 \\ r \equiv {s \imod{2}} }} \Bigr) q^{\frac{3}{2} r^2 + 5rs + \frac{5}{2}r + \frac{3}{2}s^2 + \frac{9}{2}s} \Biggr) \\
& = -\frac{2q}{(q)_{\infty}} \Biggl( \Bigl( \sum_{r,s \geq 0} - \sum_{r,s < 0} \Bigr) q^{\frac{3}{2} r^2 + 5rs + \frac{9}{2} r + \frac{3}{2} s^2 + \frac{5}{2} s} \Biggr)\\
& = -\frac{2q}{(q)_{\infty}} f_{3,5,3}(q^6, q^4, q).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\noindent By (\ref{m1tof}), Theorem \ref{hm2} with $n=3$ and (\ref{g})--(\ref{j2}),
\begin{equation} \label{step1}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}_1(q)
& = -2q^{-10} m(-q^{-7}, q^{48}, q^6) + 2q^{-23} m(-q^{-23}, q^{48}, q^6) + 2m(-q^{25}, q^{48}, q^{-6}) \\
& - 2q^{-10} m(-q^{-7}, q^{48}, q^{-6}) + \frac{2q}{(q)_{\infty}} \Theta_{3,2}(q^6, q^4, q).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\noindent Now, we simplify (\ref{step1}) using (\ref{m1}), (\ref{m2}) and (\ref{m3}) to obtain
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}_1(q)
& = 4q^{-3} m(-q^7, q^{48}, q^{6}) + 4 m(-q^{25}, q^{48}, q^6) - 2 + \frac{2q}{(q)_{\infty}} \Theta_{3,2}(q^6, q^4, q) \\
& + 2q^{-3} \frac{J_{48}^3 J_{12,48} \overline{J}_{7,48}}{J_{6,48}^2 \overline{J}_{1,48} \overline{J}_{13,48}} + 2 \frac{J_{48}^3 J_{12,48} \overline{J}_{25,48}}{J_{6,48}^2 \overline{J}_{19,48} \overline{J}_{31,48}} \\
& = 4q^{-3} m(-q^7, q^{48}, q^{24}) + 4 m(-q^{25}, q^{48}, q^{-24}) - 4q^3\frac{J_{48}^3J_{18,48}\overline{J}_{11,48}}{J_{6,48}J_{24,48}\overline{J}_{13,48}\overline{J}_{17,48}} \\
& - 4\frac{J_{48}^3J_{18,48}\overline{J}_{7,48}}{J_{6,48}J_{24,48}\overline{J}_{1,48}\overline{J}_{17,48}} - 2 + \frac{2q}{(q)_{\infty}} \Theta_{3,2}(q^6, q^4, q) \\
& + 2q^{-3} \frac{J_{48}^3 J_{12,48} \overline{J}_{7,48}}{J_{6,48}^2 \overline{J}_{1,48} \overline{J}_{13,48}} + 2 \frac{J_{48}^3 J_{12,48} \overline{J}_{25,48}}{J_{6,48}^2 \overline{J}_{19,48} \overline{J}_{31,48}}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
\noindent Comparing with \eqref{mock1-1}, we are left with a modular identity to verify. Such a verification can always be done using a finite computation. This, and similar computations in this paper, were carried out using computer software packages available at
\begin{center}
\url{http://www.qseries.org/fgarvan}
\end{center}
This proves identity \eqref{mock1-1} and shows that $\mathcal{M}_{1}(q)$ is a mock theta function.
As equations \eqref{mock1-2}--\eqref{mock1-5} are handled similarly, we briefly sketch the relevant details. For equations \eqref{mock1-2} and \eqref{mock1-3} we again use the Bailey pair \eqref{a1n'even}--\eqref{b1n'} in \eqref{limitBailey}, with $(\rho_1,\rho_2,q) = (\sqrt{q},-\sqrt{q},q)$ and $(q,\infty,q^2)$ and the above argument to obtain
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{M}_{2}(q) = \frac{(q;q^2)_{\infty}}{(q^2;q^2)_{\infty}}f_{1,3,1}(-q,-q^3,q)
\end{equation*}
\noindent and
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{M}_{3}(q) = \frac{2q(q;q^2)_{\infty}}{(q^2;q^2)_{\infty}}f_{1,2,1}(-q^5,-q^9,q^4).
\end{equation*}
\noindent One then proceeds with Theorems \ref{hm2} and \ref{hm1}, respectively, and simplifies.
For \eqref{mock1-4} and \eqref{mock1-5} we use the Bailey pair \eqref{al1n'evenq}--\eqref{be1n'} in \eqref{limitBailey}, with $(\rho_1,\rho_2,q) = (\infty,\infty,q)$ and $(-q,\infty,q)$ to get
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{M}_{4}(q) = \frac{1}{(q)_{\infty}}f_{3,5,3}(q^2,q^4,q)
\end{equation*}
\noindent and
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{M}_{5}(q) = \frac{(-q)_{\infty}}{(q)_{\infty}} f_{1,2,1}(q,q^3,q^2).
\end{equation*}
\noindent Applying Theorems \ref{hm2} and \ref{hm1}, respectively, and continuing as above yields the result.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{mockthm2}]
Applying equations \eqref{alphaprimedef} and \eqref{betaprimedef} with $(a,\rho_1,\rho_2) = (1,\infty,\infty)$ to (\ref{aevenslater2})--(\ref{bslater2}) and $(q,\infty,\infty)$ to (\ref{aevenslater2q})--(\ref{bslater2q}) gives a Bailey pair relative to $1$,
\begin{equation} \label{a2n'even}
a'_{2n} = (1-q^{4n})q^{6n^2-2n}\sum_{j=-n}^{n-1}q^{-4j^2-3j},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{a2n'odd}
a'_{2n+1} = -(1-q^{4n+2})q^{6n^2+4n+1}\sum_{j=-n}^{n}q^{-4j^2-j},
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation} \label{b2n'}
b'_n = \sum_{j=1}^n \frac{(-1)^jq^{\binom{j+1}{2}}}{(q)_{n-j}(q)_{j-1}(1-q^{2j-1})},
\end{equation}
and a Bailey pair relative to $q$,
\begin{equation} \label{al2n'even}
\alpha'_{2n} = \frac{1}{1-q}\left(q^{6n^2+2n}\sum_{j=-n}^{n}q^{-4j^2-j} + q^{6n^2+4n}\sum_{j=-n}^{n-1}q^{-4j^2-3j}\right),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{al2n'odd}
\alpha'_{2n+1} = -\frac{1}{1-q}\left(q^{6n^2+8n+2}\sum_{j=-n-1}^{n}q^{-4j^2-3j} + q^{6n^2+10n+4}\sum_{j=-n}^{n}q^{-4j^2-j}\right),
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation} \label{be2n'}
\beta'_n = \sum_{j=0}^n \frac{(-1)^jq^{\binom{j+1}{2}}}{(q)_{n-j}(q)_{j}(1-q^{2j+1})},
\end{equation}
\noindent respectively. For the identities \eqref{mock2-1}--\eqref{mock2-5} in Theorem \ref{mockthm2} we use the Bailey pair \eqref{a2n'even}--\eqref{b2n'} in \eqref{limitBailey} with $(\rho_1,\rho_2,q) = (\infty,\infty,q)$, $(-1,\infty,q)$, $(\sqrt{q},-\sqrt{q},q)$, $(q,\infty,q^2)$, and $(-1,-q,q^2)$ to obtain
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{M}_6(q) = -\frac{q^2}{(q)_{\infty}}f_{3,7,3}(q^5,q^6,q),
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{M}_7(q) = -\frac{2q^2(-q)_{\infty}}{(q)_{\infty}}f_{1,3,1}(q^4,q^5,q^2),
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{M}_8(q) = \frac{q(q;q^2)_{\infty}}{2(q^2;q^2)_{\infty}}f_{1,5,1}(-q^2,-q^3,q),
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{M}_9(q) = \frac{q^3(q;q^2)_{\infty}}{(q^2;q^2)_{\infty}}f_{1,3,1}(-q^7,-q^9,q^4),
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{M}_{10}(q) = -\frac{2q^3(-q)_{\infty}}{(q)_{\infty}}f_{1,5,1}(q^5,q^7,q^2),
\end{equation*}
\noindent respectively. One then applies Theorems \ref{hm2} and \ref{hm3} and proceeds as in the proof of (\ref{mock1-1}). The identities \eqref{mock2-6} and \eqref{mock2-7} follow similarly but with the Bailey pair \eqref{al2n'even}--\eqref{be2n'} in \eqref{limitBailey} with $(\rho_1,\rho_2,q) = (\infty,\infty,q)$ and $(-q,\infty,q)$ yielding
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{M}_{11}(q) = \frac{1}{(q)_{\infty}}f_{3,7,3}(q^3,q^4,q)
\end{equation*}
\noindent and
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{M}_{12}(q) = \frac{(-q)_{\infty}}{(q)_{\infty}} f_{1,3,1}(q^2,q^3,q^2).
\end{equation*}
\noindent One now applies Theorems \ref{hm3} and \ref{hm2}, respectively, and simplifies.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{mockthm3}]
Applying \eqref{alphaprimedef} and \eqref{betaprimedef} with $(a,\rho_1,\rho_2) = (1,\infty,\infty)$ to (\ref{aevenslater3})--(\ref{bslater3})
and $(q,\infty,\infty)$ to (\ref{aevenslater3q})--(\ref{bslater3q}), we obtain a Bailey pair relative to $1$,
\begin{equation} \label{a3n'even}
a'_{2n} = (1-q^{4n})q^{6n^2-2n+1}\sum_{j=-n}^{n-1}q^{-4j^2-j},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{a3n'odd}
a'_{2n+1} = -(1-q^{4n+2})q^{6n^2+4n+1}\sum_{j=-n}^{n}q^{-4j^2-3j},
\end{equation}
\noindent and
\begin{equation} \label{b3n'}
b'_n = \sum_{j=1}^n \frac{(-1)^jq^{\binom{j}{2}+1}}{(q)_{n-j}(q)_{j-1}(1-q^{2j-1})},
\end{equation}
\noindent and a Bailey pair relative to $q$
\begin{equation} \label{al3n'even}
\alpha'_{2n} = \frac{1}{1-q}\left(q^{6n^2+2n}\sum_{j=-n}^{n}q^{-4j^2-3j} + q^{6n^2+4n+1}\sum_{j=-n}^{n-1}q^{-4j^2-j}\right),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{al3n'odd}
\alpha'_{2n+1} = -\frac{1}{1-q}\left(q^{6n^2+8n+3}\sum_{j=-n-1}^{n}q^{-4j^2-j} + q^{6n^2+10n+4}\sum_{j=-n}^{n}q^{-4j^2-3j}\right),
\end{equation}
\noindent and
\begin{equation} \label{be3n'}
\beta'_n = \sum_{j=0}^n \frac{(-1)^jq^{\binom{j}{2}}}{(q)_{n-j}(q)_{j}(1-q^{2j+1})},
\end{equation}
\noindent respectively. For the identities \eqref{mock3-1}--\eqref{mock3-5} in Theorem \ref{mockthm3} we use the Bailey pair \eqref{a3n'even}--\eqref{b3n'} in \eqref{limitBailey} with $(\rho_1,\rho_2,q) = (\infty,\infty,q)$, $(-1,\infty,q)$, $(\sqrt{q},-\sqrt{q},q)$, $(q,\infty,q^2)$, and $(-1,-q,q^2)$ to obtain
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{M}_{13}(q) = -\frac{q}{(q)_{\infty}}f_{3,7,3}(q^4,q^7,q),
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{M}_{14}(q) = -\frac{2q(-q)_{\infty}}{(q)_{\infty}}f_{1,3,1}(q^3,q^6,q^2),
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{M}_{15}(q) = \frac{(q;q^2)_{\infty}}{2(q^2;q^2)_{\infty}}f_{1,5,1}(-q,-q^4,q),
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{M}_{16}(q) = \frac{q(q;q^2)_{\infty}}{(q^2;q^2)_{\infty}}f_{1,3,1}(-q^5,-q^{11},q^4),
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{M}_{17}(q) = -\frac{2q(-q)_{\infty}}{(q)_{\infty}}f_{1,5,1}(q^3,q^9,q^2),
\end{equation*}
\noindent respectively. One then applies Theorems \ref{hm2} and \ref{hm3} and proceeds as above where (\ref{mprod}) is used for $\mathcal{M}_{16}(q)$. The identities \eqref{mock3-6} and \eqref{mock3-7} follow similarly but with the Bailey pair \eqref{al3n'even}--\eqref{be3n'} in \eqref{limitBailey} with $(\rho_1,\rho_2,q) = (\infty,\infty,q)$ and $(-q,\infty,q)$ yielding
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{M}_{18}(q) = \frac{1}{(q)_{\infty}}f_{3,7,3}(q^2,q^5,q)
\end{equation*}
\noindent and
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{M}_{19}(q) = \frac{(-q)_{\infty}}{(q)_{\infty}}f_{1,3,1}(q,q^4,q^2).
\end{equation*}
\noindent One applies Theorems \ref{hm3} and \ref{hm2}, respectively, and simplifies.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Corollary \ref{mockid}]
The identities in Corollary \ref{mockid} are established by comparing the expressions in Theorems \ref{mockthm1}--\ref{mockthm3} with those for classical mock theta functions. We sketch the details. Equations (5.37) and (5.8) in \cite{Hi-Mo1} state
$$
T_{0}(q)=-m(-q^3, q^8, q^2)
$$
\noindent and
$$
\omega(q) = -2q^{-1} m(q, q^6, q^2) + \frac{J_6^3}{J_2 J_{3,6}}.
$$
\noindent By (\ref{m1}), (\ref{m2}), (\ref{m3}), (\ref{mock1-2}) and (\ref{mock1-5}), (\ref{id1}) and (\ref{id2}) follow. Equations (5.1) and (5.40) in \cite{Hi-Mo1} state
$$
A(q)=-m(q,q^4,q^2)
$$
\noindent and
$$
U_1(q)=-m(-q,q^4,-q^2).
$$
\noindent By (\ref{m3}), (\ref{mock2-4}) and (\ref{mock3-4}), (\ref{id3}) and (\ref{id4}) follow.
\end{proof}
\section*{Acknowledgements} The authors thank Eric Mortenson for helping with the simplification of certain expressions in Theorems \ref{mockthm1}--\ref{mockthm3}. They also thank Dennis Stanton for information concerning Section 3. The second author would like to thank the Institut des Hautes {\'E}tudes Scientifiques for their support during the completion of this paper. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1002477.
|
\section{Introduction}
A fascinating spectrum -- from realistic depictions to sparsely drawn sketches -- exists among categories selected as subjects for hand-drawn art. In particular, consider the category of common everyday objects. An instance of such a sketch can be seen in Figure \ref{fig:cup}. Though containing minimal detail, the object category to which it belongs is easily determined. This suggests an inherent sparseness in the human neuro-visual representation of the object. Therefore, studying such sparse sketches can aid our understanding of the cognitive processes involved and spur the design of efficient visual classifiers. Another important reason for studying such sketches is the fact that they form a universal language -- the underlying subject of interest can usually be identified correctly, overcoming barriers of culture, language, time period and age group. Consequently, studying sketches can help identify factors that contribute to such universality among human kind.
Freehand sketches are typically formed as a composition of primitive hand-drawn curves (called strokes) added sequentially over time.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.25\linewidth]{Figures/cup-linesketch.eps}
\caption{In spite of minimal detail, we can recognize the line sketch easily and correctly as belonging to the category \texttt{cup}.}
\label{fig:cup}
\end{figure}
Deciphering freehand sketches can be viewed under the lens of image category recognition, a well studied problem in the computer vision community. In the recent years, deep-learning frameworks based on Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs)\cite{krizhevsky2012imagenet}\cite{girshick2014rcnn}\cite{DonahueJVHZTD13} have shown impressive performance on challenging image recognition datasets. However, to the best of our knowledge, the domain of freehand sketch images has not been explored in this context.
In this paper, we utilize ``deep" features based on CNNs to recognize hand-drawn sketches across numerous object categories. Our results are an improvement over the existing state-of-the-art accuracies by $3\% - 11\%$. The effectiveness and relative compactness of our features make them an ideal candidate for related problems such as sketch-based image retrieval. In addition, we provide a preliminary glimpse of how such features
can help identify relative importance of crucial attributes (e.g. object-parts) in the sketched objects. More generally, we hope that our work will spur interest in analysis of sketches utilizing cutting-edge tools of the deep learning methodology.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: We briefly review related literature in Section \ref{sec:relatedwork}. We describe the sketch database and certain issues related to its usage in Section \ref{sec:db}. Section \ref{sec:featex} describes the ``deep" feature extraction process and the recognition mechanism. A comparative evaluation of the recognition framework is presented in \ref{sec:eval}. Section \ref{sec:conclusion} concludes the paper by outlining work in progress and suggesting directions for future work.
\section{Related Work}
\label{sec:relatedwork}
\begin{figure*}[ht!]
\includegraphics[height=3.5cm,width=\textwidth]{Figures/eitz-sketches.eps}
\caption{Freehand sketches belonging to various object categories.}
\label{fig:primal-sketches}
\end{figure*}
A significant body of work has examined freehand line sketches in the context of recognition\cite{KMY06}\cite{QiGLZXS13} and content-based image retrieval problems\cite{Hu:2013:PEG:2479988.2480107}\cite{Hu2010}. To retain focus, we examine literature related to sketch recognition, although some aspects of the retrieval problem, particularly the feature extraction, remain relevant. Methods for freehand sketch recognition exhibit two broad themes -- domain-specific and general. In the former category, recognition systems have been built for sketches related to mathematical expressions\cite{math}, emergency management and military drawings\cite{military} and chemistry diagrams\cite{chem}. These systems tend to make domain-specific assumptions about the structure and syntax of the sketch strokes. In the latter category viz. general, a recent attempt to capture the general nature of freehand sketches was presented by Eitz et al.\cite{eitz} via analysis of a human-drawn sketch database containing $250$ commonly encountered object categories. Eitz et al. also describe a sketch classifier which obtains an average accuracy of $54\%$ across the $250$ categories when $80\%$ of the sketches are used for training. Ros\'{a}lia et al.\cite{rosalia} improve upon this result using a Fisher vector image representation\cite{perronnin2007fisher}, raising the average accuracy to $67\%$. Refer to the works of Eitz et al.\cite{eitz} and Ros\'{a}lia et al.\cite{rosalia} for a more detailed taxonomy of freehand sketch classification techniques, features used and results therein.
The versatile recognition and representation framework provided by CNNs has resulted in an avalanche of deep learning based works, too numerous and varied to summarize here. For a dynamic, annotated bibliography of work related to CNNs, refer to Amund et al.\cite{amund}. The CNNs used in our experiments -- Imagenet CNN\cite{krizhevsky2012imagenet} and LeNet CNN\cite{lecun1998gradient} -- are in fact, merely two notable examples among the many that have been proposed for problems in computer vision and image processing. To the best of our knowledge, CNNs have not been utilized in the analysis of general freehand sketches. Two works, however, can be considered peripherally related in this context. The first is the work of Fu et al.\cite{luoting} which utilizes CNNs to recognize pre-defined symbols in sketches from different engineering domains. The second work is that of Wan et al.\cite{wen} which attempts to learn an auto-encoder (a deep learning architecture similar to CNNs) to recognize faces from a database of face photos and their sketched versions.
\section{The sketch database}
\label{sec:db}
For our experiments, we use the publicly available freehand sketch database of Eitz et al.\cite{eitz}. This database contains a set of $20,000$ hand-drawn sketches evenly distributed across $250$ object categories. These sketches have been obtained by crowdsourcing across the general population. As such, they are a good starting point for analyzing the neuro-cognitive underpinnings of the sketching process by humans. A few examples from the database can be seen in Figure \ref{fig:primal-sketches}. An interesting feature of this database is that the temporal stroke information (the sequential order in which the strokes were drawn) for a sketch has also been provided.
While this database is quite comprehensive and general in coverage of object categories, it has its share of shortcomings, a number of which have been analyzed by Ros\'{a}lia et al.\cite{rosalia}. One of the major shortcomings is the presence of ambiguously drawn sketches whose identity is difficult to discern even for fellow human beings (See Figure \ref{fig:tyredonut}. Is the sketch on the left depicted by the two concentric shapes a \texttt{tyre} or a \texttt{donut} ?). To address this situation, Ros\'{a}lia et al. employ a human-evaluation based technique and identify a subset containing $160$ non-ambiguous object categories which can be utilized as a more reliable benchmark database for evaluating sketch recognition systems (Refer to Section $5$ of \cite{rosalia} for details). For our experiments, we utilize the sketches from this curated set of $160$ object categories for analyzing the performance of the sketch recognition system. Furthermore, following \cite{rosalia}, we uniformly consider $56$ sketches from each category.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.65\linewidth]{Figures/tyre-donut.eps}
\caption{An ambiguously drawn sketch (left) with two plausible categorizations - \texttt{tyre} (middle) and \texttt{donut} (right). Figure has been taken from \cite{rosalia}.}
\label{fig:tyredonut}
\end{figure}
\section{Feature Extraction and Classification}
\label{sec:featex}
\begin{figure*}[ht!]
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.45\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures/imagenet.eps}
\caption{Imagenet CNN showing the layer (shaded in red) $fc_7$ from which the $4096$-dimensional sketch features are extracted. A portion of the figure is taken from \cite{krizhevsky2012imagenet}.}
\label{fig:figure1}
\end{minipage}
\hspace{0.5cm}
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.45\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures/lenet-mnist.eps}
\caption{Modified version of LeNet CNN used for our experiments (only the first $5$ layers are shown for simplicity). The overlapping boxes shaded in red indicate stride. The hatched region between max pooling layer and inner-product layer $ip_1$ denotes fully connectedness. Note that we get a $500$-dimensional feature vector at the end of the process.}
\label{fig:figure2}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure*}
The sketch features are extracted using pre-trained Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs). We first provide a brief introduction to CNNs, describe the ones used in our experiments and in the process of this description, provide details of feature extraction as well.
\subsection{Convolutional Neural Networks(CNNs)}
Convolutional neural networks are a type of neurobiologically inspired feed-forward artificial neural network which consist of multiple layers of neurons, with neurons in each layer collected into sets. At the input layer (where data is presented), these neuron sets map to small regions of input image. Deeper layers of the network can be composed of local or global pooling (fully-connected) layers which combine outputs of the neuron sets from previous layer. The pooling is typically achieved through convolution-like operations and hence the name . Figures \ref{fig:figure1} and \ref{fig:figure2} show an illustration of two popular CNNs. An attractive feature of CNNs is that the outputs of inner layers serve as a useful feature representation of the input -- a fact we exploit to obtain sketch features. The flexibility in the choice of layers, the local nature of operations in some parts of the network and crucially, the need to perform very little preprocessing on input images have all contributed to their impressive performance in advancing the state of the art for problems in computer vision and image processing\cite{krizhevsky2012imagenet}\cite{girshick2014rcnn}\cite{DonahueJVHZTD13}\cite{lecun1998gradient}. We have experimented with two well-known CNNs -- LeNet and Imagenet -- which we briefly describe below.
\textbf{Imagenet CNN}\cite{krizhevsky2012imagenet} (Figure \ref{fig:figure1}): This is a $8$-layer network (excluding input) with $5$ convolutional (locally connected) layers and $3$ fully connected layers. The output of the last (fully-connected) layer is connected to a $1000$-way softmax, thus producing a distribution of the $1000$ class labels. The number of class labels is a consequence of the number of image classes present in the Imagenet dataset\cite{imagenet} for which this CNN was designed. For our experiments, we utilize the pre-trained Imagenet trained on ILSVRC 2012 dataset containing $1.2$ million images, as described by Krizhevsky et al\cite{krizhevsky2012imagenet}. Our choice was motivated by the fact that features extracted from the Imagenet CNN have resulted in impressive performance across a variety of challenging computer vision problems\cite{girshick2014rcnn}\cite{deepimagenetfc7}. The sketch features are obtained by tapping the output of layer denoted as $fc_7$ of the pre-trained Imagenet CNN with the sketch as the input\cite{jia2014caffe} (see Figure \ref{fig:figure1}). As a result, we obtain a $4096$-dimensional feature vector corresponding to an input sketch.
\textbf{Lenet CNN}\cite{lecun1998gradient} (Figure \ref{fig:figure2}): This is a $7$-layer network (excluding input) with $2$ convolutional layers, $2$ subsampling layers, $2$ fully connected layers and a Gaussian connected layer with $10$ output classes. Our choice of LeNet was motivated by the fact that it is a CNN specially designed for recognizing handwritten digits, a problem whose modality (hand-generated) and nature of data (sparse binary shapes) resembles our sketch classification problem. We train a modified version of Lenet CNN\cite{jia2014caffe} using the MNIST handwritten digit dataset for $10000$ iterations at which point, accuracies are around $98\%$\cite{jia2014caffe}. The modified version of LeNet CNN can be seen in Figure \ref{fig:figure2} (only the first five layers are shown). The sketch features are obtained by tapping the output of the inner-product layer of the trained Lenet CNN with the sketch as the input as in the case of Imagenet CNN. As a result, we obtain a $500$-dimensional feature vector corresponding to an input sketch.
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\includegraphics[height=3.5cm,width=\textwidth]{Figures/airplane-heatmaps.eps}
\caption{Sketches (top row) of category \texttt{airplane} and their corresponding $conv_5$ heat-maps (bottom row). The hotter (redder) the region, the more its relative significance in the feature representation. Regions of the heat-map corresponding to tail, nose and wingtips generally seem to be “hotter” than other parts of the object (airplane), implying their significance for representation and recognition.}
\label{fig:heat-maps}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Sketch data augmentation}
\label{sec:dataaug}
The benchmark database of Ros\'{a}lia et al.\cite{rosalia} contains only $56$ sketches per object category. To increase the number of sketches per category for classification, we perform data augmentation by applying geometric and morphological transformations to each sketch. Specifically, each sketch is initially subjected to image dilation (``thickening") using a $5 \times 5$ square structuring element. A number of transforms are applied to this thickened sketch -- mirroring (across vertical axis), rotation ($\pm 5,\pm 15$ degrees), systematic combinations of horizontal and vertical shifts ($\pm 5,\pm 15$ pixels), central zoom ($\pm 3\%,\pm 7 \%$ of image height). As a result, $30$ new sketches are generated per original sketch. The data augmentation procedure results in $30 \times 56 = 1680$ sketches per category, for a total of $1680 \times 160 = 268,800$ sketches across $160$ categories.
In the context of the sketches being processed by CNNs, we would also like to point out the reason for sketch dilation. As each sketch gets processed by deeper layers of the CNN, fine details tend to get eliminated. To minimize the impact of detail loss, the sketches from the database are subjected to thickening (dilation) which we believe helps preserve detail better.
The extracted training features are passed to a multi-class linear Support Vector Machine(SVM) classifier\cite{liblinear}. In the next section, we describe details related to training and evaluation of the sketch recognition system.
\section{Evaluation}
\label{sec:eval}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{Figures/deepresults.eps}
\caption{Classification Results}
\label{fig:primality-trend-length}
\end{figure}
For the purpose of comparable evaluation, we utilize the same methodology and test set as that of Ros\'{a}lia et al.\cite{rosalia}. To begin with, our curated dataset contains $160$ sketch categories, each containing $56$ sketches. Since some of the categories contain more than $56$ sketches, we randomly select a $56$-sized subset from these categories. The number of sketches utilized for training is progressively increased, starting from $8$ sketches per category in steps of $8$ up to $48$ of the $56$ sketches. The rest of the sketches are utilized for testing. Note that for training, data augmented variants (Section \ref{sec:dataaug}) of each sketch are used while testing is done only on the original sketch subjected to dilation and not on the data augmented variants. As an example, when $32$ of the original sketches are used, the actual number of training sketches is $32 \times 30 \times 160 = 153,600$ while the number of test sketches is $24 \times 160 = 3840$. The entire data is randomly shuffled thrice and for each shuffle, it is split according to one of the training and testing splits mentioned above. For each shuffle, precision is calculated over test data and the $3$ precision values obtained for each shuffle are averaged. This procedure of shuffling thrice and computing average precision is repeated for each of the $8$ train/test splits considered. The results can be seen in Figure \ref{fig:primality-trend-length}. Our Imagenet CNN feature-based recognition system consistently outperforms the best results of Ros\'{a}lia et al. -- the improvement in precision ranges from $3\%$ to $11\%$. It must be conceded that the performance of Ros\'{a}lia et al. is based on unaugmented data. However, they employ Fisher vector feature representation whose dimensions\footnote{The Fisher vector feature dimension has been estimated based on the description of feature extraction process by Ros\'{a}lia et al.\cite{rosalia}.} are larger than our $4096$-dimensional feature vectors by a factor of about $10$. This would result in prohibitively large memory requirements and training times. In contrast, our feature vectors are faster to process. Therefore, they are also an ideal candidate for related applications such as sketch-based image retrieval\cite{Hu:2013:PEG:2479988.2480107}.
Figure \ref{fig:primality-trend-length} also shows that the results using Lenet CNN features are quite inferior. In hindsight, we realized that the sketches of a category exhibit more variety compared to handwritten digits. The LeNet CNN is relatively simpler compared to Imagenet CNN and consequently, not as powerful in capturing the entire gamut of $160$ sketch categories. While strategies such as modifying the network and re-training using sketch data are possible, it might be more fruitful to explore networks similar in spirit to Imagenet CNN, which demonstrate better performance.
Although the focus of the paper has been on the recognition framework, fine-grained analysis of results, similar to that presented by Eitz\cite{eitz} et al. and Ros\'{a}lia et al.\cite{rosalia}, can reveal interesting insights. As a preliminary step in this direction, we explore how deep features can help identify importance of crucial attributes (e.g. object-parts) of the sketched objects. Since attributes such as parts are spatial in nature, such features need to be extracted from CNN layers which preserve spatial information. $conv_5$ in Imagenet CNN is one such layer\cite{krizhevsky2012imagenet}. Therefore, we first extract $conv_5$ features-map (also referred to as ``heat-map") of the Imagenet CNN for each input sketch image. The feature-map can be thought of as an image whose intensity at a location represents the degree to which filters in $conv_5$ layer fire for the given input image\cite{agrawal14analyzing}. Such heat-maps can be used for a part-based analysis of the sketches. For example, ``heat-maps" in Figure \ref{fig:heat-maps} seem to suggest the importance of tail , nose and wingtips for sketches belonging to the category \texttt{airplane}. Therefore, relative to other parts such as windows, fuselage etc., these parts probably contribute crucially to the general representation and consequently, recognition of sketches belonging to \texttt{airplane} category. Heat-maps for other categories can be viewed at \url{http://val.serc.iisc.ernet.in/sketchrec/sr.html} \hspace{1.5mm}.
\section{Conclusion and Future Work}
\label{sec:conclusion}
In this paper, we have presented a deep-learning based framework for recognizing freehand sketches of object categories. Our choice of features ensures the average precision improves by $3\% - 11\%$ over the existing state-of-the-art results. Our main novelty -- ``deep sketch features" -- has the potential to improve performance for the related problem of sketch-based image retrieval\cite{Hu:2013:PEG:2479988.2480107}. In addition, we provide a preliminary glimpse of how such features can help identify relative importance of crucial attributes (e.g. object-parts) in the sketched objects. More generally, we hope that our work will spur interest in analysis of sketches utilizing cutting-edge tools of the deep learning methodology.
A number of directions exist for future work. One obvious direction, currently in progress, is to compare the performance across a larger set of Convolutional Neural Networks and analyze the effect of tapping features from different layers of such networks. Another direction would be to explore the use of temporal stroke information available for each sketch in the database. It would be interesting to explore classifiers similar in spirit to Hidden Markov Models(HMM)s which can exploit such information for better sketch recognition.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEbib}
|
\section{Abstract}
The first steps in the neural processing of sound are located in the
auditory nerve and in the cochlear nuclei.
To model the signal processing efficiently, we propose a simple mathematical
tool that takes the minute timing of the system into account.
In contrast to the situation in the cortex,
the number of connections between neurons in auditory periphery
is comparatively low. This gives way to an accurate modeling of the connectivity of the neuronal network. The timing is the all important feature in the peripheral neuronal auditory pathway.
The primary auditory neurons e.g. phase lock to periodic sounds
with important interactions with respect to both the refractory periods of the neurons and to
the time delays caused by traveling times along the basilar membrane or through a synaptic
connection.
The mathematical tools provide a solid basis to build models for peripheral auditory processes.
In particular,
we study carefully a large class of refractory neurons, find analytical formulas for the spiking activity,
and prove that refractory neurons respond to periodic signals by asymptotically periodic output.
The methods rely on
the theory of positive operators and give a numerical scheme for finding fixed points to an integral operator
with geometric convergence rate.
In addition,
we consider a perfect integrator neuron, mathematically equivalent to randomized random walk,
where the random walk is bounded from below, and solve the first passage time problem
using continuous time Markov chain techniques. Our method leads to ordinary differential equations that are linear. The dynamical
behavior can thus be described by classical methods.
In an accompanying paper we set up the simulation framework as a counterpart to the present mathematical model. By suitably adjusting the few parameters in the model it is possible to reproduce the basic patterns of neural activity.
\section{Introduction}
In this paper we try to develop a mathematical tool
that allows to describe signal analysis in the auditory pathway of the brain.
The incoming signals from the inner ear are processed in parallel pathways up to the inferior colliculus.
Essentially starting from this neuronal center information from other parts of the brain are combined
with the auditory components.
A time dependent pattern of neural activity then emerges in the auditory cortex.
Signal processing along the auditory pathway is complex.
There is a wealth of detailed experimental information available
and many of the essential features have been described precisely \cite{inferiorcolliculus}.
To a large extent the activity of specific neurons has been classified
and some information on the topological ordering of different groups of neurons is available.
The challenge is to set up a global picture
and to understand
how the different components combine on the signal processing level.\\
The approach taken here is
to describe the neuronal activity with densities that have a probabilistic interpretation.
The neuronal nuclei are then pictured as transforming these densities in a specific way,
adapted to the physiological significance of these nuclei.
Densities give a less precise description of neurons than models based on dynamical systems would admit.
Yet densities should provide a more efficient tool in the treatment of the interaction of the neuronal nuclei
and they should facilitate keeping track of the patterns of neural activity.
They are specifically designed towards time and intensity coding.
We land at the area of firing rate models (see chapter 11 of \cite{ermentrout2011}) and choose a Poisson type model that allows to represent the firing properties of neurons on the basis of densities. We first analyze the signal processing of a single neuron with respect to the refractory properties. Such effects have already be studied previously
in \cite{deger}.
Our method is based on stochastic results from renewal theory. With it, any kind of refractory period can be handled.
For periodic signals we show that any
refractory neuron responds to a periodic input by an asymptotically periodic output.
To model the combined activity of a network of refractory neurons, we use perfect integrate-and-fire with
stochastic input and bounded paths. It turns out that a continuous time finite state Markov chain model (CTMC)
is suitable to the analysis. In particular, the synaptic and transmission delays are easily incorporated.
This approach circumvents Stein's model and stochastic differential equations. Yet still, it seems to capture the essential features observed with the neurons in the auditory pathway. Our model leads to an
ordinary differential equation that is linear. Explicit solutions can then
be obtained through standard techniques in linear algebra and differential equations.
We e.g. get an easy derivation for the classical formulas
for perfect integrate-and-fire neurons receiving only excitatory inputs.
Our mathematical approach is amenable to modeling and relates to simulations.
In a companion paper this will be investigated in detail.
In order to focus our work, we have asked for transparency and simplicity of the model and our efforts are directed towards using as few parameters as possible.
We take into account the fine timing parameters like the refractory properties of the neuron and the synaptic and
transmission delays. We also include the spontaneous activity of the neuron and
the local architecture of the network.
We omit any neurochemical variables and hence the model is at best only phenomenological.
\\
\section{Stochastic processes for auditory periphery}
A neuron receives spike trains through its dendritic tree and emits a spike
whenever the membrane potential of the cell reaches a cell specific threshold value.
The spikes are narrowly supported in time and have uniform shapes.
Thus the mathematical theory of point processes is widely used for modeling the neurons statistical behavior.
In particular the problems related to the neuronal ensembles can be reformulated in terms of queueing theory.
There are models for single neuron behavior of varying detail.
The most detailed ones are based on the physical model by Hodgkin and Huxley
and contain several parameters related to the chemical and physiological properties of the neuron.
From the mathematical point of view, this model describes the voltage of the membrane in terms of a dynamical system,
i.e. a system of ordinary differential equations.
The simplest model is the integrate-and-fire (IF)
and a more sophisticated is the leaky IF (LIF), which breaks the problem of neuronal firing in two parts:
the time before the neuron fires is modeled with differential equations and once the solution reaches critical level,
the neuron fires and then rests before the process starts anew.
The classical models are deterministic. Stochastic nature of the neural activity can be incorporated in several different ways.
The Stein model \cite{stein65} is a stochastic differential equation model for the sub-threshold membrane voltage evolution.
It assumes excitatory and inhibitory Poisson inputs and an exponential decay of the membrane potential.
This is still a very detailed model and correspondingly, explicit calculations are difficult, e.g. an explicit formula for the first passage time of the system with constant
intensity Poisson inputs is not known (see Sacerdote, Giraudo 2011).
If the leakage term is neglected, the resulting model is randomized random walk (RRW)
for which the first passage time can be derived - assuming constant input - via Laplace transforms \cite{tuckwell89}.
However, there is no formulas available for non-constant stimuli.\\
In the present approach we take every incoming signal to be inherently stochastic by assuming always
an explicit stochastic process,
which comes with a certain intensity
depending on the (acoustic) stimulus and previous processing steps only. The mathematical expression for this intensity is a non-negative time dependent density $s(t)$.
We assume, that the neurons activity is completely described by the nature of the
stochastic process (e.g. Poisson, Gamma type neuron), by the density $s(t)$ that itself is derived from the input signals from other neurons and by
the time of the previous spike of the neuron itself.
To easily combine the activities of the different neurons, we only compute the output intensity
of the spiking and assume that when several of these intensities are combined in a next neuron, the
pooled incoming spikes look like a Poisson process. In the case of constant intensity
processes which are sufficiently regular, the sum of the processes
approaches Poisson process (see \cite{daley}: Proposition 11.2.VI).
We are interested in two types of abstract neurons:
primary neurons are directly stimulated by a continuous variable
like the concentration of neurotransmitter in the
inner hair cell auditory nerve fiber complex -
or a more abstract variable like a probability density;
integrating neurons take electric spike trains from other neurons as input
and process the spike trains according to a rule where the
excitatory input brings the neuron closer to firing and inhibitory
spikes push the neuron away from emitting a spike. The rules are motivated by
the physiological properties of the cells.
We try to characterize the quantitative behavior of these abstract
neurons based on first principles.
\section{The refractory neuron}
\subsection{The definition of the refractory neuron}
An abstract refractory neuron, $n_R$, is taken to be
a stochastic process determined by an inhomogeneous, non-negative function
$s(t)$ and a homogeneous function $r(t)$.
The inhomogeneous function represents the external stimulation of the neuron
and the homogeneous function describes the internal dynamics of the neuron.
As an example, $s(t)$ could describe the amount of the neurotransmitter in the inner hair cell,
and $r(t)$ the refractory properties of the auditory nerve fiber.
More precisely we define the probability of the neuron to emit
a spike infinitesimally through
\begin{equation}
\label{n_R: infinitesimal definition}
P(t_1>t+h|t_1>t)=1-s(t)r(t-t_0)h + O(h^2)
\end{equation}
where $t_0$ is the moment at which the neuron emitted the previous spike before $t_1$
and $O(h^2)$ is an error term with $O(h)/h\to 0$ as $h\to 0$.
We assume throughout
that $s(t)$ is a non-negative locally integrable function, $r(t)=0$ for all negative $t$,
and $r(t)\leq r(u)$ for all $t<u$.
Furthermore we assume that the integral
$$
\int_x^{\infty}s(t)r(t-x)dt
$$
is infinite for any $x>0$.
To determine the probability density of the firing we fix $t>t_0$ and divide the interval $[t_0,t]$ into $n$ equal parts
with $nh=t-t_0$, $a_j = t_0+(j-1)h$ and $b_j = a_j+h$, $j=1,\dots, n$, to have
$$
[t_0,t]=\bigcup_{j=1}^n[a_j,b_j].
$$
By the definition of the conditional probability we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber
P(t_1>t|t_1>t_0)&=&\frac{P(t_1>t)}{P(t_1>t_0)}\\
\nonumber
&=&
\frac{P(t_1>b_n)}{P(t_1>a_n)}\cdot \ldots \cdot \frac{P(t_1>b_1)}{P(t_1>a_1)}\\
\nonumber
&=&
\prod_{j=1}^nP(t_1>b_j|t_1>a_j).
\end{eqnarray}
Taking logarithm, using the assumption (\ref{n_R: infinitesimal definition}) and linearizing the right hand side logarithms gives
$$
\log P(t_1>t|t_1>t_0)=\lim_{n\to \infty}\sum_{j=1}^n -hs(a_j)r(a_j-t_0)
$$
which can be interpreted as an integral to give
$$
P(t_1>t|t_1>t_0)=\exp \left(-\int_{t_0}^ts(u)r(u-t_0)du\right).
$$
Let us define now the transition probability $p(x,t)$ by differentiating
the conditional probability above with respect to $t$ and setting $t_0=x$ to obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{pxt}
p(x,t)=s(t)r(t-x)\exp \left(-\int_{x}^ts(u)r(u-x)du\right).
\end{equation}
Then $p(x,t)$ is the probability density that the first firing after firing at $t_0=x$ occurs at $t$. We set
\begin{equation}
p(x,t) = 0\quad\textrm{for}\quad t<x.
\end{equation}
Clearly\footnote{We often use the shorthand $\int$ for the definite integral $\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}$, and likewise we abbreviate $\sum=\sum_{-\infty}^{\infty}$, if not otherwise stated or clear from the context.}
\begin{equation}
\int p(x,t)dt = 1
\end{equation}
If the ``first'' firing time has a distribution $p_0$, then the next
firings are given recursively by
$$
p_k(t)=\int_{-\infty}^tp_{k-1}(x)p(x,t)dx,
$$
for $k=1,2,\dots$.
The consecutive firing times form a point process $T_R=\{t_0,t_1,\dots\}$.\\
Analogously, the transition probabilities for the $k$th firing are
$$
p_k(x,t)=\int_{-\infty}^tp_{k-1}(x,z)p(z,t)dz,
$$
Similar derivations can be found in \cite{gerstnerkistler}: 5.2.3,
and \cite{cox}: pp. 4--5.
\subsection{The output of the refractory neuron}
Given either a refractory neuron or a integrate-and-fire neuron as a model for the ``law''
of the neuron, we define the output rate of the neuron.
Let $T = \{t_0,t_1,\dots\}$ be a point process.
The attached counting process is defined by
$$
N(t) = \{i\geq 0|t_i\leq t < t_{i+1}\},
$$
and we call $M(t) = E(N(t))$ the expected number of neural spikes emitted up to moment $t$.
If $M$ is differentiable, we define
$$
I(t) = \frac{dM(t)}{dt}
$$
to be the instantaneous firing rate. This is the time varying
output rate of the neuron's activity.
In the physiological measurements, the peri stimulus time histogram
(PSTH) corresponds to the instantaneous firing rate. On the other hand,
in stochastic analysis $M(t)$ is called the renewal function.
Mathematically, in the simplified model treated in this paper, a simple neuron is the transformation of incoming
rate functions $s_-$ and $s_+$ to an output rate function $I(t)$.
\subsection{Instantaneous firing rate}
Given a locally integrable non-negative function $s(t)$ and an initial probability
distribution $\mu(dt)=p_0(t)dt$ for the first spike, we compute the
instantaneous firing rate $I(t)$.
The instantaneous firing rate $I(t)$ of a neuron at time $t$ corresponds
to the joint probability density function $p(x,t)$ of the neuron to fire
at moment $t$ given it fired at $x$ and
the initial probability measure $\mu$ due to the history of the system
up to a starting moment $t=0$ (stimulus onset).
We have (justified by \cite{gihman69}: Chapter 7.7: Theorem 4)
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{instantenous}
I(t) &=& \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\int_{t_1=0}^{t_2}\dots \int_{t_k=t_{k-1}}^t\int_0^{\infty}
\mu(s)p(s,t_1)\dots p(t_k,t)
dt_1\dots dt_kds\\
&=& \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}p_k(t)
\end{eqnarray}
The definition of instantaneous firing rate is related to the repeated measurements data gathering
procedure,
where the activity of single neurons
is recorded while the auditory system receives acoustic input.
It is tacitly assumed that between the stimuli there is enough time for the
neural system to get back to a equilibrium state
where only the spontaneous activity of neurons persists.
If the spontaneous activity is assumed to be a homogeneous Poisson process, then
the corresponding measure $\mu$ would be just the exponential function
$$
\mu (s) = \lambda \e ^{-\lambda s}ds.
$$
In a mathematically simpler situation, we can assume that the neuron fired at $t=0$, at the onset
of the stimulus. This corresponds to the choice
$$
\mu (s) = \delta (s),
$$
where $\delta$ is the Dirac measure concentrated at the origin.
The case with no refractory period ( $r(t)= \chi_0 (t)$ )
corresponds to the classical Poisson model. In this situation, the instantaneous firing rate
gives back the original intensity
\begin{eqnarray*}
p_m(x;t)
&=&dt \chi_x(t)\,s(t) \,\exp(-\int_x^t s(u)du)\\
& &\int_x^t s(y_{m-1}) dy_{m-1}...\int_x^{y_3} s(y_2) dy_2\int_x^{y_2} s(y_1) dy_1
\end{eqnarray*}
Upon setting $w(t)= \int_x^t s(u) du$,
$s(t)= \frac{d}{dt}w(t)$, one obtains
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_x^t s(y_{m-1}) dy_{m-1}...\int_x^{y_3} s(y_2) dy_2\int_x^{y_2} s(y_1) dy_1 &=&\frac{w^{m-1}(t)}{(m-1)!}
\end{eqnarray*}
and the transition probabilities have the form
\begin{equation}
p_m(x;t)
= \chi_x(t) \,s(t)\e^{-w(t)}\frac{w^{m-1}(t)}{(m-1)!}.
\end{equation}
The instantaneous firing rate of a neuron at time $t$, given that the neuron fired at time x, is
\begin{equation}
q(x;t)=\sum_{m=1}^{\infty}p_m(x;t)=\chi_x(t)s(t)\e^{-w(t)}\e^{w(t)}
=\chi_x(t)s(t).
\end{equation}
We thus
obtain the original intensity $s$ and observe that the instantaneous firing
rate does not depend on the past. Hence,
$$
\lim_{x\to -\infty}q(x;t)=s(t)
$$
for all $t$
and the convergence is uniform on any finite interval.
In the following sections neurons with non-trivial refractory period will be considered.
\subsection{Densities}
At the level of single neurons, we assume that the activity of a neuron is determined
by the incoming densities $s_i(t) \geq 0$
and a set of parameters: spontaneous activity of the neuron $\sigma$, connection strength $\omega _i$,
connection delay $\tau_i$,
refractory function $r$ and firing threshold $\vartheta$.
We first divide the analysis of the neuron into two independent steps:
input analysis and output generation. The first results in a single pooled activity,
a Poisson process that we approximate by the integrated input density $s$.
The output generation depends on $s$ and $r$, the refractory component, as well as on $\sigma$ and $\vartheta$. The spontaneous activity $\sigma$ can be subsumed in the calculation of $s(t)$.\\
The infinitesimal probability density that determines the instantaneous firing rate of the output is a product of the integrated input density $s(t)$, and the refractory function $r(t-x)$, translated to the position $x$ of the previous firing time
(see \cite{lutkenhoner80}, \cite{gaumond82}, and \cite{miller92}, the details are given in the next section).
A typical example for $r$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{rho_exp}
r_{\rho}(u) = \left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
0 & \text{if } u<\rho_A,\\
1-\exp (-u/{\rho_R}) &\text{if} u \geq \rho_A,
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
where the constants $\rho_A$ and $\rho_R$ are absolute and relative refractory periods respectively.
We assume that $r$ is always monotone increasing, grows at most polynomially,
and $r(u)=0$ for all $u<0$. We do not assume continuity for $r$.\\
For the incoming densities we consider two cases:
either we have an auditory nerve fiber, for which a simple inner hair cell model will then provide the input density,
or the input comes from a collection of neurons with specific outputs. In the latter case, we
represent the activities of the neurons that connect over the dendritic tree by
densities $s_i, i\in I$.\\
The (excitatory) inputs are pooled
by taking the sum of the densities $s_i$, weighted with the strength $\omega_i$ of the connections,
and taking into account the delays $\tau _i$ of each path,
\begin{equation}
s(t)=\sum_{i\in I} \omega_i s_i (t-\tau_i),
\end{equation}
where $I$ is the set of indices for the (excitatory) connections.\\
For the refractory neuron only excitatory inputs are taken into account. The situation of mixed, excitatory and inhibitory inputs, will be studied in the context of the integrate-and-fire neuron.\\
The pooling of the densities is motivated by the following addition property\\
\emph{
Assume that the neuron $Y$ fires whenever any of the two input neurons $X_1$ or $X_2$ fire. If the firing densities for $X_1$ and $X_2$ are $s_1$ and $s_2$ respectively, then the resulting output density of the neuron $Y$ is $\tilde{s}= s_1 + s_2$}\\
This statement fails, if refractory periods are involved.\\
The proof is a direct consequence of the exponential law:
\begin{eqnarray}
P(T_1^Y>t|T_0<x)
&=&
1-P(T_1^{X_1}\leq t| T_0^{X_1}<x)P(T_1^{X_2}\leq t|T_0^{X_2}<x)
\nonumber\\
&=&
1
-
\exp \left(-\int_x^ts_1(u)du\right)
\exp \left(-\int_x^ts_2(u)du\right)
\nonumber\\
&=&
1
-
\exp \left(-\int_x^t(s_1(u)+s_2(u))du\right).
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Hence, $Y$ can be obtained by summing the densities of $X_1$ and $X_2$.\\
\subsection{Periodic signals}
The transition probability (see equation (\ref{pxt})) associated to the neuron and to the density $s(t)$ is
$$
p(x,t) = r(t-x)s(t)\e ^{-\int_x^tr(u-x)s(u)du}.
$$
For the periodic case it is assumed that $s$ is 1-periodic. As a consequence
$$
p(x+m,t+m) = p(x,t)
$$
for any integer $m$.\\
In the periodic case, the instantaneous firing rate is well defined and asymptotically does not depend on the initial measure $\mu$. This is a result of Thorisson (\cite{thorisson84}, Theorem 2). In the following we use $\mu = \delta _x$ the dirac measure at $x$. With this,
the instantaneous firing rate of a neuron at $t$ is given by
\begin{equation}
q(x,t)=\sum_{m=1}^{\infty}p_m(x,t)
\end{equation}
Under the additional condition that the factor m defined in equation (\ref{m}) below is finite, the limit
$$
q(t):= \lim_{x\rightarrow -\infty} q(x,t)
$$
exists (\cite{thorisson84}, Theorem 6).\\
In the discussion above, when no refractory period was involved, it was shown that $q(t)$ was equal to the initial density $s(t)$. In the present situation this will be different.\\
Note that the function $q$ is periodic:
$$
q(x,t+1) = \sum_{m=1}^{\infty}p_m(x,t+1)=\sum_{m=1}^{\infty}p_m(x-1,t) = q(x-1,t)
$$
$$
q(t+1)= \lim_{x\rightarrow -\infty} q(x-1,t)= q(t)
$$
The operator $T$ on locally integrable periodic functions is defined as
$$
Tf(t) = \int p(x,t) f(x) dx
$$
and its dual on $L^{\infty}$ by
$$
T^*g(x) = \int p(x,t) g(t) dt
$$
The fact is then that $q$ is invariant under $T$
\begin{eqnarray*}
Tq(t)&=&\int p(x,t) q(x) dx = \int p(x,t) \lim_{z\rightarrow -\infty} q(z,x) dx\\
&=&\lim_{z\rightarrow -\infty} \int p(x,t) \sum_{m=1}^{\infty}p_m(z,x)\\
&=&\lim_{z\rightarrow -\infty} \sum_{m=1}^{\infty}p_{m+1}(z,t)\\
&=&\lim_{z\rightarrow -\infty} (q(z,t) -p(z,t))\\
&=& q(t)
\end{eqnarray*}
\\
The operator T can be periodized.
\begin{eqnarray*}
Tf(t) &=& \int p(x,t) f(x) dx\\
&=& \sum_m \int^1_0 p(x+m,t) f(x+m) dx\\
&=& \int^1_0 \sum_m p(x+m,t) f(x) dx
\end{eqnarray*}
Set
$$
\tilde{p}(x,t) = \sum_m p(x+m,t) = \sum_m p(x,t+m)
$$
then the operator $T$ on periodic functions reduces to
$$
\tilde{T} f(t) := \int^1_0 \tilde{p}(x,t) f(x) dx
$$
on the space $L^1 [0,1]$. Its kernel is periodic in both variables and satisfies
$$
\int^1_0 \tilde{p}(x,t) dt = \int^1_0 \sum_m p(x+m,t) dt = \int^1_0 \sum_m p(x,t+m) dt\\
= \int p(x,t) dt = 1
$$
Furthermore, $q$ considered as a function in $L^1 [0,1]$ is invariant
$$
q(t) = T q(t) = \tilde{T} q(t)
$$
In the case of a $1$-periodic infinitesimal density function it is possible to start with the probability distribution $\tilde{Q}(A)$ that the neuron has fired at $t_0 \in A$ mod 1. The set $A$ is a subset of $[0,1)$ and $\tilde{Q}([0,1)) = 1$. Assume then that the neuron has fired at time $t_0=x$ within the period.
The initial probability $\tilde{Q}$ is transformed into the probability
$$ \int_A dt \int
\tilde{p}(x,t) dQ(x)$$
If $\tilde{Q}$ is mapped onto itself under this transformation, then it can be represented by a density $\tilde{q} dt$
$$\tilde{Q}(A) = \int_A \tilde{q}(t) dt$$
that satisfies the fixed point equation
$$
\tilde{q}(t) = \int_0^1\tilde{p}(x,t)\tilde{q}(x)dx.
$$
The output density $q(t)$ of the neuron driven by the periodic input density $s(t)$ is a fixed point of $T$ and hence of the periodized operator $\tilde{T}$. In general it will not be normalized whereas the fixed point $\tilde{q}$ above is normalized by $\int_0^1 \tilde{q}(t)dt = 1$.
\begin{theorem} (Thorisson)\label{fixedpoint}
The integral operator
$$
\tilde{T}q(t) = \int_0^1\tilde{p}(x,t)q(x)dx.
$$
has a unique normalized fixed point $\tilde{q} \in L^1([0,1])$. Furthermore
for every non-negative $q_0 \in L^1([0,1])$ with $\|q_0\|=1$ the sequence
$q_n = T q_{n-1}, n=1,2,...$ converges exponentially to $\tilde{q}$ in $L^1([0,1])$.
\end{theorem}
This result is contained in \cite{thorisson84}. An independent proof will be given
in Appendix 2 (Corollary \ref{adjoint}).
The uniqueness statement tells us in particular that the
outgoing infinitesimal probability distribution $q$ of the neuron - provided it exists - is a multiple of the normalized distribution $\tilde{q}$.\\
The expectation time for $t_1$ to occur on the condition that $t_0=x$ is
$$\int t p(x,t) dt$$
The expected delay is thus
$$E(x):=\int t p(x,t) dt-x =\int (t -x) p(x,t) dt$$\\
\begin{theorem} (Thorisson)
\label{constant}
Assume that
\begin{equation}
\label{m}
m=\int_0^1 E(x) \tilde{q}(x)dx <\infty
\end{equation}
where $\tilde{q}$ is the normalized fixed point above. Then the outgoing infinitesimal probability distribution approaches the periodic density
$$
q=\frac{1}{m} \tilde{q}.
$$
This entails that $\displaystyle\lim_{n\to\infty} \int_n^{n+1}|q(x,t)-\tilde q(t)|dt=0$ for every $x$.
\end{theorem}
This is proved in \cite{thorisson84}, Theorem 3.
As an example take the case of a neuron with an absolute refractory period $\varrho$ and a constant input density $s(t)= A$. Here,
$q(t)=1$ is a fixed point for $\tilde{T}$. The expected average delay is
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_0^1 E(x) dx &=& \int_0^1 dx \int_{x+\rho}^\infty(t-x) Ae^{-A(t-(x+\rho))} dt\\
&=&\rho + A^{-1}
\end{eqnarray*}
The outgoing density is thus
$$q(t) = \frac{1}{\rho+A^{-1}}$$
in accordance with the result in Appendix 1.\\
\subsection{Constant stimuli with general refractory structure}
We consider an important special case which corresponds to a neuron with
spontaneous firing and a short refractory time. Typically the spontaneous
firing rate is at most 100~Hz while the refractory time is at least 0.7~ms.
We model the situation by taking a constant density.
In the special case $s(t)\equiv A$, $A>0$, the transition probability
\begin{equation*}
Ar(t-x) e^{-A\int_x^tr(u-x)du}
\end{equation*}
is a function of $t-x$ that will be written as $p(t-x)$.
The transition probabilities for the k-th firing are then obtained by convolution
\begin{eqnarray*}
p_k (t-x)&=& \int p_{k-1}(t-z)p(z-x)dz\\
&=&p_{k-1}*p(t-x) = p^{*k}(t-x)
\end{eqnarray*}
Provided the absolute refractory period is positive,
the instantaneous firing rate
$$
q(t-x)=\sum_{m=1}^{\infty}p_m(t-x)
$$
with system start at $x$ has only finitely many terms.
The instantaneous firing rate of the neuron is then given by
\begin{eqnarray*}
q&=& \lim_{x\rightarrow-\infty} \sum_{1} ^{\infty}p_k(t-x)\\
&=& \lim_{t\rightarrow \infty} \sum_{1} ^{\infty}p^{*k}(t)
\end{eqnarray*}
In this situation one actually need not invoke Thorisson's theory, as the classical Blackwell renewal Theorem \cite{F2} verifies that the previous limit exists and is constant.
In the case of a pure absolute refractory period $\rho > 0$ we already noted that
\begin{equation*}
q=\frac{A}{1+A\rho}.
\end{equation*}
Another proof that uses just simple Fourier analysis in included in Appendix 1.
\section{The integrate--and--fire neuron: a simple discrete model}
In this section we derive the instantaneous firing rate and the interspike interval
distributions for the integrate--and--fire neuron. We analyze the example of constant
inputs and finally show that for every periodic stimulus there exists a unique
periodic equilibrium density which the neuron's instantaneous firing rate approaches.
This simple model does not allow the inclusion of a refractory period.
\subsection{Integrate-and-fire neuron}
An integrate-and-fire neuron (IF neuron),
$n_{IF}$ is defined through inhibitory and excitatory incoming spike trains.
The model described here is perfect in the sense that the effect of the incoming spikes does not
decay over time. Moreover, the model has bounded paths since the neuron is not allowed to
have infinitely big membrane potential values. This is done by modeling the membrane potential
in an abstract way as states in a finite system, where each state characterizes how many excitatory
incoming spikes are needed at least before the neuron can emit a spike.
More precisely,
let $s_-(t)$ and $s_+(t)$
be the intensities of two independent, inhomogeneous Poisson processes.
The IF neuron has $K>1$ possible states
$1,\dots,{K}$. When a spike arrives from the inhibitory process,
the IF neuron moves from state $i$ to state $i+1$
unless already at the lowest state $K$.
Similarly, when a spike arrives from the excitatory process, the neuron moves
up from the state $i$ to $i-1$, if $i>1$ and
moves from state $1$ to $K$ otherwise. This transition is called resetting
and the IF neuron emits a spike during the transition.
These transition times form a point process $T_{IF}=\{t_0,t_1,\dots\}$.
\subsection{Densities}\label{subse:densities}
We assume that the activity of the neuron is determined
by the incoming densities $s_i(t) \geq 0$
and a set of parameters: spontaneous activity of the neuron $\sigma$, connection strength $\omega _i$,connection delay $\tau_i$ and firing threshold $\vartheta$.
We divide the analysis of the neuron into two independent steps:
input analysis and output generation. The first results in a single pooled activity,
a Poisson process that we approximate by the input density $s$. The output generation depends on $s$ as well as on $\sigma$ and $\vartheta$. The spontaneous activity $\sigma$ can be subsumed in the calculation of $s(t)$.\\
The incoming densities $s_i, i\in I$.
represent the activities of the neurons that connect over the dendritic tree.
The excitatory and inhibitory inputs are pooled separately
by taking the sum of the densities $s_i$, weighted with the strength $\omega_i$ of the connections,
and taking into account the delays $\tau _i$ of each path,
\begin{equation}
s^+(t)=\sum_{i\in I_+} \omega_i s_i (t-\tau_i),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
s^-(t)=\sum_{i\in I_-} \omega_i s_i (t-\tau_i),
\end{equation}
where $I_+ \subset I$ and $I_-\subset I$ are the subsets of indices for excitatory and inhibitory connections respectively. The probability of an incoming spike is modeled by the density $s(t)= s^+(t) + s^-(t)$.\\
\subsection{The infinitesimal generator}
A probability vector $v = (v_1,v_2,..., v_n)$ is a vector with non-negative components that add up to $1$: $v_i\geq 0$ for $i=1,...n$ and $\sum_1^n v_i = 0$. A linear mapping that maps probability vectors into probability vectors is called a probability mapping. Expressed by a matrix $A = (a_{ij})$ in standard coordinates it is characterized by the condition that its column vectors are all probability vectors. If the linear differential equation
$$v'=Qv$$
generates a flow of probability mappings, then $Q$ is called an infinitesimal generator for probability mappings. It is well-known that the infinitesimal generators $Q$ can be characterized by the property that they can be written in the form $Q = (A - I)s$, with $A$ a probability matrix and $s\geq 0$ is a scalar. In other words, the diagonal-elements of $Q$ are non-positive, other elements non-negative, and each column sums to zero. Note that the flow of the differential equation maps the positive cone $\mathbf{R^n}_+ = \{v: v_i\geq 0, i=1,...n\}$ into itself. In fact, on the boundary of the cone, the vector field $Qv$ points into the cone or is tangent to the cone.\\
The infinitesimal generator of the process described in subsection \ref{subse:densities} is
given by the matrix
$Q(t) = (A(t) - I) s(t)$ with a matrix $A(t)$ of the form
\begin{equation*}
A(t) =
\begin{bmatrix}
0 & p(t) & & & & \\
q(t) & 0 & p(t) & & & \\
& \ddots & \ddots & \ddots& \\
& & q(t)& 0& p(t) \\
p(t) & & & q(t) & q(t) \\
\end{bmatrix},
\end{equation*}
with $p(t)= \frac{s_+(t)}{s(t)}$ and $q(t)=\frac{s_-(t)}{s(t)}$.
The time development of the system is fully determined by the
matrix differential equation
$$
v'(t) = Q(t)v(t),
$$
where $v$ is a time-dependent probability vector.
A first order linear matrix equation has always a unique solution with prescribed initial condition $v(x)= w$. It can be expressed by the Peano-Baker series
in terms of iterated integrals, see \cite{rindos}, \cite{fortmann}, \cite{kailath}.
$$
v(t) = \Phi(t,x)w
$$
where
$$
\Phi(x,t)=I+
\int_x^tQ(\tau_1)d\tau_1+
\int_x^t\int_x^{\tau_1}Q(\tau_1)Q(\tau_2)d\tau_2d\tau_1+\dots
$$
\subsection{The periodic case}\label{periodic}
\begin{theorem}
Assume that $A(t)$ is a 1-periodic probability matrix that is piecewise continuous in $t$, and that $s(t)$ a 1-periodic function.
Then the equation
\begin{equation}
v^{\cdot} = (A(t)-I) s(t) v
\end{equation}
has a 1-periodic solution.\\
\end{theorem}
This is a consequence of Floquet theory:\\
For all $t$, the adjoint matrix $A(t) ^*$ has eigenvector $(1,1,...1)$ with eigenvalue $1$. Therefore the adjoint equation
\begin{equation}
-y^{\cdot} = (A(t)-I)^*s(t) y
\end{equation}
has $(1,1,...1)$ as a constant and hence periodic solution.
Following \cite{knobloch} p. 94, the space $L$ of periodic solutions of $(1)$ has the same dimension as the space $L^*$ of periodic solutions of (2). Therefore the space $L$ has dimension at least one.
\begin{theorem}\label{unique}
In this situation, the (normalized) periodic solution is unique.
\end{theorem}
The proof is given in Appendix 2.\\
If $v=(v_1,v_2,...,v_n)$ is the solution of the equation, then
the output density of the neuron is given by the density
$$
p(t) v_1(t)s(t)= s_+(t) v_1(t)
$$
that controls the passage from the first to the n-th level of the neuron.
\subsection{Interspike interval distribution}
Given a vector $w$ representing the distribution of probability over the states at
the initial time $x$,
we determine the transition probability $p$ given
the time-dependent Poisson processes $N_+$ and $N_-$ as input.
By adding an absorbing state in the diagram
\ref{state_diagram} we find the
infinitesimal generator matrix
\begin{equation*}
Q_{0}(t) =
\begin{bmatrix}
0 & {s}_+(t) & & & & & \\
0 &-s (t) & {s}_+(t) & & & & \\
0 &{s}_-(t) & -s (t) & {s}_+(t) & & & \\
\vdots & & \ddots & \ddots & \ddots& \\
0 & & & {s}_-(t)& -s (t)& {s}_+(t) \\
0 & & & & {s}_-(t) & -{s}_+(t) \\
\end{bmatrix},
\end{equation*}
where $s (t)=s_+(t)+s_- (t)$.
The time development of the finite state system up to the next firing is the solution
to the differential equation
\begin{equation}
\label{gen}
v'(t) = Q_{0}(t)v(t)
\end{equation}
The solution $v(t)=(v_0(t),v_1(t),...v_n(t))$ of the differential equation with initial condition $v(x) = e_n$ is the probability distribution over the states, given that the neuron fired at time $t_0=x$ (at this time the neuron is at state $n$). The component $v_0(t)$ is the probability that the next firing occurred in the interval $(x,t]$. The transition probability is therefore given by
\begin{equation}\label{trans}
p(x,t)=\frac{d}{dt}v_0(t) = s_+(t)v_1(t)
\end{equation}
The output density $s^*$ (that depends on $x$ and on $t$) of the neuron can then be calculated as the instantaneous firing rate
$$s^*(x,t)= \sum_1^{\infty} p_m(x,t)$$
(cf. formula (10)).\\
\subsection{Refractory period for the integrate and fire neuron}
The model for the integrate and fire neuron can also be considered as a renewal process with
time dependent input. The process depends on the last firing time $x$ and on the excitatory and inhibitory
inputs densities $s_+$ and $s_-$.
As in section 4.4 it is then possible to incorporate a refractory period in the model.
The refractory function $r(t-x)$, translated to the position
$x$ has to be multiplied
with the input densities. The differential equation $v'(t) = Q(t) v(t)$
is then solved with
$s_+(t)$ replaced by $s_+(t)r(t-x)$, $s_-(t)$ by $s_-(t)r(t-x)$ and consequently $s(t)$ by $s(t)r(t-x)$.
The transition probability is again given by (\ref{trans}), with $v_1(t)$ the component of the
solution vector of the modified differential equation.
\subsection{Constant stimuli}
In general, the explicit solution of the differential equation is difficult to find. This can already be seen by considering the simple
case, where the system is time-independent, i.e. the excitation and the inhibition are homogeneous
Poisson processes. Then the Peano-Baker series simplifies to matrix exponentiation. However,
even this cannot be calculated explicitly for large matrices.
\subsubsection*{Two state system}
The simplest case is the two-state system which fires at the moment $t=0$.
There,
the inter spike interval density can be calculated (using Mathematica)
directly and we have
$$
f(t) =
\frac{s _+^2}{\sqrt{s_-(4s_++s_-)}}
\left({\rm e}^{t\sqrt{s_-(4s_++s_-)}}-1\right)
{\rm e}^{-\frac{t}{2}\left(2s_++s_-+\sqrt{s_-(4s_++s_-)}\right)}.
$$
Similar calculations reveal that the instantaneous firing rate
with initial state $w=(0,0,\dots,0,1)$ at moment $t=0$
gives
$$
I(t)=\frac{s_+^2}{2s_++s_-}\left(1-{\rm e}^{-(2s_++s_-)t}\right).
$$
For larger matrices the formulas are similar but become enormous. The important phenomenon is
that the instantaneous firing rate always approaches at an exponential rate a unique equilibrium.
\subsubsection*{Many state system with excitation only}
If inhibition is absent,
then the density of the first passage time of the integrate--and--fire neuron is
$$
f(t) = s_+(\exp(Q_{0}t)w)_1 = \frac{ \exp(-s_+t)(s_+t)^{K}}{{K}!t},
$$
with the choice $w = (0,0,\dots, 0, 1)$.
We find thus
the well known formula for perfect integrate-and-fire neurons with excitation only.
\subsubsection*{Equilibrium in the presence of inhibition}
In the equilibrium, the $K$-state system satisfies $Qv = 0$. This leads to
$$
E(t)=\frac{\sum_{k=1}^{K}(K-k+1)s_+^{K-k}s_-^{k-1}}{s_+^{K}}
$$
For $s_+>>s_-$ the excitatory term dominates and the expectation is roughly $K/s_+$;
for $s_+=s_-$ the expectation is
$$
E(t)= \frac{K(1+K)}{2s_+};
$$
for $s_+<<s_-$ the expectation blows up.
|
\section{Introduction and Summary}
In past few years there has been much interest and progress in further
understanding of relativistic, charged, dissipative fluid in presence
of some global anomalies. Presence of quantum anomalies play a crucial
role in transport properties of fluid. The first evidence of
quantum anomaly in fluid transport was holographically observed in \cite{Banerjee:2008th,Erdmenger:2008rm}. The authors found a new parity-odd term (and hence a new transport coefficient) in the charge flavour current. The origin
of this new term can be traced back to gauge Chern-Simons term in the
dual supergravity theory. Soon after these results were published, it
was shown that the new parity-odd term in the charge current is
essential because of the triangle flavour anomalies and the second law of
thermodynamics \cite{Son:2009tf}. In general the second law of thermodynamics
(or equivalently the positivity of divergence of entropy current) imposes
constraints on different transport coefficients. The same
constraint can also be obtained from the equilibrium partition
function of fluid \cite{Banerjee:2012iz,Jensen:2012jh}. Equilibrium partition function provides an
alternate and a microscopically more transparent way to derive the
constraints on these transport coefficients. A generalization of this approach
for charged $U(1)$ anomalous fluid in arbitrary even dimensions up to leading order has been considered in \cite{Banerjee:2012cr}.
In \cite{Bhattacharyya:2013ida} Bhattacharyya $et. al.$ studied parity odd
transport for a four dimensional non-conformal charged fluid at second
order in derivative expansion. In four spacetime dimensions the effect of anomaly
appears at one derivative order and the parity-odd transport
coefficients at this order are determined in terms of anomaly
coefficient. In this paper the authors studied the transport
properties at second order and found that out of 27
transport coefficients 7 are fixed in terms of anomaly and lower order
transport coefficients. The goal of our current paper is to generalize
this work to arbitrary even dimensions. In $2n$ spacetime dimensions
the leading effect of anomaly appears at $(n-1)$ derivative
order. Hence the subleading corrections appear at $n$th derivative
order. The aim of this paper is to study the constraints on transport
coefficients appearing at subleading order. We
innovate a systematic mechanism to compute different fluid data at
arbitrary derivative order (parity odd or even). We list all possible scalars,
vectors and tensors at any arbitrary derivative order in this
paper. It seems to be rather difficult to find the independent sets.
However, we argue that it is possible to get the correct constraint
relations between transport coefficients even without knowing the
independent sets of fluid data.
Our analysis is not valid in two spacetime dimensions. In two
dimensions the parity odd terms appear at zero derivative order
itself, and hence parity-odd and parity even sectors are not
independent at any arbitrary order. Independence of these two sectors
is important in our computation.
In the parity-even sector, the leading correction appears at first
order in derivative expansion, $e.g.$ shear viscosity and bulk
viscosity terms in energy momentum tensor etc. In this paper we have
extended our calculation to include the sub-leading order correction
($i.e.$ second order corrections) to parity-even sector in
constitutive relations in arbitrary even dimensions in presence of
$U(1)$ gauge anomaly. This completes the description of fluid dynamics
up to sub-leading order in derivative expansion (both in parity-odd
and even sectors) in arbitrary even dimensions with $abelian \ gauge \
anomaly$.
The organization of our paper is as following. In \cref{sec:scheme}
we explain our notation and perturbation scheme which we
use in this paper. In \cref{Sec:euclidean} we construct the
partition function for both gauge invariant and non-invariant sectors
and compute the constitutive relations from the partition
function. We also describe the construction of the anomalous entropy current.
\Cref{sec:counting} is the most important section of
this paper. Here we first describe how to construct fluid data at arbitrary
derivative order. Next, we list all the leading and sub-leading order
scalars, vectors and tensors which may appear in constitutive
relations up to sub-leading order in derivative expansion both in
parity-even and odd sectors. Although, we have not been able to find
the \emph{`independent'} parity-odd vectors and tensors at sub-leading order,
this does not inhibit us from finding the constraints on the transport
coefficients. We elaborate this issue in
\cref{sec:basisdata}. Finally, in \cref{sec:fluidrelations} we
list the constraint on the transport coefficients up to sub-leading
order. In appendices we explain the Kaluza-Klien
decomposition (\cref{apn:KK}) and sub-sub-leading order counting
(\cref{apn:subsubleading}).
\section{Scheme and the Perturbative Expansion} \label{sec:scheme}
We consider a $2n$-dimensional spacetime manifold $\cM_{(2n)}$ with
metric $\df s^2 = G_{\mu\nu}\df x^\mu \df x^\nu$ and gauge field 1-form $\cA = \cA_\mu \df x^\mu$. We want to study fluid
dynamics in this background. A fluid is a statistical system in local
thermodynamic equilibrium, which is generally characterized in terms
of (covariant) \emph{energy-momentum tensor} $\bar\cT^{\mu\nu}$,
(covariant) \emph{charge current} $\bar\cJ^{\mu}$ and their
constitutive equations
\bea{\label{E:covariantCons}
\hat\N_\mu\bar\cT^{\mu\nu}
&= \cF^{\nu\r} \bar\cJ_\r + \underaccent{\sim}{\fT}^{\nu}, \qquad
\hat\N_\mu \bar \cJ^\mu = \undertilde{\fJ}.
}
$\cF = \df \cA$ is field strength for $\cA$. Here we have introduced a $U(1)$ anomaly $\undertilde{\fJ}$ and a gravitational anomaly $\underaccent{\sim}{\fT}^{\nu}$. The form of these anomalies is well known in literature \cite{Jensen:2013kka}. Most of our work here will be concentrated on fluid upto subleading derivative order, where only $U(1)$ anomalies contribute:
\bee{\label{E:anomalouscurrent}
\undertilde\fJ = (n+1) C^{(2n)} \star \cF^{\wedge n} = (n+1) C^{(2n)} \frac{1}{2^n}\epsilon^{\mu_1\nu_1 \cdots \mu_n\nu_n}
\cF_{\mu_1\nu_1}\ldots \cF_{\mu_n\nu_n}.
}
$\underaccent{\sim}{\fT}^{\nu}$ only starts getting values at subsubleading derivative order. Let us explain our notation here.
\begin{itemize}
\item All the fluid quantities (like currents, transport coefficients,
independent terms etc.) appearing in parity-odd sector, are denoted
by `tilde' (e.g. $\tilde A$). On the other hand we use no
special notation for parity-even sector (e.g. $A$). Wherever
applicable, $\bar A = A + \tilde A$ denotes the total quantity
(parity-odd and parity-even).
\item $\hat\N$ and $\N$ denote the covariant derivative and on $\cM_{(2n)}$ and the equilibrium manifold $\cM_{(d-1)}$ respectively. We use $\wedge$ and $\star$ as wedge product and Hodge Dual on all manifolds, as no confusion is possible.
\end{itemize}
Due to dissipative nature of fluid, it is not possible to write an
exact generating functional $W$ (or action) for fluids from which
one can derive the energy-momentum tensor $\bar\cT^{\mu\nu}$ and
charge current $\bar{\cJ^{\mu}}$. Therefore we write their most
generic forms, allowed by symmetries, in terms of fundamental fluid
variables and their derivatives in a particular thermodynamic
ensemble. In our analysis we consider the fluid variables to be
\emph{temperature} $\vq$, \emph{chemical potential}\footnote{Actually
$\nu = \mu/\vq$, where $\mu$ is the chemical potential.} $\nu$ and
\emph{fluid four-velocity} $u^\mu$ with $u^\mu u_\mu = -1$.
We prefer to work in \emph{Landau Frame}, where
all the dissipation terms are transverse to the direction of the fluid
flow. Hence, we can decompose $\bar\cT^{\mu\nu}$ and $\bar{\cJ^{\mu}}$
as
\bee{\label{E:TJdefi} \bar\cT^{\mu\nu} = E(\vq,\nu) u^\mu u^\nu +
\bar\Pi^{\mu\nu}, \quad \bar\cJ^{\mu} = Q(\vq,\nu) u^\mu +
\bar\U^{\mu}, }
where $\bar\Pi^{\mu\nu}$ and $\bar\U^\mu$ are the most generic
symmetric tensor and vector made out of fluid variables. In the Landau
frame
\bee{ \label{E:LGC} u_\mu \bar\Pi^{\mu\nu} = 0, \qquad
u_\mu \bar\U^{\mu} = 0. }
The easiest way to implement this is to project all vectors or tensors
appearing in $\bar\U^{\mu}$ or $\bar\Pi^{\mu\nu}$, transverse to
$u^\mu$ using the projection operator
$$P^{\mu\nu} = G^{\mu\nu} +
u^\mu u^\nu.$$
Since fluid is a low energy fluctuation about the local thermodynamic
equilibrium, $\bar\Pi^{\mu\nu}$ and $\bar\U^\mu$ can be expanded in
derivatives of fundamental fluid variables ($\vq, \nu, u^\mu$):
\bee{\label{E:FirstDerExp} \bar\Pi^{\mu\nu} = \bar\Pi^{\mu\nu}_{(0)} +
\bar\Pi^{\mu\nu}_{(1)} + \bar\Pi^{\mu\nu}_{(2)} \ldots, \qquad
\bar\U^{\mu} = \bar\U^{\mu}_{(0)} + \bar\U^{\mu}_{(1)} +
\bar\U^{\mu}_{(2)} \ldots, }
where $\bar\Pi^{\mu\nu}_{(N)}$ and
$\bar\U^{\mu}_{(N)}$ involves $N$ number of derivatives on fluid
variables. The terms on RHS can have the most generic form as,
\bea{\label{E:ConstitutiveRelations} \bar\Pi^{\mu\nu}_{(N)} &=
\sum_t\t_{(N)t} (\vq,\nu)\mathbf T_{(N)t}^{\mu\nu} +
P^{\mu\nu}\sum_t\s_{(N)t}(\vq,\nu) \mathbf S_{(N)t}, \nn\\
\bar\U^\mu_{(N)} &= \frac{\vq_o}{\e+
P_o}\sum_t\nu_{(N)t}(\vq,\nu)\mathbf V_{(N)t}^{\mu}, }
where $\mathbf S_{(N)t}$, $\mathbf V^{\mu}_{(N)t}$ and $\mathbf
T^{\mu\nu}_{(N)t}$ are a collection of all possible gauge invariant
scalars, vectors and symmetric traceless tensors (collectively known
as \emph{data}) respectively, made out of fluid variables and source
fields at $N$ derivative order. $\sum_t$ corresponds to sum over
independent terms at any particular derivative order. The data which
is required for our computation has been enlisted in
\cref{sec:counting}.
In \cref{E:ConstitutiveRelations}, the expression for
$\bar\Pi^{\mu\nu}_{(N)}$ and $\bar\U^\mu_{(N)} $ are fixed up to some
undetermined coefficients appearing at each derivative order. Therefore,
a fluid is characterized by an infinite set of such unknown functions
($\t_{(N)t},\s_{(N)t},\nu_{(N)t}$), known as \emph{transport
coefficients}. Fluid up to a particular derivative order is
characterized by a finite number of such transport coefficients. In
general, these transport coefficients are not all independent. The
second law of thermodynamics (or equivalently, positivity of local
entropy current) imposes restrictions on different transport
coefficients\footnote{Similar restrictions are also applicable to non-relativistic fluids and has recently been addressed
for charged non-relativistic fluids in \cite{Banerjee:2014mka}.} \cite{LandauBook}.
Such relations among various transport
coefficients are known as \emph{constraints}.
\cite{Banerjee:2012iz} uses a different mechanism to find `some' of
these constraints.
The idea is to write an equilibrium partition function for the fluid
and derive the energy-momentum tensor and charge current from that
partition function. Because of dissipation it is not possible to write
a generating functional ($W$) for the fluid. However, one can still
write a generating functional in equilibrium configuration, which we
denote by $W^{eqb}$. Using $W^{eqb}$ one can find all the
constraint relations involving transport coefficients which comes with
data that survives at equilibrium.
More precisely, if the theory has a timelike Killing vector $\o^\mu$,
we can write an Euclidean generating functional using the background
fields and Killing equation on the decomposed manifold
$S^1\times\cM_{(d-1)}$. Here $S^1$ is the euclidean time circle along
$\o^\mu$ with time period $\tilde\b$, and $\cM_{(d-1)}$ is the spacetime
transverse to $\o^\mu$. \cite{Banerjee:2012iz} has conveniently chosen
$\o^\mu = \dow_0$. Therefore, one can decompose the background in Kaluza-Klein form,
\ben
\df s^2
&=& G_{\mu\nu}\df x^\mu \df x^\nu
= -\E{2\s} \lb \df t + a_i \df x^i \rb^2
+ g_{ij}\df x^i \df x^j, \nn \\
{\cal A} &=& A (dt +a_idx^i) + A_i dx^i. \label{E:background}
\een
For more details please refer \cref{apn:KK}. Using this choice along with the Landau Gauge
conditions and velocity normalization, the most-generic
energy-momentum tensor and charge current in \cref{E:TJdefi} on $\cM_{(d)}$
can be decomposed into scalars, vectors and tensors on
$S^1\times\cM_{(d-1)}$:
\bea{\label{E:CurrentsGeneric}
\bar T^{ij} &= E (\vq,\nu) v^i v^j + \bar\pi^{ij}, \nn\\
\bar T^{i} &= - \E{\s} \lb E(\vq,\nu) v^i \sqrt{1+ v_i v^i} +
\frac{v_j \bar\pi^{ij}}{\sqrt{1+ v_i v^i}} \rb, \nn\\
\bar T &= \E{2\s} \lb E(\vq,\nu) (1+ v_i v^i) +
\frac{v_i v_j \bar\pi^{ij}}{(1+ v_i v^i)} \rb, \nn \\
\bar J^{i} &= Q(\vq,\nu) v^i + \bar\vs^{i},\nn\\
\bar J &= - \E{\s} \lb Q(\vq,\nu) \sqrt{1+ v_i v^i} + \frac{v_i
\bar\vs^{i}}{\sqrt{1+ v_i v^i}} \rb, }
where
\bee{\nn
\bar T = \bar\cT_{00},\ \bar T^i =
\bar\cT^i_{\ 0}, \ \bar T^{ij} = \bar\cT^{ij}; \quad
\bar J = \bar\cJ_0, \ \bar J^i = \bar\cJ^i, }
and
\bee{\nn \bar\pi =\bar\Pi_{00} , \ \bar\pi^i =
\bar\Pi^i_{\ 0}, \ \bar\pi^{ij} = \bar\Pi^{ij}, \quad
\bar\vs = \bar\U_0, \ \bar\vs^i = \bar\U^i, \quad v = u_0, v^i = u^i.}
Indices on $\cM_{(d-1)}$ are raised and lowered using
$g^{ij}$. Details of Kaluza-Klein decomposition of fluid variables and
background fields have been given in \cref{apn:KK}.
Since the fluid we are considering is in local thermodynamic
equilibrium, we can write the fluid variables as a spatial derivative
expansion about their equilibrium values
\bea{\label{E:fluidvarExp}
\vq &= \vq_o + \bar\D^{(1)}\vq + \bar\D^{(2)}\vq + \ldots \nn \\%= \vq_o +
\nu &= \nu_o + \bar\D^{(1)}\nu + \bar\D^{(2)}\nu + \ldots \nn \\
v^i &= v^i_o + \bar\D^{(1)}v^i + \bar\D^{(2)}v^i + \ldots
}
The terms with subscript `$o$' are the equilibrium values, while
$\bar\D^{(N)}$ designates the $N^{th}$ derivative
corrections\footnote{In this paper, $\tilde\D^{(n)} A$ denotes parity-odd
$n^{th}$ derivative corrections to a fluid quantity $A$, while $\D^{(n)} A$
represents the parity-even $n^{th}$ derivative corrections. Entire
derivative correction is denoted by $\bar\D^{(n)} A = \D^{(n)} A + \tilde\D^{(n)}
A$.
}. The zeroth component of fluid velocity $u_0=v$ also gets
derivative corrections which are determined by the corrections to
$v^i$ using the four-velocity normalization.
Similarly all the transport coefficients can also be expanded using
the Taylor Series expansion
\bee{ \a(\vq,\nu) = \a_o(\vq_o,\nu_o) +
\bar\D^{(1)} \a+\bar\D^{(2)} \a+\ldots. }
Therefore the energy-momentum tensor and charge current receive two
fold derivative corrections. First of all we write these expressions
as a derivative expansion in terms of fluid variables in
\cref{E:FirstDerExp}. Secondly, each term in that expansion can be
further expanded around the equilibrium values of fluid variables
according to \cref{E:fluidvarExp}. Thus we finally get
\bea{
\bar\pi^{ij} &= \lB \bar \pi^{ij}_{o(0)} \rB + \lB \bar\D^{(1)} \bar
\pi^{ij}_{(0)} + \bar\pi^{ij}_{o(1)} \rB + \lB \bar\D^{(2)} \bar
\pi^{ij}_{(0)} + \bar\D^{(1)} \bar \pi^{ij}_{(1)} +
\bar\pi^{ij}_{o(2)}
\rB\ldots, \nn\\
\bar \vs^{i} &=
\lB
\bar \vs^{i}_{o(0)}
\rB
+ \lB
\bar\D^{(1)}\bar \vs^{i}_{(0)}
+ \bar \vs^{i}_{o(1)}
\rB
+ \lB
\bar\D^{(2)}\bar \vs^{i}_{(0)}
+ \bar\D^{(1)}\bar\vs^{i}_{(1)}
+ \bar\vs^{i}_{o(2)}
\rB\ldots.
}
Expansion of time components can be determined from these using Landau
gauge condition \cref{E:LGC}.
We choose the equilibrium convention for $\vq$ and $\nu$ by
identifying their equilibrium values to be the red-shifted temperature
and Wilson loop
in the lower dimensional theory
\bee{ \frac{1}{\vq_o} = \b_o =
\tilde\b\sqrt{-G_{00}} = \tilde\b\E{\s}, \qquad \nu_o = \tilde\b
\cA_0. }
In the next section we construct the equilibrium partition function and
obtain energy-momentum tensor and charge current in terms of background
data following \cite{Banerjee:2012iz}. After that, we compare these
stress tensor and current with the fluid stress tensor and current
order by order in derivative expansion to find the constraints among
the transport coefficients at any particular derivative order. A
typical constraint will connect transport coefficients at equilibrium
$\lbr\a_o(\vq_o,\nu_o)\rbr$ and their derivatives with respect to
$\vq_o$ and $\nu_o$ (up to a particular derivative order)
\bee{
\fC\Big( \lbr\a_o(\vq_o,\nu_o)\rbr, \lbr\dow\a_o(\vq_o,\nu_o)\rbr
\Big) = 0. }
We can extrapolate this constraint to non-equilibrium configurations:
\bee{
\fC\Big( \lbr\a(\vq,\nu)\rbr, \lbr\dow\a(\vq,\nu)\rbr \Big) = 0,
}
while doing this, we are making an error of at least one derivative
order higher, which will be compensated at next derivative order
computation. This is how we find the generic constraints among fluid
transport coefficients. Please note that while the equality
constraints determined by this procedure are generic, the inequality
constraints are not determined by this method.
\section{Equilibrium Partition Function} \label{Sec:euclidean}
The equilibrium partition function\footnote{The partition function may be thought of as the
Euclidean action for the fluid living on the background with
coordinate time $t$ compactified on a circle of length $\tilde\beta$} $W^{eqb}$ of the theory can generally be disintegrated into two parts:
\begin{equation}
W^{eqb}= W^{eqb}_{(C)}+W^{eqb}_{(A)}.
\end{equation}
The first one is the `conserved' partition function which is gauge and diffeomorphism invariant, and generates conserved part of currents denoted by $\bar\cT^{\mu\nu}_{(C)}, \bar\cJ^\mu_{(C)}$. The other piece is not gauge-invariant and is referred to be `anomalous' partition function. It generates anomalous piece of `consistent currents' which will not be gauge-invariant in general. By defining a consistent subtraction scheme (Bardeen-Zumino currents), we can make these anomalous currents gauge invariant (see \cite{Jensen:2012kj} for details) which we denote by $\bar\cT^{\mu\nu}_{(A)}, \bar\cJ^\mu_{(A)}$. Their value at equilibrium is fixed by anomaly, and upto subleading order is given by:
\bea{
\bar\cT^{\mu\nu}_{(A)} &= - 2 C^{(2n)} \sum_{m=1}^{n} \ ^{n+1}\bC_{m+1} \vq_o^2 \nu_o^{m+1} \star\lb u_o \wedge \cX_{o1}^{\wedge (m-1)} \wedge \cX_{o2}^{\wedge(n-m)} \rb^{(\mu} u_o^{\nu)} \nn \\
&\equiv - 2 C^{(2n)} \sum_{m=1}^{n} \ ^{n+1}\bC_{m+1} \vq_o^2 \nu_o^{m+1} l_{o(m)}^{(\mu} u_o^{\nu)}, \label{E:Tmunu_A} \\
\bar\cJ^\mu_{(A)} &= - C^{(2n)} \sum_{m=1}^{n} (n+1) \ ^{n}\bC_{m} \vq_o \nu_o^m \star\lb u_o \wedge \cX_{o1}^{\wedge(m-1)} \wedge \cX_{o2}^{\wedge (n-m)} \rb^\mu \nn \\
&\equiv - C^{(2n)} \sum_{m=1}^{n} (n+1) \ ^{n}\bC_{m} \vq_o \nu_o^m l^\mu_{o(m)}. \label{E:Jmu_A}
}
Here $\lbr \cX_1, \cX_2\rbr$ are $\lbr - \vq \df u, \df \cA + \vq\nu \df u \rbr$ projected transverse to $u^\mu$, and their equilibrium values upon KK reduction reduce to: $\lbr f_1, f_2\rbr = \lbr \tilde\vq \df a, \df A \rbr$. Hence we have\footnote{To get these and some further results we have to used the ideal order results $v_o = -\E{\s}, v^i_o = 0$, which we will derive in \cref{sec:fluidrelations}. We use it here to simplify the notation.}:
\bea{
\bar\cT^{i}_{(A)} &= C^{(2n)} \sum_{m=1}^{n} \ ^{n+1}\bC_{m+1} \E{\s} \vq_o^2 \nu_o^{m+1} l_{o(m)}^{i}, \qquad \bar\cT^{ij}_{(A)} = \bar\cT_{(A)} = 0, \label{E:T_A} \\
\bar J^i_{(A)} &= - C^{(2n)} \sum_{m=1}^{n} (n+1) \ ^{n}\bC_{m} \vq_o \nu_o^m l^i_{o(m)}, \qquad \bar J_{(A)} = 0. \label{E:J_A}
}
Let us now concentrate on $W^{eqb}_{(C)}$. It's variation on background (\ref{E:background}) will determine the conserved currents:
\be \d W^{eqb}_{(C)} = \int d^{2n} x \ \sqrt{G}\left[ -\half
\bar\cT^{\mu\nu}_{(C)} \delta G_{\mu\nu} + \bar\cJ^{\mu}_{(C)} \delta
{\cA_{\mu}}\right]. \ee
And hence,
\bee{\label{E:consistentDefn}
\bar\cT^{\mu\nu}_{(C)} = 2\frac{\d W^{eqb}_{(C)}}{\d G_{\mu\nu}}, \qquad
\bar\cJ^{\mu}_{(C)} = \frac{\d W^{eqb}_{(C)}}{\d \cA_{\mu}}.
}
Kaluza-Klein decomposition of \cref{E:consistentDefn} gives,
\bee{ \bar T^{ij}_{(C)} =
2\vq_o \frac{ \d W^{eqb}_{(C)}}{\d g_{ij}}, \qquad
%
\bar T^{i}_{(C)}
+ \E{\s}\vq_o\nu_o \bar\cJ^i_{(C)}
=
\vq_o \frac{ \d W^{eqb}_{(C)}}{\d a_i}, \qquad
\bar T_{(C)}
=
\E{2\s}\vq_o^2 \frac{ \d W^{eqb}_{(C)}}{\d \vq_o}, \nn
}
\bee{\label{E:identifications}
\bar J^i_{(C)} = \vq_o \frac{ \d W^{eqb}_{(C)}}{\d A_i}, \qquad
%
\bar J_{(C)}
=
- \E{\s} \frac{\d W^{eqb}_{(C)}}{\d \nu_o}.
}
Here we have switched the basis to $\vq_o = \E{-\s}/\tilde\b$ and
$\nu_o = \tilde\b A$ for later convenience. $a^i$ is the Kaluza-Klein
gauge field. Note that while $W^{eqb}_{(C)}$ is gauge invariant, its integrand does not need to be. We can include a typical Chern-Simons term to it, which is defined such that its integral is gauge invariant\footnote{We have left the terms in $I^{2n-1}$ which can be related to others upto a total derivative.}:
\bee{\label{E:lowerCS}
\int_{\cM_{(2n-1)}} I^{2n-1}
=
- \int d^{2n-1}x \sqrt{g} \lbr \sum_{m=1}^{n}
\ ^{n}\bC_{m-1} C_{m-1} A_i l^i_{o(m)} + \tilde\vq C_{n}
a_{i}l^i_{o(n)} \rbr.
}
Here $C_m$'s are constants. This is indeed a valid Chern-Simons form as at equilibrium $l^i_{o(m)}$ is just made of Chern classes of $f_1$ and $f_2$:
\bee{
l^i_{o(m)} = \star\lb f_1^{\wedge(m-1)} \wedge f_2^{\wedge (n-m)} \rb^i.
}
For the gauge-invariant integrand, we assume that curvature
scales of the background $\cM_{(d-1)}$ is much much larger than the
mean free path of the fluid, therefore the whole manifold can be
thought of as union of various flat patches. The system can be thought
of in thermal equilibrium in each local patch. On each patch we can
define the euclidean partition function locally, hence giving us
\bee{
W^{eqb}_{(C)} = \int d^{2n-1}x \sqrt{g} \ \b(\vec x) P(\vec x) + \int d^{2n-1}x \sqrt{g} \star I^{2n-1},
}
where $P(\vec x)$ is local thermodynamic \emph{pressure} and $\b(\vec
x)$ is local thermodynamic temperature. Given pressure, we can use the
thermodynamic relations in local patch
\bee{ \df P = \frac{\e +
P}{\vq} \df \vq + \vq q\df \nu, \quad \e+P= \vq s + \nu q, }
to define \emph{energy density} $\e$, \emph{entropy density} $s$ and \emph{charge density} $q$ of
the fluid. All are functions of $\vq$ and $\nu$. We can expand
$W^{eqb}_{(C)}$ around its equilibrium value as
\bee{ W^{eqb}_{(C)} =
\int d^{2n-1}x \sqrt{g} \ \b_o P_o + \bar\D W^{eqb}_{(C)}. }
Derivative correction to the ideal fluid partition function is
denoted by $\bar\D W^{eqb}_{(C)}$, which will contain all the possible gauge invariant scalars
made out of background metric and gauge
field components at a particular derivative order. We have computed these scalars (till the derivative
level of our interest) in \cref{sec:counting}.
Collating together the conserved currents in \cref{E:identifications} and the anomalous pieces in \cref{E:J_A,E:T_A}, and varying the Chern-Simons terms in $W_{(C)}^{eqb}$ i.e. \cref{E:lowerCS}, we can finally write:
\bee{
\bar T^{ij}
=
2\vq_o \frac{\d W_{(C)}^{eqb}}{\d g_{ij}}, \nn
}
\bee{
\bar T^{i}
+ \E{\s}\vq_o\nu_o \bar J^i
=
\vq_o \frac{ \d W_{(C)}^{eqb}}{\d a_i}
- \vq_o\sum_{m=1}^{n} \ ^{n-1}\mathbf C_{m-1} \lbr
\frac{n(n+1)}{(m+1)} C^{(2n)} \E{\s}\vq_o\nu_o \nu_o^{m} l^i_{o(m)}
+ n C_{m} \tilde\vq l^i_{o(m)}
\rbr, \nn
}
\bee{
\bar T
=
\E{2\s}\vq_o^2 \frac{ \d W_{(C)}^{eqb}}{\d \vq_o}, \nn
}
\bee{
\bar J^i = \vq_o \frac{ \d W_{(C)}^{eqb}}{\d A_i}
- \vq_o\sum_{m=1}^{n} \ ^{n-1}\mathbf C_{m-1} \lbr
\frac{n(n+1)}{m} C^{(2n)} \nu_o^{m} l^i_{o(m)}
+ n C_{m-1} l^i_{o(m)}
\rbr, \nn
}
\bee{ \label{E:parti_perturb}
\bar J
=
- \E{\s} \frac{\d W_{(C)}^{eqb}}{\d \nu_o}.
}
Comparing these to the most generic fluid expressions in \cref{E:CurrentsGeneric} we can compute the
constraints. Thus, we see that it is only the gauge invariant
part $W_{(C)}^{eqb}$ of the partition function that we need to
evaluate at any desired order.
\subsection{Anomalous Entropy Current}
In last section we reviewed a procedure to get equality type constraints among fluid transport coefficients. It is generally
known that these very constraints can also be get by demanding existence of an entropy current whose divergence is positive
semi-definite. The most generic Entropy Current can be written as:
\bee{
\bar \cJ^\mu_S = \bar \cJ^\mu_{S(C)} + \bar \cJ^\mu_{S(A)},
}
where $\bar \cJ^\mu_{S(A)}$ is the part which captures the explicit dependence on anomaly coefficients. However,
the other piece $\bar \cJ^\mu_{S(C)}$ can get implicit dependence on the anomaly coefficients through the fluid equations
of motion. We need to demand this current to be positive
semi-definite,
\bee{
\hat\N_\mu\bar \cJ^\mu_S = \hat\N_\mu\bar \cJ^\mu_{S(C)} + \hat\N_\mu\bar \cJ^\mu_{S(A)} \geq 0,
}
whenever EOM are satisfied. For equilibrium fluid configuration, both the pieces can be demanded to be positive semi-definite
separately. Such decoupling is not always possible, as the fluid equations of motion depend on anomaly coefficients, which can induce some implicit anomaly dependence in $\bar \cJ^\mu_{S(C)}$.
However, for equilibrium fluid
configurations, the equations of motion are trivially satisfied and thus entire information of anomaly can be incorporated in
$\bar \cJ^\mu_{S(A)}$.
Hence, if any part of $\hat\N_\mu\bar \cJ^\mu_{S(C)}$ couple to $\hat\N_\mu\bar \cJ^\mu_{S(A)}$,
the respective transport coefficients will be determined in terms of anomaly coefficients, and hence will
be present in $\bar\cJ_{S(A)}^\mu$ at the first place. Therefore all the information about constraints
among fluid transport coefficients is encoded in the existence of $\cJ^\mu_{S(C)}$. In
\cite{Bhattacharyya:2013lha,Bhattacharyya:2014bha} the author
gives an explicit construction of entropy current from Eqb. Partition Function.
Now concentrating on the second term: at equilibrium, $\hat\N_\mu\bar \cJ^\mu_{S(A)} \geq 0$, since it does not have any independent
coefficients, just constants, one cannot apply any constraints for it to be satisfied. Therefore $\cJ^\mu_{S(A)}$ must
be exact. But any current is always ambiguous upto some exact terms, and hence we can choose $\cJ^\mu_{S(A)} = 0$ equally well.
We can hence write in a generic hydrodynamic frame\footnote{We have used the thermodynamic functions $\e,q,s$ here, which will
be explicitly proved in \cref{sec:fluidrelations}.}:
\bea{
\bar\cT^{\mu\nu}_{(A)} &
= 2 \e u^{(\mu}_{(A)} u^{\nu)}_{(C)} + 2 \bar q^{(\mu}_{(A)} u^{\nu)}_{(C)} +
2 \bar q^{(\mu}_{(C)} u^{\nu)}_{(A)} + \tilde\Pi^{\mu\nu}_{(A)}, \\
%
\bar\cJ^{\mu}_{(A)} &= q u^{\mu}_{(A)} + \bar\U^\mu_{(A)}, \\
0 &= s u^{\mu}_{(A)} + \bar\U^\mu_{S(A)}.
}
Note that in the expression for $\bar\cT^{\mu\nu}_{(A)}$ we have used the fact that anomalies are
parity-odd. Now depending on the choice of hydrodynamic frame, these conditions can be used to determine
anomalous dissipative parts of the various currents. For example, if we define $u^\mu$ such that it does not
contribute to anomaly, i.e. $u^\mu_{(A)} = 0$, we will get:
\bee{
\tilde\U^{\mu}_{(A)} = \bar\cJ^\mu_{(A)}, \qquad
q^\mu_{(A)} = - \bar\cT^{\mu\nu}_{(A)} u_{\nu(C)}, \qquad
\tilde\Pi^{\mu\nu}_{(A)} = 2\bar\cT^{(\mu\a}_{(A)} \lb \d^{\nu)}_{\ \a} + u^{\nu)}_{(C)}u_{\a(C)} \rb, \qquad
\tilde\U^{\mu}_{S(A)} = 0.
}
This is the neatest frame for anomalies. Similar results for $U(1)$ anomaly were derived in \cite{Loganayagam:2011mu},
however these expressions are also applicable to gravitational anomalies\footnote{restricted to equilibrium configurations}.
Here we present explicit expressions for the anomalous parts of currents, in presence of both $U(1)$
and gravitational anomaly. Following the generic expressions given in \cite{Jensen:2013kka}, these can be computed
directly from the anomaly
polynomial. The anomaly polynomial in $2n$ dimensions up to $(n+1)$ derivative order is given as \cite{Loganayagam:2012pz},
\begin{equation}
{\cal{P}}= C^{(2n)} \cF^{\wedge (n+1)} + c_m \cF^{\wedge (n-1)} \wedge \mathrm{Tr}[\fR\wedge \fR],
\end{equation}
where, $C^{(2n)}$ is gauge anomaly coefficient which we have already introduced in the last section
and $c_m$ is gravitational anomaly coefficient. The two form $\fR$ is defined in terms of the Riemann tensor as,
\begin{equation}
\fR^\a_{\ \b} = \cR^{\a}_{\ \b\g\d} \df x^\g\wedge \df x^\d.
\end{equation}
Taking appropriate derivative of the above, one can find explicit expressions for anomalous parts of the currents. The leading
part of the currents proportional to the gauge anomaly coefficient $C^{(2n)}$ have already been given in \cref{E:Tmunu_A,E:Jmu_A}.
Here we present the subleading order contributions to currents coming due to the gravitational anomaly,
\bem{
\bar\cJ^\mu_{(A)}
=
c_m(n-1) \lB
\star\lb u_o \wedge \cF^{\wedge(n-2)} \wedge \L_{\a\b} \lb \L^{\a\b} U - 2\fR^{\a\b} \rb \rb^\mu \dbrk
+ \sum_{m=1}^{n-2} \ ^{n-2}\bC_m (\vq_o\nu_o)^m
\star\lb
u_o \wedge U^{\wedge(m-1)} \wedge \cF^{\wedge(n-2-m)} \wedge \lb\fR^{\a\b} -
\L^{\a\b} U \rb \wedge \lb\fR_{\a\b} - \L_{\a\b} U \rb
\rb^\mu
\rB,
}
where,
\bee{
\L_{\mu\nu}
=
\half \lb
U_{\mu\nu}
- 4\frac{1}{\vq_o}u_{o[\nu}P_{\mu]\a}\hat\N^{\a}\vq_o
\rb, \quad
U_{\mu\nu}= 2 P_{[\mu\a}P_{\nu]\b} \hat \nabla^{\a}u^{\b}.
}
The heat current has the form,
\bem{
\fq^{\mu}_{(A)}
=
- c_m \frac{1}{\vq_o} \lB
\star\lb u_o \wedge\cF^{\wedge(n-1)}\rb^{\mu} \L^{\a\b}\L_{\a\b} \dbrk
+ \sum_{m=2}^{n-1} \ ^{n-1}\bC_{m} (m-1) (\vq_o\nu_o)^m
\star\lb
u_o \wedge U^{\wedge(m-2)} \wedge \cF^{\wedge(n-1-m)} \wedge \lb\fR^{\a\b} - \L^{\a\b} U \rb \wedge \lb\fR_{\a\b} - \L_{\a\b} U \rb
\rb^{\mu} \dbrk
- 2 \sum_{m=1}^{n-1} \ ^{n-1}\bC_{m} (\vq_o\nu_o)^m
\star\lb
u_o\wedge U^{\wedge(m-1)} \wedge \cF^{\wedge(n-1-m)} \wedge \L^{\a\b} \lb\fR_{\a\b} - \L_{\a\b} U \rb
\rb^{\mu}
\rB .
}
Finally, the stress tensor looks like,
\bem{
\bar\cT^{\mu\nu}_{(A)}
=
4c_m\hat\N_\r\lB
\sum_{m=1}^{n-1} \ ^{n-1}\bC_m (\vq_o\nu_o)^m
\star\lb
u_o \wedge U^{\wedge(m-1)}\wedge \cF^{\wedge(n-m-1)} \wedge \lb \fR^{\r(\nu} - \L^{\r(\nu} U \rb
\rb^{\mu)} \dbrk
- \star\lb u_o \wedge \cF^{\wedge(n-1)} \L^{\r(\nu}\rb^{\mu)}
\rB
- 2 \vq_o u^{(\mu} \fq^{\nu)}_{(A)}.
}
Instead if we are working in Landau Frame,
where $\bar q^{\mu}_{(A)} = \bar q^{\mu}_{(C)} = 0$, we will get condition:
\bee{
- \bar\cT^{\mu\nu}_{(A)} u_{\nu(C)}
= \lb \e G^{\mu\nu} + \bar\cT^{\mu\nu}_{(C)} \rb u_{\nu(A)}
= \lb \e G^{\mu\nu} + \bar\Pi^{\mu\nu}_{(C)} \rb u_{\nu(A)}.
}
We need to invert $\lb \e G^{\mu\nu} + \bar\Pi^{\mu\nu}_{(C)} \rb$, which can be done perturbatively in derivatives.
To leading order:
\bee{
u^\mu_{(A)} = -\frac{1}{\e+P} \bar\cT^{\mu\nu}_{(A)} u_{\nu(C)} + \ldots,
}
and hence
\bee{
\tilde\U^{\mu}_{(A)} = \bar\cJ^\mu_{(A)} + \frac{q}{\e+P} \bar\cT^{\mu\nu}_{(A)} u_{\nu(C)} + \ldots, \qquad
\tilde\Pi^{\mu\nu}_{(A)} = 2\bar\cT^{(\mu\a}_{(A)} \lb \d^{\nu)}_{\ \a} + \frac{\e}{\e+P} u^{\nu)}_{(C)}u_{\a(C)} \rb + \ldots,
}
\bee{
\tilde\U^{\mu}_{S(A)}
= \frac{s}{\e+P} \bar\cT^{\mu\nu}_{(A)} u_{\nu(C)} + \ldots
= \frac{1}{\vq} \bar\cT^{\mu\nu}_{(A)} u_{\nu(C)} + \nu\bar\cJ^\mu_{(A)}
- \nu \tilde\U^{\mu}_{(A)} + \ldots.
}
As showed by \cite{Loganayagam:2011mu}, in presence of just $U(1)$ anomaly,
it gives the exact result of Son-Sorowka \cite{Son:2009tf}. To write a similar expression for gravitational anomaly in Landau
Frame, one will need to find anomalous velocity to subsubleading order, which might be non-trivial.
\section{Counting of Independent Terms} \label{sec:counting}
This section is dedicated to develop a systematic procedure to compute
independent fluid data (vectors, tensors transverse to velocity and
scalars). First we will review the counting in parity-even sector in
generic dimensions. Then we will
extend this idea to parity-odd sector in generic dimensions at
arbitrary derivative order through a procedure we call {\it`derivative
counting'}.
After describing the generic procedure, we explicitly construct
leading and sub-leading order parity-odd and even terms which are
important for our current work. Many of these terms vanish in
equilibrium. In tables \cref{tab:subleadingparityevendata,tab:leadingparityevendata,tab:parity2data} we list all the leading and sub-leading
terms both parity-odd and even and check if they survive at
equilibrium. Further in \cref{apn:subsubleading} we extend this counting procedure to
parity-odd subsubleading derivative order fluid. For this reason we will keep our illustrations in the
construction explicit to subsubleading order.
\subsection{Parity-even Counting}
In this subsection we present the parity-even counting in generic
dimensions. One can always count
independent data in the local rest frame (LRF) of the fluid, which
turns out to be easier. We can later covariantize the terms to a
generic reference frame by following simple (and generic) rules\footnote{
The rules can be summarized as: replace 1) `$0$' index with contraction with $u^\mu$, 2) `$i$' indices with a projection along $P^{\mu\nu}$, 3) $\dow$ with $\hat\N$, 4) $\e^{ki_2j_2\ldots i_nj_n}$ with $\e^{\mu_1\nu_1\mu_2\nu_2\ldots \mu_n\nu_n}u_{\mu_1}$, and finally 5) put all extra factors of projectors and velocities on left-most, so no derivatives act on them.
}. In LRF, the fundamental quantities are
\begin{itemize}
\item Temperature -- $\vq$, Chemical Potential -- $\nu$.
\item Derivatives of fluid velocity\footnote{$u^\mu u_\mu =
-1$ would imply $u^\mu\dow u_\mu = 0$ and hence in local
rest frame $\dow u_0 = 0$.} -- $\dow_0 u^i$, $\dow^j u^i$.
\item Field Tensor -- $\cF^{ij}$, $\cE^{i} = \cF^{i\nu}u_\nu$.
\item Curvature -- $\cR^{ijkl}$, $\cR^{ijk0}$, $\cR^{i0k0}$.
\end{itemize}
All other quantities are merely
derivatives of these fundamental quantities. Since LRF is locally
flat, we are using the coordinate derivatives $\dow_o$ and
$\dow_i$. We introduce a notation for parity-even terms which will be useful
later in parity-odd counting. Terms with $d$ derivatives and $i$
indices will be denoted collectively as $(\frac{i}{d},i,d)$. When
working at equilibrium, it is also convenient to define\footnote{ Our
conventions are: \bee{\nn \cA^{[\mu\nu]} = \half P^\mu_{\
\a}P^\nu_{\ \b} \lb \cA^{\a\b} - \cA^{\b\a} \rb, \qquad
\cA^{(\mu\nu)} = \half P^\mu_{\ \a}P^\nu_{\ \b} \lb \cA^{\a\b} +
\cA^{\b\a} \rb, \qquad \cA^{\<\mu\nu\>} = \cA^{(\mu\nu)} -
\frac{P^{\mu\nu}}{d-1} P_{\a\b}\cA^{\a\b}, } \bee{\nn A^{[ij]} =
\half \lb A^{ij} - A^{ji} \rb, \qquad A^{(ij)} = \half \lb A^{ij}
+ A^{ji} \rb, \qquad A^{\<ij\>} = A^{(ij)} - \frac{g^{ij}}{d-1}
g_{ij}A^{ij}. } }:
\bee{
S^{\mu\nu} = 2\N^{(\mu}u^{\nu)}, \qquad
U^{\mu\nu} = 2\N^{[\mu}u^{\nu]},
}
\bee{\label{E:defnX}
\cX_\L^{\mu\nu} = \lbr - \vq U^{\mu\nu}, P^{\mu\a}P^{\nu\b}
\cF_{\a\b} + \vq\nu U^{\mu\nu} \rbr , \quad \L={1,2}.
}
The purpose of above notation is revealed in Kaluza Klein formalism:
at equilibrium only spatial components of $\cX^{\mu\nu}_\L$ survive
which land exactly to $f^{ij}_\L$ defined by:
\bee{ a_\L = \lbr
\tilde\vq a^i, A^i \rbr, \qquad f_{\L}^{ij} = \N^i a_\L^j - \N^j
a_\L^i. }
In the same spirit we define
\bee{ \cK^{\mu\nu\r\s} =
P^{\mu\a}P^{\nu\b}P^{\r\g}P^{\s\d}\cR_{\a\b\g\d} - \lb U^{\mu\nu}
U^{\r\s} + \half U^{\mu\r}U^{\nu\s} - \half U^{\nu\r}U^{\mu\s} \rb.
}
Only spatial components of $\cK^{\mu\nu\r\s}$ survive at equilibrium,
and they exactly match $R^{ijkl}$. The usage of index `$\L$' is
purely to facilitate counting and computations. Similarly we define
$\vq_\L = \lbr \vq, \nu \rbr$.
{\bf \underline{Bianchi identity}:}
In counting, we will extensively use the Bianchi identity to get rid
of many terms, so it would be worth to spend some time on it. The
Bianchi Identities for Field Tensor, Vorticity and Riemann Tensor take
the form:
\bee{ \hat\N_{[\mu}\cF_{\nu\r]} = \hat\N_{[\mu}\hat\N_{\nu}u_{\r]} =
\hat\N_{[\mu}\cR_{\nu\r]\s\d} = \cR_{[\mu\nu\r]\s} = 0. }
However our redefined variables $\cX_\L$ and $\cK$ do not satisfy
Bianchi Identities. But nevertheless we can always use these
identities to relate
\bee{ \hat\N_{[\mu}\cX_{\L\nu\r]}, \qquad
\hat\N_{[\mu}\cK_{\nu\r]\s\d}, \qquad \cK_{[\mu\nu\r]\s}, }
to other terms, and hence we can safely get rid of these in the
following computation. In rest frame especially (or at equilibrium in
any generic frame), one can check that $\cX_\L$ and $\cK$ also satisfy
Bianchi Identities.
\noindent
{\bf \underline{Killing equation}:}
If the theory has a unit Killing direction $\o^\mu$ we have the
following Killing equation for a general tensor
\bee{ \lie_{\omega} T^{\alpha_1\alpha_2\cdots}=0 \implies \o^\mu
\hat\N_\mu T^{\a_1\a_2\ldots} = \sum_{k}T^{\a_1 \ldots \a_{k-1} \s
\a_{k+1}\ldots} \hat\N_\s \o^{\a_k}, }
which in local rest frame becomes
\bee{ \dow_0 T^{\a\b\g\ldots} = 0.
}
Therefore if we are considering a theory at equilibrium, we do not
have to consider the $\dow_0$ derivatives.
Secondly, the Killing equation for metric $G^{\mu\nu}$ is given by
\bee{
\hat\N^\b \o^\a + \hat\N^\a \o^\b = 0.
}
Taking $\frac{\o^\mu}{\sqrt{-\o^2}} =u^\mu$ and using Killing Equation for scalars this translates to:
\bee{
\hat\N^\b u^\a + \hat\N^\a u^\b = 0.
}
Hence in local rest frame $S^{ij} = \dow^i u^j + \dow^j u^i = 0$.
\subsubsection{First Derivative Order}
Below, we compute all possible terms at first derivative order in LRF.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $(2,2,1)$: $S^{ij}$, $\cX^{ij}_\L$
\item $(1,1,1)$: $\dow^i \vq_\L$, $\boxed{\dow_0 u^i}$, $\cE^{i}$
\item $(0,0,1)$: $S^{k}_{\ k}$, $\boxed{\dow_0 \vq_\L}$
\end{enumerate}
However all these first derivative terms are not independent
on-shell. Using first order equations of motion one can eliminate some
of them. The equations of motion are given by \cref{E:covariantCons}
(at equilibrium)
\begin{enumerate}
\item $(1,1,1)$: $\dow_\mu \bar\cT^{\mu i} = \cF^{i\a}\bar\cJ_\a + \undertilde{\fT}^{\nu}$
\item $(0,0,1)$: $\dow_\mu \bar\cT^{\mu}_{\ \ 0} =
- \cE^{\a}\bar\cJ_\a + \undertilde{\fT}^{\nu} u_\nu$, \quad $\dow_\mu \bar\cJ^\mu = \undertilde{\fJ}$.
\end{enumerate}
Using these equations we have killed the $\boxed{\text{boxed}}$ terms
in the counting.
\subsubsection{Second Derivative Order}
Below we list all possible $pure$ second derivative terms. By pure we
mean they are not product of two first derivative terms. Product of
two lower derivative terms are called $composite$ terms.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $(2,4,2)$: $\cK^{ijkl}$
\item $(\frac{3}{2},3,2)$: $\dow^i S^{jk}$,
$\dow^i\cX^{jk}_\L$, $\cR^{ijk}_{\ \ \ 0}$
\item $(1,2,2)$: $\dow^i\dow^j \vq_\L$, $\dow^i \cE^{j}$,
$\boxed{\dow_0 S^{ij}}$, $\boxed{\dow_0 \cX^{ij}_1}$,
$\dow_0 \cX^{ij}_2$, $\cR^{i\ k}_{\ 0 \ 0}$, $\cK^{iaj}_{\ \
\ a}$
\item $(\half,1,2)$: \iffalse $\dow^i S^{k}_{\ k}$, \fi
$\boxed{\dow^i \dow_0 \vq_\L}$, $\boxed{\dow_0\dow_0 u^i}$,
$\dow_0 \cE^{i}$, $\dow_i S^{ij}$, $\dow_i\cX^{ij}_\L$,
$\cR^{ia}_{\ \ a0}$
\item $(0,0,2)$: $\boxed{\dow_0 S^{k}_{\ k}}$,
$\boxed{\dow_0\dow_0\vq_\L}$, $\dow_i\dow^i \vq_\L$, $\dow_i
\cE^{i}$, $\cK^{ab}_{\ \ ab}$, $\cR^{a}_{\ 0a0}$
\end{enumerate}
Here also all the terms are not independent because of equations of
motion. The second order equations of motion are given by,
\begin{enumerate}
\item $(1,2,2)$: $\dow^{(k} \dow_\mu \cT^{\mu i)} =
\dow^{(k}\lb\cF^{i)\a}\cJ_\a + \undertilde{\fT}^{i)} \rb$, \quad $\dow^{[k} \dow_\mu \cT^{\mu
i]} = \dow^{[k}\lb\cF^{i]\a}\cJ_\a + \undertilde{\fT}^{i]}\rb$
\item $(\half,1,2)$: $\dow_0\dow_\mu \cT^{\mu i} =
\dow_0\lb\cF^{i\a}\cJ_\a + \undertilde{\fT}^{i}\rb$, \quad $\dow^i\dow_\mu \cT^{\mu}_{\ \
0} = - \dow^i\lb\cE^{\a}\cJ_\a - \undertilde{\fT}^{\a}u_\a\rb$, \\ \ \quad $\dow^i\dow_\mu \cJ^\mu
= \dow^i \undertilde{\fJ}$
\item $(0,0,2)$: $\dow_i\dow_\mu \cT^{\mu i} =
\dow_i\lb\cF^{i\a}\cJ_\a + \undertilde{\fT}^{i)}\rb$, \quad $\dow_0\dow_\mu \cT^{\mu}_{\ \
0} = - \dow_0\lb\cE^{\a}\cJ_\a - \undertilde{\fT}^{\a}u_\a\rb$, \\ \ \quad $\dow_0\dow_\mu \cJ^\mu
= \dow_0 \undertilde{\fJ}$
\end{enumerate}
Again we have killed $\boxed{\text{boxed}}$ terms in the counting
using equations of motion. We have provided a list of all terms till
second order (also composites) in covariant form and their equilibrium values in
\cref{tab:leadingparityevendata,tab:subleadingparityevendata}. We can iterate this
procedure to further derivative orders as required by the cause. Note
that, for a pure term at $N$th derivative order, the maximum number of
indices possible are $N+2$; we will need it later.
\mktbl{t}{tab:leadingparityevendata}{Independent Leading Order
Parity-even Data}{} {|c|c|c|c|} { \hline
Name & LRF & Covariant & Equilibrium \\
\hline\hline
$\Q$ & $\half S^{i}_{\ i}$ & $\half S^{\mu}_{\ \mu}$ & 0 \\
\hline\hline
$V_\L^\mu$ & $\dow^i\vq_\L$ & $P^{\mu\a}\hat\N_\a\vq_\L$ &
$\N^i\vq_{\L o}$ \\
\hline
$V_3^\mu$ & $\cE^{i} - \vq_1 V^{i}_{2}$ & $\cE^{\mu} - \vq_1 V^\mu_{2}$ & 0 \\
\hline\hline
$\s^{\mu\nu}$ & $\half S^{\langle ij\rangle}$ & $\half S^{\langle\mu\nu\rangle}$ & 0 \\
\hline
}
\mktbl{t}{tab:subleadingparityevendata}{Independent Subleading Order
Parity-even Data}{} {|c|c|c|c|} { \hline
Name & LRF & Covariant & Equilibrium \\
\hline\hline
$\mathbf S_{1\L}$ & $\dow^i\dow_i\vq_\L$ &
$P^{\a\b}\hat\N_\a\hat\N_\b\vq_\L$ & $\N^i\N_i\vq_{\L o}$
\\
\hline
$\mathbf S_{2(\L\G)}$ & $\dow^i\vq_\L\dow_i\vq_\G$ &
$P^{\a\b}\hat\N_\a\vq_\L\hat\N_\b\vq_\G$ & $\N^i\vq_{\L
o}\N_i\vq_{\G o}$ \\
\hline
$\mathbf S_{3(\L\G)}$ & $\cX_{\L}^{ij}\cX_{\G ij}$ &
$\cX_{\L}^{\mu\nu}\cX_{\G\mu\nu}$ & $f_{\L}^{ij}f_{\G ij}$ \\
\hline
$\mathbf S_{4}$ & $\cK$ & $\cK$ & $R$ \\
\hline
$\bS_5$ & $\dow_i V^{i}_{3}$ & $P_{\mu\nu}\hat\N^\mu V^\nu_{3}$ & 0 \\
\hline
$\bS_6$ & \begin{minipage}{130px}
\centering
$\cR_{00}
+ \frac{1}{\vq}\dow_i \dow^i \vq$ \\
$ - 2\frac{1}{\vq^2}\dow_i \vq\dow^i \vq
- \frac{1}{4}\frac{1}{\vq^2} \cX^{ij}_1 \cX_{1ij}$
\end{minipage}& \begin{minipage}{130px}
\centering
$ u^\mu u^\nu \cR_{\mu\nu}
+ \frac{1}{\vq} \bS_{1,1}$
$ - 2\frac{1}{\vq^2} \bS_{2,11}
- \frac{1}{4}\frac{1}{\vq^2} \bS_{3,11}$
\end{minipage} & 0 \\
\hline
$\bS_{7\L}$ & $V_\L^i V_{3i}$ & $V_\L^\mu V_{3\mu}$ & 0 \\
\hline
$\bS_8$ & $V_3^i V_{3i}$ & $V_3^\mu V_{3\mu}$ & 0 \\
\hline
$\bS_9$ & $\Q^2$ & $\Q^2$ & 0 \\
\hline
$\bS_{10}$ & $S^{ij} S_{ij}$ & $S^{\mu\nu} S_{\mu\nu}$ & 0 \\
\hline\hline
$\mathbf V_{1\L}^\mu$ & $\dow_k \cX^{ki}_\L$ &
$P^{\mu\g}P_{\a\b}\hat\N^\a \cX_{\L\g}^{\b}$ & $\N_k
f^{ki}_\L$ \\
\hline
$\mathbf V_{2\L\G}^\mu$ & $ \cX^{ik}_\L V_{\G k}$ & $
\cX^{\mu\a}_\L V_{\G\a} $ & $ f^{ik}_\L \N_k \vq_{\G o}$ \\
\hline
$\bV_3^\mu$ & $\dow_0 V_3^i$ & $P^{\mu\b}u^\a\hat\N_\a V_{3\b}$ & 0 \\
\hline
$\bV_4^\mu$ & $\dow_i S^{ij}$ & $P^{\mu\b}\hat\N^\a S_{\a\b}$ & 0 \\
\hline
$\bV_5^\mu$ &
$ \cR^{i}_{\ 0}
- \frac{1}{2\vq}\dow_k \cX^{ki}_1
- \frac{3}{2\vq^2} \cX^{ik}_1\dow_k\vq$ &
$ P^{\mu\b}u^\a \cR_{\a\b}
- \frac{1}{2\vq} \bV^\mu_{1,1}
- \frac{3}{2\vq^2} \bV^i_{2,11}$ & 0 \\
\hline
$\bV_{6\L}^\mu$ & $\Q V_\L^i$ & $\Q V_\L^\mu$ & 0 \\
\hline
$\bV_7^\mu$ & $\Q V_3^i$ & $\Q V_3^\mu$ & 0 \\
\hline
$\bV_{8\L}^\mu$ & $S^{ij} V_{\L j}$ & $S^{\mu\nu} V_{\L\nu}$ & 0 \\
\hline
$\bV_9^\mu$ & $S^{ij} V_{3 j}$ & $S^{\mu\nu} V_{3\nu}$ & 0 \\
\hline
$\bV_{10\L}^\mu$ & $\cX^{ij}_\L V_{3 j}$ & $\cX^{\mu\nu}_\L V_{3\nu}$ & 0 \\
\hline\hline
$\mathbf T_{1\L}^{\mu\nu}$ & $\dow^{\langle i}\dow^{j\rangle}\vq_\L$
& $P^{\langle\mu\a}P^{\nu\rangle\b} \hat\N_\a \hat\N_\b\vq_\L$ &
$\N^{\langle i}\N^{j\rangle}\vq_{\L
o}$ \\
\hline
$\mathbf T_{2(\L\G)}^{\mu\nu}$ & $\dow^{\langle
i}\vq_\L\dow^{j\rangle}\vq_\G$ &
$P^{\langle\mu\a}P^{\nu\rangle\b}\hat\N_\a\vq_\L\hat\N_\b\vq_\G$
& $\N^{\langle i}\vq_{\L o}\N^{j\rangle}\vq_{\G o}$ \\
\hline
$\mathbf T_{3(\L\G)}^{\mu\nu}$ & $\cX^{\langle
ik}_{\L}\cX^{j\rangle}_{\G k}$ &
$\cX^{\langle\mu\a}_{\L}\cX^{\nu\rangle}_{\G \a}$ &
$f^{\langle ik}_{\L}f^{j\rangle}_{\G k}$ \\
\hline
$\mathbf T_{4}^{\mu\nu}$ & $\cK^{\< ij \>}$ &
$\cK^{\<\mu\nu\>}$ & $R^{\< ij\>}$ \\
\hline
$\bT^{\mu\nu}_5$ & $\dow^{\langle i} V^{j\rangle}_{3}$ & $\hat\N^{\langle \mu} V^{\nu\rangle}_{3}$ & 0 \\
\hline
$\bT^{\mu\nu}_6$ & \begin{minipage}{140px}
\centering
$\cR^{\<i \ j\>}_{\ \ 0 \ 0}
+ \frac{1}{\vq} \dow^{\langle i} \dow^{j \rangle}\vq$ \\
$- 2\frac{1}{\vq^2} \dow^{\langle i}\vq\dow^{j\rangle}\vq
- \frac{1}{4\vq^2} \cX^{\langle i}_{1 \ a}\cX^{j \rangle a}_1$
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}{140px}
\centering
$P^{\langle\mu\r} P^{\nu\rangle\s} u^\a u^\b \cR_{\r\a\s\b}
+ \frac{1}{\vq} \bT^{\mu\nu}_{1,1}$ \\
$- 2\frac{1}{\vq^2} \bT^{\mu\nu}_{2,11}
- \frac{1}{4\vq^2} \bT^{\mu\nu}_{3,11}$
\end{minipage} & 0 \\
\hline
$\bT^{\mu\nu}_{7\L}$ & $V_\L^{\langle i} V_3^{j\rangle}$ & $V_\L^{\langle \mu} V_3^{\nu\rangle}$ & 0 \\
\hline
$\bT^{\mu\nu}_8$ & $V_3^{\langle i} V_3^{j\rangle}$ & $V_3^{\langle \mu} V_3^{\nu\rangle}$ & 0 \\
\hline
$\bT^{\mu\nu}_9$ & $\Q \s^{ij}$ & $\Q \s^{\mu\nu}$ & 0 \\
\hline
$\bT^{\mu\nu}_{10}$ & $S^{\langle ik} S^{j\rangle}_{\ k}$ & $S^{\langle \mu\a} S^{\nu\rangle}_{\ \a}$ & 0 \\
\hline
$\bT^{\mu\nu}_{11\L}$ & $S^{\langle ik} \cX^{j\rangle}_{\L \ k}$ & $S^{\langle \mu\a} \cX^{\nu\rangle}_{\L \ \a}$ & 0 \\
\hline }
\subsection{Parity-odd Counting} \label{sec:independence}
In this section we shall compute the parity-odd leading and
sub-leading derivative fluid data. Calculation in parity-odd sector is
a lot more cumbersome, even in LRF. We introduce here a scheme called
`derivative counting' to compute these terms step by step. Any
parity-odd term in $(2n)$-dimension must have a $(2n-1)$-dim
Levi-Civita involved in LRF
\bee{ \e^{ii_2j_2\ldots i_n j_n}. }
We are interested in constructing all possible scalars, vectors and
symmetric tensors using it. A bit of thinking will reveal that one
needs at least $(2n-2)$-rank parity-even tensors to be combined with
$\e^{ii_2j_2\ldots i_n j_n}$ for this purpose. One can subsequently
form a list of \emph{parity-odd data types}:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\mathbf V_\e$: Vectors with free index on $\e$ ($2n-2$ rank
parity-even tensor contracted with $\e$).
\item $\mathbf S$: Scalars with all indices contracted with $\e$
($2n-1$ rank parity-even tensor contracted with $\e$).
\item $\mathbf T_\e$: Tensors with one free index on $\e$ ($2n-1$ rank
parity-even tensor contracted with $\e$).
\item $\mathbf V_f$: Vectors with free index not on $\e$ ($2n$ rank
parity-even tensor contracted with $\e$).
\item $\mathbf {V}^{C}_\e$: Vectors formed of contraction of two
non-$\e$ indices with free index on $\e$ ($2n$ rank parity-even
tensor contracted with $\e$).
\item $\mathbf T_f$: Tensors with no free index on $\e$ ($2n+1$ rank
parity-even tensor contracted with $\e$).
\item $\mathbf {S}^{C}$: Scalars formed of contraction of $\mathbf
T_f$ ($2n+1$ rank parity-even tensor contracted with $\e$).
\item $\mathbf {T}^{C}_\e$: Tensors formed of contraction of two
non-$\e$ indices with one free index on $\e$ ($2n+1$ rank
parity-even tensor contracted with $\e$).
\item $\mathbf {V}^{C}_f$: Vectors formed of contraction of two
non-$\e$ indices with one free index not on $\e$ ($2n+2$ rank
parity-even tensor contracted with $\e$).
\item $\mathbf {V}^{CC}_\e$: Vectors formed of contraction of four
non-$\e$ indices with free index on $\e$ ($2n+2$ rank parity-even
tensor contracted with $\e$)\\
.\\
.\\
.\\
and so on.
\end{enumerate}
Here we note that given $D$ derivatives, one cannot construct a
parity-even term, pure or composite, with more than $2D$
indices, because $(2,2,1)$ and $(2,4,2)$ have the highest index to
derivative ratio, which is 2. Therefore, if we are interested in a fluid
at $(n-2 + s)$ derivative order ($s=1$ corresponds to parity-odd
leading order and so on), we can get at most $2(n-2+s)$ indices. The
list of parity-odd data types we gave above is complete till
subsubleading derivative order $(s=3)$.
\subsubsection*{Independent Data Types}
We should emphasise that not all parity-odd data-types listed above
are independent. The dependence comes from that fact that when we are
working in $2n-1$ dimensions, any antisymmetrization over $2n$ or more
indices will vanish. Given that we are dealing with parity-even
tensors of arbitrary rank which are to be contracted with $\e$, there
are a whole lot of these antisymmetrizations possible. Hence, to find
the independent data-types becomes highly non-trivial.
Let's look at a special case of this dependence. We construct a
$2n$-antisymmetrization,
\bee{\label{E:2nassym} \e^{[i_1\ldots
i_{2n-1}}A^{k_1]k_2\ldots k_t}_{\hspace{32pt}i_1\ldots i_{2n-1}} =
0, }
therefore,
\bee{\label{E:dependence} \e^{i_1\ldots
i_{2n-1}}A^{k_1k_2\ldots k_t}_{\hspace{30pt}i_1\ldots i_{2n-1}} =
\sum_{a=1}^{2n-1} (-1)^{a+1} \e^{k_1i_1\ldots i_{2n-2}} A^{x
k_2\ldots k_t}_{\hspace{26pt} i_1\ldots i_{a-1} x i_a \ldots
i_{2n-2}}. }
The consequence of this is that the data types $[~]_f$ (i.e. ones with
a free index not on $\e$) can be expressed in terms of $[~]_\e^C$
(i.e. the ones with a free index on $\e$ and an extra
contraction). Hence data-types $[~]_f$ for example
$\bV_f,\bT_f,\bV_f^C$ are not independent.
Note that this result is only based on a specific form of
$2n$-antisymmetrization (\cref{E:2nassym}). One can in principle go on
with any random antisymmetrizations over $2n$ or more indices and find
relations among the data, which as it turns out, is not a trivial task
to do. We will come back to this issue in \cref{sec:basisdata}. For
now we continue with the counting.
\subsubsection{Derivative Counting}
We have classified parity-odd terms in data-types based on the number
of parity-even indices required. We want to construct all allowed parity odd terms with
$D$ derivatives. We observe that it is not required to include all parity-even data type
of the form $(r,i,d)$ in this construction. We will show this below.
For a parity-odd fluid at
$D=(n-2+s)$ derivative order, we need to construct all the $D$
derivative parity-even terms with number of indices ranging from $2D$
(the maximum possible) to $2(D+1-s)$ (= $2n-2$, the minimum
required), i.e.
$$
2(D+1-s)\leq \text{No of indices of a parity-even D derivative
term}\leq 2D.
$$
These $D$-derivative parity-even terms can be constructed out of pure
derivative terms. We need not consider pure terms with self
contractions in parity-even data types as they have been included in
our counting procedure.
We now want to argue that not all parity-even data-types are required for this construction. For a data-type $(\frac i N, i, N)$ to be included at least once, the following combination with $(2D-2N+i)$ indices must be included:
\bee{
(D-N) \times (2,2,1) \otimes (\frac i N, i,N) \nn
}
Since the minimum rank of this term
must be $2n-2 =2(D+1-s)$ and maximum possible rank is $N+2$, therefore we get,
\bee{ N+2 \geq i\geq
2(N-s+1). }
For this equation to have a solution $N\leq 2s$. So we need at max $2s$ derivative order parity-even terms, to
construct parity-odd terms till $(n-2+s)$ derivative order. For example at leading order, $s=1$, only pure terms with at max $2$ derivatives are required. The parity
even terms required till $s=3$ are enlisted in
\cref{tab:classdata,tab:classdata_noneqb}. Further, if we were only interested in finding terms that survive at
equilibrium, we can use the Killing condition and drop all terms with
$\dow_0$ derivatives.
\mktbl{t}{tab:classdata}{Parity-even Data-types -- Surviving at Equilibrium}{}
{|c|c|c|c|}
{
\hline
Data Type & Decomposition & Local Rest Frame & Equilibrium \\
\hline
\hline
$(2,2,1)$ && $\cX_\L^{ij}$ & $f_\L^{ij}$ \\
\hline
$(1,1,1)$ && $\dow^i\vq_\L$ & $\N^i\vq_{\L o}$ \\
\hline\hline
$(2,4,2)$ && $\cK^{ijkl}$ & $R^{ijkl}$ \\
\hline
$(\frac{3}{2},3,2)$ & $\dow^i (2,2,1)$ & $\dow^i \cX_\L^{jk}$ & $\N^i f_\L^{jk}$ \\
\hline
$(1,2,2)$ & $\dow^i (1,1,1)$ & $\dow^i\dow^j\vq_\L$ & $\N^i\N^j\vq_{\L o}$ \\
\hline\hline
$(\frac{5}{3},5,3)$ & $\dow^i (2,4,2)$ & $\dow^i\cK^{jklm}$ & $\N^i R^{jklm}$ \\
\hline
$(\frac{4}{3},4,3)$ & $\dow^i\dow^j (2,2,1)$ & $\dow^i\dow^j \cX_\L^{kl}$ & $\N^i\N^j f_\L^{kl}$ \\
\hline
$(1,3,3)$ & $\dow^i\dow^j (1,1,1)$ & $\dow^i\dow^j\dow^k\vq_\L$ & $\N^i\N^j\N^k\vq_{\L o}$ \\
\hline\hline
$(\frac{3}{2},6,4)$ & $\dow^i\dow^j (2,4,2)$ & $\dow^i\dow^j\cK^{klmn}$ & $\N^i\N^j R^{klmn}$ \\
\hline
$(\frac{5}{4},5,4)$ & $\dow^i\dow^j\dow^k (2,2,1)$ & $\dow^i\dow^j\dow^k \cX_\L^{lm}$ & $\N^i\N^j\N^k f_\L^{lm}$ \\
\hline
$(1,4,4)$ & $\dow^i\dow^j\dow^k (1,1,1)$ & $\dow^i\dow^j\dow^k\dow^l\vq_\L$ & $\N^i\N^j\N^k\N^l\vq_{\L o}$ \\
\hline\hline
$(\frac{7}{5},7,5)$ & $\dow^i\dow^j\dow^k (2,4,2)$ & $\dow^i\dow^j\dow^k\cK^{lmno}$ & $\N^i\N^j\N^k R^{lmno}$ \\
\hline
$(\frac{6}{5},6,5)$ & $\dow^i\dow^j\dow^k\dow^l (2,2,1)$ & $\dow^i\dow^j\dow^k\dow^l \cX_\L^{mn}$ & $\N^i\N^j\N^k\N^l f_\L^{mn}$ \\
\hline\hline
$(\frac{4}{3},8,6)$ & $\dow^i\dow^j\dow^k\dow^l (2,4,2)$ & $\dow^i\dow^j\dow^k\dow^l\cK^{mnop}$ & $\N^i\N^j\N^k\N^l R^{mnop}$ \\
\hline
}
\mktbl{h}{tab:classdata_noneqb}{Parity-even Data-types -- Vanishing at Equilibrium}{}
{|c|c|c|}
{
\hline
Data Type & Decomposition & Local Rest Frame \\
\hline
\hline
$(2,2,1)$ & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$\s^{ij} := \half S^{\<ij\>}$} \\
\hline
$(1,1,1)$ & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$V_3^i := \cE^i - \vq_1 V_2^i$} \\
\hline
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{$(\frac{3}{2},3,2)$} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{ $\X^{ijk} := \cR^{ijk}_{\ \ \ 0}
- \frac{1}{2\vq_o} \N^k \cX_1^{ij}
+ \frac{1}{\vq_o^2} \lb
f_1^{ij}\N^k\vq_o
+ \half \cX_1^{ik} \N^j \vq_o
- \half \cX_1^{jk} \N^i \vq_o
\rb $} \\
\cline{2-3}
& $\dow^i (2,2,1)$ & $\dow^i\s^{jk}$ \\
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{$(1,2,2)$} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{ $\X^{ij} := \cR^{i \ j}_{\ 0 \ 0}
+ \frac{1}{\vq} \dow^{i} \dow^{j}\vq
- 2\frac{1}{\vq^2} \dow^{i}\vq\dow^{j}\vq
- \frac{1}{4\vq^2} \cX^{i}_{1 \ a}\cX^{ja}_1$} \\
\cline{2-3}
& $\dow_0 (2,2,1)$ & $\dow_0 \cX_\L^{jk}$, $\dow_0\s^{ij}$ \\
\cline{2-3}
& $\dow^i(1,1,1)$ & $\dow^i V_3^j$ \\
\hline
$(\half,1,2)$ & $\dow_0 (1,1,1)$ & $\dow_0\dow_0\vq_\L$, $\dow_0 V_3^i$ \\
\hline
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{$(\frac{4}{3},4,3)$} & $\dow^i(\frac{3}{2},3,2)$ & $\dow^i\X^{jkl}$ \\
\cline{2-3}
& $\dow_0 (2,4,2)$ & $\dow_0\cK^{jklm}$ \\
\cline{2-3}
& $\dow^i\dow^j (2,2,1)$ & $\dow^i\dow^j\s^{kl}$ \\
\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{$(1,3,3)$} & $\dow_0(\frac{3}{2},3,2)$ & $\dow_0\X^{ijk}$ \\
\cline{2-3}
& $\dow^i(1,2,2)$ & $\dow^i\X^{jk}$ \\
\cline{2-3}
& $\dow_0\dow^j (2,2,1)$ & $\dow_0\dow^j \cX_\L^{kl}$, $\dow_0\dow^i\s^{jk}$ \\
\cline{2-3}
& $\dow^i\dow^j(1,1,1)$ & $\dow^i\dow^jV_3^k$ \\
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{$(\frac{2}{3},2,3)$} & $\dow_0(1,2,2)$ & $\dow_0\X^{ij}$ \\
\cline{2-3}
& $\dow_0\dow_0 (2,2,1)$ & $\dow_0\dow_0 \cX_\L^{kl}$, $\dow_0\dow_0\s^{ij}$ \\
\cline{2-3}
& $\dow_0\dow^j (1,1,1)$ & $\dow_0\dow^j\dow^k\vq_\L$, $\dow_0\dow^iV_3^j$ \\
\hline
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{$(\frac{5}{4},5,4)$} & $\dow^i\dow^j(\frac{3}{2},3,2)$ & $\dow^i\dow^j\X^{klm}$ \\
\cline{2-3}
& $\dow_0\dow^j (2,4,2)$ & $\dow_0\dow^j\cK^{klmn}$ \\
\cline{2-3}
& $\dow^i\dow^j\dow^k (2,2,1)$ & $\dow^i\dow^j\dow^k\s^{lm}$ \\
\hline
\multirow{5}{*}{$(1,4,4)$} & $\dow_0\dow^i(\frac{3}{2},3,2)$ & $\dow_0\dow^i\X^{jkl}$ \\
\cline{2-3}
& $\dow^i\dow^j(1,2,2)$ & $\dow^i\dow^j\X^{kl}$ \\
\cline{2-3}
& $\dow_0\dow_0 (2,4,2)$ & $\dow_0\dow_0\cK^{klmn}$ \\
\cline{2-3}
& $\dow_0\dow^j\dow^k (2,2,1)$ & $\dow_0\dow^j\dow^k \cX_\L^{lm}$, $\dow_0\dow^j\dow^k\s^{lm}$ \\
\cline{2-3}
& $\dow^i\dow^j\dow^k(1,1,1)$ & $\dow^i\dow^j\dow^kV_3^l$ \\
\hline
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{$(\frac{6}{5},6,5)$} & $\dow^i\dow^j\dow^k(\frac{3}{2},3,2)$ & $\dow^i\dow^j\dow^k\X^{lmn}$ \\
\cline{2-3}
& $\dow_0\dow^j\dow^k (2,4,2)$ & $\dow_0\dow^j\dow^k\cK^{lmno}$ \\
\cline{2-3}
& $\dow^i\dow^j\dow^k\dow^l (2,2,1)$ & $\dow^i\dow^j\dow^k\dow^l\s^{mn}$ \\
\hline
}
Some of the \emph{combinations} constructed by this procedure using
\cref{tab:classdata} are:
\begin{enumerate}
\item ($2D$ indices): $D(2,2,1)$
\item
\begin{enumerate}
\item ($2D-1$ indices): $(D-1)(2,2,1) \oplus (1,1,1) $
\end{enumerate}
\item
\begin{enumerate}
\item ($2D-1$ indices): $(D-2)(2,2,1) \oplus (\frac{3}{2},3,2)$
\item ($2D-2$ indices): $(D-2)(2,2,1) \oplus 2(1,1,1)$
\item ($2D-2$ indices): $(D-2)(2,2,1) \oplus (1,2,2)$
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
and so on... The counting can be extended arbitrarily to the
derivative order we need. In next section we will construct terms till
subleading order, and later in \cref{apn:subsubleading} we will extend
it to subsubleading order. We will suppress the usage of data-type
$(2,4,2)$ for brevity; combinations involving it can always be reached
by exchanging $(2,4,2)$ with two $(2,2,1)$'s.
\subsection{Examples of Parity-odd Counting}
\subsubsection{Leading Order (D=n-1) (s=1)} \label{sec:leadingcounting}
For $s=1$, the required indices are merely $2D = 2n-2$ ($\bV_\e$), which amounts to the only combination:
\bee{
D(2,2,1),
}
along with the terms involving $(2,4,2)$. However in $\bV_\e$ all the free indices are contracted with Levi-Civita, which will kill any term involving $(2,4,2)$ due to Bianchi Identity. The only remaining combination is -- $(n)$ vectors
\bc
$\nfrac{m-1}{n-m}^{i} \Big\vert_{m=1}^{n}$,
\ec
where we define,
\bea{
\nfrac{m}{n-a-m}_{\mu_1\nu_1\ldots\mu_a\nu_a}
&= \frac{1}{2^{n-a}} \e_{\mu_{1}\nu_{1}\ldots\mu_{n}\nu_{n}}
\prod_{x=a+1}^{m+a} \cX_1^{\mu_{x}\nu_{x}}
\prod_{y=m+a+1}^{n} \cX_2^{\mu_{y}\nu_{y}}, \nn \\
\nfrac{m}{n-a-m}_{ii_2j_2\ldots i_aj_a}
&= \frac{1}{2^{n-a}} \e_{ii_{2}j_{2}\ldots i_{n}j_{n}}
\prod_{x=a+1}^{m+a} f_1^{i_{x}j_{x}}
\prod_{y=m+a+1}^{n} f_2^{i_{y}j_{y}}.
}
\subsubsection{Subleading Order (D=n, s=2) -- Surviving at Equilibrium} \label{sec:subleadingcounting}
At subleading order, index families required are: $2D = 2n$ ($\bV_\e^C$), $2D-1 = 2n-1$ ($\bT_\e$) and $2D-2=2n-2$ ($\bV_\e$). We only compute terms surviving at equilibrium because that is what we need for the current work.
\paragraph{2D Family:}
$2D$ family was already discussed in \cref{sec:leadingcounting}, but this time since two indices are free from $\e$, one $(2,4,2)$ can appear with two antisymmetric indices of $R^{ijkl}$ contracted. However we are supposed to take a contraction on remaining indices, which again due to antisymmetry vanish. Only remaining data are -- $(n-1)$ vectors:
\bc
$\nfrac{m-1}{n-1-m}_{ijk}\cX^{ja}_1\cX^{k}_{2a} \Big\vert_{m=1}^{n-1}$.
\ec
\paragraph{2D-1 Family:}
Combinations in $(2D-1)$ family which survive at equilibrium are:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $(D-1)(2,2,1)\oplus (1,1,1)$
\item $(D-2)(2,2,1)\oplus (\frac{3}{2},3,2)$
\item $(D-3)(2,2,1)\oplus (\frac{5}{3},5,3)$
\end{enumerate}
along with the combinations with $(2,4,2)$. In $\bT_\e$ only one index stays free from $\e$, hence again $(2,4,2)$ and $(\frac{5}{3},5,3)$ cannot appear. The remaining two combinations will yield:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $(n-1)(2,2,1)\oplus (1,1,1)$: 2 possibilities -- $(6n-4)$ traceless symmetric tensors and $(2n)$ scalars
\bc
$\nfrac{m-1}{n-m}^{\langle i} \dow^{j\rangle}\vq_\L \Big\vert_{m=1}^{n}$,
$\nfrac{m-1}{n-m-1}^{\langle ijk} \dow_j \vq_\L \cX_{\G k}^{\ \ l\rangle} \Big\vert_{m=1}^{n-1}$.
\ec
\textbf{Scalars:}
\bc
$\nfrac{m-1}{n-m}^{i} \dow_{i}\vq_\L \Big\vert_{m=1}^{n}$.
\ec
\item $(n-2)(2,2,1)\oplus (\frac{3}{2},3,2)$: 1 possibility -- $(2n-2)$ traceless symmetric tensors
\bc
$\nfrac{m-1}{n-m-1}^{(ijk} \dow^{l)} \cX_{\L jk} \Big\vert_{m=1}^{n-1}$.
\ec
\end{enumerate}
\paragraph{2D-2 Family:}
Combinations in $(2D-2)$ family which survive at equilibrium are:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $(D-2)(2,2,1)\oplus 2(1,1,1)$
\item $(D-2)(2,2,1)\oplus (1,2,2)$
\item $(D-3)(2,2,1)\oplus (\frac{3}{2},3,2) \oplus (1,1,1)$
\item $(D-3)(2,2,1)\oplus (\frac{4}{3},4,3)$
\item $(D-4)(2,2,1)\oplus 2(\frac{3}{2},3,2)$
\item $(D-4)(2,2,1)\oplus (\frac{5}{3},5,3) \oplus (1,1,1)$
\item $(D-4)(2,2,1)\oplus (\frac{3}{2},6,4)$
\item $(D-5)(2,2,1)\oplus (\frac{3}{2},3,2) \oplus (\frac{5}{3},5,3)$
\item $(D-6)(2,2,1)\oplus 2(\frac{5}{3},5,3)$
\end{enumerate}
Along with these, we have
the combinations with $(2,4,2)$.
However, $\bV_\e$ has no index free from $\e$, and hence Bianchi Identity
will not allow $(2,4,2)$, $(\frac{5}{3},5,3)$ and $(\frac{3}{2},6,4)$.
Further, $(1,2,2)$, $(\frac{3}{2},3,2)$ and $(\frac{4}{3},4,3)$ will vanish
as they cannot be made completely antisymmetric. Finally only one combination will remain, yielding:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $(n-2)(2,2,1)\oplus 2(1,1,1)$: 1 possibility -- $(n-1)$ vectors
\bc
$\nfrac{m-1}{n-m-1}^{ijk}\dow_j \vq_1 \dow_k \vq_2 \Big\vert_{m=1}^{n-1}$.
\ec
\end{enumerate}
At equilibrium we have $(2n)$ scalars, $(2n-2)$ vectors and $(8n-6)$ traceless symmetric tensors. We have tabulated these data and their equilibrium values in \cref{tab:parity2data}.
\mktbl{t}{tab:parity2data}{Independent Leading and Subleading Order Parity-odd Data at Equilibrium}{}
{|c|c|c|}
{
\hline
Name & Term & Equilibrium \\
\hline\hline
$l^\mu_m \big\vert_{m=1}^n$
& $\nfrac{m-1}{n-m}^{\mu\nu}u_\nu$
& $\nfrac{m-1}{n-m}^{i}$ \\
\hline\hline\hline
$\mathbf {\tilde S}_{\L m} \big\vert_{m=1}^n$
& $l^{\mu}_m \hat\N_{\mu}\vq_\L$
& $\nfrac{m-1}{n-m}^{i} \N_{i}\vq_{\L o}$ \\
\hline\hline
$\mathbf{\tilde V}_{1m}^\mu \big\vert_{m=1}^{n-1}$
& $\nfrac{m-1}{n-1-m}_{\mu\nu\r\s}u^\nu\cX^{\r\a}_1\cX^{\s}_{2\a}$
& $\nfrac{m-1}{n-1-m}_{kij} f^{ia}_1 f^{j}_{2 a}$ \\
\hline
$\mathbf {\tilde V}_{2m}^\mu \big\vert_{m=1}^{n-1}$
& $\nfrac{m-1}{n-m-1}^{\mu\nu\r\s}u_\nu \hat\N_\r \vq_1 \hat\N_\s \vq_2 $
& $\nfrac{m-1}{n-m-1}^{ijk}\N_j \vq_{1 o} \N_k \vq_{2 o}$ \\
\hline\hline
$\mathbf {\tilde T}^{\mu\nu}_{1\L m} \big\vert_{m=1}^{n}$
& $l^{\langle\mu}_m P^{\nu\rangle\a}\hat\N_\a \vq_\L$
& $\nfrac{m-1}{n-m}^{\langle i} \hat\N^{j\rangle}\vq_{\L o}$ \\
\hline
$\mathbf {\tilde T}^{\mu\nu}_{2\L m} \big\vert_{m=1}^{n-1}$
& $\nfrac{m-1}{n-m-1}^{(\mu\nu\r\s}u_\nu \hat\N^{\a)}\cX_{\L\r\s}$
& $\nfrac{m-1}{n-m-1}^{( ijk} \N^{l )} f_{\L jk}$ \\
\hline
$\mathbf {\tilde T}^{\mu\nu}_{3\L\G m} \big\vert_{m=1}^{n-1}$
& $\nfrac{m-1}{n-m-1}^{(\mu\nu\r\s}u_\nu \hat\N_\r\vq_\L \cX_{\G\s}^{\ \ \d)}$
& $\nfrac{m-1}{n-m-1}^{(ijk}\N_j\vq_{\L o} f_{\G k}^{\ \ l)}$ \\
\hline
}
\subsection{The Basis of Independent Data} \label{sec:basisdata}
As we discussed in \cref{sec:independence}, the data we have enlisted
in the preceding sections is a `complete set' but not
independent. There might exist numerous relations among them through
antisymmetrizations of $2n$ or more indices. If we look back at
\cref{sec:scheme}, the need of all independent data arose to write
down the most generic form of the constitutive relations. We write the
energy-momentum tensor and charged current as a combination of all
independent tensors and vectors respectively up to some undetermined
coefficients which are called transport coefficients. We then
determine the same quantities from equilibrium partition function and
compare with the fluid results. It turns out that the transport
coefficients which destroys the positivity of entropy
current divergence are set to zero by this procedure. We call these transport coefficients
$unphysical$. Put differently, the partition function generates only
the $physical$ transport coefficients in the constitutive relations
(\cref{E:parti_perturb}) at equilibrium.
Now if we relax the condition \emph{`independence'} while writing
fluid constitutive relations, $i.e.$, add more terms to these relations
which could have been determined in terms of others; they can be
regarded as redundant transport coefficients in our system. Since the
charge current and the energy-momentum tensor we derive from the partition
function remain unchanged, we get relations between the transport
coefficients (including the redundant coefficients) and the coefficients
appearing in partition function.
However, we still have our answers -- the independent transport
coefficients and distinct constitutive relations.
Let us explain with an example. Suppose at some particular derivative
order, we have total $I$ number of vectors $V^{\mu}_i$. We can write charge current at this order as, $J^{\mu} = \sum_{i=1}^I a_i V_i^{\mu}$, where $a_i$'s are transport coefficients. On the other hand, suppose our partition function has $X$ number of independent coefficients $C_j$'s, and it generates a charge current $J^{\mu} = \sum_{i=1}^I c_i(C_j) V_i^{\mu}$. $c_i(C_j)$ are some functions of $C_j$'s. By comparison we will get $a_i = c_i(C_j)$. These are $I$ relations with $X$ free parameters, and thus imposes $I-X$ constraints on $a_i$.
Now let's add to our set $K$ more vectors $V^\mu_\a, \a = I+1,\ldots,I+K$ which could in principle be determined as: $V^{\mu}_\a = \sum_{i=1}^I C_{\a i}V^{\mu}_{i}$. Then we would have guessed our ansatz to be $J^{\mu} = \sum_{i=1}^{K+I} b_i V_i^{\mu}$, and by varying partition function we will get $J^{\mu} = \sum_{i=1}^{K+I} d_i(C_j) V_i^{\mu}$. $d_i(C_j)$ are some functions of $C_j$'s determined by relation $c_i = \lb d_i - \sum_{\a=I+1}^{I+K} d_\a C_{\a i} \rb$, as our partition function is still the same. By comparison we will get $b_i = d_i(C_j)$. These are $K+I$ relations with $X$ free parameters, and thus imposes $K+I-X$ constraints on $b_i$. We hence get exactly $K$ extra constraints, to kill the $K$ extra degrees of freedom we added in the system. But once we have imposed these constraints, we will only be left with $X$ independent transport coefficients.
However, note that we still need independent set of scalars that
enters the equilibrium partition function, for our arguments to make
sense. We check it here before we proceed. At leading order there are
no scalars. At subleading order the scalars do not have enough
indices for $2n$ or more antisymmetrizations, as a result all the
scalars we get are independent. At higher order however, it may not be
so easy to find out all the independent set of scalars.
Lets look at an example of such residual $2n$-antisymmetrization
conditions. In \cref{E:dependence} if we chose $B$ to be of the form
$\bS g^{ij}$, we will get:
\bee{\label{eq:tracelessDep}
\sum_{a=1}^{n-1} (-1)^{a+1} \e^{\langle p i_1\ldots
i_{n-2}}A_{i_1\ldots i_{a-1} \ \ i_a\ldots i_{n-2}}^{\hspace{32px}
q\rangle} = 0,
}
where $\<~\>$ denotes the traceless symmetric
part of a matrix. Hence one of these matrices of type $\bT_\e$ (after
making traceless) is not independent for a given $A$. A similar
argument is valid on other tensors like $\bT_\e^C$ using $\bS^C
g^{ij}$. But as we are treating all symmetric traceless tensors (of
type $[~]_\e$) to be independent, this should reflect in our final
constraints, and as we will see, it will. It turns out that till
subleading order, \cref{eq:tracelessDep} is the only remaining
residual constraint, and thus we can construct an independent basis;
but this issue might turn more subtle at higher derivative orders. To
illustrate the procedure we will not start with the independent basis
even for subleading order, and show that we get consistent results at
the end.
\section{Fluid Constitutive Relations} \label{sec:fluidrelations}
Having all the data we require, we are ready to find the constitutive
relations for fluid. We start with the results which are already known
in literature, $i.e.$ fluid up to leading derivative order. We revisit
the results in our notation. Later we consider charged fluid at
subleading order in \cref{sec:subleadingfluid}. We also set up the
notation and architecture for subsubleading order parity-odd fluid in
this formalism in \cref{apn:subsubleading}. However we do not compute
the constitutive relations explicitly, as we will discuss, the
calculation becomes a lot non-trivial.
\subsection{Ideal Fluid}
At zero derivative order only energy-momentum gets a transverse
contribution:
\bee{
\Pi^{\mu\nu}_{(0)} = A P^{\mu\nu},
}
where $A$ is some arbitrary function of $\vq$ and $\nu$. Now comparing
\cref{E:CurrentsGeneric} with \cref{E:parti_perturb} we can write at
ideal order,
\bee{
E_o v^{i}_o v^{j}_o + A_o g^{ij}
=
g^{ij} P_o, \nn
}
\bee{
- E_o v^i_o \sqrt{1+ v_{io} v^i_o}
- \frac{v^i_{o}}{\sqrt{1+ v_{io} v^i_o}}
+ \vq_o\nu_o Q_o v^i_o
=
0, \nn
}
\bee{
E_o (1+ v_{io} v^i_o)
+ \frac{v_{io} v^i_{o}}{(1+ v_{io} v^i_o)}
=
\e_o, \nn
}
\bee{
Q_o v^i_o = 0, \nn
}
\bee{
Q \sqrt{1+ v_{io} v^i_o}
=
q_o.
}
The identifications will then give
\bee{
v_o = -\E{\s}, \qquad
v^{i}_o = 0, \qquad
A = P, \qquad
Q = q, \qquad
E = \e.
}
Note that we have identified $A,Q,E$ exactly, and not just at equilibrium, as we explained in \cref{sec:scheme}. Therefore, the energy-momentum tensor and charge current for ideal fluid can be written as,
\bee{
\cT^{\mu\nu}_{(0)}
=
\e u^\mu u^\nu
+ P P^{\mu\nu}, \qquad
\cJ^{\mu}_{(0)}
=
q u^\mu.
}
\subsection{Leading Order Fluid}
One can divide the constitutive relations in hydrodynamics in two
different sectors -- \emph{parity even} and \emph{parity odd}. Ideal fluid
belongs to the first sector (in $d>2$). The first non trivial
derivative corrections in parity-even sector appears at the first
derivative order \emph{e.g.} shear viscosity term in energy-momentum
tensor. Whereas in the parity-odd sector, the leading terms appear at
$(n-1)$ derivative order for a fluid in $2n$ dimensions. All these
terms and the corresponding transport coefficients (at leading order) have already been
found in \cite{Banerjee:2012cr}. We shall discuss their result in our notation.
\subsubsection{Parity-odd}
Since there is no parity odd scalar and transverse symmetric traceless
tensor at $(n-1)$ derivative order (see \cref{tab:parity2data}), only
charge current gets parity-odd corrections:
\bee{\label{E:-1cons}
\tilde\U^\mu_{(n-1)} = \sum_{m=1}^{n} \ ^{n-1}\bC_{m-1} \o_m l^\mu_m.
}
The combinatorial factor is introduced for convenience. It also
ensures we do not surpass the limits of $m$. The fluid variables
receives following corrections,
\begin{equation}
\vq_\L = \vq_{\L o} + \tilde\D^{(n-1)} \vq_\L, \qquad v^i=
v^i_o + \tilde\D^{(n-1)} v^i.
\end{equation}
Further, there is no parity-odd gauge invariant scalar at equilibrium
on $\cM_{2n-1}$, implying that $\tilde\D^{(n-1)}W^{eqb}_{(C)}=0$. Now
comparing \cref{E:CurrentsGeneric} with \cref{E:parti_perturb} we will
find the constraints at parity-odd leading derivative order: \bee{
\o_{m} = - \frac{\vq^2 n}{\e + P} \lB s C_{m-1} + q C_m + (n+1) \lb
\frac{s}{m} + \frac{q\nu}{m+1} \rb C^{(2n)} \nu^{m} \rB. }
And the corrections to fluid variables,
\bee{
\tilde\D^{(n-1)} \vq =
\tilde\D^{(n-1)} \nu = 0, \qquad
\tilde\D^{(n-1)} v^i =
\sum_{m=1}^{n} \ ^{n-1}\mathbf C_{m-1} \a_{o(m)} l^i_{o(m)},
}
where,
\bee{
\a_m
=
- \frac{\vq^{2}n}{\e + P}\lB
C_{m-1} \nu
- C_{m}
+ \frac{(n+1)}{m(m+1)} C^{(2n)} \nu^{m+1}
\rB.
}
Here we
present these relations for completion as well as to set up our notations and
conventions. We would also like to make some interesting observations
about these functions. One can verify that
\bee{\label{E:gudrslt1} s \a_m + q \a_{m+1} = \nu \o_m - \o_{m+1}
\qquad \forall \ m \in \lbr 1,n-1 \rbr, }
\bee{\label{E:gudrslt2}
P^{(1,0)}\o_m =
s \lb P^{(1,0)} \a_{m} \rb^{(0,1)}
+ q \lb P^{(1,0)} \a_{m+1} \rb^{(0,1)}
\qquad \forall \ m \in \lbr 1,n-1 \rbr.
}
Here pressure $P(\vartheta, \nu)$ is function of temperature
$\vartheta$ and redefined chemical potential $\nu$. For any function $Q(\vq,\nu)$ we define $Q^{(m,n)} = \frac{\dow^{m+n}}{\dow^m\vq\dow^n\nu} Q$. These will come
handy in subleading order calculation.
\subsubsection{Parity-even}
The most generic current corrections at parity-even leading derivative
order are (see \cref{tab:leadingparityevendata}):
\bee{ \U^\mu_{(1)} = \sum_{\L=1}^{3} \l_{\L} V^\mu_{\L}, \qquad
\Pi^{\mu\nu}_{(1)} = -2\eta \s^{\mu\nu} - \z P^{\mu\nu} \Q, }
while at equilibrium the only surviving contributions are:
\bee{
\U^\mu_{o(1)} = \sum_{\L=1}^{2} \l_{o\L} V^\mu_{o\L}, \qquad
\Pi^{\mu\nu}_{o(1)} = 0.
}
There are no gauge-invariant parity-even scalars at equilibrium that
appear at this order. Therefore, $\D^{(n-1)}W^{eqb}_{(C)}=0$. Now
comparing \cref{E:CurrentsGeneric} with \cref{E:parti_perturb} we will
find at parity-even leading derivative order that all corrections
vanish
\bee{ \pi^{ij}_{o(1)}
=\vs^{i}_{o(1)} = \D^{(1)}\vq = \D^{(1)}\nu = \D^{(1)} v^i = 0. }
We hence get the constraints:
\bee{
\l_1 = \l_2 = 0.
}
So finally the form of currents is
\bee{\label{E:+1cons}
\U^\mu_{(1)} = \l_{3} V^\mu_{3}, \qquad
\Pi^{\mu\nu}_{(1)} = -2\eta \s^{\mu\nu} - \z P^{\mu\nu} \Q.
}
We also get to know that no fluid quantities ($\vq, \nu, v^i$) get
order one parity-even correction.
\subsection{Subleading Order Fluid} \label{sec:subleadingfluid}
In this section, we shall describe the constraints on charged fluid in
arbitrary even dimensions at subleading derivative order ($i.e. \ n$
order), in presence of $U(1)$ anomaly. Where as, the subleading
correction to parity-even sector comes at second order in derivative
expansion. Some aspects of four dimensional fluids at sub-leading order have already been performed
in \cite{Bhattacharyya:2013ida,Megias:2014mba}.
\subsubsection{Parity-odd}
Sub-leading order parity-odd fluid dynamics in four spacetime
dimensions has already been discussed in \cite{Bhattacharyya:2013ida}. Here, we generalize
the results in arbitrary even dimensions and find the constraints
on the transport coefficients. We see that, much like in \cite{Bhattacharyya:2013ida}, the higher dimensional
transport coefficients depend on first order transport coefficients $\eta, \zeta$.
From counting we can see that the $n$ order parity-odd corrections
(at eqb.) are given by (see \cref{tab:parity2data})
\bea{
\tilde\U^\mu_{o(n)} &=
\sum_{m=1}^{n-1} \ ^{n-2}\bC_{m-1} \lb
\tilde\nu_{o1,m} \mathbf{\tilde V}_{o1,m}^{\mu}
+ \tilde\nu_{o2,m} \mathbf{\tilde V}_{o2,m}^{\mu}
\rb, \\
\tilde\Pi^{\mu\nu}_{o(n)} &=
\sum_{m=1}^{n-1} \ ^{n-2}\bC_{m-1} \lb
\tilde\t_{o1,\L m} \mathbf{\tilde T}_{o1,\L m}^{\mu\nu}
+ \tilde\t_{o2,\L\G m} \mathbf{\tilde T}_{o2,\L\G m}^{\mu\nu}
\rb
+ \sum_{m=1}^{n-1} \ ^{n-1}\bC_{m-1} \tilde\t_{o3,\L m}
\mathbf{\tilde T}_{o3,\L m}^{\mu\nu} \nn \\
& \qquad + P^{\mu\nu}_o \sum_{m=1}^{n} \ ^{n-1}\bC_{m-1}
\tilde\s_{o\L m} \mathbf{\tilde S}_{o\L m}.
\label{subleading-expression}}
Sum over the relevant `$\L,\G$' indices is understood. We explicitly
write the $m$ index contraction to emphasize that the sum runs over
different values for different terms. We do not state non-equilibrium
contributions as they won't be required in this computation.
From \cref{E:CurrentsGeneric} and \cref{E:parti_perturb} we get,
\be\label{E:Tbar}
\Delta^{(n)}\bar T = \E{2\sigma} \tilde \Delta^{(n)}\e = \E{2\sigma} \vq_o^2
\frac{\delta W_{(C)}^{eqb}}{\delta \vq_o},
\ee
\be\label{E:Jbar}
\Delta^{(n)}\bar J = - \E{\sigma} \tilde \Delta^{(n)} q = - \E{\sigma}
\frac{\delta W_{(C)}^{eqb}}{\delta \nu_o}.
\ee
Now,
\be
\tilde \Delta^{(n)}\e = \bfrac{\partial \e}{\partial \vq}_o \tilde \Delta^{(n)}\vq + \bfrac{\partial \e}{\partial \nu}_o \tilde\Delta^{(n)}\nu,
\qquad \tilde \Delta^{(n)} q = \bfrac{\partial q}{\partial \vq}_o \tilde\Delta^{(n)}\vq + \bfrac{\partial q}{\partial \nu}_o \tilde \Delta^{(n)}\nu.
\ee
Therefore from \cref{E:Tbar} and \cref{E:Jbar} we can write,
\be
\tilde\D^{(n)} \vq_\L =
\vq_o \mathbf E_{o\L\G} \frac{ \d\tilde\D^{(n)}
W_{(C)}^{eqb}}{\d \vq_{o\G}},
\ee
where,
\bee{ \bE_{\L\G} = \begin{pmatrix} \vq
\frac{\dow\vq}{\dow\e}\big\vert_q, &
\frac{1}{\vq}\frac{\dow\vq}{\dow q}\big\vert_\e \\
\vq \frac{\dow\nu}{\dow \e}\big\vert_q, & \frac{1}{\vq}
\frac{\dow\nu}{\dow q}\big\vert_\e
\end{pmatrix}, \qquad
\vq_\L = \lbr \vq, \nu \rbr.
}
Similarly comparing the $\bar T^i$ equations in
(\ref{E:CurrentsGeneric}) and (\ref{E:parti_perturb}) we get,
\be
\frac{\e_o + P_o}{\vq_o} \tilde \Delta^{(n)} v^i = \vq_o \nu_o \frac{\partial
W_{(C)}^{eqb}}{\partial A_i} - \E{-\s}\frac{\partial W_{(C)}^{eqb}}{\partial a_i},
\ee
which can be written as,
\bee{\tilde\D^{(n)} v^i
= (-)^\L \frac{\mu_{o\L}}{P_o^{(1,0)}} \frac{ \d\tilde\D^{(n)}
W_{(C)}^{eqb}}{\d a_{\L i}}, \label{E:suboddcorrections}
}
where,
\bee{
\bA_{\L} = \dow_\G P \bE_{\G\L} = \begin{pmatrix}
\vq \frac{\dow P}{\dow \e}\big\vert_q, &
\frac{1}{\vq} \frac{\dow P}{\dow q}\big\vert_\e
\end{pmatrix}, \qquad
\mu_\L = \lbr \vq, \nu\vq \rbr, \qquad
a^i_\L = \lbr\tilde\vq a^i, A^i \rbr.
}
One can check that $\bE_{\L\G}$ is symmetric matrix and $\dow_\L =
\frac{\dow}{\dow \vq_\L}$. We would like to emphasize that these are
purely notations, to make the calculations tractable and easy to
digest. There is a summation on repeated $\L,\G$ indices. Now comparing $\bar T^{ij}$ and $\bar J^i$ in \cref{E:CurrentsGeneric}
with \cref{E:parti_perturb} at parity-odd subleading derivative order,
we have corrections to constitutive relations
\bea{ \frac{1}{\vq_o}\tilde\pi^{ij}_{o(n)} &= 2\frac{ \d\tilde\D^{(n)}
W_{(C)}^{eqb}}{\d g_{ij}} - g^{ij} \mathbf A_{o\L} \frac{
\d\tilde\D^{(n)} W_{(C)}^{eqb}}{\d \vq_{o\L}}
- \frac{1}{\vq_o} \tilde\D^{(n-1)} \pi^{ij}_{(1)}, \nn \\
P_o^{(1,0)}\tilde\vs_{o{(n)}}^{i} &= \vq_o \bS_{o\L} \frac{ \d
\tilde\D^{(n)} W_{(C)}^{eqb}}{\d a_{\L i}} -
P_o^{(1,0)}\tilde\D^{(n-1)}\vs_{(1)}^{i}, \label{E:suboddidentifications}
}
where,
\bee{
\bS_\L = \frac{\dow P}{\dow \mu_{\bar \L}} = \lbr q, s \rbr.
}
$\bar\L$ swaps the value of $\L: 1\leftrightarrow 2$. The generating functional $\tilde\D^{(n)}W_{(C)}^{eqb}$ contain all
scalars $\mathbf{\tilde S}_{o\L m}$. But one can check that
$\mathbf{\tilde S}_{o1 m}$ can be connected to $\mathbf{\tilde S}_{o2
m}$ by a total derivative. So we take the partition function
\bee{ \tilde\D^{(n)}W_{(C)}^{eqb} = \int \df^{2n-1} x \sqrt{g}
\sum_{m=1}^n \ ^{n-1}\bC_{m-1} \tilde\cS_{m} \mathbf{\tilde
S}_{o2,m}. }
We compute the variation of generating functional with respect to
different fields and find that
\bea{
\frac{\d \tilde\D^{(n)} W_{(C)}^{eqb}}{\d g_{ij}} &= 0, \nn \\
\frac{\d \tilde\D^{(n)}W_{(C)}^{eqb}}{\d \vq_{o\L}} &=
- (-)^\L \sum_{m=1}^n \ ^{n-1}\bC_{m-1} \tilde\cS_{m}^{(1,0)} \mathbf{\tilde S}_{o\bar\L,m}, \nn \\
\frac{\d \tilde\D^{(n)}W_{(C)}^{eqb}}{\d a_{\L i}} &=
(n-1)\sum_{m=1}^{n-1} \ ^{n-2}\bC_{m-1} \tilde\cS_{m+2-\L}^{(1,0)}
\mathbf{\tilde V}^i_{o2,m}. \label{acn-variation}}
Using the form of lower order currents corrections from
\cref{E:+1cons} we can write,
\bea{
\tilde\D^{(n-1)} \pi^{ij}_{(1)}
&=
- 2\eta_o \tilde\D^{(n-1)} \s^{ij}
- \z_o g^{ij} \tilde\D^{(n-1)} \Q \nn \\
&=
- 2\eta_o\vq_o \ ^{n-1} \bC_{m-1}\dow_\L\lb\frac{\a_{o(m)}}{\vq_o}\rb \tilde\bT^{ij}_{o1,\L m}
- \eta_o \ ^{n-2} \bC_{m-1} (n-1) \a_{o(m+2-\L)} \mathbf{\tilde T}^{ij}_{o2,\L m} \nn \\
& \qquad\qquad - g^{ij} \z_o \vq_o \ ^{n-1} \bC_{m-1} \dow_\L\lb\frac{\a_{o(m)}}{\vq_o}\rb \mathbf{\tilde S}_{o\L m} \\
\tilde\D^{(n-1)} \vs^{i}_{(1)}
&=
\l_{o3} \tilde\D^{(n-1)} \cE^i \nn \\
&=
\l_{o3} \ ^{n-2}\bC_{m-1} (n-1) \lB
\a_{o(m+1)}
+ \nu_o \a_{o(m)}
\rB
\mathbf{\tilde V}^i_{o1m}.
\label{lowerorder-correction}}
One can now use the results, obtained in \cref{acn-variation} and
\cref{lowerorder-correction} in
\cref{E:suboddidentifications} and comparing these expressions with
\cref{subleading-expression} to get the constraints,
\bee{
\tilde\t_{1,\L m}
=
2\eta \vq \dow_\L\lb\frac{\a_{m}}{\vq}\rb, \qquad
\tilde\t_{2,\L m}
=
\eta (n-1) \a_{(m+2-\L)}, \qquad
\tilde\t_{3,\L\G m}
=
0,
}
\bee{
- \frac{1}{\bA_2}\lb
\tilde\s_{1m}
- \frac{\z}{2\eta} \tilde\t_{1,1 m}
\rb
=
\frac{1}{\bA_1} \lb
\tilde\s_{2m}
- \frac{\z}{2\eta} \tilde\t_{1,2 m}
\rb
=
P^{(1,0)}\tilde\c_{m},
}
\bee{
\tilde\nu_{1m} = - \l_{3} (n-1) \lb
\a_{m+1}
+ \nu \a_m
\rb, \qquad
\tilde\nu_{2m}=
- (n-1) \lb
q \tilde\c_{m+1}
+ s \tilde\c_m
\rb.
}
Hence everything is determined in terms of a known function
$\a_m$ and a new coefficient $\tilde\c_{m}$. Note that if we had used
the $2n$-assymetrization condition \cref{eq:tracelessDep} to get rid
of one traceless symmetric tensor to start with; a consistent choice
would have been to remove $\mathbf{\tilde T}_{3,\L 1 m}^{\mu\nu}$ entirely
and $\mathbf{\tilde T}_{3,\L 2 m}^{\mu\nu}$ for $m=1$ (see
\cref{tab:parity2data}). The coefficients of these terms are set to
zero already by our constraints, which means the other leftover
constraints are independent.
Finally we get the corrections to fluid variables using
\cref{E:suboddcorrections} as
\bea{ \tilde\D^{(n)} \vq_\L &=
\ ^{n-1}\bC_{m-1} (-)^\G \mathbf E_{o\L\G} \c_{o(m)} \mathbf{\tilde S}_{o\bar\G,m}, \nn \\
\tilde\D^{(n)} v^i &= (n-1)\sum_{m=1}^{n-1} \ ^{n-2} \bC_{m-1} \lb
\c_{o(m+1)} - \nu_o \c_{o(m)} \rb \mathbf{\tilde V}^i_{o2,m}. }
\subsubsection{Parity-even}
Next, we present the results for sub-leading order (two-derivative) parity even sector for the fluid.
From counting we can verify that at the second order, parity-even corrections (at eqb.) are
given by (see \cref{tab:subleadingparityevendata}):
\bee{
\U_{o(2)}^\mu = \sum_\# \nu_{o\#} \mathbf V_{o\#}^\mu, \qquad
\frac{1}{\vq_o}\Pi_{o(2)}^{\mu\nu} = \sum_\# \t_{o\#} \mathbf T_{o\#}^{\mu\nu} + P^{\mu\nu}_o\sum_\# \s_{o\#} \mathbf S_{o\#}.
}
$\#$ refers to sum over all relevant indices. Now comparing \cref{E:CurrentsGeneric} with \cref{E:parti_perturb} at parity-even subleading derivative order, and performing a similar manipulation as last section, we have corrections to constitutive relations:
\bea{
\frac{1}{\vq_o} \pi^{ij}_{o(2)}
&=
2 \frac{ \d\D^{(2)} W_{(C)}^{eqb}}{\d g_{ij}}
- g^{ij} \bA_{o\L} \frac{ \d\tilde\D^{(2)} W_{(C)}^{eqb}}{\d \vq_{o\L}}
- \boxed{P^{(1,0)}_o \tilde\D^{(1)} v^{\langle i} \tilde\D^{(1)} v^{j \rangle} } \nn \\
& \qquad + \boxed{g^{ij} \tilde\D^{(1)}v_k \lbr
\bA_{o2} \tilde\vs^{k}_{o(1)}
+ \lb
\frac{1}{\vq_o} \bA_{o1} P_o^{(1,0)}
+ \frac{1}{2\vq_o} \bA_{o2} P_o^{(0,1)}
- \frac{1}{3} P_o^{(1,0)}
\rb \tilde\D^{(1)} v^k
\rbr }, \nn \\
P^{(1,0)}_o \vs^{i}_{o(2)}
&=
\vq_o \bS_{o\L} \frac{ \d\D^{(2)} W_{(C)}^{eqb}}{\d a_{\L i}}
- \boxed{P^{(1,0)}_o \tilde\D^{(1)}\tilde\vs^{i}_{(1)}}, \label{E:subevenidentifications}
}
while the fluid variables get the corrections:
\bea{
\tilde\D^{(2)} {\vq_\L} &=
\vq_o \mathbf E_{o\L\G} \frac{ \d\tilde\D^{(2)} W_{(C)}^{eqb}}{\d \vq_{o\G}}
- \boxed{ \lb
\bA_{o\L}
- \half P_o^{(0,1)}\bE_{o\L 2}
\rb \tilde\D^{(1)} v_i \tilde\D^{(1)}v^i}
- \boxed{\vq_o \mathbf E_{o\L 2}\tilde\D^{(1)}v_i \tilde\vs^{i}_{o(1)}}, \nn \\
\D^{(2)}v^i
&=
(-)^\L \frac{\mu_{o\L}}{P^{(1,0)}_o} \frac{ \d\D^{(2)} W_{(C)}^{eqb}}{\d a_{\L i}}. \label{E:subevencorrections}
}
Notice that the boxed terms only contribute for four dimensional fluids ($n=2$). Out of the
scalars enlisted in \cref{tab:subleadingparityevendata}, $\bS_{o1\L}$ can be related to others by a total
derivative. Hence $\D^{(2)} W_{(C)}^{eqb}$ is given by:
\bee{
\D^{(2)} W_{(C)}^{eqb}
=
- \half \int \lbr\df x^i\rbr \sqrt{g}\lbr
\cS_R \bS_{o4}
+ \cS_{f\L\G} \bS_{o3(\L\G)}
+ \cS_{\vq\L\G} \bS_{o2(\L\G)}
\rbr.
}
Now we can find the variations of $\D^{(2)} W_{(C)}^{eqb}$,
\bem{
2\frac{\d \D^{(2)} W_{(C)}^{eqb}}{\d g_{ij}} =
- \dow_\L\cS_R \mathbf T_{o1,\L}^{ij}
- \lb \dow_\L\dow_\G\cS_R - \cS_{\vq \L\G} \rb \mathbf T_{o2,\L\G}^{ij}
+ 2 \cS_{f\L\G} \mathbf T_{o3,\L\G}^{ij}
+ \cS_R \mathbf T_{o4}^{ij} \\
+ g^{ij}\lB
\lb
1
- \frac{1}{d-1}
\rb \dow_\L\cS_R \mathbf S_{o1,\L}
+ \lb
\dow_\L\dow_\G\cS_R
- \frac{1}{d-1} \dow_\L\dow_\G\cS_R
- \half \cS_{\vq \L\G}
+ \frac{1}{d-1} \cS_{\vq \L\G}
\rb \mathbf S_{o2,\L\G} \dbrk
- \half \lb
1
- \frac{4}{d-1}
\rb \cS_{f\L\G} \mathbf S_{o3,\L\G}
- \half \lb
1
- \frac{2}{d-1}
\rb \cS_R \mathbf S_{o4}
\rB,
}
\bee{
\frac{\d \D^{(2)} W_{(C)}^{eqb}}{\d \vq_{o\Sigma}} =
\cS_{\vq \Sigma\L} \mathbf S_{o1,\L}
+ \lb
\dow_{(\G} \cS_{\vq \L)\Sigma}
- \half \dow_\Sigma \cS_{\vq \L\G}
\rb \bS_{o2,\L\G}
- \half \dow_\Sigma\cS_{f\L\G} \mathbf S_{o3,\L\G}
- \half \dow_\Sigma\cS_R \mathbf S_{o4},
}
\bee{
\frac{\d \D^{(2)} W_{(C)}^{eqb}}{\d a_{\L i}} =
2 \cS_{f\L\G} \mathbf V_{o1,\G}^{i}
- 2 \dow_\Sigma \cS_{f\L\G} \mathbf V_{o2,\G\Sigma}^i.
}
Using the form of lower order corrections from \cref{E:-1cons} for $n=2$ we can write,
\bea{
\tilde\D^{(1)}\tilde\vs^i_{(1)}
& = \o_{o\Sigma} l^i_{o\Sigma} \nn \\
& =
(-)^\Sigma \o_{o\Sigma} \lbr
\mu_{o\bar\Sigma} \a_{\bar\L} \bV^{i}_{o1,\L}
- \dow_\G\lb\mu_{o\bar\Sigma} \a_{\bar\L}\rb \bV^{i}_{o2,\L\G}
\rbr.
}
We can now put the variations of generating functional along with lower order corrections worked out
above in \cref{E:subevenidentifications}. Using \cref{E:gudrslt1,E:gudrslt2} and eliminating partition
function coefficients $\cS$'s we will find following 7 constraints,
\bee{
\t_{1,\L} + \dow_\L\t_{4} = 0,
}
\bee{
\s_{o1,\L} =
\frac{d-2}{d-1}\dow_\L\t_{4}
- \bA_{\Sigma} \dow_\Sigma \dow_\L \t_{4}
- \bA_{\Sigma} \t_{2,\Sigma\L},
}
\bee{
2\s_{2,\L\G} =
\dow_\L\dow_\G\t_{4}
- \bA_{\Sigma} \dow_\Sigma \dow_\L\dow_\G\t_{4}
- \frac{d-3}{d-1} \t_{2,\L\G}
- 2 \bA_{\Sigma} \dow_{(\L} \t_{2,\G)\Sigma}
+ \bA_{\Sigma} \dow_{\Sigma} \t_{2,\L\G},
}
\bee{
4 \s_{3,\L\G} =
- \frac{d-5}{d-1} \t_{3,\L\G}
+ \bA_{\Sigma} \dow_\Sigma\t_{3,\L\G},
}
\bee{
2 \s_{4} =
- \frac{d-3}{d-1}\t_{4}
+ \bA_{\Sigma}\dow_\Sigma\t_{4},
}
\bee{
\nu_{1,\L} =
\frac{\vq}{P^{(1,0)}} \bS_\G \t_{3,\L\G},
}
\bee{
\nu_{2,\G\L} =
- \frac{\vq}{P^{(1,0)}} \bS_\Sigma \dow_\L \t_{3,\G\Sigma}.
}
Coincidently none of the constraints depend on $n=2$ special contributions. On the other hand fluid
variables corrections are given by \cref{E:subevencorrections}:
\bem{
\tilde\D^{(2)} {\vq_\O} =
\vq_o \mathbf E_{o\O\Sigma} \lB
\lb \t_{o2,\Sigma\L} + \dow_\L\dow_\Sigma\t_{o4} \rb \mathbf S_{o1,\L}
+ \lb
\dow_{(\G}\t_{o2,\L)\Sigma}
- \half \dow_\Sigma \t_{o2,\L\G}
+ \half \dow_\Sigma \dow_\L\dow_\G\t_{o4}
\rb \bS_{o2,\L\G} \dbrk
- \frac{1}{4} \dow_\Sigma \t_{o3,\L\G} \bS_{o3(\L\G)}
- \half \dow_\Sigma \t_{o4} \mathbf S_{o4}
\rB \\
+ \boxed{ \half \lB
\half \vq_o \mathbf E_{o\O \Sigma} \dow_\Sigma \lb P_{o}^{(1,0)} \a_{o\bar\L}\a_{o\bar\G} \rb
- \bA_{o\O} \a_{o\bar\L}\a_{o\bar\G}
+ \vq_o\bE_{o\O 2} \a_{o\bar\L} \lb
\half q_o \a_{o\bar\G}
- \o_{o\bar\G}
\rb
\rB \bS_{o3(\L\G)} },
}
\bee{
\D^{(2)}v^i
=
(-)^\L \frac{\mu_{o\L}}{P^{(1,0)}_o}
\lB
\lb
\t_{o3,\L\G}
- \boxed{P_{o}^{(1,0)} \a_{o\bar\L}\a_{o\bar\G}}
\rb \mathbf V_{o1,\G}^{i}
- \dow_\Sigma \lb
\t_{o3,\L\G}
- \boxed{P_{o}^{(1,0)} \a_{o\bar\L}\a_{o\bar\G}}
\rb \mathbf V_{o2,\G\Sigma}^i
\rB
}
This completes our calculation of subsubleading derivative order fluid.
\section{Conclusions}
In this paper we computed the energy momentum tensor and charge current
for a fluid system in $2n$ dimensions with $U(1)$ anomaly up to
subleading order in derivative expansion (for both parity odd and
parity even sectors) from the
equilibrium partition function of the fluid. We described a novel counting prescription to construct the fluid
data. However, an important issue we encountered here is that it is non-trivial to find independent vectors and tensors at arbitrary derivative order. But we were still able to find the independent
transport coefficients and distinct constitutive relations. We showed that the knowledge of
independent scalars at the required derivative order is sufficient for this purpose. This is a powerful observation
and it enables us to carry on the computation at $(n+1)$ derivative order, where, we could find the independent scalars.
We observe that the
parity odd transport coefficients which appear at $n$ derivative order
in constitutive relations are constrained and some of them depend on
the first order transport coefficients like $\eta$, $\zeta$
etc. It would be interesting to find the similar dependence in a holographic set up \cite{Banerjee:2010zd}.
We plan to explore the holographic computation in future.
It is also interesting to find the fluid constitutive relations in presence of both $U(1)$ and gravitational anomaly in
arbitrary $2n$ dimensions.
But, since the gravitational anomaly appears at two higher derivative level compared to the $U(1)$ anomaly,
it requires to carry on our analysis to one higher derivative (sub-sub-leading) order, i.e. to $(n+1)$ derivative order.
Fortunately, as mentioned earlier, even at this order,
we could determine the independent scalars and hence, in principle, the computation is possible. We have
carried a large part of it in \cref{apn:subsubleading}.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We are thankful for valuable discussions and suggestions from many of
our colleagues and friends, from which this project has been benefited
-- Felix Haehl, Sukruti Bansal, Aranya Lahiri, Pratik Roy to name a
few. A special thanks to Mukund Rangamani and R. Loganayagam for
useful discussion regarding this project. We also thank
S. Bhattacharyya for initial collaboration. AJ would also like to
thank IISER Bhopal, IISER Pune and Durham University for their
support, which made this project possible. NB would like to
acknowledge DST for Ramanujan fellowship. Finally, we are indebted to the people of India for their support.
|
\section{Upper Bound on Message Complexity}
\label{sec:alg-tlogt}
In this section, we briefly describe a Byzantine Broadcast algorithm, named Algorithm 2, with message complexity $O(t \log t)$ under the {\em selective broadcast} model. This algorithm is
derived from the {\em Modular Algorithm} proposed by Coan and Welch \cite{Modular_n2_Coan_1992}, which achieves optimal message complexity of $O(n^2)$ in the point-to-point model. Algorithm 2 has the same structure as the {\em Modular Algorithm} except for the following modifications:
\begin{itemize}
\item In the {\em Modular Algorithm}, a node may often send identical messages to multiple neighbors. In our algorithm, such transmissions are replaced by {\bf one} broadcast message over the {\em selective broadcast} channel.
\item The {\em Modular Algorithm} is performed by all the $n$ nodes. In our case, we use a modified version of that algorithm to achieve Byzantine Broadcast among $3t+1$ nodes. After that, any $2t+1$ of these $3t+1$ nodes transmit the agreed value on the {\em selective broadcast} channel; the remaining $n-3t-1$ nodes agree on a majority vote of these transmissions.
\item The number of levels of recursion in our algorithm is $\log n$, different from
that in the original {\em Modular Algorithm} \cite{Modular_n2_Coan_1992}.
\end{itemize}
Now, we briefly present the framework from \cite{Modular_n2_Coan_1992} and its
variation for the {\em selective broadcast} model.
\subsection{Modular Framework \cite{Modular_n2_Coan_1992}}
The framework proposed by Coan and Welch \cite{Modular_n2_Coan_1992} consists of recursive applications of two transformations, BC2BCB and BCB2BC: the first transformation, namely BC2BCB, uses a Byzantine Consensus (BC) algorithm to solve a Byzantine Committee Broadcast (BCB) problem, and the latter transformation, namely BCB2BC, uses a BCB algorithm to solve the BC problem.
The base case of the Modular Framework is a previously proposed BC algorithm (e.g., \cite{psl_BG_1982, gradecast_benor_2010}), say $A_0$. Then, the recursive definition of the Modular Framework is as follows: Given algorithm $A_{i-1}$ ($i \geq 1$), $A_i$ is defined as BCB2BC(BC2BCB($A_{i-1}$)). For brevity, we omit the details of the framework; the reader is referred to the prior work \cite{Modular_n2_Coan_1992}. The main reason that the Modular Framework achieves low message complexity is as that
the number of message transmissions induced by the expensive base algorithm is small. This is achieved by recursively dividing the nodes into many ``committees'' of small size such that the base algorithm is only executed within each of these small committees.
\paragraph{Algorithm 2:}
Modular Algorithm \cite{Modular_n2_Coan_1992} is designed for the Byzantine Consensus (BC) problems, wherein each node has an input. To perform Byzantine Broadcast (BB) using a modified Modular algorithm, the source node first broadcasts its input value on
the {\em selective broadcast} channel, and then a modified Modular algorithm is used to reach consensus on the value received by all the peers from the source . Now, we describe two modifications of Modular Algorithm to achieve BC efficiently in the {\em selective broadcast} model.
In the Modular Algorithm, when fault-free nodes transmit, they always transmit the same message to all the intended receivers. Thus, replacing these transmissions by a {\bf single} transmission in {\em selective broadcast} channel reduces the message complexity.
The second modification further exploits the reliable broadcast channel. Unlike Modular Algorithm, Algorithm 2 only requires $n' = 3t+1$ {\em active} nodes participating in the algorithm, i.e., executing Algorithm 2, due to the existence of {\em selective broadcast} channel. The
remaining $n-3t-1$ nodes (which we call {\em passive} nodes) do not transmit messages at all, but listen to the messages announcing the agreed value, transmitted by any $2t+1$ {\em active} nodes. The passive nodes then use majority voting on these $2t+1$ values to decide on their output.
\subsection{Message Complexity}
Suppose that $M_*(n')$ is the message complexity of the base algorithm executed by $n'$ nodes.
For any fixed integer $B$ such that $t+1 \geq B \geq 2$, by using analysis similar to that in \cite{Modular_n2_Coan_1992}, we can show the upper bound below on message complexity of $A_i$, denoted as $M_i$, for all $\log_{B} t \geq i \geq 0$. In the inequality below, $\alpha$ is a certain constant that depends
on the transformation used in the Modular Algorithm.
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Ai}
M_i(3t+1) \leq B^i M_*(3t/B^i + 1) + \alpha B t i~,
\end{equation}
Replacing $i = \log_{B} t$ and $M_*(n') = O((n')^3)$ in equation \ref{eq:Ai} yields $M_{\log_{B} t}(3t+1) \leq O(t \log t)$. \footnote{Here, we use the Gradecast-based algorithm \cite{gradecast_benor_2010} as the base algorithm.}
The message complexity of Algorithm 2 is $M_{\log_{B} t}(3t+1) + 2t+1$, and is thus bounded by $O(t \log t)$.
\comment{
\begin{equation*}
M(\text{Algorithm 2}) = M_{\log_{B} t}(3t+1) \leq O(t \log t)
\end{equation*}
}
\section{Upper Bound on Bit Complexity - Multi-Valued BB}
\label{sec:alg-L}
In this section, we present a Byzantine Broadcast algorithm for
an $L$-bit input. The algorithm is motivated by past algorithms
that utilize ``dispute control'' or similar structures \cite{Fitzi_multi-value_BA_PODC, liang_BC_L-bit_PODC2011}. For a suitably chosen integer $D$, the algorithm consists of $L/D$ ``generations'', with Byzantine Broadcast of $D$ bits of the input being achieved in each generation $g$ ($1 \leq g \leq L/D$). For simplicity, we assume that $L/D$ is
an integer. Input $x$ at source node $p_1$ is viewed as the tuple
\[ x(1), x(2), \cdots, x(L/D), \]
where each $x(g)$ consists of $D$ bits. In each generation $g$, each fault-free node $p_i$ obtains output $y_i(g)$, and its $L$-bit output for all the generation together is obtained as the tuple
\[ y_i(1), y_i(2), \cdots, y_i(L/D)\]
Our {\em Byzantine Broadcast} algorithm has three
phases: {\em Detectable Broadcast}, {\em Detection Dissemination}
and {\em Dispute Control}.
\bigskip
\vspace*{8pt}\hrule
\noindent {\bf Byzantine Broadcast using Dispute Control}
\vspace*{4pt}\hrule
~
Perform the following steps in the $g$-th generation, $g=1,\cdots,L/D$.
\begin{itemize}
\item {\bf Detectable Broadcast of $x(g)$}:
By the end of the {\em Detectable Broadcast} phase each fault-free node $p_i$
receives a value, denoted as $z_i$, such that one of the following two conditions is true:
\begin{list}{}{}
\item[(i)] at least one fault-free node detects misbehavior by some faulty node(s) in the network, without necessarily identifying the faulty node(s), or
\item[(ii)] no fault-free node detects any misbehavior, and for all fault-free
peers $p_i$ and $p_j$, we have
$z_i=z_j$, and
additionally, if $p_1$ is fault-free then $z_i=z_j=x(g)$.
\end{list}
\item {\bf Detection Dissemination:}
Each node performs a Byzantine broadcast (BB) of a single bit, indicating
whether it detected any misbehavior during {\em Detectable Broadcast} phase or not.
The 1-bit BB is performed using any previously proposed BB algorithm (e.g., \cite{psl_BG_1982, Modular_n2_Coan_1992, gradecast_benor_2010}) for the point-to-point model (note that algorithms designed for the point-to-point model
can be used under our {\em selective broadcast} model as well).
If no node announces that it detected misbehavior, then each fault-free node $p_i$
sets output $y_i(g)$ equal to $z_i$ received in the {\em Detectable Broadcast} phase,
and the {\em Dispute Control} phase is \underline{not} performed in the $g$-th generation.
\item {\bf Dispute Control:} If any node indicates,
in the {\em Detection Dissemination} phase, that misbehavior has been detected,
then additional steps are taken to learn
new information regarding the potential identity of the faulty nodes. In particular,
a new pair of nodes is found ``\underline{in dispute}" such that at least one node in this
pair is guaranteed to be faulty. Two fault-free nodes are never
found {\em in dispute} with each other.
The {\em Dispute Control} phase is performed using a
BB algorithm previously proposed for the point-to-point model
(similar to the {\em Detection Dissemination} phase), and as a by-product
of {\em Dispute Control}, Byzantine Broadcast of $x(g)$ is also achieved.
For brevity, we omit the details of the {\em Dispute Control} phase; similar
dispute control mechanisms have been included in prior work as well \cite{Fitzi_multi-value_BA_PODC,liang_BC_L-bit_PODC2011}.
For future reference, note that, any node that is found {\em in dispute}
with more than $t$ other nodes must necessarily be faulty itself. Such a
node is then essentially excluded from the future generations of the algorithm.
If the source node $p_1$ is thus identified as faulty, then the algorithm
terminates with the nodes agreeing on a default value for all future
generations.
\end{itemize}
\hrule
~
As shown in prior work using {\em Dispute Control}, the bit complexity of such algorithms is dominated by the first phase -- {\em Detectable Broadcast} in our case -- when the input size $L$ is sufficiently large. For brevity, we will omit the proof of this claim; the reader is referred to prior work (e.g., \cite{liang_BC_L-bit_PODC2011}) for examples of similar algorithms. There are two key reasons for this outcome:
\begin{itemize}
\item Although the 1-bit BB in the {\em Detection Dissemination} phase is performed using an expensive (existing) algorithm, the cost of these disseminations is amortized over a large number of bits, specifically $D$, in the input for each generation.
\item Similarly, the {\em Dispute Control} phase is also expensive. However, it turns out that this phase is performed only a finite number of times (specifically, at most $t(t+1)$ times). Thus, its amortized cost over a large number of generations (i.e., large $L/D$) is small.
\end{itemize}
In the rest of this section, we present and analyze a {\em Detectable Broadcast}
algorithm for $D$ bits.
\subsection{$D$-Bit Detectable Broadcast}
The {\em Detectable Broadcast} phase makes use of an error detection code. Therefore,
we first describe the code and its parameters.
\paragraph{Error Detection Code:}
With a suitable choice of parameter $c$, we will use a $(n,n-2t)$ Reed-Solomon code over Galois Field GF($2^c$). In particular, $c$ is chosen large enough such that $n \leq 2^c - 1$. The $D$-bit value to be agreed on in each generation is viewed as consisting of $n-2t$ {\em data} symbols from $GF(2^c)$. Thus,
each of these symbols can be represented with $c$ bits, and therefore, $D=c(n-2t)$. Given the $(n-2t)$ data symbols corresponding to a certain $D$-bit
value, $n$ ``\underline{coded}'' symbols in the corresponding codeword are obtained as linear independent combinations of the $(n-2t)$ data symbols over $GF(2^c)$. The code specification is part of the specification of the {\em Detectable Broadcast} algorithm. The $(n,n-2t)$ Reed-Solomon code has the following useful property: Any $n-2t$ (coded) symbols in a codeword can be used to compute the corresponding $n-2t$ data symbols, and therefore, the corresponding $D$-bit value. We summarize the relationships between the code parameters:
\begin{itemize}
\item $n$ coded symbols in each codeword, corresponding to $(n-2t)$ data symbols,
\item $n \leq 2^c-1$, and $D=c(n-2t)$
\end{itemize}
This implies that $n \leq 2^{D/(n-2t)}-1$, and $D\geq (n-2t)\log_2(n+1)$.
Thus, we need $D = \Omega(n \log n)$.
\paragraph{Detectable Broadcast:}
Algorithm 1 below specifies execution of {\em Detectable Broadcast} in the $g$-th generation of the {\em Byzantine Broadcast} algorithm described above. Recall that $x(g)$ is the input for source $p_1$ in the $g$-th generation.
\vspace*{8pt}\hrule
\noindent {\bf Algorithm 1: Detectable Broadcast for the $g$-th Generation}
\vspace*{4pt}\hrule
\begin{enumerate}
\item
\label{step_1} Source $p_1$ transmits
$x(g)$ on the {\em selective broadcast} channel.
$x(g)$ is viewed as a vector of $n-2t$ {\em data} symbols, each
consisting of $c=D/(n-2t)$ bits each.
\item Peer $p_i$ ($2\leq i\leq n$) performs the following steps:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \label{step_2_transmit} If $p_i$ is in dispute with the source, stay silent.
Else, encode the $n-2t$ data symbols received in step \ref{step_1} into a codeword consisting of $n$ {\em coded} symbols using the aforementioned coding scheme. Denote the resulting codeword obtained at peer $i$ as $s_{i} = s_i[1], s_i[2],\cdots, s_i[n]$. Transmit $s_i[i]$ on the {\em selective broadcast} channel.
\item \label{step_2}
Node $p_i$ ignores symbols received from peers that it has been
previously
{\em in dispute} with. For each peer $p_j$ that node $p_i$
is {\em not} in dispute with:
let the symbol received from peer $p_j$ be denoted as $r_i[j]$. Also,
if $p_i$ is {\em not in dispute} with $p_1$, then let $r_i[1]=s_i[1]$.
For all nodes $p_k$ such that $p_i$ is in dispute with $p_k$ ($1\leq k\leq n$),
define $r_i[k]=\perp$ ($\perp$ denotes a distinguished {\em null} symbol).
\end{enumerate}
At the end of step \ref{step_2}, every peer $p_i$ has one
non-null symbol $r_i[j]$
corresponding to each node $p_j$ ($1\leq j\leq n$) that
has not yet been dispute with either $p_i$ or $p_1$.
Since $p_1$ and $p_i$ can each be in dispute with at most $t$ nodes
(otherwise they would have already been identified as faulty),
node $p_i$ has at least $n-2t$ non-null symbols in the $r_i$ vector.
\item \label{step_3} Peer $p_i$ ($2 \leq i \leq n$) performs the following steps:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Find the solution for each subset of $n-2t$ non-null coded symbols in the
$r_i$ vector received above in step \ref{step_2} -- the solution consists of
$n-2t$ data symbols that correspond to the $n-2t$ coded symbols.
\item If the solutions to all these subsets of size $n-2t$ is not unique, then $p_i$ has detected faulty behavior by some peer. In this case, $z_i$ is set equal to some default value.
Else, $z_i$ is set equal to the unique solution corresponding to any of the $n-2t$ non-null symbols received in step \ref{step_2}. The solution consists
of $n-2t$ symbols, which correspond to $c(n-2t)=D$ bits.
\end{enumerate}
\comment{
Else, $p$ performs the following steps:
\begin{enumerate}
\item For $2\leq j\leq n$, if $p_i$ is not in dispute with $p_j$ and $p_j$ is not in dispute with the source, then compare $r_i[j]$ and $s_i[j]$. Any other messages are simply ignored.
\item
If all comparisons result in a match,
then $z_i$ is set equal to the $D$ bits corresponding to the $n-2t$ symbols
received in step \ref{step_1}.
Else, peer $p_i$ has detected faulty behavior by some node. In this
case, $z_i$ is set equal to some default value.
\end{enumerate}
}
\end{enumerate}
\hrule
~
The bit complexity of {\em Detectable Broadcast} algorithm can be further reduced by using a more efficient coding scheme. For lack of space, we omit the discussion here.
\paragraph{Correctness of Detectable Broadcast Algorithm}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:detectable}
By the end of Detectable Broadcast in $g$-th generation,
the following conditions hold:
\begin{itemize}
\item either at least one fault-free node
detects misbehavior by some faulty nodes,
\item or for all fault-free peers $p_i$ and $p_j$,
$z_i=z_j$, and additionally, if $p_1$ is fault-free then
$z_i=z_j=x(g)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
In the {\em Detectable Broadcast} algorithm, the following misbehaviors
are possible:
Source $p_1$ may misbehave in step \ref{step_1}
by transmitting different $D$-bit values (represented as $n-2t$ symbols)
to at least two different fault-free peers that are both not in dispute with the source. A peer node may misbehave
by transmitting incorrect symbols to some fault-free peer(s) in step \ref{step_2}.
Consider two cases in the $g$-th generation:
\begin{itemize}
\item {\em Source does not misbehave: }: Since there are
at least $n-t$ fault-free nodes, and fault-free nodes are never in
dispute with each other, it is easy to see that, for each pair
of fault-free peers $p_i$ and $p_j$, the vectors $r_i$ and $r_j$
will include at least $n-t$ identical and correct coded symbols
corresponding to the data symbols sent by $p_1$ in step \ref{step_1}.
Then it should be easy to see that for each pair of fault-free peers
$p_i$ and $p_j$, either (i) at least one of them will
detect misbehavior by some node, or (ii) $z_i=z_j=x(g)$.
\comment{
In this case,
in step \ref{step_1}, all fault-free peers receive identical $n-2t$ symbols
representing the $D$-bit value $x(g)$.
Consider two sub-cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item No peer misbehaves:
Then it is easy to see that
each fault-free peer $p_i$ will not detect any mismatch in step \ref{step_3},
and therefore set $z_i=x(g)$.
\item A peer misbehaves:
If some peer $p_k$ misbehaves by sending an incorrect symbol to fault-free
peer $p_i$, then $p_i$ will detect that $s_i[k] \neq r_i[k]$, and thus detect
misbehavior. Note that node $p_i$ cannot conclude that $p_k$ is the
faulty node, since it is possible that the source sent incorrect message
to $p_k$ in the previous step.
\end{itemize}
}
\item {\em Source node misbehaves:} In this case, the source node is in dispute with at most $t$ nodes (otherwise, it would have been identified as faulty already). Thus, the source node is not in dispute with at least $(n-1)-t$ peers.
Of these, $n-1-t$ peers, at least $(n-1-t)-(t-1)=n-2t$ peers are fault-free.
Since these fault-free peers cannot in dispute with each other, they will
collectively transmit at least identical $n-2t$ symbols to all the nodes.
Therefore, all the fault-free peers will share at least $n-2t$
symbols in common in their $r$ vectors.
Then it should be easy to see that for each pair of fault-free peers
$p_i$ and $p_j$, either (i) at least one of them will
detect misbehavior by some node, or (ii) $z_i=z_j$.
\comment{
The following argument relies on the facts that no two fault-free nodes are found in dispute and there are at most $t$ faults in the system. Suppose that the source is in dispute with at most $t$ peers; otherwise, the source would be identified as faulty by all fault-free nodes, and thus, BB becomes trivial. In this case, the source nodes sends mismatching data symbols to at least two fault-free peers that are not in dispute with it. Consider two sub-cases with respect to a fault-free peer $p_i$:
\begin{itemize}
\item If $p_i$ is not in dispute with the source: At most $t$ peers are in dispute with the source. Denote the set of all these $t$ peers and the source as $\scriptv$. Then, there are at most $t-1$ other peers that are in dispute with $p_i$, since at least one node from $\scriptv$ is faulty.
\item If $p_i$ is in dispute with the source: At most $t$ peers (including $p_i$) are in dispute with the source. Then, there are at most $t-1$ other peers that are in dispute with $p_i$, since $p_i$ is fault-free and at most $t$ nodes would be in dispute with a fault-free node.
\end{itemize}
Therefore, in both cases, $p_i$ received at least $n-2t$ identical coded symbols in step \ref{step_2} (from the fault-free peers that are not in dispute with both the source and $p_i$). ========= Is it obvious that these coded symbols are identical? Or do I need to explain? ==========Since the Reed-Solomon code is of dimension $n-2t$, if none of the fault-free peers detect any mismatch, then nodes that are not in dispute with the source must have all received identical values from $p_1$ in step \ref{step_1}, and nodes that are in dispute with the source must have received correct symbols from all the peers in step \ref{step_2}. This leads to a contradiction.
}
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
Lemma \ref{lemma:detectable} together with the correctness of {\em Detection Dissemination} and {\em Dispute Control} (similar to the proofs in \cite{liang_BC_L-bit_PODC2011}) proves the correctness of the algorithm presented in this section.
\subsection{Bit Complexity}
Source node $p_1$ transmits $D$ bits in step \ref{step_1}.
In step \ref{step_2_transmit}, at most $n-1$ peers
each transmit a coded symbol
consisting of $D/(n-2t)$ bits, for a total cost of
$(n-1)D/(n-2t)$ bits in step \ref{step_2_transmit}.
Thus, the worst-case cost of a single instance of {\em Detectable Broadcast}
(in bits)
is
\[
D + \frac{(n-1)D}{n-2t}
\]
Thus, the total cost of {\em Detectable Broadcast} over all the $L/D$
generations required to perform Byzantine Broadcast of the $L$-bit input
at node $p_1$ is given by
\[
L + \frac{(n-1)L}{n-2t} ~ = ~ L \, \frac{2n-2t-1}{n-2t}
\]
As noted previously, with the {\em dispute control} framework, when $L$
is large, the bit complexity of Byzantine Broadcast of $L$-bits
is dominated by the bit complexity of {\em Detectable Broadcast}. In
particular, it can be shown that if we use the Modular Algorithm \cite{Modular_n2_Coan_1992} to perform 1-bit BB in {\em Detection Dissemination} and {\em Dispute Control} phase, then
the communication cost (in bits) of the proposed {\em Byzantine Broadcast}
algorithm is
\[
L \, \frac{2n-2t-1}{n-2t} ~+~ O(n^4) L^{0.5}
\]
When $L$ is large, the first term dominates the above cost, and the
bit complexity becomes $O(L)$. By assumption, $n\geq 3t+1$, and therefore,
\[
2 < \frac{2n-2t-1}{n-2t} < 4
\]
\section*{\hfil #1\hfil}}
\bibliographystyle{abbrv}
\usepackage{appendix}
\newcommand{\Aightarrow}{\stackrel{a}{\Rightarrow}}
\newcommand{\comment}[1]{}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{subfigure}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{mdwlist}
\usepackage{pxfonts}
\usepackage{algorithm}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\usepackage{xspace}
\newcommand{\BSB}{{\tt Broadcast\_Binary}\xspace}
\newcommand{\DG}{{\tt Diag\_Graph}\xspace}
\newcommand{\TRUE}{{\tt TRUE}\xspace}
\newcommand{\FALSE}{{\tt FALSE}\xspace}
\newcommand{\teq}[1]{\stackrel{#1}{\equiv}}
\newcommand{\nteq}[1]{\stackrel{#1}{\nequiv}}
\newcommand{\sg}{{\mathcal G}}
\newcommand{\sv}{{\mathcal V}}
\newcommand{\se}{{\mathcal E}}
\newcommand{\sw}{{\mathcal W}}
\newcommand{\ms}{{\mathcal S}}
\newcommand{\nchoosek}[2]{{#1 \choose #2}}
\newcommand{\mybox}[1]{\vspace{5pt}\centerline{\framebox{\parbox[c]{\textwidth}{#1}}}\vspace{5pt}}
\newcommand{\BlackBox}{\rule{2.6mm}{2.6mm}}
\newenvironment{proof}{\paragraph{\bf Proof:}}{\hspace*{\fill}\(\Box\)}
\newenvironment{proofSketch}{\paragraph{\bf Proof Sketch:}}{\hspace*{\fill}\(\Box\)}
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}
\newtheorem{conjecture}{Conjecture}
\newtheorem{claim}{Claim}
\newtheorem{corollary}{Corollary}
\newtheorem{definition}{Definition}
\newtheorem{condition}{Condition}
\newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}
\newtheorem{example}{Example}
\newcommand{\fillblackbox}{\hspace*{\fill}\(\BlackBox\)}
\newcommand{\fillbox}{\hspace*{\fill}\(\Box\)}
\newcommand{\fig}[1]{Figure~\ref{#1}}
\newcommand{\eqn}[1]{Equation~\ref{#1}}
\newcommand{\refsec}[1]{Section~\ref{#1}}
\newcommand{\num}[1]{(\romannumeral#1)}
\def\noflash#1{\setbox0=\hbox{#1}\hbox to 1\wd0{\hfill}}
\newcommand{\scriptf}{\mathcal{F}}
\newcommand{\scripte}{\mathcal{E}}
\newcommand{\scriptv}{\mathcal{V}}
\newcommand{\shortdividerline}{\begin{center} \line(1,0){150} \end{center}}
\newcommand{\dividerline}{\begin{center}\hrule\end{center}}
\begin{document}
\title{Byzantine Broadcast\\ Under a {\em Selective Broadcast} Model\\ for Single-hop Wireless Networks\footnote{\normalsize This research is supported in part by National Science Foundation award CNS 1059540. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding agencies or the U.S. government.}}
\author{Lewis Tseng \hspace*{1in} Nitin Vaidya\\
\normalsize
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign\\ \normalsize Email: \{ltseng3, nhv\}@illinois.edu}
\date{May 2012}
\maketitle
\input{abstract}
\thispagestyle{empty}
\setcounter{page}{1}
\input{intro}
\input{alg}
\input{alg-binary}
\input{lower_bound}
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
In this paper, we address Byzantine fault-tolerant broadcast (or {\em Byzantine Broadcast} for short) under a new model of a wireless broadcast channel.
Byzantine Broadcast (BB) is a fundamental problem in distributed computing \cite{psl_BG_1982}. Consider a system of $n$ nodes, namely $p_1, ..., p_n$, of which at most $t$ nodes may be faulty. We assume that node $p_1$ is the
{\em source} for the Byzantine Broadcast (BB); the remaining $n-1$ nodes
will be referred as {\em peers}. Byzantine Broadcast must
satisfy the following three properties, assuming that source $p_1$'s input is $x$:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Termination}: every fault-free peer $p_i$ eventually decides on an output value $y_i$.
\item \textbf{Consistency}: the output values of all the fault-free peers are equal, i.e., there exists $y$ such that, for every fault-free peer $p_i$, $y_i = y$.
\item \textbf{Validity}: if the source node $p_1$ is fault-free, then the agreed value must be identical to $p_1$'s input value, i.e., $y = x$.
\end{itemize}
We assume that the input $x$ at source $p_1$ is $L$ bits long. The case when $L=1$ will be referred to as {\em Binary} BB, with the case when $L>1$ being referred to as {\em Multi-Valued} BB.
We are interested in two measures of complexity of BB algorithms.
\begin{itemize}
\item {\bf Message complexity}: Message complexity of an algorithm is defined as the maximum (i.e., worst-case) number of messages transmitted by all the nodes following the specification of the algorithm over all permissible executions.
\item {\bf Bit complexity}: Bit complexity of an algorithm is defined as the maximum number of bits transmitted by all the nodes following the specification of the algorithm over all permissible executions.
\end{itemize}
The Byzantine Broadcast problem has been considered under different
models of the communication network:
\begin{itemize}
\item {\bf Point-to-point model} (e.g., \cite{psl_BG_1982, Modular_n2_Coan_1992, gradecast_benor_2010, liang_BC_L-bit_PODC2011}): Nodes are connected via pairwise private channels,
with the network being modeled as a directed graph. Thus, if a channel $(p_i,p_j)$ exists
then node $p_i$ can transmit information to $p_j$ -- the channel is private in the sense
that no other node can overhear this transmission.
\item {\bf Reliable Broadcast model} (e.g., \cite{Koo_radio_byzantine, Vartika_radio_byzantine_2005, 2cast_journal}):
There are two models assuming the existence of reliable broadcast channels. In both models, each node has a certain set of {\em neighbors} such that a message sent by the node on the broadcast channel is received (reliably) by all its neighbors. The first model corresponds to a radio network wherein nodes within a certain distance of each node are considered its neighbors (e.g., \cite{Koo_radio_byzantine, Vartika_radio_byzantine_2005}). \cite{2cast_journal, Sen_PODC12_coloring} considers a model wherein every subset of three nodes shares a reliable broadcast channel. Importantly, in both models, the broadcast property holds for transmissions from faulty nodes as well. Thus, each transmission of a (faulty or fault-free) node is received by all its neighbors.
\end{itemize}
In this paper, we consider a new model which ``interpolates'' between the above two models. The motivation behind the new model is to understand the impact of the network assumption on performance metrics of interest. Observe that:
\begin{itemize}
\item In the reliable broadcast model, performance can be improved by exploiting the broadcast channel, since a single transmission can be received by multiple nodes. However, this model is somewhat optimistic in the sense that it does \underline{not} allow for the possibility that a faulty node may send different messages to different nodes. For instance, in a wireless setting, it
is conceivable that a faulty node may use beam-forming (or directional) antennas to send different messages to its neighbors.
\item While the point-to-point network model allows the faulty nodes to send different messages to different neighbors, it does \underline{not} provide the benefits of broadcast to the fault-free nodes.
\end{itemize}
We now introduce our {\em selective broadcast} model. To simplify the discussion and analysis, we assume a ``single-hop'' broadcast channel, as elaborated in the model below. However, the model can be extended to ``multi-hop'' networks as well.
\paragraph{Selective Broadcast Model:}
The system is assumed to be synchronous. We assume that all the $n$ nodes share a channel on which broadcasts and unicasts can both be performed. A fault-free node can broadcast its messages to all the nodes. However, a faulty node can simultaneously (in time) send different messages to different nodes to maximize the impact of its misbehavior.
Faulty nodes cannot cause collisions on the channel. All transmissions are assumed to be reliable. While multiple nodes may transmit messages on the shared channel within the same ``round'', for the purpose of the analysis of bit and message complexity, it is adequate to assume that these transmissions are performed in parallel. (In real networks, the transmissions will be serialized by a medium access mechanism -- this detail is ignored in our work, since we
focus on bit and message complexity, not time complexity).
It is assumed that each node can correctly identify the transmitter of each message on the {\em selective broadcast} channel.
\paragraph{Failure Model:}
The Byzantine adversary has complete knowledge of the algorithm, and the source's input value. The adversary can {\em compromise} up to $t < n/3$ nodes over the entire execution of the algorithm. These compromised nodes are said to be {\em faulty}. The faulty node can arbitrarily deviate from the algorithm specification, including sending mismatching messages to other nodes.
\section{Lower Bounds}
\label{sec:LB}
In this section, we state some simple lower bounds on bit and message
complexity. In deriving these bounds, we assume that the nodes only communicate explicitly through messages. That is, no implicit communication mechanism is used to convey information, such as the time between two message transmissions.
\paragraph{Lower Bound on Message Complexity:}
\begin{theorem}
The lower bound on message complexity of Byzantine Broadcast under the {\em selective broadcast} model is $\Omega(t)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The proof is by contradiction.
Assume that there exists a correct algorithm A under the {\em selective broadcast} model that has message complexity of $o(t)$.
The transmission of a message by a certain node on the {\em selective broadcast} channel
can be simulated by sending a copy of the message to each of the remaining $n-1$ nodes
in a fully connected point-to-point network. Thus, algorithm A can solve the Byzantine
Broadcast problem using $o(nt)$ messages in a point-to-point model. This contradicts
the lower bound in \cite{dolev_msg_complexity}.
Alternatively, the theorem can be proved by arguing that more than
$t$ messages must be sent in the worst-case: if only $t$ (or fewer) messages are sent,
it is possible that the transmitters (at most $t$) of all these messages are faulty nodes, making it impossible to
guarantee agreement among the fault-free nodes.
\end{proof}
The gap between the above lower bound of $\Omega(t)$ and the upper bound
of $O(t \log t)$ in Section \ref{sec:alg-tlogt} is small, but the problem of closing this gap remains open.
\paragraph{Lower Bound on Bit Complexity:}
It should be obvious that the total number of bits transmitted in any BB algorithm is at least $L$ (in the worst case), since there are $2^L$ possible input values. Thus, $\Omega(L)$ is a trivial lower bound on bit complexity, and our algorithm presented in Section \ref{sec:alg-L} matches this bound when $L$ is large enough.
\paragraph{Lower Bound on Bit Complexity of ``Static'' Algorithms
for Detectable Broadcast:}
An algorithm A is characterized by a set of {\em schedules} where each schedule consists of a sequence of transmission slots. In each slot $i$, a single node is selected as the {\em transmitter}, denoted as $T_i$. The transmitter $T_i$ transmits a message via the {\em selective broadcast} channel to all the other nodes. An algorithm is said to be {\bf static} if it has a fixed schedule, such that the transmitters in all the slots are pre-determined and are independent of the source's input and the behavior of the faulty nodes.
We state the following lower bound on bit complexity of
{\em static} algorithms for {\em Detectable Broadcast} (DB).
For lack of space, we only present the case when no two nodes are in dispute, and the proof is omitted. The proof argues that
in a static schedule, the source $p_1$ must transmit at least $L$ bits,
and then argue that the remaining nodes must transmit at least
$(n-1)\frac{L}{n-f}$ bits to satisfy the conditions of {\em Detectable
Broadcast}.
\begin{claim}
The lower bound on bit complexity of static DB algorithm is \footnote{Note that this lower bound is also a lower bound of static BB algorithms, since any BB algorithm also solves DB problems. Note that algorithms in \cite{psl_BG_1982, Modular_n2_Coan_1992, gradecast_benor_2010} are static BB algorithms, but the algorithm presented in Section \ref{sec:alg-L} is not static.}
\begin{equation*}
\label{eq:equality_check}
L + (n-1) \frac{L}{n-f}
\end{equation*}
\end{claim}
\section{Summary}
This paper introduces a new communication model that ``interpolates'' between two old models in the literature. In particular, we explore the impact of allowing nodes to {\em select} between broadcast and unicast on bit and message complexity. In the new model, we present a Multi-Valued BB algorithm that is order-optimal in bit complexity, and another BB algorithm that is efficient in message complexity. At last, we briefly discuss about lower bounds on bit and message complexity in the new model.
\comment{ ======== Old =========
We start with the following claim due to pigeonhole principle and the assumption of {\em fixed schedule}.
\begin{claim}
In any static DB algorithm, the source must send at least $L$ bits.
\end{claim}
Then, using the transformation algorithm, where nodes perform simulations on each others assuming a fault-free system, we have the following claim.
\comment{
we have the following claim based a transformation that has the source perform simulation.
\begin{claim}
Any static DB algorithm can be transformed into an algorithm, within which, the source sends $L$ bits {\bf first}, i.e., the first transmitter in the algorithm is the source, whose message is $L$ bits long, without increasing bit complexity.
\end{claim}
Finally, we have the following claim based on a transformation that has the peers perform simulations and has the source remain silent after the first transmission.
}
\begin{claim}
\label{claim:transform}
Any static DB algorithm can be transformed into a new algorithm, where the source sends {\bf only} $L$ bits, without increasing bit complexity
\end{claim}
The new algorithm has a two-phase framework of interest. In the first phase, the source sends $L$ bits and remains silent afterward, and in the second phase, the peers compare the value received from the source with other peers. Based on this framework, we are able to show the following key lemma
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:lower_bound_BB-AD}
The lower bound on bit complexity of static DB algorithm is \footnote{Note that this lower bound is also a lower bound of static BB algorithms, since any BB algorithm also solves DB problems. Note that algorithms in \cite{psl_BG_1982, Modular_n2_Coan_1992, gradecast_benor_2010} are static BB algorithms, but the algorithm presented in Section \ref{sec:alg-L} is not static.}
\begin{equation*}
\label{eq:equality_check}
L + (n-1) \frac{L}{n-f}
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Apparently, the bit complexity of the first phase is $L$. Hence, we only need to show that the bit complexity is $(n-1) \frac{L}{n-f}$ for the second phase.
Given any correct algorithm A, construct the new transformed algorithm A', as suggested in Claim \ref{claim:transform}. Suppose by way of contradiction that in the second phase of A', the message complexity is strictly less than $(n-1) \frac{L}{n-f}$. Based on simple algebra, we know that there must be some $n-f$ peers such that jointly they send strictly less than $L$ bits in the second phase of A'. Denote these $n-f$ peers $\scriptv$. Then, due to the pigeonhole principle and the assumption of {\em fixed schedule}, we have the following claim:
\comment{
\begin{claim}
\label{claim:less_than_L}
There must be some $n-f$ peers such that jointly they send strictly less than $L$ bits in the second phase of A'.
\end{claim}
}
\begin{claim}
\label{claim:same_behavior}
There must be two distinct values $u$ and $v$ such that each node in $\scriptv$ sends exactly the same set of bits in exactly the same slots in the second phase of A' in the following two situations:
\begin{itemize}
\item All nodes in $\scriptv$ received $u$ from the source in the first phase.
\item All nodes in $\scriptv$ received $v$ from the source in the first phase.
\end{itemize}
\end{claim}
Consider the case when the source is faulty, $n-f$ peers in $\scriptv$ are fault-free and the other $f-1$ peers are also faulty. Denote $f-1$ faulty peers $\scriptf'$. Divide $\scriptv$ into two arbitrary non-empty sets, $\scriptv_1$ and $\scriptv_2$. Let $u_1$ and $u_2$ be two values sent by the source such that peers in $\scriptv$ have exactly the same behavior, as indicated by Claim \ref{claim:same_behavior}. Now, we describe the exact execution that fails A'.
\begin{enumerate}
\item the faulty source sends $u_1$ to $\scriptv_1$ and $u_2$ to $\scriptv_2$.
\item nodes in $\scriptv$ execute A'.
\item nodes in $\scriptf'$ behave to $\scriptv_1$ pretending that they have received $u_1$ from the source, and behave to $\scriptv_2$ pretending that they have received $u_2$ from the source. This behavior is possible, since nodes in $\scriptf'$ are all faulty.
\end{enumerate}
It is not hard to see that in this case, no fault-free node would detect misbehavior. Then in the end of A', nodes in $\scriptv_1$ would decide $u_1$, since from their point of view, nodes in both $\scriptv_2$ and $\scriptf'$ behave as if they receive $u_1$ from the source (due to Claim \ref{claim:same_behavior}). Similarly, nodes in $\scriptv_2$ would decide $u_2$. This leads to a contradiction that A is a correct algorithm. Thus, Lemma \ref{lemma:lower_bound_BB-AD} holds.
\end{proof}
~
\comment{
\paragraph{Byzantine Broadcast}
It is easy to see that the lower bound of DB is also a lower bound of BB, since any BB algorithm also solves DB. Hence, Lemma \ref{lemma:lower_bound_BB-AD} implies
\begin{theorem}
The lower bound on bit complexity of static BB algorithms is
\begin{equation*}
L + (n-1) \frac{L}{n-f} = L \frac{2n-t-1}{n-t}
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
}
=================== Old ========================}
|
\section{Introduction and background on generating sets}
For $G$ an arbitrary group, a sequence\footnote{When the ordering does not matter, we will often abuse notation and refer to sequences and sets interchangeably.} $s = (g_1, \dots, g_n)$ of elements of $G$ is said to be a {\bf generating sequence} if we have $\langle g_1, \dots, g_n \rangle = G$. A sequence $s$, generating or otherwise, is said to be {\bf irredundant} if $\langle g_j : j \neq i \rangle$ is properly contained in $\langle g_i \rangle$ for every $i$. (The same property is sometimes called {\it independent} or {\it minimal}.) Then every finite generating sequence of a group contains an irredundant one, since we can simply remove redundant elements one at a time until this is no longer possible. It is worth noting, however, that strange things can happen in some infinite groups; for example, the reader can check that the additive group $\Q$ has no irredundant generating sets. However, we will only be interested in the case of finite groups.
\\
\\
Armed with these definitions, we can introduce three notions of ``dimension'' of a finite group $G$ which have been studied extensively. Let $r(G)$ be the minimum size of a (necessarily irredundant) generating sequence of $G$; let $m(G)$ be the maximum size of an irredundant generating sequence of $G$; and let $i(G)$ be the maximum size of any irredundant sequence in $G$. (It follows from the definition that $i(G)$ is the maximum of $m(H)$ as $H$ runs over subgroups of $G$.) Clearly, we have $r(G) \leq m(G) \leq i(G)$. It is less clear that $m(G) \lneq i(G)$ for some $G$, but examples do exist; we will later give examples of groups satisfying an even stronger inequality than this.
\\
\\
To justify our use of the word ``dimension'', consider the case of the elementary abelian group $G = (\mathbb Z/p \mathbb Z)^n$, which we can view as an $n$-dimensional vector space over $\F_p$. Here, a generating sequence is just a spanning set, an irredundant sequence is a linearly independent set, and an irredundant generating sequence is a basis. Since all bases have size $n$, it follows that $r(G) = m(G) = i(G) = n$. On the other hand, for $H = S_n$ (say, $n > 2$), the reader can find irredundant generating sequences proving that $r(H) = 2$ but $m(H) \geq n-1$. In fact, it is a nontrivial theorem of Julius Whiston (\cite{whiston})---relying ultimately on the classification of finite simple groups, through the O'Nan-Scott theorem on maximal subgroups of $S_n$---that $m(S_n)$ is exactly $n-1$. Whiston actually proved much more than this, including that $i(S_n) = n-1$, and that $m(A_n) = i(A_n) = n-2$ for $n > 1$.
\\
\\
Given a finite group $G$, there is an important connection between irredundant generating sequences of $G$ and certain configurations of maximal subgroups $M < G$. To state this precisely, we first need the following definition.
\begin{genpos}
We say that a family of subgroups $H_i \leq G$, indexed by a set $S$, is in {\bf general position} if it satisfies either of the following equivalent conditions:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Whenever $\cap_{i \in I} H_i = \cap_{j \in J} H_j$ for $I, J \subseteq S$, we have $I = J$.
\item For every $i \in S$, the intersection $\cap_{j \neq i} H_j$ properly contains $\cap_{j \in S} H_j$.
\end{enumerate}
To show that (1) implies (2), simply take $I = S$ and $J = S \setminus \{i\}$. To show the reverse implication (by contrapositive), suppose we are given $I \neq J \subseteq S$ violating (1), and take $i \in I \setminus J$ without loss of generality. Then we have $\cap_{i \in I} H_i = \cap_{j \in J} H_j$, so
\begin{align}
\cap_{j \in I \cup J} H_j = \cap_{j \in J} H_j = \cap_{j \in J \cup I \setminus \{i\}} H_j.
\end{align}
Intersecting both sides with all $H_k$ for $k \notin I \cup J$ yields $\cap_{j \neq i} H_j = \cap_{\text{all }j} H_j$, contradicting (2).
\end{genpos}
To connect this definition to our main topic, let $s = (g_1, \dots, g_n)$ be an irredundant generating sequence of a group $G$. Then for each $i$, let $H_i = \langle g_j : j \neq i \rangle$. We must have $g_i \notin H_i$, since otherwise $H_i$ contains $\langle g_1, \dots, g_n \rangle = G$, contradicting irredundancy. It follows that the intersection of all $H_i$ contains none of the $g_i$, while the intersection of any $n-1$ of them contains exactly one $g_i$. In particular, using criterion (2) above, we have shown that the $H_i$ are in general position.
\\
\\
For both theoretical and computational purposes, it is useful to take this argument one step further. Because $G$ is finite, each of the proper subgroups $H_i < G$ can be enlarged to a maximal subgroup $M_i$. These $M_i$ contain all $g_j$ with $j \neq i$, but still cannot contain the corresponding $g_i$ by properness, so the same argument shows that they are in general position as well. Thus, any length-$n$ irredundant generating sequence of a finite group $G$ gives rise to a (possibly nonunique) family of $n$ maximal subgroups of $G$ in general position. Thus, if we let $\md(G)$ denote the size of the largest family of maximal subgroups of $G$ in general position, we have shown:
\begin{mmaxdim} \label{mmaxdim}
For finite $G$, we have $m(G) \leq \md(G)$.
\end{mmaxdim}
Next, we might ask whether the correspondence can be reversed. That is, given a family of maximal subgroups of $G$ in general position, can we recover an irredundant generating sequence of the same length? This is not generally possible; in fact, we will see an example in section 2 where $\md(G)$ is strictly greater than $m(G)$. However, we can always recover some irredundant (but not necessarily generating) sequence of the same length, which implies:
\begin{imaxdim} \label{imaxdim}
For finite $G$, we have $\md(G) \leq i(G)$.
\begin{proof}
Let $(M_i)_{1 \leq i \leq n}$ be a family of subgroups in general position; they need not even be maximal. By condition (2) of the definition of general position, we can choose elements $g_i \in (\cap_{j \neq i} M_j) \setminus M_i$ for each $i$. By construction, we have $g_j \in M_i$ if and only if $j \neq i$. So for every $i$, the subgroup $\langle g_j : j \neq i \rangle$ is contained in $M_i$ and $\langle \text{all }g_j \rangle$ is not, so the elements $g_1, \dots, g_n$ form an irredundant sequence. Taking $n = \md(G)$ gives the result.
\end{proof}
\end{imaxdim}
\begin{certify}
Suppose we have a family of subgroups $(H_i)_{i \in S}$ and a family $(g_j)_{j \in S}$ of elements of $G$ indexed by the same set $S$, and suppose that $g_j \in H_i$ holds exactly when $j \neq i$. Then the argument of Proposition \ref{mmaxdim} shows that the $H_i$ are in general position. In this case, we say that the $g_j$ {\bf certify} that the $H_i$ are in general position. We can summarize the last two results as saying that every irredundant generating sequence certifies a family of maximal subgroups in general position, and every such family is certified by some irredundant (but not necessarily generating) sequence.
\end{certify}
Computationally, $\md$ seems to behave more like $m$ than $i$, and it has even been suggested that $\md = m$ in general. While we will see in the next section that this is false, the connection with maximal subgroups is quite fruitful for computing $m$ for small groups. Gabriel Frieden has written a program in GAP exploiting this idea. Roughly speaking, it works by finding all maximal subgroups of a group $G$, looking for large families of them in general position, and then checking whether any of these are certified by an irredundant generating sequence.
\\
\\
Our next definition is particularly important to the theory of generating sets of groups, as we will see immediately and throughout our discussion.
\begin{Frattini}
The {\bf Frattini subgroup} $\Phi(G)$ of a group $G$ is the intersection of all maximal subgroups of $G$. We say that $G$ is {\bf Frattini-free} if $\Phi(G) = 1$.
\end{Frattini}
\begin{Frattinidef2}
An element $g \in G$ (where $G$ is finite, for convenience but not necessity) lies in $\Phi(G)$ if and only if for every generating set $S$ containing $g$, the set $S \setminus \{g\}$ still generates $G$. Thus we can say that the Frattini subgroup consists of {\bf non-generators}: elements that ``contribute nothing to generating $G$''.
\begin{proof}
Let $S$ be any subset of $G$, and let $\langle S \rangle = H \leq G$. Then $H$ is a proper subgroup of $G$ if and only if it is contained in a maximal subgroup of $G$. (This is false for infinite $G$: for example, $\Q$ has no maximal subgroups.) So $S$ generates $G$ if and only if for every maximal $M < G$, there exists $s \in S$ not in $M$. It follows that removing an element $g \in \Phi(G)$ does not affect the property of generating $G$. To prove the converse, suppose $g \in G$ does not belong to some maximal subgroup $M$. Then the set $S = M \cup \{g\}$ generates a subgroup of $G$ strictly larger than $M$, which must be $G$; but removing $g$ leaves a subset that generates only $M$. So such a $g$ cannot be a non-generator.
\end{proof}
\end{Frattinidef2}
From the definition, it is clear that $\Phi(G)$ is a subgroup of $G$. In fact it is a characteristic (and thus normal) subgroup, since any automorphism of $G$ permutes its maximal subgroups and therefore preserves their intersection. This allows us to take the quotient of $G$ by $\Phi(G)$, which is called the {\bf Frattini quotient}. Since $\Phi(G)$ is in some sense irrelevant to generating $G$, generation properties of groups are often well-behaved under Frattini quotient, as the next few propositions show.
\begin{genFrattini} \label{genFrattini}
Let $N$ be any normal subgroup of $G$ contained in $\Phi(G)$; for example, $N = \Phi(G)$. If $\{g_i\}$ is any subset of a finite group $G$, then the $g_i$ generate $G$ if and only if their projections modulo $N$ generate $G/N$.
\begin{proof}
The forward direction is clear. For the reverse direction, suppose the projections $\overline{g_i}$ generate $G/N$. Then the larger set $\{g_i\} \cup N$ generates $G$, because every $g \in G$ can be written as the product of a word in the $g_i$ and an element of $N$. But $N \leq \Phi(G)$ consists of non-generators, so we can remove everything in $N$ from our generating set $\{g_i\} \cup N$ to see that the $g_i$ generate $G$.
\end{proof}
\end{genFrattini}
Notice that we already need $G$ to be a finite group in the lemma above: if $G = \Q$, then $\Phi(G) = \Q$, because $\Q$ contains no maximal subgroups. In this case, our argument only allows us to remove finitely many elements of $\Phi(G)$ from a generating set, which is not enough. Indeed, $\Q/\Phi(\Q) = 0$ is generated by the empty set, and $\Q$ is not even finitely generated.
\begin{mFrattini} \label{mFrattini}
If $N \trianglelefteq G$ is a normal subgroup contained in $\Phi(G)$, then we have $m(G/N) = m(G)$. (The same is true of $r(G)$, although we won't use this.)
\begin{proof}
As shown above, quotients by such $N$ do not affect the property of being a generating set. Since a generating set is irredundant if and only if no proper subset generates $G$, it follows that such quotients also do not affect the property of being an irredundant generating set. So $G/N$ has an irredundant generating sequence of any given length if and only if $G$ does.
\end{proof}
\end{mFrattini}
Unfortunately, $i(G)$ is not so well-behaved under Frattini quotients. For example, if $G$ is the wreath product $(\mathbb Z/p\mathbb Z) \wr (\mathbb Z/p\mathbb Z) = (\mathbb Z/p\mathbb Z)^p \rtimes (\mathbb Z/p\mathbb Z)$, where the last factor acts by permuting the previous factors, then it can be shown that $i(G) = m((\mathbb Z/p\mathbb Z)^p) = p$ but $i(G/\Phi(G)) = 2$. However, it is easy to prove that $\md$ is preserved by Frattini quotients:
\begin{maxFrattini}
If $N$ is a normal subgroup of $G$ contained in $\Phi(G)$, then we have $\md(G/N) = \md(G)$.
\begin{proof}
The subgroups of $G/N$ all have the form $H/N$, where $N \leq H \leq G$, and we have a natural bijection $H \leftrightarrow H/N$ between subgroups of $G$ containing $N$ and subgroups of $G/N$. It follows that the maximal subgroups of $G$ (which all contain $\Phi(G)$, and thus $N$) correspond to the maximal subgroups of $G/N$. A family of maximal subgroups $M_i < G$ is in general position if and only if the $M_i/N$ are in general position, so the largest such families have the same size.
\end{proof}
\end{maxFrattini}
We will use two more standard facts about Frattini subgroups; the proofs are left as exercises.
\begin{Phiofnormalsubgroup}
If $N$ is a normal subgroup of $G$, then $\Phi(N) \leq \Phi(G)$.
\end{Phiofnormalsubgroup}
\begin{Phiofpgroup}
If $P$ is a finite $p$-group, then $\Phi(P)$ is the subgroup generated by all commutators and $p$-th powers in $P$. In particular, $P$ is Frattini-free if and only if it is elementary abelian.
\end{Phiofpgroup}
Notice that using these two lemmas and Corollary \ref{mFrattini}, it is straightforward to calculate $m$ of any finite abelian group $G$. Specifically, writing $G$ as a direct sum of cyclic groups of prime power order, $G = \oplus_{i = 1}^k \mathbb Z/p_i^{e_i} \mathbb Z$, the reader can show that $m(G) = m(\oplus_{i = 1}^k \mathbb Z/p_i \mathbb Z) = k$ by modding out by each $\Phi(\mathbb Z/p_i^{e_i} \mathbb Z)$. Notice then that $m(G) \geq m(H)$ for any subgroup $H \leq G$ (which is not true in general), so $i(G) = \max_{H \leq G} (m(H)) = m(G)$ for finite abelian groups $G$. So finite abelian groups are what we will call \textbf{flat} groups: groups $G$ satisfying $m(G) = i(G)$. Notice that the property of flatness is particularly convenient for studying $\md$, since it turns the inequality $m(G) \leq \md(G) \leq i(G)$ into an equality.
\section{A family of groups where $\md \gg m$}
The results of this section were achieved in collaboration with Atticus Christensen. The family of counterexamples presented here is a descendant of the first known counterexample, in the group $\PSL(3, 2) \wr (\mathbb Z/2\mathbb Z)$, which was discovered by Gabriel Frieden in 2011.
\\
\\
In this section, we will answer the question of whether $\md = m$ holds for all finite groups. The answer turns out to be emphatically ``no'', in the sense that we can exhibit a family of groups for which $m$ is bounded and $\md$ is not. Fix $n \geq 5$ and $p$ prime, and let $G$ be the wreath product $A_n \wr \mathbb (Z/p\mathbb Z) = (A_n)^p \rtimes \mathbb (Z/p\mathbb Z)$, where the $\mathbb Z/p\mathbb Z$ in the semidirect product acts by cyclic permutation of the factors. We claim:
\begin{counterexample}
For $G = A_n \wr (\mathbb Z/p\mathbb Z)$ with $n \geq 5$, we have $\md(G) \geq p(n-3)$ but $m(G) \leq n$. In particular, for $n = 5$, this gives $\md(G) \geq 2p$ but $m(G) \leq 5$.
\begin{proof}
First we consider $\md(G)$. Say the $j$th copy of $A_n$ acts on the points $1^{(j)}, \dots, n^{(j)}$, so that the full group $G$ acts on the set $\{i^{(j)} : 1 \leq i \leq n, 1 \leq j \leq p\}$. One can show (and we will check later) that for any sequence $k_1, \dots, k_p$, the setwise stabilizer of the set $\{k_1^{(1)}, \dots, k_p^{(p)}\}$ is a maximal subgroup of $G$, isomorphic to $A_{n-1} \wr \mathbb Z/p\mathbb Z$. Now, for $1 \leq j \leq p$ and $2 \leq i \leq n - 2$, let $M_{ij}$ be the setwise stabilizer of $\{1^{(1)}, 1^{(2)}, \dots, i^{(j)}, \dots, 1^{(p)}\}$. We claim that these $p(n-3)$ maximal subgroups are in general position; in particular, that their intersection is trivial, but the intersection of any $p(n-3)-1$ of them is nontrivial.
\\
\\
Suppose $g$ belongs to the intersection of the $M_{ij}$. Then $g$ stabilizes the sets $A = \{2^{(1)}, 1^{(2)}, \dots, 1^{(p)}\}$ and $B = \{3^{(1)}, 1^{(2)}, \dots, 1^{(p)}\}$, since $g$ belongs to $M_{21}$ and $M_{31}$ respectively, so $g$ stabilizes $A \setminus B = \{2^{(1)}\}$. It follows that $g$ has trivial $\mathbb Z/p\mathbb Z$-component, so whenever $g$ stabilizes $\{k_1^{(1)}, \dots, k_p^{(p)}\}$ setwise, it must stabilize each of the individual points. Since $g$ belongs to each of the $M_{ij}$, we get that $g$ stabilizes $i^{(j)}$ for all $1 \leq i \leq n-2$ and $1 \leq j \leq p$. The identity permutation is the only such element of $A_n \wr \mathbb Z/p\mathbb Z$, so we have $\cap M_{ij} = 1$ as claimed. On the other hand, for any choice of $(i_0, j_0)$, the 3-cycle $(i_0^{(j_0)}, (n-1)^{(j_0)}, n^{(j_0)}) \in A_n \wr (\mathbb Z/p\mathbb Z)$ belongs to all $M_{ij}$ except $M_{i_0 j_0}$, so we have shown that the $M_{ij}$ are in general position. Therefore, we have $\md(G) \geq p(n-3)$ as claimed.
\\
\\
In order to bound $m(G)$, we will need the following two lemmas. The first is a classical result of Goursat; the second was implicitly used by Whiston in \cite{whiston}, and versions of it were formulated in \cite{cc} and \cite{keen}.
\begin{goursat}
(Goursat) Suppose $H$ is a subdirect product of two groups $G$ and $G'$; that is, $H$ is a subgroup of $G \times G'$ such that the projections $p_1: H \to G$ and $p_2: H \to G'$ are both surjective. Let $N'$ and $N$ be the kernels of $p_1$ and $p_2$; these can be identified as normal subgroups of $G'$ and $G$, respectively. Then there exists an isomorphism $\varphi: G/N \to G'/N'$ such that $H = \{(g, g') \in G \times G': \varphi(\overline{g}) = \overline{g'}\}$.
\end{goursat}
We leave the proof as an exercise. In fact, we will only be concerned with the case where $G'$ is a simple group. In this case, $N'$ must equal $G'$ or $1$, so we have a dichotomy between two types of subdirect products. The case $N' = G'$ gives $N = G$ and $H = G \times G'$. The case $N' = 1$ gives $\varphi: G/N \stackrel{\sim}{\to} G'$, so $H = \{(g, \phi(g)): g \in G\}$, where $\phi: G \to G'$ is a surjective homomorphism given by $\phi(g) = \varphi(\overline g)$.
\begin{whiston}
(Whiston) Suppose $(g_1, \dots, g_m)$ is an irredundant generating sequence for some group $G$, and $N \trianglelefteq G$ is a normal subgroup. Then, possibly after reordering the $g_i$, there exists some $k \leq n$ and some elements $h_{k+1}, \dots, h_m \in N$ such that the projections $\overline{g_1}, \dots, \overline{g_k}$ form an irredundant generating sequence of $G/N$ and $g_1, \dots, g_k, h_{k+1}, \dots, h_m$ form a new irredundant generating sequence for $G$.
\begin{proof}
Since $g_1, \dots, g_m$ generate $G$, their projections generate $G/N$, so we can remove some elements until we have an irredundant generating sequence, which we call $(g_1, \dots, g_k)$ after reordering. Because the projections $\overline{g_1}, \dots, \overline{g_k}$ generate $G/N$, we can find for each $i > k$ some $x_i \in \langle g_1, \dots, g_k \rangle$ such that $g_i x_i \in N$. So let $h_i = g_i x_i$. Then the elements $g_1, \dots, g_k, h_{k+1}, \dots, h_m$ generate $G$, because they generate all of the original $g_i$ via the identities $g_i = h_i x_i^{-1}$ for $i > k$. So we only need to show that no proper subset of $\{g_1, \dots, g_k, h_{k+1}, \dots, h_m\}$ generates $G$. To prove this, first note that if we remove any of $g_1, \dots, g_k$, then the projections no longer generate $G/N$, because $g_1, \dots, g_k$ form an irredundant sequence and $h_i \in N$. Suppose on the other hand that some $h_i$ is not needed in our generating sequence, so we can write $h_i$ as a word in $g_1, \dots, g_k$ and the $h_j$'s with $j \neq i$. Expanding each $h_j$ as $g_j x_j$ (with $x_j \in \langle g_1, \dots, g_k \rangle$), we get an expression for $g_i = h_i x_i^{-1}$ in terms of $\{g_j: j \neq i\}$. (In particular, recall that $g_i$ was not used to construct any of the $x_j$, because $i > k$.) This contradicts the irredundancy of our original sequence, so the new sequence $(g_1, \dots, g_k, h_{k+1}, \dots, h_m)$ must indeed be an irredundant generating sequence of $G$.
\end{proof}
\end{whiston}
Now we are ready to show that $m(G) \leq n$, where $G = A_n \wr (\mathbb Z/p\mathbb Z)$. Let $g_1, \dots, g_m$ be an irredundant generating sequence for $G$. Applying Whiston's lemma with $N = A_n^p$, we can assume without loss of generality that $g_1$ generates the quotient $G / A_n^p \cong \mathbb Z/p\mathbb Z$, and all other $g_i$ belong to $A_n^p$. Next, we claim that after renumbering, we can force $\langle g_1, g_2, \dots, g_{k+1} \rangle \cap A_n^p$ to project onto the entire first coordinate $A_n^p / A_n^{p-1} = A_n$ for some $k \leq n-2$. If this is so, then conjugating by powers of $g_1$ will force the same subgroup $\langle g_1, g_2, \dots, g_{k+1} \rangle \cap A_n^p$ to project onto the entire $i$th coordinate of $A_n^p$ for all $i$, which will put us not far from generating the whole group.
\\
\\
To prove this claim, begin by taking any family of elements $h_1, \dots, h_k \in A_n^p$. With $g_1$ as above, the group $\langle g_1, h_1, \dots, h_k \rangle \cap A_n^p$ is exactly the group generated by $g_1^p$ and the conjugates of all $h_i$ by powers of $g_1$. It follows that $\langle g_1, h_1, \dots, h_k \rangle \cap A_n^p$ surjects onto the first coordinate of $A_n^p$ if and only if $A_n$ is generated by the first coordinate of $g_1^p \in A_n^p$ and the first coordinates of $g_1^t h_i g_1^{-t}$, for all $t$ (in fact, $0 \leq t < p$ suffices) and $1 \leq i \leq k$. By assumption, this holds for the family $(h_1, \dots, h_k) = (g_2, \dots, g_m)$, since we were given a generating sequence of $G$. But we know that $m(A_n) = n-2$, so we can choose $k \leq n-2$ elements from the set $\{g_1^p, g_1^t g_i g_1^{-t}\}$ whose first coordinates still generate $A_n$. These must arise from at most $n-2$ different generators $g_i$ ($i > 1$), so we can indeed choose $g_2, \dots, g_{k+1}$ with $k \leq n-2$ and $\langle g_1, \dots, g_{k+1} \rangle \cap A_n^p$ surjecting onto the first coordinate of $A_n^p$, proving the claim.
\\
\\
We now have an irredundant generating sequence of $G$ whose first $k+1 \leq n-1$ elements generate a subgroup $H$ such that $H$ surjects onto $\mathbb Z/p\mathbb Z$ and $H \cap A_n^p$ surjects onto the first coordinate of $A_n^p$. By conjugating by powers of $g_1$, then, $H \cap A_n^p$ surjects onto every coordinate of $A_n^p$, so $H \cap A_n^p$ is a subdirect product of $p$ copies of $A_n$. We now need one more lemma.
\begin{subdirsimple} \label{subdirsimple}
If $S$ is a nonabelian simple group and $K$ is a subdirect product of $r$ copies of $S$ such that for every pair of indices $1 \leq i < j \leq r$, the projection $\pi_{i,j}: K \to S^2$ onto the $i$th and $j$th coordinates is surjective, then $K = S^r$.
\begin{proof}
This is trivially true for $r \leq 2$. Suppose for the sake of induction that it holds for some $r$, and consider $K \leq S^{r+1}$ satisfying the hypothesis above. By the inductive hypothesis, $K$ surjects onto the first $r$ coordinates of $S^{r+1}$, so $K$ is a subdirect product of $S^r$ and $S$. By Goursat's lemma and simplicity of $S$, this must be either $S^{r+1}$ or a fiber product of the form $\{(s_1, \dots, s_r, \varphi(s_1, \dots, s_r))\}$ for some homomorphism $\varphi: S^r \twoheadrightarrow S$. In the latter case, $\ker \varphi$ is a normal subgroup of $S^r$, and one can easily show that every normal subgroup of $S^r$ is a direct product of a subset of the factors. Since $S^r / \ker \varphi \cong S$, $\ker \varphi$ must be a direct product of $r-1$ of the factors of $S^r$, so $\varphi$ factors through one of the projections $\pi_i: S^r \to S$. In other words, we have shown $\varphi(s_1, \dots, s_r) = \alpha(s_i)$ for some $i$ and some $\alpha \in \Aut(S)$. Then $\pi_{i,r+1}(K)$ consists only of elements of the form $(s, \alpha(s))$, so $\pi_{i,r+1}$ is not surjective. This contradicts our assumption, so we must have $K = S^{r+1}$ as desired.
\end{proof}
\end{subdirsimple}
By the same Goursat's lemma argument, the only subdirect products of two copies of $S$ are $S^2$ and subgroups of the form $\{(s, \alpha(s))\}$ for $\alpha \in \Aut(S)$. We say the latter groups are of {\it diagonal type}. Thus, if $K$ is a subdirect product of $p$ copies of $S$, then we can describe any pair of coordinates as either {\it independent}, meaning that the projection $\pi_{i,j}: K \to S^2$ is surjective, or {\it diagonally linked}, meaning that $\pi_{i,j}(K)$ is of diagonal type. If we additionally define each coordinate to be diagonally linked to itself, then it is easy to check that diagonal linkedness is an equivalence relation.
\\
\\
Now take $S = A_n$ and $K = H' \cap A_n^p$, where $H' \leq G$ is some subgroup containing $H = \langle g_1, \dots, g_{k+1} \rangle$ as above. In particular, we showed that $H \cap A_n^p$ is a subdirect product of $p$ copies of $A_n$, so the possibly larger group $K$ is as well. Since diagonal linkedness is an equivalence relation, it partitions the coordinates of $A_n^p$ into equivalence classes. Now consider the effect of conjugating $K$ by $g_1$, which permutes the $p$ copies of $A_n$ nontrivially. (Notice that $g_1$ normalizes $K$, because $K$ is the intersection of the subgroup $H' \ni g_1$ and the normal subgroup $A_n^p$.) An easy computation shows that conjugation by $g_1$ is given by permuting coordinates according to the $\mathbb Z/p\mathbb Z$-part of $g_1$ and then conjugating by an appropriate element of $A_n^p$. Since conjugation by elements of $A_n^p$ does not affect diagonal linkedness, it follows that the diagonal linkedness relation is invariant under a cyclic permutation of the coordinates. Since $p$ is prime, then, it can only be that all coordinates are diagonally linked or all coordinates are independent. In the latter case, we have $K = A_n^p$ by Lemma \ref{subdirsimple}, so $H' = \langle K, g_1 \rangle = G$. It follows that in the former case, $H'$ must be a maximal subgroup of $G$, since enlarging it to $H''$ will yield $H'' \cap A_n^p \gneq K$ and thus $H'' \cap A_n^p = A_n^p$. In particular, the subgroup $H = \langle g_1, \dots, g_{k+1} \rangle$ that we constructed is either all of $G$ or a maximal subgroup, so we cannot add more than one additional generator without losing irredundancy. It follows that $m(G) \leq k+2 \leq (n-2)+2 = n$, as claimed.
\end{proof}
\end{counterexample}
Finally, for completeness, we give the proof that the subgroups $M_{ij}$ used to estimate $\md(G)$ were indeed maximal. Notice that all setwise stabilizers of sets of the form $\{k_1^{(1)}, \dots, k_p^{(p)}\}$ are conjugate to each other by elements of $A_n^p$, so it suffices to consider the case where $k_1 = \cdots = k_p = n$, which yields a subgroup naturally isomorphic to $A_{n-1} \wr (\mathbb Z/p\mathbb Z)$. It is well-known that $A_{n-1} < A_n$ is maximal, being the stabilizer of a point in a doubly transitive group. So now we claim that the naturally embedded copy of $M \wr (\mathbb Z/p\mathbb Z)$ in $S \wr (\mathbb Z/p\mathbb Z)$ is always maximal for $S$ nonabelian simple and $M < S$ maximal. To prove this, take any $g \notin M \wr (\mathbb Z/p\mathbb Z)$, and consider $H = \langle M \wr (\mathbb Z/p\mathbb Z), g \rangle$. By multiplying $g$ by an appropriate element of $\mathbb Z/p\mathbb Z$, we can obtain an element of $H \cap S^p$ that does not belong to $M^p$, which implies that $H \cap S^p$ surjects onto $S$ in some coordinate. But $H$ contains nontrivial permutations of the coordinates, and conjugating by these gives us that $H \cap S^p$ surjects onto every coordinate, so it is a subdirect product of $p$ copies of $S$. Now take indices $1 \leq i < j \leq p$, and consider the projection $\pi_{i,j}$ of $H \cap S^p$ onto its $i$th and $j$th coordinates. We observed after Lemma \ref{subdirsimple} that the image of $\pi_{i,j}$ must be either $S^2$ or a subgroup of diagonal type. But since $H$ contains $M^p$, the image of $\pi_{i,j}$ must contain $M^2$, so it can only be $S^2$. (This uses the fact that $S$ is nonabelian, because the trivial subgroup is maximal in a group of prime order.) Thus, by Lemma \ref{subdirsimple}, we have $H \cap S^p = S^p$, so $H = S \wr (\mathbb Z/p\mathbb Z)$. So $M \wr (\mathbb Z/p\mathbb Z)$ plus any other element generates $S \wr (\mathbb Z/p\mathbb Z)$, proving that it is a maximal subgroup. This completes the proof.
\section{Solvable and nilpotent groups}
Now that we know $\md$ can be much larger than $m$ in general, we turn to the question of what assumptions are needed on $G$ to force $\md = m$. Our first suspicion might be that the strictness of the inequality for $G = A_n \wr (\mathbb Z/p\mathbb Z)$ may be the result of the many copies of the nonabelian simple group $A_n$ in its composition series, and that $\md = m$ may still hold for solvable groups. However, a slight variant on our original family of counterexamples dashes our hopes:
\begin{S4wrZ3}
For the solvable group $S_4 \wr (\mathbb Z/3\mathbb Z)$, we have $\md \geq 6$ but $m = 5$.
\begin{proof}
Using the same notation as for $A_n \wr (\mathbb Z/p\mathbb Z)$ above, consider the maximal subgroups $M_{ij}$ for $i = 1, 2, 3$ and $j = 2, 3$. The proofs that these are maximal and in general position are almost identical to the corresponding proofs for $A_n \wr (\mathbb Z/p\mathbb Z)$, with slight changes because we are working with $S_n$ instead of $A_n$. The computation $m = 5$ was done in GAP.
\end{proof}
\end{S4wrZ3}
Furthermore, extensive human-assisted computations in GAP, performed by the author and R. Keith Dennis, gave the following result:
\begin{SmallGroup}
The solvable group $G$ listed as {\tt SmallGroup(720, 774)} in GAP's SmallGroups library is the unique smallest group with $\md \neq m$. It has $m(G) = 4, \md(G) = 5$, and $i(G) = 6$.
\end{SmallGroup}
A little discouraged by the failure of equality in solvable groups, we turn to a simpler class of groups, hoping for a positive result. Nilpotent groups grant our wish.
\begin{nilpotent}
If $G$ is a finite nilpotent group, then $\md(G) = m(G)$.
\begin{proof}
Let $G$ be a finite nilpotent group. Recall that both $m$ and $\md$ are preserved under Frattini quotients, so there is no loss of generality in assuming that $G$ is Frattini-free to begin with. Now recall that a finite nilpotent group is the direct product of its Sylow subgroups: $G = P_1 \times \cdots \times P_n$. Since $\Phi(P_i)$ is contained in $\Phi(G) = 1$ for all $i$, all the Sylow subgroups $P_i$ are Frattini-free. But a Frattini-free $p$-group is elementary abelian, so $G$ is an abelian group. We already know that abelian groups are flat, so we have $m(G) \leq \md(G) \leq i(G) = m(G)$, and thus $\md(G) = m(G)$ holds for all finite nilpotent groups.
\end{proof}
\end{nilpotent}
The idea of the proof above was to reduce to the case of Frattini-free nilpotent groups, and then understand the structure of such a group well enough to force $m(G) = i(G)$, which implies $\md = m$ by the inequality $m \leq \md \leq i$. In the next section, we will follow essentially the same outline, but we will work harder to extend our result to a larger class of finite groups, which lies between nilpotent groups and solvable groups.
\section{A proof for supersolvable groups}
Before proving that $\md = m$ for finite supersolvable groups, we give several equivalent definitions of supersolvability of a finite group. Notice that definition (1) is a strengthened version of solvability, and that finite nilpotent groups (which are the direct products of their Sylow subgroups) satisfy definitions (1-3) by standard facts on $p$-groups. Thus, at least for finite groups, we have the implications nilpotent $\implies$ supersolvable $\implies$ solvable. We leave as an exercise the verification that supersolvability is a ``reasonable'' property of finite groups, in that it is closed under taking subgroups, quotients, and finite direct products.
\begin{ss_def}
A \textbf{finite supersolvable group} is a finite group $G$ satisfying any of the following equivalent conditions:
\begin{enumerate}
\item There exists a \textbf{supersolvable series} for $G$; that is, a chain of subgroups $1 = G_0 < G_1 < \cdots < G_n = G$ with each $G_i$ normal in the full group $G$, and each quotient $G_{i+1}/G_i$ cyclic.
\item There exists a \textbf{strong supersolvable series} for $G$; that is, a supersolvable series in which each quotient $G_{i+1}/G_i$ is cyclic of prime order.
\item There exists a strong supersolvable series for $G$ in which the orders of the quotients $G_{i+1}/G_i$ are primes arranged in decreasing order.
\item Every maximal subgroup $H < G$ has prime index.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{proof}
Trivially, (3) implies (2) implies (1). To prove (1) implies (2), suppose $G$ has a supersolvable series $G_0 < \cdots < G_n$, and consider any quotient $G_{i+1}/G_i \cong \mathbb Z/m \mathbb Z$, where $m > 1$. If $m = a b$ is composite, then let $H$ be the subgroup of $G_{i+1}$ containing $G_i$ that corresponds to $a \mathbb Z/m \mathbb Z$ in the quotient. Since $G_i$ and $G_{i+1}$ are normal in $G$, any conjugate of $H$ is a subgroup of $G_{i+1}$ containing $G_i$. But such a subgroup corresponds to a subgroup of $\mathbb Z/m \mathbb Z$, and so is uniquely determined by its size. It follows that $H$ is normal in $G$. Then we have $G_{i+1}/H \cong \mathbb Z/a \mathbb Z$ and $H/G_i \cong \mathbb Z/b \mathbb Z$, so we have lengthened the supersolvable series. This process can be repeated until all quotients have prime order.
\\
\\
The implication $(2) \implies (3)$ is the finite case of Theorem 2.3 in \cite{pinnock}, attributed to Guido Zappa. The idea of the proof is to ``switch'' two adjacent factors at a time, using the fact that if $|G_i/G_{i-1}| = p < q = |G_{i+1}/G_i|$, then the group $G_{i+1}/G_{i-1}$ of order $pq$ has a characteristic subgroup of order $q$, which equals $G_i'/G_{i-1}$ for some appropriately chosen $G_i' \triangleleft G$.
\\
\\
The equivalence of (1-3) and (4) takes some more work; this is a theorem of Huppert, and a proof can be found in \cite{hall}, pp. 161-3. See Theorem 4.23 in \cite{conrad} for a few more equivalent conditions.
\end{proof}
\end{ss_def}
\begin{infinite_ss}
For infinite groups, the conditions above are not all equivalent---indeed, conditions (2) and (3) cannot hold as stated---and only condition (1) is taken as the definition of supersolvability. Moreover, in the infinite case it is no longer even true that abelian groups are supersolvable; for example, one can check that all supersolvable groups are finitely generated, which rules out groups such as $\Q$.
\end{infinite_ss}
The rest of this section will be spent proving that for all finite supersolvable groups $G$, we have $\md(G) = m(G)$. To show this, we will prove a stronger statement: if $G$ is supersolvable with $\Phi(G) \cap G' = 1$, then $G$ is flat; that is, $i(G) = m(G)$. Before beginning the proof of this, let's see why the claim about $\md$ would follow. If $G$ is a finite supersolvable group, then the Frattini quotient $H = G/\Phi(G)$ is Frattini-free, and in particular satisfies $\Phi(H) \cap H' = 1$. So we must have $i(H) = m(H)$, and thus $\md(H) = m(H)$ by the inequality $m \leq \md \leq i$. But both $m$ and $\md$ are invariant under modding out by Frattini subgroups, so it follows that $\md(G) = m(G)$ as well.
\\
\\
Notice that the claim is stronger than what we actually need. In particular, it would suffice to prove $i = m$ for the smaller class of Frattini-free supersolvable groups. The strange-looking condition $\Phi(G) \cap G' = 1$ arose while trying to do just this. Given a Frattini-free supersolvable group $G$ with $i(G) > m(G)$, we originally tried to construct a proper subgroup $K < G$ satisfying the same conditions. It turned out that the best we could do was to show $\Phi(K) \cap K' = 1$ instead of $\Phi(K) = 1$; the ``Previous progress'' section gives a more precise statement of why this was the ``best possible'' result. But with a little more work, it is possible to reach the same conclusion using only the weaker assumption $\Phi(G) \cap G' = 1$, and this allows us to complete our proof by infinite descent.
\\
\\
Besides the results we have already collected, we will use three outside facts. First, to compute $m$ and $i$, we will rely heavily on Proposition 3.5.1 from \cite{collins}, which tells us that if $N \trianglelefteq G$ is minimal normal and abelian, then $m(G) = m(G/N)$ if $N \leq \Phi(G)$, and $m(G) = m(G/N) + 1$ otherwise. Second, we will repeatedly make use of the existence and conjugacy of Hall subgroups in finite solvable groups; for example, see Exercise 6.1.33 in \cite{df}. Third, we will use Maschke's theorem from representation theory, specifically for characteristic-$p$ representations of a finite group whose order is not divisible by $p$.
\\
\\
Our proof begins by studying the structure of finite supersolvable groups a little further, then specializing to the Frattini-free case in order to use representation theory. Let $G$ be a finite supersolvable group. Let $p$ be the largest prime dividing $|G|$, and say $|G| = m p^r$, where $p \nmid m$. By definition (3) above, $G$ has a supersolvable series $1 = G_0 < \cdots < G_k = G$, where all $G_i$ are normal in $G$, and the orders of the quotients are primes in decreasing order. Then $P = G_r$ is a normal Sylow $p$-subgroup of $G$. (This is the beginning of what is called a \textit{Sylow tower} of $G$.) Recall that $G$ possesses a Hall $p'$-subgroup; that is, a subgroup $K$ with $|K| = |G|/|P|$. Such a subgroup is necessarily a complement to $P$, so that we have $G = P \rtimes K$. We will keep this notation for the rest of the proof: when we say $G = P \rtimes K$, we implicitly mean that $G$ is a finite supersolvable group, $P$ is its unique Sylow $p$-subgroup (where $p$ is the largest prime dividing $|G|$), and $K$ is some complement of $P$.
\\
\\
Now suppose additionally that $G$ is Frattini-free. Then since $P$ is normal, we have $\Phi(P) \leq \Phi(G) = 1$, so $P$ is also Frattini-free. But Frattini-free $p$-groups are elementary abelian, so $P \cong (\mathbb Z/p \mathbb Z)^r$ for some $r$. Then conjugation by $K$ gives us a representation $\pi: K \to \Aut(P) = \GL_r(\F_p)$, with $\pi(x) = (v \mapsto x v x^{-1})$ for $x \in K, v \in P$. Since $p$ does not divide the order of $K$, we can apply Maschke's theorem to see that the characteristic-$p$ representations of $K$ are completely reducible. This brings us to an important structural lemma.
\begin{linearchars} \label{linearchars}
If $G = P \rtimes K$ is a finite supersolvable group with $P \cong (\mathbb Z/p\mathbb Z)^r$ (for example, if $G$ is Frattini-free) and $\pi: K \to \Aut(P)$ is the representation given by conjugation, then $\pi$ decomposes into linear characters.
\begin{proof}
Returning to the supersolvable series from which we constructed $P$, there exists a series of subgroups $1 = P_0 < P_1 < \cdots < P_r = P$, all normal in the full group $G$, with $|P_{i+1}/P_i| = p$ for each $i$. Viewing $P$ as a $K$-module via $\pi$, then, the $P_i$ form a chain of $K$-submodules of $P$. By complete reducibility, we can write $P_{i+1} = P_i \oplus Q_{i+1}$ for some one-dimensional submodules $Q_1, \dots, Q_r \leq P$. Then $P$ is the direct sum of the $Q_i$, as desired.
\end{proof}
\end{linearchars}
So we have shown that if $G = P \rtimes K$ is Frattini-free and supersolvable, then $P \cong (\mathbb Z/p\mathbb Z)^r$ and $K$ acts separately on its coordinates, for some choice of basis. We say that such a basis \textit{diagonalizes the action of $K$}.
\\
\\
Next, with $G = P \rtimes K$ still Frattini-free and supersolvable (and $P$ still a normal Sylow $p$-subgroup), we claim that $m(G) = r + m(K)$. To prove this, first notice that we can obtain $K = G/P$ by beginning with $G$ and repeatedly modding out by (at most $r$) minimal normal subgroups, all of which will be abelian. Thus, by repeated application of Proposition 3.5.1 in \cite{collins}, we get that $m(G) \leq m(K) + r$. But we can easily exhibit an irredundant generating set of $G$ of size $r + m(K)$: take an irredundant generating set of $K$ of size $m(K)$, and append to it any basis of $P$ that diagonalizes the action of $K$. This generates $G$ because it generates both $K$ and $P$, but throwing out any generators from $K$ will make it impossible to generate the quotient $G/P = K$, and throwing out a basis vector from $P$ will make it impossible to generate any nonzero entry in the corresponding coordinate of $P$. So we have $r + m(K) \leq m(G) \leq r + m(K)$, giving equality.
\\
\\
Moreover, the formula above can be written as $m(G) = m(P) + m(K)$, which is even true if $G$ isn't Frattini-free. To prove this, recall that quotienting a group by any normal subgroup contained in its Frattini subgroup does not change the value of $m$, so the identity we just showed gives $m(G) = m(G/\Phi(P)) = m((P/\Phi(P)) \rtimes K) = m(P/\Phi(P)) + m(K) = m(P) + m(K)$. (This once again uses the fact that $\Phi(P) \leq \Phi(G)$ holds for normal subgroups $P \trianglelefteq G$. The group $(P/\Phi(P)) \rtimes K$ makes sense because $\Phi(P)$ is a characteristic subgroup of $P$, which must be preserved by $K$.) So we have shown:
\begin{mofG} \label{mofG}
For a finite supersolvable group $G = P \rtimes K$, we have $m(G) = m(P) + m(K)$.
\end{mofG}
Now suppose $G$ is supersolvable with $\Phi(G) \cap G' = 1$, and $i(G) > m(G)$. We will eventually apply infinite descent by showing that $K$ satisfies the same hypotheses. First, we will show that if $K$ is flat---that is, if $i(K) = m(K)$---then $G$ is too. To do this, notice that $\Phi(P) \cap P'$ is contained in $\Phi(G) \cap G'$, and is therefore trivial. In fact, the Frattini subgroup of a $p$-group contains the commutator subgroup, so we have $P' = \Phi(P) \cap P' = 1$; that is, the $p$-group $P$ is abelian. (Compare this to the case $\Phi(G) = 1$, in which we proved earlier that $P$ is \textit{elementary} abelian.) Now let $H$ be any subgroup of $G$, and let $Q$ and $L$ be a Sylow $p$-subgroup and a Hall $p'$-subgroup of $H$, respectively. By Sylow's theorem and normality of $P$, we have $Q \leq P$, and by a corresponding theorem for Hall subgroups, $L$ is contained in a conjugate of $K$. Conjugating $H$ appropriately, we can force $L \leq K$, with $Q$ still contained in $P$. Then we have $H = Q \rtimes L$. By Lemma \ref{mofG}, it follows that $m(H) = m(Q) + m(L)$. But since $Q \leq P$ and $L \leq K$, this is bounded by $i(P) + i(K)$. Since $P$ is abelian, it is flat; that is, $i(P) = m(P)$. So if $K$ is also flat, then we have $m(H) = m(Q) + m(L) \leq m(P) + m(K) = m(G)$; that is, $m$ of any subgroup of $G$ is bounded by $m(G)$. So we have shown that if $\Phi(G) \cap G' = 1$, then $K$ flat implies $G$ flat. By contrapositive, if $i(G) > m(G)$, then $i(K) > m(K)$ as well.
\\
\\
If there exists a finite supersolvable group $G = P \rtimes K$ with $\Phi(G) \cap G' = 1$ but $i(G) > m(G)$, then the same is true of $K$, except possibly the condition $\Phi(K) \cap K' = 1$. (Recall in particular that subgroups of supersolvable groups are supersolvable.) In order to apply infinite descent, we must show that this is actually the case. We will accomplish this by studying the conjugation action $\pi$ of $K$ on $P$ more closely; the main step will be to prove Lemma \ref{Kprimeactstrivially}, that the commutator subgroup $K'$ acts trivially. To accomplish this, we will need the following easy lemma:
\begin{commutemodPhiP} \label{commutemodPhiP}
For a finite supersolvable group $G = P \rtimes K$ with $\Phi(G) \cap G' = 1$, if $g \in K$ and $v \in P$ commute modulo the normal subgroup $\Phi(P)$, then $g$ and $v$ commute in $G$.
\begin{proof}
Take $g \in K$ and $v \in P$, and suppose the commutator $[g, v] = g v g^{-1} v^{-1}$ belongs to $\Phi(P)$. Since $\Phi(P) \leq \Phi(G)$, we have $[g, v] \in \Phi(G)$. But since this is a commutator, it is also in $G'$. So we have $[g, v] \in \Phi(G) \cap G' = 1$, proving that $g$ and $v$ commute in $G$.
\end{proof}
\end{commutemodPhiP}
Writing the abelian $p$-group $P$ additively, and using dot notation for the action of $K$, we can express this by saying that $g \cdot v - v \in \Phi(P)$ implies $g \cdot v = v$. This situation will arise in the next lemma, which we are now ready to tackle.
\begin{Kprimeactstrivially} \label{Kprimeactstrivially}
For a finite supersolvable group $G = P \rtimes K$ with $\Phi(G) \cap G' = 1$, the commutator subgroup $K'$ acts trivially on (that is, centralizes) $P$.
\begin{proof}
Consider the action of $K$ on $P/\Phi(P)$. Since $P/\Phi(P)$ is elementary abelian, applying Lemma \ref{linearchars} to $G/\Phi(P) = (P/\Phi(P)) \rtimes K$ shows that there exists a basis of $P/\Phi(P)$ diagonalizing this action. (Notice that although $G/\Phi(P)$ may not be Frattini-free, we can still apply Lemma \ref{linearchars} because its Sylow $p$-subgroup $P/\Phi(P)$ is elementary abelian.) Let $\overline v_1, \dots, \overline v_r$ be such a basis, and lift the $\overline v_i$ to elements $v_i \in P$; these form a generating set for $P$ by Lemma \ref{genFrattini}. Now let $v$ be one of the $v_i$, and let $g, h \in K$. We will compare the actions of $gh$ and $hg$ on $v$. Note that by construction of $v$, we have $g \cdot \overline v = c \overline v$ (in additive group notation) for some integer $c$, and similarly $h \cdot \overline v = d \overline v$. Lifting to $P$, we have $g \cdot v = c v + p x$ for some $p x \in \Phi(P)$, and similarly $h \cdot v = d v + p y$. Expanding using the homomorphism property of the action gives:
\begin{align}
h g \cdot v & = h \cdot (c v + p x) = h \cdot c v + h \cdot p x \\
& = c (d v + p y) + h \cdot p x = c d v + p (c y + h \cdot x),
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
g h \cdot v & = g \cdot (d v + p y) = g \cdot d v + g \cdot p y \\
& = d (c v + p x) + g \cdot p y = c d v + p (d x + g \cdot y).
\end{align}
(In fact, one can check using Lemma \ref{commutemodPhiP} that $h \cdot px = px$ and $g \cdot py = p y$, but we won't need this.) Notice that the commutator $[g, h] = gh(hg)^{-1}$ sends $hg \cdot v$ to $gh \cdot v$. These differ by a multiple of $p$, which lies in $\Phi(P)$, so Lemma \ref{commutemodPhiP} implies that we must have $gh \cdot v = hg \cdot v$. Since the elements $v = v_i$ generate $P$, it follows that $gh$ and $hg$ act identically on all of $P$, and therefore $[g, h]$ acts trivially. So we have proved that all commutators $[g, h] \in K'$ act trivially on (that is, centralize) $P$, and therefore the same is true of all of $K'$.
\end{proof}
\end{Kprimeactstrivially}
Now let's put all the pieces together.
\begin{ss_thm}
If $G$ is a finite supersolvable group with $\Phi(G) \cap G' = 1$, then $m(G) = i(G)$. As a corollary, it follows that $\md = m$ for all finite supersolvable groups.
\begin{proof}
Write $G = P \rtimes K$ as before; we first claim that $\Phi(K) \cap K' \leq \Phi(G) \cap G' = 1$. (Notice that since $K$ is not necessarily normal in $G$, it may not be true that $\Phi(K)$ is contained in $\Phi(G)$, which would make the statement trivial.) Suppose $g$ belongs to $\Phi(K) \cap K'$. In particular, by Lemma \ref{Kprimeactstrivially}, $g$ centralizes $P$. Let $H$ be any maximal subgroup of $G$, and recall that $H$ is conjugate to $Q \rtimes L$ for some subgroups $Q \leq P, L \leq K$. In fact, if we write $xHx^{-1} = Q \rtimes L$, we can take $x \in P$ without loss of generality, since conjugating by $K$ does not affect the condition that $Q \leq P$ and $L \leq K$. Recall from definition (4) of finite supersolvable groups that $H$ must have prime index, so either $L = K$ or $L$ is maximal (with prime index) in $K$. Since $g$ belongs to $\Phi(K) = \bigcap_{M < K \text{ maximal}} M$, it must belong to $L$ in both cases. Since $g$ centralizes $P$, $g$ must furthermore belong to all $P$-conjugates of $L$. So $g$ belongs to all maximal subgroups $H = x^{-1} (Q \rtimes L) x < G$, and thus $g \in \Phi(G)$. But of course $g \in G'$, because $g \in K' \leq G'$, so in fact $g$ belongs to $\Phi(G) \cap G'$. Thus we have shown that $\Phi(K) \cap K' \leq \Phi(G) \cap G'$, so the former is trivial if the latter is.
\\
\\
Now we can apply infinite descent. If $G = P \rtimes K$ is a finite supersolvable group with $\Phi(G) \cap G' = 1$ and $i(G) > m(G)$, then we have shown that the supersolvable subgroup $K$ also satisfies $i(K) > m(K)$ (after Lemma \ref{mofG}) and $\Phi(K) \cap K' = 1$ (just now). But since $G$ is not the trivial group, its Sylow subgroup $P$ is nontrivial, so $K$ is strictly smaller than $G$. Thus, by infinite descent on the order of $G$, it follows that there is no such group $G$, completing the proof.
\end{proof}
\end{ss_thm}
\section{Previous progress}
Consider three properties of a finite group $G$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $G$ is a supersolvable group with $\md > m$.
\item $G$ is a Frattini-free supersolvable group with $i > m$.
\item $G$ is supersolvable with $\Phi(G) \cap G' = 1$, and $i > m$.
\end{enumerate}
We conjecture that no finite group satisfies any of these three properties. (This is confirmed in the previous section.) Since $m \leq \md \leq i$, where the former two are invariant under modding out by Frattini subgroups, the existence of a group $G$ satisfying (1) implies that $G/\Phi(G)$ satisfies (2). Trivially, (2) implies (3) for any group, but we can do better. The next two propositions establish a many-to-one correspondence between groups satisfying (2) and (smaller) groups satisfying (3).
\begin{GtoK} \label{GtoK}
Suppose $G$ satisfies (2), and let $p$ be the largest prime dividing $|G|$. By general theory of supersolvable groups (Corollary 3.2a in \cite{pinnock}) we can write $G$ as $P \rtimes K$, where $P$ is the unique Sylow $p$-subgroup and $K$ is a complement. Then $P$ is elementary abelian and $K$ satisfies (3).
\begin{proof}
Since $P$ is normal in $G$, we have $\Phi(P) \leq \Phi(G) = 1$. Since the Frattini quotient of any $p$-group is elementary abelian, we have $P = P/\Phi(P) = (\mathbb Z/p\mathbb Z)^r$ for some $r$. By normality of $P$, $K$ acts on this vector space by conjugation, giving a characteristic-$p$ representation $\pi$ of $K$. Since $p$ does not divide the order of $K$, we can apply Maschke's theorem to see that the characteristic-$p$ representations of $K$ are completely reducible.
\\
\\
We claim that $\pi$ decomposes into linear characters. By Theorem 2.3 in \cite{pinnock} (attributed to Guido Zappa), there exists a series of subgroups $1 = P_0 < P_1 < \cdots < P_r = P$, all normal in the full group $G$, with $|P_{i+1}/P_i| = p$ for each $i$. Viewing $P$ as a $K$-module via $\pi$, then, the $P_i$ form a chain of $K$-submodules of $P$. By complete reducibility, we can write $P_{i+1} = P_i \oplus Q_{i+1}$ for some one-dimensional submodules $Q_1, \dots, Q_r < P$, and then $P$ is the direct sum of the $Q_i$, as desired.
\\
\\
From now on, we will view $P$ as $(\mathbb Z/p\mathbb Z)^r$, with $K$ acting separately on the coordinates. Given that $G = P \rtimes K$ satisfies condition (2), we claim that $K$ satisfies (3). Since subgroups of supersolvable groups are supersolvable, it suffices to show that $i(K) > m(K)$ and $\Phi(K) \cap K' = 1$. We will proceed in this order.
\\
\\
First, we claim $m(G) = m(K) + r$ and $i(G) = i(K) + r$, so that $G$ is flat if $K$ is. Let $H$ be an arbitrary subgroup of $G$, possibly $G$ itself. We would like to compute $m(H)$. Let $Q$ be a Sylow $p$-subgroup of $H$, and let L be a Hall $p'$-subgroup of $H$; that is, a subgroup of order $|H|/|Q|$. Then $Q \leq P$ by Sylow's theorem and normality of $P$ in $G$, and $L$ is contained in a conjugate of $K$ by Hall's theorem. Since we only care about the isomorphism class of $H$, we may conjugate it so that $L$ is actually contained in $K$; we will still have $Q \leq P$.
\\
\\
By the same argument used above, we can show that $L$ acts separately on the coordinates of $Q$, for some appropriate choice of basis of the elementary abelian group $Q$. If $B$ is such a basis, then combining $B$ with any maximal irredundant generating sequence of $L$ yields an irredundant generating sequence of $H$ of length $m(L) + \text{rank}(Q)$. On the other hand, we can obtain $L = H/Q$ from $H$ by modding out by abelian minimal normal subgroups at most rank$(Q)$ times, so applying Proposition 3.5.1 in \cite{collins} repeatedly gives $m(H) \leq m(L) + \text{rank}(Q)$. We have shown inequalities in both directions, so we have $m(H) = m(L) + \text{rank}(Q)$. We can use this formula in two ways. First, setting $H = G$, we have $m(G) = m(K) + \text{rank}(P) = m(K) + r$. Second, taking upper bounds on $m(L)$ and $\text{rank}(Q)$ gives $i(G) = \max_{H \leq G} m(H) \leq i(K) + r$, and this bound is in fact realized by the subgroup $H = PL$ where $L \leq K$ is chosen with $m(L) = i(K)$. So we have proved that $m(G) = m(K) + r$ and $i(G) = i(K) + r$. Since we assumed that $G$ is not flat, we have $i(K) - m(K) = i(G) - m(G) > 0$, so $K$ is not flat either.
\\
\\
Finally, we must show that $\Phi(K) \cap K' = 1$. We will proceed by contradiction, assuming $\Phi(K) \cap K' \neq 1$ and concluding that $\Phi(G) \neq 1$ as well. Suppose a nonidentity element $x \in K$ is contained in both $\Phi(K)$ and $K'$. Since $K$ acts separately on the coordinates of $P$, the map $K \to \Aut(P)$ given by conjugation has image contained in the abelian group $(\Aut(\mathbb Z/p\mathbb Z))^r = ((\mathbb Z/p\mathbb Z)^{\times})^r$. It follows that commutators act trivially, and in particular $x \in K'$ is centralized by $P$.
\\
\\
Now we claim $x$ lies in all maximal subgroups of $G$. If $H < G$ is maximal, then by a general fact on supersolvable groups we have $[G : H] = q$ prime. As before, let $L$ be a Hall $p'$-subgroup of $H$, so that $L$ is conjugate to either $K$ or one of its maximal subgroups. In particular, since $G = PK$, $L$ is a $P$-conjugate of either $K$ or a maximal subgroup of $K$. But $x$ belongs to all maximal subgroups of $K$ by assumption, so $x$ belongs to a $P$-conjugate of $L$. Since we have already shown that $P$ centralizes $x$, it follows that $x$ belongs to $L$, and thus $x \in H$. So $x \neq 1$ belongs to the intersection $\Phi(G)$ of all maximal subgroups of $G$, contradicting the assumption that $\Phi(G) \neq 1$.
\\
\\
So we have shown that $K$ is supersolvable and non-flat with $\Phi(K) \cap K' = 1$; that is, $K$ satisfies (3).
\end{proof}
\end{GtoK}
\begin{KtoG} \label{KtoG}
Suppose $K$ satisfies (3). Then there exist infinitely many primes $p$ and groups $G = P \rtimes K = (\mathbb Z/p\mathbb Z)^r \rtimes K$ such that $G$ satisfies (2).
\begin{proof}
Let $K$ be any finite group satisfying (3). Say the abelian group $K/K'$ is isomorphic to $(\mathbb Z/n_1 \mathbb Z) \times \cdots \times (\mathbb Z/n_k \mathbb Z)$, and let $p$ be any prime that is congruent to 1 modulo all of the $n_i$. (Dirichlet's theorem guarantees the existence of infinitely many such $p$. We can choose $p$ greater than all primes dividing $|K|$ if we want to imitate the situation of the first proposition, but this isn't necessary.) Then each $\mathbb Z/n_i \mathbb Z$ embeds into the cyclic group $\F_p^{\times}$, since $n_i$ divides $p-1$ by assumption. So we can define $k$ linear characters $\chi_1, \dots, \chi_k: K \to \F_p^{\times}$, where $\chi_i$ first projects $K$ onto $K/K'$, then projects this onto its $i$th coordinate $\mathbb Z/n_i \mathbb Z$, and finally embeds this in $\F_p^{\times}$. The direct sum of these $k$ characters is a characteristic-$p$ representation $\pi: K \to (\F_p^{\times})^k \leq \Aut((\mathbb Z/p\mathbb Z)^k)$. Moreover, we have $\ker \pi = K'$, because $\pi$ factors through an injective map $K/K' \cong (\mathbb Z/n_1 \mathbb Z) \times \cdots \times (\mathbb Z/n_k \mathbb Z) \to (\F_p^{\times})^k$. Now let $P = (\mathbb Z/p\mathbb Z)^k$, and let $G$ be the semidirect product $P \rtimes K$, where $K$ acts on $P$ by $\pi$. We claim that $G$ satisfies property (2). Three things must be checked: that $G$ is supersolvable, that $\Phi(G) = 1$, and that $i(G) > m(G)$. Notice that once we show the first two of these, the last will follow from a step we used to prove the previous proposition: for a Frattini-free supersolvable group $G = P \rtimes K$, we have $m(G) = m(K) + k$ and $i(G) = i(K) + k$, where $k$ corresponds to $r$ above; and $K$ is non-flat by assumption.
\\
\\
Now we will show that $G$ is supersolvable. Since $K$ is assumed to be supersolvable, we are given a supersolvable series $1 = K_0 \triangleleft K_1 \triangleleft \cdots \triangleleft K_{\ell} = K$. Here, each $K_i$ is normal in $K$, and the quotients $K_{i+1}/K_i$ are cyclic; for convenience (and without loss of generality), we take the quotients to be cyclic of prime order. For $0 \leq j \leq k$, let $P_j$ denote the subspace spanned by the first $j$ coordinates of the vector space $P = (\mathbb Z/p\mathbb Z)^k$. Since $K$ acts separately on the coordinates of $P$, each $P_j$ is $K$-invariant and thus normal in $G$. So consider the series:
\[
1 = P_0 \triangleleft P_1 \triangleleft \cdots \triangleleft P_k = P = PK_0 \triangleleft PK_1 \triangleleft \cdots \triangleleft PK_{\ell} = G.
\]
We have seen that the $P_j$ are normal in $G$. The $PK_i$ are subgroups of $G$ because $P \triangleleft G$, and they are normal since they are normalized by both $P$ and $K$. Each quotient of consecutive terms has prime order, so this is indeed a supersolvable series for $G$.
\\
\\
Finally, we claim that $G$ is Frattini-free. To prove this, we will use two types of maximal subgroups of $G$ to show that $\Phi(G) \leq \Phi(K) \cap K'$, which is trivial by assumption. First, if $L$ is any maximal subgroup of $K$, then $PL$ is a maximal subgroup of $G$ by index considerations. (Recall that in finite supersolvable groups, we have a convenient criterion for maximality: a subgroup is maximal if and only if it has prime index.) Second, by the same reasoning, if $Q$ is a maximal subgroup of $P$ that is $K$-invariant, then $QK$ is a maximal subgroup of $G$.
\\
\\
Intersecting all subgroups of the first type gives $\Phi(G) \leq P \Phi(K)$. For the second type, recall that each coordinate of $P$ is $K$-invariant, so the sum of any $k-1$ of the coordinates is $K$-invariant. This yields $k$ maximal subgroups $Q_1, \dots, Q_k$ of $P$, all $K$-invariant, with trivial intersection. It follows that $\Phi(G)$ is contained in the intersection $\bigcap_i Q_i K = K$. But since $\Phi(G)$ is normal in $G$, all of its conjugates are contained in $K$ as well. (That is, $\Phi(G)$ is contained in the core of $K$.) In particular, if $x \in \Phi(G)$, then $vxv^{-1} \in K$ for all $v \in P$. But $x$ and $vxv^{-1}$ project to the same element of $G/P$ $(\cong K)$, since $v$ is trivial in this quotient. Two elements of $K$ that are congruent modulo $P$ are equal, so we have $x = vxv^{-1}$, showing that every $x \in \Phi(G)$ centralizes $P$. Thus we have $\Phi(G) \leq K \cap C_G(P)$. By the construction of $G$ as $P \rtimes_{\pi} K$, the subgroup of $K$ centralizing $P$ is precisely the kernel of $\pi$, and we constructed $\pi$ so that its kernel is precisely the commutator subgroup $K'$. Thus, $\Phi(G)$ is contained in $K'$, and from earlier it is contained in $P \Phi(K)$, so it is contained in the intersection $P \Phi(K) \cap K' = \Phi(K) \cap K'$. Since we assumed that $K$ satisfies (3), this is trivial. So $G$ is Frattini-free, completing the proof.
\end{proof}
\end{KtoG}
The propositions above are interesting for a few reasons. First, they show, quite constructively, that there exist groups satisfying (2) if and only if there exist groups satisfying (3). Moreover, they focus the search for a possible proof that no such groups exist. A first idea at such a proof might be to induct on the number of primes dividing a group's order, proceeding from a group $G$ supposedly satisfying (2) to its Hall subgroup $K$. But Proposition \ref{KtoG} shows that we can only hope to prove that $K$ satisfies the weaker condition (3), since any such group will have $G$ satisfying (2) sitting ``above'' it. This suggests that we should begin with (3), not (2), as our inductive hypothesis. The previous section uses exactly this strategy to prove that $\md = m$ for finite supersolvable groups.
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}
The rainbow connections of a graph which are applied to measure the
safety of a network are introduced by Chartrand, Johns, McKeon and
Zhang \cite{Chartrand}. Readers can see \cite{Chartrand, Chartrand4,
Chartrand3} for details. Consider an edge-coloring (not necessarily
proper) of a graph $G=(V,E)$. We say that a path of $G$ is
\emph{rainbow}, if no two edges on the path have the same color. An
edge-colored graph $G$ is \emph{rainbow connected} if every two
vertices are connected by a rainbow path. The minimum number of
colors required to rainbow color a graph $G$ is called \emph{the
rainbow connection number}, denoted by $rc(G)$. In
\cite{M.Krivelevich}, Krivelevich and Yuster proposed a similar
concept, the concept of vertex-rainbow connection. A vertex-colored
graph $G$ is \emph{vertex-rainbow connected} if every two vertices
are connected by a path whose internal vertices have distinct
colors, and such a path is called a \emph{vertex-rainbow path}. The
\emph{vertex-rainbow connection number} of a connected graph $G$,
denoted by $rvc(G)$, is the smallest number of colors that are
needed in order to make $G$ vertex-rainbow connected. For more
results on the rainbow connection and vertex-rainbow connection, we
refer to the survey paper \cite{LiSun} of Li, Shi and Sun and a new
book \cite{LiSun1} of Li and Sun. All graphs considered in this
paper are finite, undirected and simple. We follow the notation and
terminology of Bondy and Murty \cite{Bondy}, unless otherwise
stated.
For a graph $G=(V,E)$ and a set $S\subseteq V$ of at least two
vertices, \emph{an $S$-Steiner tree} or \emph{a Steiner tree
connecting $S$} (or simply, \emph{an $S$-tree}) is a such subgraph
$T=(V',E')$ of $G$ that is a tree with $S\subseteq V'$. A tree $T$
in $G$ is a \emph{rainbow tree} if no two edges of $T$ are colored
the same. For $S\subseteq V(G)$, a \emph{rainbow $S$-Steiner tree}
(or simply, \emph{rainbow $S$-tree}) is a rainbow tree connecting
$S$. For a fixed integer $k$ with $2\leq k\leq n$, the edge-coloring
$c$ of $G$ is called a \emph{$k$-rainbow coloring} if for every
$k$-subset $S$ of $V(G)$ there exists a rainbow $S$-tree. In this
case, $G$ is called \emph{rainbow $k$-tree-connected}. The minimum
number of colors that are needed in a $k$-rainbow coloring of $G$ is
called the \emph{$k$-rainbow index} of $G$, denoted by $rx_k(G)$.
When $k=2$, $rx_2(G)$ is the rainbow connection number $rc(G)$ of
$G$. For more details on $k$-rainbow index, we refer to \cite{CLS,
CLS2, Chartrand2, CLYZ, LSYZ, LSYZ2}.
Chartrand, Okamoto and Zhang \cite{Chartrand3} obtained the
following result.
\begin{thm}{\upshape\cite{Chartrand2}}\label{th1-1}
For every integer $n\geq 6$, $rx_3(K_n)=3$.
\end{thm}
As a natural counterpart of the $k$-rainbow index, we introduce the
concept of $k$-vertex-rainbow index $rvx_k(G)$ in this paper. For
$S\subseteq V(G)$ and $|S|\geq 2$, an $S$-Steiner tree $T$ is said
to be a \emph{vertex-rainbow $S$-tree} or \emph{vertex-rainbow tree
connecting $S$} if the vertices of $V(T)\setminus S$ have distinct
colors. For a fixed integer $k$ with $2\leq k\leq n$, the
vertex-coloring $c$ of $G$ is called a \emph{$k$-vertex-rainbow
coloring} if for every $k$-subset $S$ of $V(G)$ there exists a
vertex-rainbow $S$-tree. In this case, $G$ is called
\emph{vertex-rainbow $k$-tree-connected}. The minimum number of
colors that are needed in a $k$-vertex-rainbow coloring of $G$ is
called the \emph{$k$-vertex-rainbow index} of $G$, denoted by
$rvx_k(G)$. When $k=2$, $rvx_2(G)$ is nothing new but the
vertex-rainbow connection number $rvc(G)$ of $G$. It follows, for
every nontrivial connected graph $G$ of order $n$, that
$$
rvx_2(G)\leq rvx_3(G)\leq \cdots \leq rvx_n(G).
$$
Let $G$ be the graph of Figure 1 $(a)$. We give a vertex-coloring
$c$ of the graph $G$ shown in Figure 1 $(b)$. If $S=\{v_1,v_2,v_3\}$
(see Figure 1 $(c)$), then the tree $T$ induced by the edges in
$\{v_1u_1,v_2u_1,u_1u_4,u_4v_3\}$ is a vertex-rainbow $S$-tree. If
$S=\{u_1,u_2,v_3\}$, then the tree $T$ induced by the edges in
$\{u_1u_2,u_2u_4,u_4v_3\}$ is a vertex-rainbow $S$-tree. One can
easily check that there is a vertex-rainbow $S$-tree for any
$S\subseteq V(G)$ and $|S|=3$. Therefore, the vertex-coloring $c$ of
$G$ is a $3$-vertex-rainbow coloring. Thus $G$ is vertex-rainbow
$3$-tree-connected.
\begin{figure}[!hbpt]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.85]{1.eps}\\
Figure 1: Graphs for the basic definitions.
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In some cases $rvx_k(G)$ may be much smaller than $rx_k(G)$. For
example, $rvx_k(K_{1,n-1})=1$ while $rx_k(K_{1,n-1})=n-1$ where
$2\leq k\leq n$. On the other hand, in some other cases, $rx_k(G)$
may be much smaller than $rvx_k(G)$. For $k=3$, we take $n$
vertex-disjoint cliques of order $4$ and, by designating a vertex
from each of them, add a complete graph on the designated vertices.
This graph $G$ has $n$ cut-vertices and hence $rvx_3(G)\geq n$. In
fact, $rvx_3(G)=n$ by coloring only the cut-vertices with distinct
colors. On the other hand, from Theorem \ref{th1-1}, it is not
difficult to see that $rx_3(G)\leq 9$. Just color the edges of the
$K_n$ with, say, color $1,2,3$ and color the edges of each clique
with the colors $4,5,\cdots,9$.
Steiner tree is used in computer communication networks (see
\cite{Du}) and optical wireless communication networks (see
\cite{Cheng}). As a natural combinatorial concept, the rainbow index
and the vertex-rainbow index can also find applications in
networking. Suppose we want to route messages in a cellular network
in such a way that each link on the route between more than two
vertices is assigned with a distinct channel. The minimum number of
channels that we have to use is exactly the rainbow index and
vertex-rainbow index of the underlying graph.
The Steiner distance of a graph, introduced by Chartrand,
Oellermann, Tian and Zou \cite{Chartrand2} in 1989, is a natural
generalization of the concept of classical graph distance. Let $G$
be a connected graph of order at least $2$ and let $S$ be a nonempty
set of vertices of $G$. Then the \emph{Steiner distance} $d(S)$
among the vertices of $S$ (or simply the distance of $S$) is the
minimum size among all connected subgraphs whose vertex sets contain
$S$. Let $n$ and $k$ be two integers with $2\leq k\leq n$. The
\emph{Steiner $k$-eccentricity $e_k(v)$} of a vertex $v$ of $G$ is
defined by $e_k(v)=\max \{d(S)\,|\,S\subseteq V(G), |S|=k,~and~v\in
S \}$. The \emph{Steiner $k$-diameter} of $G$ is $sdiam_k(G)=\max
\{e_k(v)\,|\,v\in V(G)\}$. Clearly, $sdiam_k(G)\geq k-1$.
Then, it is easy to see the following results.
\begin{pro}\label{pro1}
Let $G$ be a nontrivial connected graph of order $n$. Then
$rvx_k(G)=0$ if and only if $sdiam_k(G)=k-1$.
\end{pro}
\begin{pro}\label{pro2}
Let $G$ be a nontrivial connected graph of order $n \ (n\geq 5)$,
and let $k$ be an integer with $2\leq k\leq n$. Then
$$
0\leq rvx_k(G)\leq n-2.
$$
\end{pro}
\begin{pf}
We only need to show $rvx_k(G)\leq n-2$. Since $G$ is connected,
there exists a spanning tree of $G$, say $T$. We give the internal
vertices of the tree $T$ different colors. Since $T$ has at most two
leaves, we must use at most $n-2$ colors to color all the internal
vertices of the tree $T$. Color the leaves of the tree $T$ with the
used colors arbitrarily. Note that such a vertex-coloring makes $T$
vertex-rainbow $k$-tree-connected. Then $rvx_k(T)\leq n-2$ and hence
$rvx_k(G)\leq rvx_k(T)\leq n-2$, as desired. \qed
\end{pf}
\begin{obs}\label{obs1}
Let $K_{s,t}$, $K_{n_1,n_2,\ldots,n_k}$, $W_{n}$ and $P_n$ denote
the complete bipartite graph, complete multipartite graph, wheel and
path, respectively. Then
$(1)$ For integers $s$ and $t$ with $s\geq 2,t \geq 1$,
$rvc(K_{s,t})=1$.
$(2)$ For $k\geq 3$, $rvx_k(K_{n_1,n_2,\ldots,n_k})=1$.
$(3)$ For $n\geq 4$, $rvx_k(W_{n})=1$.
$(4)$ For $n\geq 3$, $rvx_k(P_n)=n-2$.
\end{obs}
Let $\mathcal {G}(n)$ denote the class of simple graphs of order $n$
and $\mathcal {G}(n,m)$ the subclass of $\mathcal {G}(n)$ having
graphs with $n$ vertices and $m$ edges. Give a graph parameter
$f(G)$ and a positive integer $n$, the \emph{Nordhaus-Gaddum
(\textbf{N-G}) Problem} is to determine sharp bounds for: $(1)$
$f(G)+f(\overline{G})$ and $(2)$ $f(G)\cdot f(\overline{G})$, as $G$
ranges over the class $\mathcal {G}(n)$, and characterize the
extremal graphs. The Nordhaus-Gaddum type relations have received
wide attention; see a recent survey paper \cite{Aouchiche} by
Aouchiche and Hansen.
Chen, Li and Lian \cite{CLLian} gave sharp lower and upper bounds of
$rx_k(G)+rx_k(\overline{G})$ for $k=2$. In \cite{CLLiu}, Chen, Li
and Liu obtained sharp lower and upper bounds of
$rvx_k(G)+rvx_k(\overline{G})$ for $k=2$. In Section $2$, we
investigate the case $k=3$ and give lower and upper bounds of
$rvx_3(G)+rvx_3(\overline{G})$.
\begin{thm}\label{th2}
Let $G$ and $\overline{G}$ be a nontrivial connected graph of order
$n$. If $n=4$, then $rvx_3(G)+rvx_3(\overline{G})=4$. If $n\geq 5$,
then we have
$$
2\leq rvx_3(G)+rvx_3(\overline{G})\leq n-1.
$$
Moreover, the bounds are sharp.
\end{thm}
Let $s(n,k,\ell)$ denote the minimal size of a connected graph $G$
of order $n$ with $rx_k(G)\leq \ell$, where $2\leq \ell\leq n-1$ and
$2\leq k\leq n$. Schiermeyer \cite{Schiermeyer} focused on the case
$k=2$ and gave exact values and upper bounds for $s(n,2,\ell)$.
Later, Li, Li, Sun and Zhao \cite{LLSZ} improved Schiermeyer's lower
bound of $s(n,2,2)$ and get a lower bound of $s(n,2,\ell)$ for
$3\leq \ell \leq \lceil\frac{n}{2}\rceil$.
In Section $3$, we study the vertex case. Let $t(n,k,\ell)$ denote
the minimal size of a connected graph $G$ of order $n$ with
$rvx_k(G)\leq \ell$, where $2\leq \ell\leq n-2$ and $2\leq k\leq n$.
We obtain the following result in Section $3$.
\begin{thm}\label{th3}
Let $k,n,\ell$ be three integers with $2\leq \ell\leq n-3$ and
$2\leq k\leq n$. If $k$ and $\ell$ has the different parity, then
$$
n-1\leq t(n,k,\ell)\leq n-1+\frac{n-\ell-1}{2}.
$$
If $k$ and $\ell$ has the same parity, then
$$
n-1\leq t(n,k,\ell)\leq n-1+\frac{n-\ell}{2}.
$$
\end{thm}
\section{Nordhaus-Guddum results}
To begin with, we have the following result.
\begin{pro}\label{pro3}
Let $G$ be a connected graph of order $n$. Then the following are
equivalent.
$(1)$ $rvx_3(G)=0$;
$(2)$ $sdiam_3(G)=2$;
$(3)$ $n-2\leq \delta(G)\leq n-1$.
\end{pro}
\begin{pf}
For Proposition \ref{pro1}, $rvx_3(G)=0$ if and only if
$sdiam_3(G)=2$. So we only need to show the equivalence of $(1)$ and
$(3)$. Suppose $n-2\leq \delta(G)\leq n-1$. Clearly, $G$ is a graph
obtained from the complete graph of order $n$ by deleting some
independent edges. For any $S=\{u,v,w\}\subseteq V(G)$, at least two
elements in $\{uv,vw,uw\}$ belong to $E(G)$. Without loss of
generality, let $uv,vw\in E(G)$. Then the tree $T$ induced by the
edges in $\{uv,vw\}$ is an $S$-Steiner tree and hence $d_G(S)\leq
2$. From the arbitrariness of $S$, we have $sdiam_3(G)\leq 2$ and
hence $sdiam_3(G)=2$. Therefore, $rvx_3(G)=0$.
Conversely, we assume $rvx_3(G)=0$. If $\delta(G)\leq n-3$, then
there exists a vertex $u\in V(G)$ such that $d_{G}(u)\leq n-3$.
Furthermore, there are two vertices, say $v,w$, such that
$uv,uw\notin E(G)$. Choose $S=\{u,v,w\}$. Clearly, any rainbow
$S$-tree must occupy at least a vertex in $V(G)\setminus S$, which
implies that $rvx_3(G)\geq 1$, a contradiction. So $n-2\leq
\delta(G)\leq n-1$.\qed \vspace{3pt}
\end{pf}
After the above preparation, we can derive a lower bound of
$rvx_3(G)+rvx_3(\overline{G})$.
\begin{lem}\label{lem1}
Let $G$ and $\overline{G}$ be a nontrivial connected graph of order
$n$. For $n\geq 5$, we have $rvx_3(G)+rvx_3(\overline{G})\geq 2$.
Moreover, the bound is sharp.
\end{lem}
\begin{pf}
From Proposition \ref{pro2}, we have $rvx_3(G)\geq 0$ and
$rvx_3(\overline{G})\geq 0$. If $rvx_3(G)=0$, then we have $n-2\leq
\delta(G)\leq n-1$ by Proposition \ref{pro3} and hence
$\overline{G}$ is disconnected, a contradiction. Similarly, we can
get another contradiction for $rvx_3(\overline{G})=0$. Therefore,
$rvx_3(G)\geq 1$ and $rvx_3(\overline{G})\geq 1$. So
$rvx_3(G)+rvx_3(\overline{G})\geq 2$.\qed\vspace{3pt}
\end{pf}
To show the sharpness of the above lower bound, we consider the
following example.\vspace{3pt}
\noindent\textbf{Example 1:} Let $H$ be a graph of order $n-4$, and
let $P=a,b,c,d$ be a path. Let $G$ be the graph obtained from $H$
and the path by adding edges between the vertex $a$ and all vertices
of $H$ and adding edges between the vertex $d$ and all vertices of
$H$; see Figure 2 $(a)$. We now show that
$rvx_3(G)=rvx_3(\overline{G})=1$. Choose $S=\{a,b,d\}$. Then any
$S$-Steiner tree must occupy at least one vertex in $V(G)\setminus
S$. Note that the vertices of $V(G)\setminus S$ in the tree must
receive different colors. Therefore, $rvx_3(G)\geq 1$. We give each
vertex in $G$ with one color and need to show that $rvx_3(G)\leq 1$.
It suffices to prove that there exists a vertex-rainbow $S$-tree for
any $S\subseteq V(G)$ with $|S|=3$. Suppose $|S\cap V(H)|=3$.
Without loss of generality, let $S=\{x,y,z\}$. Then the tree $T$
induced by the edges in $\{xa, ya,za\}$ is a vertex-rainbow
$S$-tree. Suppose $|S\cap V(H)|=2$. Without loss of generality, let
$x,y\in S\cap V(H)$. If $a\in S$, then the tree $T$ induced by the
edges in $\{xa,ya\}$ is a vertex-rainbow $S$-tree. If $b\in S$, then
the tree $T$ induced by the edges in $\{xa,ya,ab\}$ is a
vertex-rainbow $S$-tree.
\begin{figure}[!hbpt]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.85]{2.eps}\\
Figure 2: Graphs for Example $1$.
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Suppose $|S\cap V(H)|=1$. Without loss of generality, let $x\in
S\cap V(H)$. If $a,b\in S$, then the tree $T$ induced by the edges
in $\{xa,ab\}$ is a vertex-rainbow $S$-tree. If $b,c\in S$, then the
tree $T$ induced by the edges in $\{xd,cd,bc\}$ is a vertex-rainbow
$S$-tree. If $a,c\in S$, then the tree $T$ induced by the edges in
$\{xa,ab,bc\}$ is a vertex-rainbow $S$-tree. Suppose $|S\cap
V(G')|=0$. If $a,b,c\in S$, then the tree $T$ induced by the edges
in $\{ab,bc\}$ is a vertex-rainbow $S$-tree. If $a,b,d\in S$, then
the tree $T$ induced by the edges in $\{ab,bc,cd\}$ is a
vertex-rainbow $S$-tree. From the arbitrariness of $S$, we conclude
that $rvx_3(G)\leq 1$. Similarly, one can also check that
$rvx_3(\overline{G})=1$. So $rvx_3(G)+rvx_3(\overline{G})=2$.
\qed\vspace{4pt}
We are now in a position to give an upper bound of
$rvx_3(G)+rvx_3(\overline{G})$. For $n=4$, we have
$G=\overline{G}=P_4$ since we only consider connected graphs.
Observe that $rvx_3(G)=rvx_3(\overline{G})=rvx_3(P_4)=2$.
\begin{obs}\label{obs2}
Let $G,\overline{G}$ be connected graphs of order $n \ (n=4)$. Then
$rvx_3(G)+rvx_3(\overline{G})=n$.
\end{obs}
For $n\geq 5$, we have the following upper bound of
$rvx_3(G)+rvx_3(\overline{G})$.
\begin{lem}\label{lem2}
Let $G,\overline{G}$ be connected graphs of order $n \ (n=5)$. Then
$rvx_3(G)+rvx_3(\overline{G})\leq n-1$.
\end{lem}
\begin{pf}
If $G$ is a path of order $5$, then $rvx_3(G)=3$ by Observation
\ref{obs1}. Observe that $sdiam_3(\overline{G})=3$. Then
$rvx_3(\overline{G})\leq 1$ and hence
$rvx_3(G)+rvx_3(\overline{G})\leq 4$, as desired.
\begin{figure}[!hbpt]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.9]{3.eps}\\
Figure 3: Graphs for Lemma \ref{lem2}.
\end{center}
\end{figure}
If $G$ is a tree but not a path, then we have $G=H_1$ since
$\overline{G}$ is connected (see Figure 3 $(a)$). Clearly,
$rvx_3(G)\leq 2$. Furthermore, $\overline{G}$ consists of a $K_2$
and a $K_3$ and two edges between them (see Figure 3 $(a)$). So we
assign color $1$ to the vertices of $K_2$ and color $2$ to the
vertices of $K_3$, and this vertex-coloring makes the graph $G$
vertex-rainbow $3$-tree-connected, that is, $rvx_3(\overline{G})\leq
2$. Therefore, $rvx_3(G)+rvx_3(\overline{G})\leq 4$, as desired.
Suppose that both $G$ and $\overline{G}$ are not trees. Then
$e(G)\geq 5$ and $e(\overline{G})\geq 5$. Since
$e(G)+e(\overline{G})=e(K_5)=10$, it follows that
$e(G)=e(\overline{G})=5$. If $G$ contains a cycle of length $5$,
then $G=\overline{G}=C_5$ and hence
$rvx_3(G)=rvx_3(\overline{G})=2$. If $G$ contains a cycle of length
$4$, then $G=H_2$ (see Figure 3 $(b)$). Clearly,
$rvx_3(G)=rvx_3(\overline{G})=2$. If $G$ contains a cycle of length
$3$, then $G=\overline{G}=H_3$ (see Figure 3 $(c)$). One can check
that $rvx_3(G)=rvx_3(\overline{G})=2$. Therefore,
$rvx_3(G)+rvx_3(\overline{G})=4$, as desired.\qed
\end{pf}
\begin{lem}\label{lem3}
Let $G$ be a nontrivial connected graph of order $n$, and
$rvx_3(G)=\ell$. Let $G'$ be a graph obtained from $G$ by adding a
new vertex $v$ to $G$ and making $v$ be adjacent to $q$ vertices of
$G$. If $q \geq n-\ell$, then $rvx_3(G')\leq \ell$.
\end{lem}
\begin{pf}
Let $c: V(G)\rightarrow \{1,2,\cdots,\ell\}$ be a vertex-coloring of
$G$ such that $G$ is vertex-rainbow $3$-tree-connected. Let
$X=\{x_1, x_2,\cdots,x_q\}$ be the vertex set such that $vx_i\in
E(G')$. Set $V(G)\setminus X=\{y_1,y_2,\cdots, y_{n-q}\}$. We can
assume that there exist two vertices $y_{j_1},y_{j_2}$ such that
there is no vertex-rainbow tree connecting $\{v,y_{j_1},y_{j_2}\}$;
otherwise, the result holds obviously.
\begin{figure}[!hbpt]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.95]{4.eps}\\
Figure 4: Four type of the Steiner tree $T_i$.
\end{center}
\end{figure}
We define a minimal $S$-Steiner tree $T$ as a tree connecting $S$
whose subtree obtained by deleting any edge of $T$ does not connect
$S$. Because $G$ is vertex-rainbow $3$-tree-connected, there is a
minimal vertex-rainbow tree $T_i$ connecting
$\{x_i,y_{j_1},y_{j_2}\}$ for each $x_i \ (i\in \{1,2,\cdots,q\})$.
Then the tree $T_i$ has four types; see Figure $4$. For the type
shown in $(c)$, the Steiner tree $T_i$ connecting
$\{x_i,y_{j_1},y_{j_2}\}$ is a path induced by the edges in
$E(P_1)\cup E(P_2)$ and hence the internal vertices of the path
$T_i$ must receive different colors. Therefore, the tree induced by
the edges in $E(P_1)\cup E(P_2)\cup \{vx_i\}$ is a vertex-rainbow
tree connecting $\{v,y_{j_1},y_{j_2}\}$, a contradiction. So we only
need to consider the other three cases shown in Figure 4
$(a),(b),(d)$. Obviously, $T_i\cap T_j$ may not be empty. Then we
have the following claim.\vspace{3pt}
\noindent\textbf{Claim 1:} No other vertex in
$\{x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_q\}$ different from $x_i$ belong to $T_i$ for
each $1\leq i\leq q$. \vspace{3pt}
\noindent{\emph{Proof of Claim $1$}}: Assume, to the contrary, that
there exists a vertex $x_i'\in \{x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_q\}$ such that
$x_i'\neq x_i$ and $x_i'\in V(T_i)$. For the type shown in Figure 4
$(a)$, the Steiner tree $T_i$ connecting $\{x_i,y_{j_1},y_{j_2}\}$
is a path induced by the edges in $E(P_1)\cup E(P_2)$ and hence the
internal vertices of the path $T_i$ receive different colors. If
$x_i'\in V(P_1)$, then the tree induced by the edges in $E(P_1')\cup
E(P_2)\cup \{vx_i\}$ is a vertex-rainbow tree connecting
$\{v,y_{j_1},y_{j_2}\}$ where $P_1'$ is the path between the vertex
$x_i'$ and the vertex $y_{j_1}$ in $P_1$, a contradiction. If
$x_i'\in V(P_2)$, then the tree induced by the edges in $E(P_2)\cup
\{vx_i\}$ is a vertex-rainbow tree connecting
$\{v,y_{j_1},y_{j_2}\}$, a contradiction. The same is true for the
type shown in Figure 4 $(b)$. For the type shown in Figure 4 $(c)$,
the Steiner tree $T_i$ connecting $\{x_i,y_{j_1},y_{j_2}\}$ is a
tree induced by the edges in $E(P_1)\cup E(P_2)\cup E(P_3)$ and
hence the internal vertices of the tree $T_i$ receive different
colors. Without loss of generality, let $x_i'\in V(P_1)$. Then the
tree induced by the edges in $E(P_1')\cup E(P_2)\cup E(P_3)$ is a
vertex-rainbow tree connecting $\{v,y_{j_1},y_{j_2}\}$ where $P_1'$
is the path between the vertex $x_i'$ and the vertex $v$ in $P_1$, a
contradiction.\qed \vskip 0.5em
From Claim $1$, since there is no vertex-rainbow tree connecting
$\{v,y_{j_1},y_{j_2}\}$, it follows that there exists a vertex
$y_{k_i}$ such that $c(x_i)=c(y_{k_i})$ for each tree $T_i$, which
implies that the colors that are assigned to $X$ are among the
colors that are assigned to $V(G)\setminus X$. So $rvx_3(G)=\ell\leq
n-q$. Combining this with the hypothesis $q\geq n-\ell$, we have
$rvx_3(G)=n-q$, that is, all vertices in $V(G)\setminus X$ have
distinct colors. Now we construct a new graph $G'$, which is induced
by the edges in $E(T_1)\cup E(T_2)\cup \cdots \cup E(T_q)$.\vskip
0.5em
\noindent\textbf{Claim 2}: For every $y_t$ not in $G'$, there exists
a vertex $y_s\in G'$ such that $y_ty_s\in E(G)$.\vskip 0.5em
\noindent{\emph{Proof of Claim $2$}}: Assume, to the contrary, that
$N(y_t)\subseteq \{x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_q\}$. Since $G$ is
vertex-rainbow $3$-tree-connected, there is a vertex-rainbow tree
$T$ connecting $\{y_t,y_{j_1},y_{j_2}\}$. Let $x_r$ be the vertex in
the tree $T$ such that $x_r\in N_G(y_t)$. Then tree induced by the
edges in $(E(T)\setminus \{y_tx_r\})\cup \{vx_r\}$ is a
vertex-rainbow tree connecting $\{v,y_{j_1},y_{j_2}\}$, a
contradiction.\qed\vskip 0.5em
From Claim $2$, $G[y_1,y_2,\cdots, y_{n-q}]$ is connected. Clearly,
$G[y_1,y_2,\cdots, y_{n-q}]$ has a spanning tree $T$. Because the
tree $T$ has at least two pendant vertices, there must exist a
pendant vertex whose color is different from $x_1$, and we assign
the color to $x_1$. One can easily check that $G$ is still
vertex-rainbow $3$-tree-connected, and there is a vertex-rainbow
tree connecting $\{v,y_{j_1},y_{j_2}\}$. If there still exist two
vertices $y_{j_3},y_{j_4}$ such that there is no vertex-rainbow tree
connecting $\{v,y_{j_3},y_{j_4}\}$, then we do the same operation
until there is a vertex-rainbow tree connecting
$\{v,y_{j_r},y_{j_s}\}$ for each pair $y_{j_r},y_{j_s}\in
\{1,2,\cdots, n-q\}$. Thus $G'$ is vertex-rainbow
$3$-tree-connected. So $rvc(G')\leq \ell$. \qed
\end{pf}\vspace{5pt}
\noindent\textbf{Proof of Theorem \ref{th2}:} We prove this theorem
by induction on $n$. By Lemma \ref{lem2}, the result is evident for
$n=5$. We assume that $rvx_3(G)+rvx_3(\overline{G})\leq n-1$ holds
for complementary graphs on $n$ vertices. Observe that the union of
a connected graph $G$ and its complement $\overline{G}$ is a
complete graph of order $n$, that is, $G\cup \overline{G}=K_n$. We
add a new vertex $v$ to $G$ and add $q$ edges between $v$ and
$V(G)$. Denoted by $G'$ the resulting graph. Clearly,
$\overline{G'}$ is a graph of order $n+1$ obtained from
$\overline{G}$ by adding a new vertex $v$ to $\overline{G}$ and
adding $n-q$ edges between $v$ and $V(\overline{G})$.\vskip 0.5em
\noindent\textbf{Claim 3:} $rvx_3(G')\leq rvx_3(G)+1$ and
$rvx_3(\overline{G'})\leq rvx_3(\overline{G})+1$.\vskip 0.5em
\noindent{\itshape Proof of Claim $3$}: Let $c$ be a
$rvx_3(G)$-vertex-coloring of $G$ such that $G$ is vertex-rainbow
$3$-tree-connected. Pick up a vertex $u\in N_G(v)$ and give it a new
color. It suffices to show that for any $S\subseteq V(G')$ with
$|S|=3$, there exists a vertex-rainbow $S$-tree. If $S\subseteq
V(G)$, then there exists a vertex-rainbow $S$-tree since $G$ is
vertex-rainbow $3$-tree-connected. Suppose $S\nsubseteq V(G)$. Then
$v\in S$. Without loss of generality, let $S=\{v,x,y\}$. Since $G$
is vertex-rainbow $3$-tree-connected, there exists a vertex-rainbow
tree $T'$ connecting $\{u,x,y\}$. Then the tree $T$ induced by the
edges in $E(T')\cup \{uv\}$ is a vertex-rainbow $S$-tree. Therefore,
$rvx_3(G')\leq rvx_3(G)+1$. Similarly, $rvx_3(\overline{G'})\leq
rvx_3(\overline{G})+1$. \qed\vskip 0.5em
From Claim $3$, we have $rvx_3(G')+rvx_3(\overline{G'})\leq
rvx_3(G)+1+rvx_3(\overline{G})+1\leq n+1$. Clearly,
$rvx_3(G')+rvx_3(\overline{G'})\leq n$ except possibly when
$rvx_3(G')=rvx_3(G)+1$ and $rvx_3(\overline{G'})=
rvx_3(\overline{G})+1$. In this case, by Lemma \ref{lem3}, we have
$q\leq n-rvx_3(G)-1$ and $n-q\leq n-rvx_3(\overline{G})-1$. Thus,
$rvx_3(G)+rvx_3(\overline{G})\leq (n-1-q)+(q-1)=n-2$ and hence
$rvx_3(G')+rvx_3(\overline{G'})\leq n$, as desired. This completes
the induction. \qed \vspace{3pt}
To show the sharpness of the above bound, we consider the following
example.
\noindent\textbf{Example $2$:} Let $G$ be a path of order $n$. Then
$rvx_3(G)=n-2$. Observe that $sdiam_3(\overline{G})=3$. Then
$rvx_3(\overline{G})=1$, and so we have
$rvx_3(G)+rvx_3(\overline{G})=(n-2)+1=n-1$.
\section{The minimal size of graphs with given vertex-rainbow index}
Recall that $t(n,k,\ell)$ is the minimal size of a connected graph
$G$ of order $n$ with $rvx_k(G)\leq \ell$, where $2\leq \ell\leq
n-2$ and $2\leq k\leq n$. Let $G$ be a path of order $n$. Then
$rvx_k(G)\leq n-2$ and hence $t(n,k,n-2)\leq n-1$. Since we only
consider connected graphs, it follows that $t(n,k,n-2)\geq n-1$.
Therefore, the following result is immediate.
\begin{obs}\label{th3-1}
Let $k$ be an integer with $2\leq k\leq n$. Then
$$
t(n,k,n-2)=n-1.
$$
\end{obs}
A \emph{rose graph $R_{p}$ with $p$ petals} (or \emph{$p$-rose
graph}) is a graph obtained by taking $p$ cycles with just a vertex
in common. The common vertex is called the \emph{center} of $R_{p}$.
If the length of each cycle is exactly $q$, then this rose graph
with $p$ petals is called a \emph{$(p,q)$-rose graph}, denoted by
$R_{p,q}$. Then we have the following result.\vspace{5pt}
\noindent \textbf{Proof of Theorem \ref{th3}:} Suppose that $k$ and
$\ell$ has the different parity. Then $n-\ell-1$ is even. Let $G$ be
a graph obtained from a $(\frac{n-\ell-1}{2},3)$-rose graph
$R_{\frac{n-\ell-1}{2},3}$ and a path $P_{\ell+1}$ by identifying
the center of the rose graph and one endpoint of the path. Let $w_0$
be the center of $R_{\frac{n-\ell-1}{2},3}$, and let
$C_i=w_0v_iu_iw_0 \ (1\leq i\leq \frac{n-\ell-1}{2})$ be the cycle
of $R_{\frac{n-\ell-1}{2},3}$. Let $P_{\ell+1}=w_0w_1\cdots
w_{\ell}$ be the path of order $\ell+1$. To show the $rvx_k(G)\leq
\ell$, we define a vertex-coloring $c: V(G)\rightarrow
\{0,1,2,\cdots,\ell-1\}$ of $G$ by
$$
c(v)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
i, &if~v=w_i \ (0\leq i\leq \ell-1);\\
1,&if~v=u_i~or~v=v_i \ (1\leq i\leq \frac{n-\ell-1}{2})\\
1,&if~v=w_{\ell}.
\end{array}
\right.
$$
One can easily see that there exists a vertex-rainbow $S$-tree for
any $S\subseteq V(G)$ and $|S|=3$. Therefore, $rvx_k(G)\leq \ell$
and $t(n,k,\ell)\leq n-1+\frac{n-\ell-1}{2}$.
Suppose that $k$ and $\ell$ has the same parity. Then $n-\ell$ is
even. Let $G$ be a graph obtained from a $(\frac{n-\ell}{2},3)$-rose
graph $R_{\frac{n-\ell}{2},3}$ and a path $P_{\ell}$ by identifying
the center of the rose graph and one endpoint of the path. Let $w_0$
be the center of $R_{\frac{n-\ell}{2},3}$, and let $C_i=w_0v_iu_iw_0
\ (1\leq i\leq \frac{n-\ell}{2})$ be the cycle of
$R_{\frac{n-\ell}{2},3}$. Let $P_{\ell}=w_0w_1\cdots w_{\ell-1}$ be
the path of order $\ell$. To show the $rvx_k(G)\leq \ell$, we define
a vertex-coloring $c: V(G)\rightarrow \{0,1,2,\cdots,\ell-1\}$ of
$G$ by
$$
c(v)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
i, &if~v=w_i \ (0\leq i\leq \ell-1);\\
1,&if~v=u_i~or~v=v_i \ (1\leq i\leq \frac{n-\ell}{2})\\
\end{array}
\right.
$$
One can easily see that there exists a vertex-rainbow $S$-tree for
any $S\subseteq V(G)$ and $|S|=3$. Therefore, $rvx_k(G)\leq \ell$
and $t(n,k,\ell)\leq n-1+\frac{n-\ell}{2}$.\qed
|
\section{Introduction - Inverse problems for hyperbolic equations}
\label{sec:intro}
Let $\Omega$ be a bounded domain of $\mathbb{R}^N$ ($N\geq 1$) whose boundary $\partial\Omega$ is Lipschitz and let $T>0$. We note $Q_T:=\Omega\times (0,T)$ and $\Sigma_T:=\partial\Omega\times (0,T)$. We are concerned in this work with inverse type problems for linear hyperbolic equation of the following type
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:wave}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
y_{tt} - \nabla\cdot (c(x) \nabla y) + d(x, t) y= f, & \qquad (x, t) \in Q_T \\
y = 0, & \qquad (x,t)\in \Gamma_T \\
(y(\cdot, 0), y_t(\cdot,0)) = (y_0, y_1), & \qquad x \in \Omega.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
We assume that $c\in C^1(\overline{\Omega}, \mathbb{R})$ with $c(x)\geq c_0>0$ in~$\overline{\Omega}$, $d \in L^\infty(Q_T)$, $(y_0,y_1) \in \boldsymbol{H}:=L^2(\Omega)\times H^{-1}(\Omega)$ and $f\in X:=L^2(0,T; H^{-1}(\Omega))$.
For any $(y_0,y_1)\in \boldsymbol{H}$ and any $f\in X$, there exists exactly one solution $y$ to \eqref{eq:wave}, with $y \in C^0([0, T]; L^2(\Omega)) \cap C^1([0, T]; H^{-1}(\Omega))$ (see~\cite{JLL88}).
In the sequel, for simplicity, we shall use the following notation:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:L}
L\, y:=y_{tt}-\nabla\cdot (c(x) \nabla y) + d(x,t)y.
\end{equation}
and $X^{\prime}:=L^2(0,T; H^1_0(\Omega))$.
Let now $\omega$ be any non empty open subset of $\Omega$ and let $q_T:=\omega \times (0,T)\subset Q_T$.
A typical inverse problem for (\ref{eq:wave}) is the following one : from an \textit{observation} or \textit{measurement} $y_{obs}$ in $L^2(q_T)$ on the sub-domain $q_T$, we want to recover a solution $y$ of the boundary value problem (\ref{eq:wave}) which coincides with the observation on $q_T$.
Introducing the operator $P:L^2(Q_T)\to X\times L^2(q_T)$ defined by $P\,y:=(Ly,y_{\vert q_T})$, the problem is reformulated as :
\begin{equation}
\label{IP}\tag{$IP$}
\text{\it find } y\in L^2(Q_T) \text{ \it solution of } P\,y=(f,y_{obs}).
\end{equation}
From the unique continuation property for (\ref{eq:wave}), if the set $q_T$ satisfies some geometric conditions and if $y_{obs}$ is a restriction to $q_T$ of a solution of (\ref{eq:wave}), then the problem is well-posed in the sense that the state $y$ corresponding to the pair $(y_{obs},f)$ is unique.
In view of the unavoidable uncertainties on the data $y_{obs}$ (coming from measurements, numerical approximations, etc), the problem needs to be relaxed. In this respect, the most natural (and widely used in practice) approach consists to introduce the following extremal problem (of least-squares type)
\begin{equation}
\label{extremal_problem} \tag{\it LS}
\quad
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&\textrm{minimize over } \boldsymbol{H} \quad J(y_0,y_1):=\frac{1}{2} \Vert y-y_{obs} \Vert^2_{L^2(q_T)}\\
& \textrm{where} \quad y \quad \textrm{solves} \quad (\ref{eq:wave}),
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
since $y$ is uniquely and fully determined from $f$ and the data $(y_0,y_1)$. Here the constraint $y-y_{obs}=0$ in $L^2(q_T)$ is relaxed; however, if $y_{obs}$ is a restriction to $q_T$ of a solution of (\ref{eq:wave}), then problems \eqref{extremal_problem} and \eqref{IP} obviously coincide. A minimizing sequence for $J$ in $\boldsymbol{H}$ is easily defined in term of the solution of an auxiliary adjoint problem. Apart from a possible low decrease of the sequence near extrema, the main drawback, when one wants to prove the convergence of a discrete approximation is that, it is in general not possible to minimize over a discrete subspace of $\{y; Ly-f=0\}$ subject to the equality (in $X$) $Ly-f=0$. Therefore, the minimization procedure first requires the discretization of the functional $J$ and of the system (\ref{eq:wave}); this raised the issue of uniform coercivity property (typically here some uniform discrete observability inequality for the adjoint solution) of the discrete functional with respect to the approximation parameter. As far as we know, this delicate issue has received answers only for specific and somehow academic situations (uniform Cartesian approximation of $\Omega$, constant coefficients in \eqref{eq:wave}). We refer to \cite{NC-AM-mixedwave,Glo08,komornikloreti,munch05} and the references therein.
More recently, a different method to solve inverse type problems like \eqref{IP} has emerged and use so called Luenberger type observers: this consists in defining, from the observation on $q_T$, an auxiliary boundary value problem whose solution possesses the same asymptotic behavior in time than the solution of (\ref{eq:wave}): the use of the reversibility of the hyperbolic equation then allows to reconstruct the initial data $(y_0,y_1)$. We refer to \cite{cindea_moireau,ramdani2010} and the references therein. But, for the same reasons, on a numerically point of view, these method require to prove uniform discrete observability properties.
In a series of works, Klibanov and co-workers use different approaches to solve inverse problems (we refer to \cite{Klibanov-book} and the references therein): they advocate in particular the quasi-reversibility method which reads as follows : for any $\varepsilon>0$, find $y_{\varepsilon}\in \mathcal{A}$ the solution of
\begin{equation}\label{FV}\tag{$QR$}
\langle Py_\varepsilon,P\overline{y} \rangle_{X\times L^2(q_T)} + \varepsilon \langle y_{\varepsilon},\overline{y} \rangle_{\mathcal{A}} = \left\langle(f,y_{obs}), P\overline{y}\right\rangle_{X^{\prime}\times L^2(q_T),X\times L^2(q_T)},
\end{equation}
for all $\overline{y}\in \mathcal{A}$,
where $\mathcal{A}$ denotes a Hilbert space subset of $L^2(Q_T)$ so that $Py\in X\times L^2(q_T)$ for all $y\in \mathcal{A}$ and $\varepsilon>0$ a Tikhonov like parameter which ensures the well-posedness. We refer for instance to \cite{clason_klibanov} where the lateral Cauchy problem for the wave equation with non constant diffusion is addressed within this method. Remark that (\ref{FV}) can be viewed as a least-squares problem since the solution $y_{\varepsilon}$ minimizes over $\mathcal{A}$ the functional $y\to \Vert P y - (f,y_{obs})\Vert^2_{X\times L^2(q_T)}+ \varepsilon \Vert y\Vert^2_{\mathcal{A}}$. Eventually, if $y_{obs}$ is a restriction to $q_T$ of a solution of (\ref{eq:wave}),
the corresponding $y_{\varepsilon}$ converges in $L^2(Q_T)$ toward to the solution of \eqref{IP} as $\varepsilon\to 0$. There, unlike in Problem \eqref{extremal_problem}, the unknown is the state variable $y$ itself (as it is natural for elliptic equations) so that any standard numerical methods based on a conformal approximation of the space $\mathcal{A}$ together with appropriate observability inequalities allow to obtain a convergent approximation of the solution. In particular, there is no need to prove discrete observability inequalities. We refer to the book \cite{BeilinaKlibanov14}. We also mention \cite{bourgeois2010,bourgeoisbis} where a similar technique has been used recently to solve the inverse obstacle problem associated to the Laplace equation, which consists in finding an interior obstacle from boundary Cauchy data.
In the spirit of the works \cite{Klibanov-book,bourgeois2010,clason_klibanov}, we explore the direct resolution of the optimality conditions associated to the extremal problem \eqref{extremal_problem}, without Tikhonov parameter while keeping $y$ as the unknown of the problem. This strategy, which avoids any iterative process, has been successfully applied in the closed context of the exact controllability of (\ref{eq:wave}) in \cite{NC-AM-mixedwave} and \cite{CC-NC-AM,NC-EFC-AM}. The idea is to take into account the state constraint $Ly-f=0$ with a Lagrange multiplier. This allows to derive explicitly the optimality systems associated to \eqref{extremal_problem} in term of an elliptic mixed formulation and therefore reformulate the original problem. Well-posedness of such new formulation is related to an observability inequality for the homogeneous solution of the hyperbolic equation.
The outline of this paper is as follow. In Section \ref{recovering_y}, we consider the least-squares problem \eqref{P} and reconstruct the solution of the wave equation from a partial observation localized on a subset $q_T$ of $Q_T$. For that, in Section \ref{sec2_direct}, we associate to \eqref{P} the equivalent mixed formulation (\ref{eq:mf}) which relies on the optimality conditions of the problem. Assuming that $q_T$ satisfies the classical geometric optic condition (Hypothesis 1, see (\ref{iobs})), we then show the well-posedness of this mixed formulation, in particular, we check the Babuska-Brezzi inf-sup condition (see Theorem \ref{th:mf}). Interestingly, in Section \ref{sec2_dual}, we also derive a equivalent dual extremal problem, which reduces the determination of the state $y$ to the minimization of an elliptic functional with respect to the Lagrange multiplier. In Section \ref{recovering_y_f}, we apply the same procedure to recover from a partial observation both the state and the source term. Section \ref{sec_numer} is devoted to the numerical approximation, through a conformal space-time finite element discretization. The strong convergence of the approximation $(y_h,f_h)$ is shown as the discretization parameter $h$ tends to zero. In particular, we discuss the discrete inf-sup property of the mixed formulation. We present numerical experiments in Section \ref{sec_experiment} for $\Omega=(0,1)$ and $\Omega \subset\mathbb{R}^2$, in agreement with the theoretical part. We consider in particular time dependent observation zones. Section \ref{sec_conclusion} concludes with some perspectives.
\section[Recovering the solution from a partial observation]{Recovering the solution from a partial observation: a mixed re-formulation of the problem}\label{recovering_y}
In this section, assuming that the initial $(y_0,y_1)\in \boldsymbol{H}$ are unknown, we address the inverse problem \eqref{IP}. Without loss of generality, in view of the linearity of the system (\ref{eq:wave}), we assume that the source term $f\equiv 0$.
\par\noindent
We consider the non empty vectorial space $Z$ defined by
\begin{equation}
Z:=\{y: y\in C([0,T], L^2(\Omega))\cap C^1([0,T], H^{-1}(\Omega)), Ly\in X\}. \label{refZ}
\end{equation}
and then introduce the following hypothesis :
\begin{hyp}
There exists a constant $C_{obs}=C(\omega,T,\Vert c\Vert_{C^1(\overline{\Omega})},\Vert d\Vert_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)})$ such that the following estimate holds :
\begin{equation}
\Vert y(\cdot,0),y_t(\cdot,0)\Vert^2_{\boldsymbol{H}} \leq C_{obs} \biggl( \Vert y\Vert^2_{L^2(q_T)}+ \Vert Ly\Vert^2_X \biggr), \quad \forall y\in Z. \label{iobs}\tag{$\mathcal{H}$}
\end{equation}
\end{hyp}
Condition \eqref{iobs} is a generalized observability inequality for the solution of the hyperbolic equation: for constant coefficients, this estimate is known to hold if the triplet ($\omega,T,\Omega$) satisfies a geometric optic condition. We refer to \cite{BLR}. In particular, $T$ should be large enough. Upon the same condition, (\ref{iobs}) also holds in the non-cylindrical situation where the domain $\omega$ varies with respect to the time variable: we refer to \cite{CC-NC-AM} for the one dimensional case. For non constant velocity $c$ and potential $d$, we refer to \cite{NC-EFC-AM} and the references therein.
Then, within this hypothesis, for any $\eta>0$, we define on $Z$ the bilinear form
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:pseta}
\begin{aligned}
\langle y,\overline{y}\rangle_Z:= & \jnt\!\!\!\!\jnt_{q_{T}} y\,\overline{y}\,dxdt + \eta\int_0^T \langle Ly,\, L\overline{y} \rangle_{H^{-1}(\Omega)}\, dt \quad \forall y,\overline{y}\in Z.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
In view of (\ref{iobs}), this bilinear form defines a scalar product over $Z$. Moreover, endowed to this scalar product, we easily obtain that $Z$ is a Hilbert space (see \cite{CC-NC-AM}, Corollary 2.4). We note the corresponding norm by $\Vert y\Vert_{Z}:=\sqrt{\langle y,y \rangle_Z}$.
Then, we consider the following extremal problem :
\begin{equation}
\label{P}
\tag{$\mathcal{P}$}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
& \inf J(y):= \frac{1}{2}\Vert y-y_{obs}\Vert^2_{L^2(q_T)}, \\
& \textrm{subject to}\quad y\in W
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
where $W$ is the closed subspace of $Z$ defined by
$$
W:=\{y\in Z; \, Ly=0 \,\, \textrm{in}\,\, X\}
$$
and endowed with the norm of $Z$.
The extremal problem \eqref{P} is well posed : the functional $J$ is continuous over $W$, is strictly convex and is such that $J(y)\to +\infty$ as $\Vert y\Vert_W\to \infty$. Note also that the solution of \eqref{P} in $W$ does not depend on $\eta$.
Remind that from the definition of $Z$, $Ly$ belongs to $X$. Similarly, the uniqueness of the solution is lost if the hypothesis \eqref{iobs} is not fulfilled, for instance if $T$ is not large enough. Eventually, from (\ref{iobs}), the solution $y$ in $Z$ of \eqref{P} satisfies $(y(\cdot,0),y_t(\cdot,0))\in \boldsymbol{H}$, so that problem \eqref{P} is equivalent to the minimization of $J$ with respect to $(y_0,y_1)\in \boldsymbol{H}$ as in problem \eqref{IP}, Section 1.
We also recall that for any $z\in Z$ there exists a positive constant $C_{\Omega,T}$ such that
\begin{equation}
\Vert z\Vert^2_{L^2(Q_T)} \leq C_{\Omega,T} \biggl( \Vert z(\cdot,0),z_t(\cdot,0)\Vert^2_{\boldsymbol{H}} + \Vert Lz\Vert^2_X\biggr). \label{continuity_constant}
\end{equation}
This equality and (\ref{iobs}) imply that
\begin{equation}
\Vert z\Vert^2_{L^2(Q_T)} \leq C_{\Omega,T} \biggl(C_{obs} \Vert z\Vert^2_{L^2(q_T)} + (1+C_{obs}) \Vert Lz\Vert^2_X\biggr), \quad \forall z\in Z. \label{estimate_qTQT}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Direct approach} \label{sec2_direct}
In order to solve \eqref{P}, we have to deal with the constraint equality which appears in the space $W$. Proceeding as in \cite{NC-AM-mixedwave}, we introduce a Lagrangian multiplier $\lambda\in X^{\prime}$ and the following mixed formulation: find $(y, \lambda)\in Z\times X^{\prime}$ solution of
\begin{equation} \label{eq:mf}
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
\noalign{\smallskip} a(y, \overline{y}) + b(\overline{y}, \lambda) & = & l(\overline{y}), & \qquad \forall \overline{y} \in Z \\
\noalign{\smallskip} b(y, \overline{\lambda}) & = & 0, & \qquad \forall \overline{\lambda} \in X^{\prime},
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align}
\label{eq:a} & a : Z \times Z \to \mathbb{R}, \quad a(y,\overline{y}) := \jnt\!\!\!\!\jnt_{q_{T}} y\,\overline{y}\,dxdt,
\\
\label{eq:b} & b: Z \times X^{\prime} \to \mathbb{R}, \quad b(y,\lambda) := \int_0^T \langle \lambda,\, Ly \rangle_{H^1_0(\Omega),H^{-1}(\Omega)} dt,\\
\label{eq:l} & l: Z \to \mathbb{R}, \quad l(y) := \jnt\!\!\!\!\jnt_{q_{T}} y_{obs} \,y\, dxdt.
\end{align}
System (\ref{eq:mf}) is nothing else than the optimality system corresponding to the extremal problem \eqref{P}. Precisely, the following result holds :
\begin{theorem}\label{th:mf} Under the hypothesis \eqref{iobs},
\begin{enumerate}
\item The mixed formulation (\ref{eq:mf}) is well-posed.
\item The unique solution $(y, \lambda) \in Z\times X^{\prime}$ to \eqref{eq:mf} is the unique saddle-point of the Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}:Z\times X^{\prime}\to \mathbb{R}$ defined by
\[
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}(y, \lambda):=& \frac{1}{2}a(y,y) + b(y,\lambda)- l(y).
\end{aligned}
\]
\item We have the estimate
\begin{equation}
\Vert y\Vert_Z= \Vert y\Vert_{L^2(q_T)}\leq \Vert y_{obs}\Vert_{L^2(q_T)} , \quad \Vert \lambda\Vert_{X^{\prime}} \leq 2\sqrt{C_{\Omega,T}+\eta} \Vert y_{obs}\Vert_{L^2(q_T)}. \label{estimate_lambda}
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\textsc{Proof-} We use classical results for saddle point problems (see \cite{brezzi_new}, chapter 4).
We easily obtain the continuity of the bilinear form $a$ over $Z\times Z$, the continuity of bilinear $b$ over $Z\times X^{\prime}$ and the continuity of the linear form $l$ over $Z$. In particular, we get
\begin{equation}
\Vert l\Vert_{Z^{\prime}}= \Vert y_{obs}\Vert_{L^2(q_T)}, \qquad \Vert a\Vert_{(Z\times Z)^{\prime}}=1, \quad \Vert b\Vert_{(Z\times X^{\prime})^{\prime}} = \eta^{-1/2}. \label{simple_ineq}
\end{equation}
Moreover, the kernel $\mathcal{N}(b)=\{y\in Z;\ b(y,\lambda)=0 \quad \forall \lambda\in X^{\prime}\}$ coincides with $W$: we easily get
\begin{equation}
a(y,y)=\Vert y \Vert^2_Z, \quad \forall y\in \mathcal{N}(b)=W. \nonumber
\end{equation}
Therefore, in view of \cite[Theorem 4.2.2]{brezzi_new}, it remains to check the inf-sup constant property : $\exists \delta>0$ such that
\begin{equation}
\inf_{\lambda\in X^{\prime}} \sup_{y \in Z} \frac{b(y,\lambda)}{\Vert y \Vert_Z \Vert \lambda\Vert_{X^{\prime}}} \geq \delta.
\end{equation}
We proceed as follows. For any fixed $\lambda\in X^{\prime}$, we define $y$ as the unique solution of
\begin{equation}
Ly=-\Delta\lambda \,\,\,\textrm{in} \,\,\, Q_T, \quad (y(\cdot,0),y_t(\cdot,0))=(0,0)\,\,\, \textrm{on}\,\,\, \Omega ,\quad y=0\,\,\, \textrm{on}\,\,\, \Sigma_T. \label{infsup_y0}
\end{equation}
We get $b(y,\lambda)=\Vert \lambda\Vert^2_{X^{\prime}}$
and
\begin{equation}
\Vert y\Vert^2_Z= \Vert y\Vert^2_{L^2(q_T)} + \eta \Vert \lambda \Vert_{X^{\prime}}^2. \nonumber
\end{equation}
Using (\ref{continuity_constant}), the estimate $\Vert y\Vert_{L^2(q_T)} \leq \sqrt{C_{\Omega,T}} \Vert \lambda \Vert_{X^{\prime}}$
implies that $y\in Z$ and that
\[
\sup_{y\in Z} \frac{b(y,\lambda)}{\Vert y \Vert_Z \Vert \lambda \Vert_{X^{\prime}}} \geq \frac{1}{\sqrt{C_{\Omega,T}+\eta}}>0
\]
leading to the result with $\delta=(C_{\Omega,T}+\eta)^{-1/2}$.
The third point is the consequence of classical estimates (see \cite{brezzi_new}, Theorem 4.2.3.) :
\begin{equation}
\Vert y\Vert_{Z}\leq \frac{1}{\alpha_0} \Vert l\Vert_{Z^{\prime}}, \quad \Vert \lambda \Vert_{X^{\prime}} \leq \frac{1}{\delta}\biggl(1+\frac{\Vert a \Vert}{\alpha_0} \biggr) \Vert l\Vert_{Z^{\prime}} \nonumber
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\alpha_0:=\inf_{y\in \mathcal{N}(b)} \frac{a(y,y)}{\Vert y\Vert^2_Z}. \label{eq:alpha0}
\end{equation}
Estimates (\ref{simple_ineq}) and the equality $\alpha_0=1$ lead to the results. Eventually, from (\ref{simple_ineq}), we obtain that
\begin{equation}
\Vert \lambda\Vert_{X^{\prime}} \leq \frac{2}{\delta} \Vert y_{obs}\Vert_{L^2(q_T)} \nonumber
\end{equation}
and that $\delta \geq (C_{\Omega,T}+\eta)^{-1/2}$ to get (\ref{estimate_lambda}). \hfill$\Box$
In practice, it is very convenient to "augment" the Lagrangian (see \cite{fortinglowinski}) and consider instead the Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}_r$ defined for any $r>0$ by
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
& \mathcal{L}_r(y,\lambda):=\frac{1}{2}a_r(y,y)+b(y,\lambda)-l(y), \\
& a_r(y,y):=a(y,y)+r\Vert Ly\Vert^2_{X}.
\end{aligned}
\nonumber
\end{equation}
Since $a_r(y,y)=a(y,y)$ on $W$, the Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}$ and $\mathcal{L}_r$ share the same saddle-point. The positive number $r$ is an augmentation parameter.
\begin{remark}\label{rk_lambda_sys}
Assuming additional hypotheses on the regularity of the solution $\lambda$, precisely $L\lambda\in L^2(Q_T)$ and $(\lambda,\lambda_t)_{\vert t=0,T} \in H^1_0(\Omega)\times L^2(\Omega)$,
we easily prove, writing the optimality condition for $\mathcal{L}$, that the multiplier $\lambda$ satisfies the following relations :
\begin{equation}
\label{system_lambda}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
& L\lambda=-(y-y_{obs})\, 1_\omega\quad \textrm{in}\quad Q_T , \quad \lambda=0\quad \textrm{in}\quad \Sigma_T, \\
& \lambda=\lambda_{t}=0\quad\textrm{on}\ \Omega \times \{0,T\}.
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
Therefore, $\lambda$ (defined in the weak sense) is an exact controlled solution of the wave equation through the control $-(y-y_{obs})\, 1_{\omega}\in L^2(q_T)$.
\begin{itemize}
\item If $y_{obs}$ is the restriction to $q_T$ of a solution of (\ref{eq:wave}), then the unique multiplier $\lambda$ must vanish almost everywhere. In that case,
we have $\sup_{\lambda\in\Lambda}\inf_{y\in Y} \mathcal{L}_r(y,\lambda) = \inf_{y\in Y} \mathcal{L}_r(y,0)=\inf_{y\in Y} J_r(y)$ with
\begin{equation}
\label{def_Jyr}
J_r(y):=\frac{1}{2}\Vert y-y_{obs}\Vert^2_{L^2(Q_T)} + \frac{r}{2}\Vert Ly\Vert^2_X.
\end{equation}
The corresponding variational formulation is then : find $y\in Z$ such that
\begin{equation}
a_r(y,\overline{y})=\jnt\!\!\!\!\jnt_{q_{T}} y\,\overline{y} \, dxdt + r\int_0^T \langle Ly, \, L\overline{y} \rangle_{H^{-1}(\Omega)} \,dt = l(\overline{y}), \quad \forall \overline{y}\in Z. \nonumber
\end{equation}
\item In the general case, the mixed formulation can be rewritten as follows: find $(z,\lambda)\in Z\times X^{\prime}$ solution of
\begin{equation}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
\langle P_r y, P_r \overline{y}\rangle_{X\times L^2(q_T)} + \langle L\overline{y},\lambda \rangle_{X,X^{\prime}} & = \langle (0,y_{obs}),P_r \overline{y} \rangle_{X\times L^2(q_T)}, \quad \forall \overline{y}\in Z, \\
\langle L\overline{y},\lambda \rangle_{X,X^{\prime}} & = 0, \quad \forall \lambda\in X^{\prime}
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
with $P_r y:=(\sqrt{r} L\,y,y_{\vert q_T})$. This approach may be seen as generalization of the \eqref{FV} problem (see (\ref{FV})), where the variable $\lambda$ is adjusted automatically (while the choice of the parameter $\varepsilon$ in (\ref{FV}) is in general a delicate issue).
\end{itemize}
\end{remark}
\
System (\ref{system_lambda}) can be used to define a equivalent saddle-point formulation, very suitable at the numerical level. Precisely, we introduce - in view of (\ref{system_lambda}) - the space $\Lambda$ by
$$
\nonumber
\begin{aligned}
\Lambda:=\{\lambda: \lambda\in C([0,T]; & H_0^1(\Omega))\cap C^1([0,T]; L^2(\Omega)), \\
&L\lambda\in L^2(Q_T), \lambda(\cdot,0)=\lambda_t(\cdot,0)=0\}.
\end{aligned}
$$
Endowed with the scalar product $\langle \lambda,\overline{\lambda}\rangle_{\Lambda}:= \jnt\!\!\!\!\jnt_{Q_{T}} (\lambda\, \overline{\lambda}+L\lambda L\overline{\lambda}) \, dxdt$, we check that $\Lambda$ is a Hilbert space. Then, for any parameter $\alpha\in (0,1)$, we consider the following mixed formulation : find $(y,\lambda)\in Z\times \Lambda$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:mfalpha}
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
\noalign{\smallskip} a_{r,\alpha}(y, \overline{y}) + b_{\alpha}(\overline{y}, \lambda) & = & l_{1,\alpha}(\overline{y}), & \qquad \forall \overline{y} \in Z \\
\noalign{\smallskip} b_{\alpha}(y, \overline{\lambda}) - c_{\alpha}(\lambda,\overline{\lambda})& = & l_{2,\alpha}(\overline{\lambda}), & \qquad \forall \overline{\lambda} \in \Lambda,
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align}
& a_{r,\alpha} : Z \times Z \to \mathbb{R}, \quad a_{r,\alpha}(y,\overline{y}) := (1-\alpha)\jnt\!\!\!\!\jnt_{q_{T}} y\overline{y}\,dxdt + r \int_0^T (Ly, L\overline{y})_{H^{-1}(\Omega)}dt, \nonumber\\
& b_{\alpha}: Z\times \Lambda \to \mathbb{R}, \quad b_{\alpha}(y,\lambda) := \int_0^T \langle \lambda,Ly \rangle_{H^1_0(\Omega),H^{-1}(\Omega)} dt-\alpha \jnt\!\!\!\!\jnt_{q_{T}} y\, L\lambda\,dxdt, \nonumber\\
& c_{\alpha}: \Lambda \times \Lambda \to \mathbb{R}, \quad c_{\alpha}(\lambda, \overline{\lambda}) := \alpha\jnt\!\!\!\!\jnt_{Q_{T}} L\lambda\,L\overline{\lambda}, \, dxdt \nonumber\\
& l_{1,\alpha}: Z\to \mathbb{R}, \quad l_{1,\alpha}(y) := (1-\alpha)\jnt\!\!\!\!\jnt_{q_{T}} y_{obs} \, y\, dxdt, \nonumber\\
& l_{2,\alpha}: \Lambda\to \mathbb{R}, \quad l_{2,\alpha}(\lambda) := -\alpha \jnt\!\!\!\!\jnt_{q_{T}} y_{obs}\, L \lambda\,dxdt. \nonumber
\end{align}
From the symmetry of $a_{r,\alpha}$ and $c_{\alpha}$, we easily check that this formulation corresponds to the saddle point problem :
\begin{equation}
\nonumber
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
& \sup_{\lambda\in \Lambda} \inf_{y\in Z} \mathcal{L}_{r,\alpha}(y,\lambda), \\
& \mathcal{L}_{r,\alpha}(y,\lambda):=\mathcal{L}_r(y,\lambda) - \frac{\alpha}{2} \Vert L\lambda + (y-y_{obs})1_{\omega}\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}^2.
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
\begin{proposition}
Under the hypothesis \eqref{iobs}, for any $\alpha\in (0,1)$, the formulation (\ref{eq:mfalpha}) is well-posed. Moreover, the unique pair $(y,\lambda)$ in $Z\times \Lambda$ satisfies
\begin{equation}
\theta_1 \Vert y\Vert_Z^2 + \theta_2 \Vert \lambda\Vert_{\Lambda}^2 \leq \biggl(\frac{(1-\alpha)^2}{\theta_1} + \frac{\alpha^2}{\theta_2}\biggr)\Vert y_{obs}\Vert^2_{L^2(q_T)}. \label{estimate_solalpha}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\theta_1:=\min\biggl(1-\alpha, \frac{r}{\eta}\biggr) , \quad \theta_2:=\frac{1}{2}\min\biggl(\alpha, \frac{1}{C_{\Omega,T}}\biggr). \nonumber
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\textsc{Proof-} We easily get the continuity of the bilinear forms $a_{r,\alpha}$, $b_{\alpha}$ and $c_{\alpha}$:
$$
\begin{aligned}
& \vert a_{r,\alpha}(y,\overline{y})\vert \leq \max(1-\alpha,\frac{r}{\eta}) \Vert y\Vert_Z \Vert\overline{y}\Vert_Z, \quad \forall y,\overline{y}\in Z, \\
& \vert b_{\alpha}(y,\lambda)\vert \leq \max(\alpha,\frac{1}{\sqrt{\eta}}) \Vert y\Vert_{Z} \Vert \lambda\Vert_{\Lambda}, \quad \forall y\in Z, \forall \lambda\in \Lambda ,\\
& \vert c_{\alpha}(\lambda,\overline{\lambda}) \leq \alpha \Vert \lambda\Vert_{\Lambda} \Vert \overline{\lambda}\Vert_{\Lambda}, \quad \forall \lambda, \overline{\lambda}\in \Lambda
\end{aligned}
$$
and of the linear form $l_1$ and $l_2$ : $\Vert l_1\Vert_{Z^{\prime}}=(1-\alpha)\Vert y_{obs}\Vert_{L^2(q_T)}$ and
$\Vert l_2\Vert_{\Lambda^{\prime}}=\alpha\Vert y_{obs}\Vert_{L^2(q_T)}$.
Moreover, since $\alpha\in (0,1)$, we also obtain the coercivity of $a_{r,\alpha}$ and of $c_{\alpha}$: precisely,
$$
\begin{aligned}
& a_{r,\alpha}(y,y)\geq \min\biggl(1-\alpha, \frac{r}{\eta}\biggr) \Vert y\Vert^2_Z, \quad\forall y\in Z, \\
& c_{\alpha}(\lambda,\lambda)\geq \min\biggl(\alpha m, \frac{1-m}{C_{\Omega,T}}\biggr) \Vert \lambda\Vert^2_{\Lambda} \quad\forall \lambda\in \Lambda, \quad \forall m\in (0,1).
\end{aligned}
$$
The result \cite[Prop 4.3.1]{brezzi_new} implies the well-posedness and the estimate (\ref{estimate_solalpha}) taking $m=1/2$. \hfill$\Box$
The $\alpha$-term in $\mathcal{L}_{r,\alpha}$ is a stabilization term: it ensures a coercivity property of $\mathcal{L}_{r,\alpha}$ with respect to the variable $\lambda$ and automatically the well-posedness. In particular, there is no need to prove any inf-sup property for the application $b_{\alpha}$.
\begin{proposition}
If the solution $(y,\lambda)\in Z\times X^\prime$ of (\ref{eq:mf}) enjoys the property $\lambda\in \Lambda$, then the solutions of (\ref{eq:mf}) and (\ref{eq:mfalpha}) coincide.
\end{proposition}
\textsc{Proof-} The hypothesis of regularity and the relation (\ref{system_lambda}) imply that the solution $(y,\lambda)\in Z\times X^\prime$ of (\ref{eq:mf}) is also a solution of (\ref{eq:mfalpha}). The result then follows from the uniqueness of the two formulations. \hfill$\Box$
\subsection{Dual formulation of the extremal problem (\ref{eq:mf})} \label{sec2_dual}
As discussed at length in \cite{NC-AM-mixedwave}, we may also associate to the extremal problem \eqref{P} an equivalent problem involving only the variable $\lambda$. Again, this is particularly interesting at the numerical level. This requires a strictly positive augmentation parameter $r$.
For any $r>0$, let us define the linear operator $\mathcal{P}_r$ from $X^{\prime}$ into $X^{\prime}$ by
\[
\mathcal{P}_r\lambda:= -\Delta^{-1} (Ly), \quad \forall \lambda\in X^{\prime}
\]
where $y \in Z$ is the unique solution to
\begin{equation}\label{eq:imageA}
a_r(y, \overline y) = b(\overline y, \lambda), \quad \forall \overline y \in Z.
\end{equation}
The assumption $r>0$ is necessary here in order to guarantee the well-posedness of (\ref{eq:imageA}). Precisely, for any $r>0$, the form $a_r$ defines a norm equivalent to the norm on $Z$.
The following important lemma holds:
\begin{lemma}\label{propA}
For any $r>0$, the operator $\mathcal{P}_r$ is a strongly elliptic, symmetric isomorphism from $X^{\prime}$ into $X^{\prime}$.
\end{lemma}
\textsc{Proof-} From the definition of $a_r$, we easily get that $\Vert \mathcal{P}_r\lambda\Vert_{X^{\prime}}\leq r^{-1} \Vert \lambda\Vert_{X^\prime}$ and the continuity of $\mathcal{P}_r$. Next, consider any $\lambda^{\prime}\in X^{\prime}$ and denote by $y^{\prime}$ the corresponding unique solution of (\ref{eq:imageA}) so that $\mathcal{P}_r\lambda^{\prime}:=-\Delta^{-1}(Ly^{\prime})$. Relation (\ref{eq:imageA}) with $\overline{y}=y^{\prime}$ then implies that
\begin{equation}
\int_0^T \langle\mathcal{P}_r\lambda^{\prime},\lambda\rangle_{H_0^1(\Omega)} \,dt = a_r(y,y^{\prime}) \label{arAlambda}
\end{equation}
and therefore the symmetry and positivity of $\mathcal{P}_r$. The last relation with $\lambda^{\prime}=\lambda$ and the observability estimate (\ref{iobs}) imply that $\mathcal{P}_r$ is also positive definite.
Finally, let us check the strong ellipticity of $\mathcal{P}_r$, equivalently that the bilinear functional $(\lambda,\lambda^{\prime})\to \int_0^T \langle\mathcal{P}_r\lambda,\lambda^{\prime}\rangle_{H^1_0(\Omega),H^1_0(\Omega)}\,dt$ is $X^{\prime}$-elliptic. Thus we want to show that
\begin{equation}\label{ellipticity_A}
\int_0^T \langle\mathcal{P}_r\lambda,\lambda\rangle_{H_0^1(\Omega)}\,dt \geq C \Vert \lambda\Vert^2_{X^{\prime}}, \quad\forall \lambda\in X^{\prime}
\end{equation}
for some positive constant $C$. Suppose that (\ref{ellipticity_A}) does not hold; there exists then a sequence $\{\lambda_n\}_{n\geq 0}$ of $X^{\prime}$ such that
\[
\Vert \lambda_n\Vert_{X^{\prime}}=1, \quad\forall n\geq 0, \qquad \lim_{n\to\infty} \int_0^T \langle\mathcal{P}_r\lambda_n,\lambda_n\rangle_{H_0^1(\Omega)}\,dt=0.
\]
Let us denote by $y_n$ the solution of (\ref{eq:imageA}) corresponding to $\lambda_n$. From (\ref{arAlambda}), we then obtain that
\begin{equation}
\lim_{n\to\infty} r \Vert Ly_n\Vert^2_X+ \Vert y_n\Vert^2_{L^2(q_T)}=0 .\label{limit}
\end{equation}
From (\ref{eq:imageA}) with $y=y_n$ and $\lambda=\lambda_n$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{phinlambdan}
\int_0^T \left\langle r (-\Delta^{-1}) L y_n-\lambda_n , (-\Delta^{-1})L\overline{y} \right\rangle_{H^1_0(\Omega)}\,dt + \jnt\!\!\!\!\jnt_{q_{T}} y_n \overline{y} dx\,dt =0, \quad \forall \overline{y} \in Z.
\end{equation}
We define the sequence $\{\overline{y}_n\}_{n\geq 0}$ as follows :
\begin{equation}\nonumber
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
& L\overline{y}_n = r\,Ly_n+\Delta^{-1}\lambda_n, & &\textrm{in}\quad Q_T, \\
& \overline{y}_n=0, & &\textrm{in}\quad \Sigma_T,\\
& \overline{y}_n(\cdot,0)=\overline{y}_{n,t}(\cdot,0)=0, & &\textrm{in}\quad \Omega,
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
so that, for all $n$, $\overline{y}_n$ is the solution of the wave equation with zero initial data and source term $r Ly_n +\Delta\lambda_n$ in $X$. Using again (\ref{continuity_constant}), we get $\Vert \overline{y}_n\Vert_{L^2(q_T)} \leq \sqrt{C_{\Omega,T}} \Vert r Ly_n+\Delta\lambda_n\Vert_X$, so that $\overline{y}_n\in Z$. Then, using (\ref{phinlambdan}) with $\overline{y}=\overline{y}_n$ we get
\[
\Vert r(-\Delta^{-1})Ly_n-\lambda_n\Vert_{X^{\prime}} \leq \sqrt{C_{\Omega,T}} \Vert y_n\Vert_{L^2(q_T)}.
\]
Then, from (\ref{limit}), we conclude that $\lim_{n\to +\infty} \Vert \lambda_n\Vert_{X^{\prime}}=0$ leading to a contradiction and to the strong ellipticity of the operator $\mathcal{P}_r$. \hfill$\Box$
The introduction of the operator $\mathcal{P}_r$ is motivated by the following proposition~:
\begin{proposition}\label{prop_equiv_dual}
For any $r>0$, let $y_0\in Z$ be the unique solution of
\[
a_r(y_0,\overline{y})= l(\overline{y}), \quad \forall \overline{y}\in Z
\]
and let $J_r^{\star\star}:X^{\prime}\to X^{\prime}$ be the functional defined by
\[
J_r^{\star\star}(\lambda) = \frac{1}{2} \int_0^T \langle\mathcal{P}_r \lambda, \lambda\rangle_{H_0^1(\Omega)}dt - b(y_0, \lambda).
\]
The following equality holds :
\begin{equation}\nonumber
\sup_{\lambda\in X^{\prime}}\inf_{y\in Z} \mathcal{L}_r(y,\lambda) = - \inf_{\lambda\in X^{\prime}} J_r^{\star\star}(\lambda)\quad + \mathcal{L}_r(y_0,0).
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
The proof is classical and we refer for instance to \cite{NC-AM-mixedwave} in a similar context.
This proposition reduces the search of $y$, solution of problem \eqref{P}, to the minimization of $J_r^{\star\star}$. The well-posedness is a consequence of the ellipticity of the operator $\mathcal{P}_r$.
\begin{remark}
The results of this section apply if the distributed observation on $q_T$ is replaced by a Neumann boundary observation on a sufficiently large subset $\Sigma_T$ of
$\partial\Omega\times (0,T)$ (i.e. assuming $\frac{\partial y}{\partial \nu}=y_{obs}\in L^2(\Sigma_T)$ is known on $\Sigma_T$). This is due to the following generalized observability inequality: there exists a positive constant $C_{obs}=C(\omega,T,\Vert c\Vert_{C^1(\overline{\Omega})},\Vert d\Vert_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)})$ such that the following estimate holds :
\begin{equation}
\Vert y(\cdot,0),y_t(\cdot,0)\Vert^2_{H_0^1(\Omega)\times L^2(\Omega)} \leq C_{obs} \biggl( \biggl\Vert \frac{\partial y}{\partial \nu}\biggr\Vert^2_{L^2(\Sigma_T)}+ \Vert Ly\Vert^2_{L^2(Q_T)} \biggr), \quad \forall y\in Z
\end{equation}
which holds if the triplet $(Q_T,\Sigma_T,T)$ satisfies the geometric condition as before (we refer to \cite{NC-EFC-AM} and the references therein). Actually, it suffices to re-define the form
$a$ in \eqref{eq:a} by $a(y,\overline{y}):=\int\!\!\!\int_{\Sigma_T} \frac{\partial y}{\partial\nu} \frac{\partial \overline{y}}{\partial\nu} \, d\sigma dx$ and the form $l$ by $l(y):=\int\!\!\!\int_{\Sigma_T} \frac{\partial y}{\partial\nu} y_{obs} \, d\sigma dx$ for all $y,\overline{y}\in Z$.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
We emphasize that the mixed formulation (\ref{eq:mf}) has a structure very closed to the one we get when we address - using the same approach - the null controllability of (\ref{eq:wave}): more precisely, the control of minimal $L^2(q_T)$-norm which drives to rest the initial data $(y_0,y_1)\in H_0^1(\Omega)\times L^2(\Omega)$ is given by $v=\varphi\, 1_{q_T}$ where $(\varphi,\lambda)\in \Phi\times L^2(0,T; H_0^1(\Omega))$ solves the mixed formulation
\begin{equation} \label{eq:mfi}
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
\noalign{\smallskip} a(\varphi, \overline{\varphi}) + b(\overline{\varphi}, \lambda) & = & l(\overline{\varphi}), & \qquad \forall \overline{\varphi} \in \Phi \\
\noalign{\smallskip} b(\varphi, \overline{\lambda}) & = & 0, & \qquad \forall \overline{\lambda} \in L^2(0,T; H^1_0(\Omega)),
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align}
& a : \Phi \times \Phi \to \mathbb{R}, \quad a(\varphi, \overline{\varphi}) = \jnt\!\!\!\!\jnt_{q_{T}} \varphi(x, t) \overline{\varphi}(x, t) \, dx \, dt \nonumber\\
& b: \Phi \times L^{2}(0,T; H^1_0(\Omega)) \to \mathbb{R}, \quad b(\varphi, \lambda) = \int_0^T \langle L \varphi, \lambda \rangle_{H^{-1},H^1_0} dt \nonumber\\
& l: \Phi \to \mathbb{R}, \quad l(\varphi) = -\langle\varphi_t(\cdot, 0),y_0\rangle_{H^{-1}(\Omega),H_0^1(\Omega)} + \int_0^1 \varphi(\cdot, 0)\, y_1 \,dx. \nonumber
\end{align}
with $\Phi = \left\{\varphi \in L^2(Q_T), \, \varphi = 0 \text{ on } \Sigma_T \text{ such that } L\varphi \in L^2(0,T; H^{-1}(\Omega))\right\}$. We refer to \cite{NC-AM-mixedwave}.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
Reversing the order of priority between the constraint $y-y_{obs}=0$ in $L^2(q_T)$ and $Ly-f=0$ in $X$, a possibility could be to minimize the functional
$y\to \Vert Ly-f\Vert_{X}$ over $y\in Z$ subject to the constraint $y-y_{obs}=0$ in $L^2(q_T)$ via the introduction of a Lagrange multiplier in $L^2(q_T)$.
The proof of the following inf-sup property : there exists $\delta>0$ such that
$$
\inf_{\lambda\in L^2(q_T)} \sup_{y\in Z} \frac{\int\!\!\!\int_{q_T} \lambda y \,dxdt }{\Vert \lambda\Vert_{L^2(q_T)} \Vert y\Vert_Y} \geq \delta
$$
associated to the corresponding mixed-formulation is however unclear.
If a $\varepsilon$-term is added as in (\ref{FV}), this difficulty disappears (we refer again to the book \cite{Klibanov-book}).
\end{remark}
\section[Recovering the source and the solution from a partial observation]{Recovering the source and the solution from a partial observation: a mixed re-formulation of the problem}\label{recovering_y_f}
Given a partial observation $y_{obs}$ of the solution on the subset $q_T\subset Q_T$, we now consider the reconstruction of the full solution as well as the source term $f$ assumed in $X$. We assume that the initial data $(y_0,y_1)\in \boldsymbol{H}$ are unknown.
The situation is different with respect to the previous section, since without additional assumption on $f$, the couple $(y,f)$ is not unique. Consider the case of a source $f$ supported in a set which is near $\partial\Omega\times (0,T)$ and disjoint from $q_T$: from the finite propagation of the solution, the source $f$ will not affect the solution $y$ in $q_T$.
On the other hand, the determination of a couple $(y,f)$ which solves (\ref{eq:wave}) such that $y$ coincides with $y_{obs}$ is straightforward : it suffices to "extend" $y$ on $Q_T\setminus q_T$ appropriately to preserve the boundary conditions, then compute $Ly$ and recover a source term. However, we emphasize that, on a practical viewpoint, the extension of $y_{obs}$ out of $q_T$ is not obvious. Moreover, this strategy does not offer any control on the object $f$.
We briefly show that we can apply the method developed in Section \ref{recovering_y} which allows a robust reconstruction and then consider the case of uniqueness via additional condition on $f$.
We assume again that \eqref{iobs} holds. We note $Y:=Z\times X$ and define on $Y$ the bilinear form, for any $\varepsilon,\eta>0$
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:pseta2}
\begin{aligned}
\langle (y,f),(\overline{y},\overline{f}) \rangle_Y:= & \jnt\!\!\!\!\jnt_{q_{T}} y\,\overline{y}\,dxdt + \eta\int_0^T \langle Ly-f,L\overline{y}-f\rangle_{H^{-1}(\Omega)}dt \\
&+ \varepsilon \int_0^T \langle f, \overline{f} \rangle_{H^{-1}(\Omega)} dt, \qquad \forall (y,f), (\overline{y},\overline{f})\in Y.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
In view of (\ref{iobs}), this bilinear form defines a scalar product over $Y$. Moreover, endowed to this scalar product, we easily obtain that $Y$ is a Hilbert space (we refer to \cite{CC-NC-AM}). We note the corresponding norm by $\Vert (y,f)\Vert_{Y}:=\sqrt{((y,f),(y,f))_Y}$.
Then, for any $\varepsilon>0$, we consider the following extremal problem :
\begin{equation}
\nonumber
(\mathcal{P}_{\varepsilon})\quad
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
& \inf J_{\varepsilon}(y,f):= \frac{1}{2}\Vert y-y_{obs}\Vert^2_{L^2(q_T)} + \frac{\varepsilon}{2}\Vert f\Vert^2_X, \\
& \textrm{subject to}\quad (y,f)\in W
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
where $W$ is the closed subspace of $Y$ defined by
$
W:=\{(y,f)\in Y; \, Ly-f=0 \,\, \textrm{in}\,\, X\}
$
and endowed with the norm of $Y$: precisely, it follows that
$$\Vert (y,f)\Vert_{W}:=\sqrt{\Vert y\Vert_{L^2(q_T)}^2 +\varepsilon \Vert f\Vert^2_X}, \qquad \forall (y,f)\in W.$$
The extremal problem $(\mathcal{P}_{\varepsilon})$ is well posed : the functional $J_{\varepsilon}$ is continuous over $W$, is strictly convex and is such that $J_{\varepsilon}(y,f)\to +\infty$ as $\Vert (y,f)\Vert_W\to \infty$. Note also that the solution of $(\mathcal{P}_{\varepsilon})$ in $W$, depends on $\varepsilon$ but not on $\eta$.
Remark also that if $\varepsilon=0$, then $J_{\varepsilon}$ is \textit{a priori} only convex leading possibly to distinct minima. This justifies the introduction of the $\varepsilon$-term in the functional $J_{\varepsilon}$. We emphasize however that the $\varepsilon$-term is not a regularization term as it does not improve the regularity of the state $y$.
Eventually, from (\ref{iobs}), the solution $(y_\varepsilon,f_\varepsilon)$ in $W$ of $(\mathcal{P}_{\varepsilon})$ satisfies $(y_\varepsilon(\cdot,0),y_{\varepsilon,t}(\cdot,0))\in \boldsymbol{H}$, so that problem ($\mathcal{P}_{\varepsilon}$) is again equivalent to the minimisation of $J_{\varepsilon}$ with respect to $(y_0,y_1,f)\in \boldsymbol{H}\times X$.
Proceeding as in Section \ref{recovering_y}, we introduce a Lagrangian multiplier $\lambda_{\varepsilon}\in X^{\prime}$ and the following mixed formulation: find $((y_{\varepsilon},f_{\varepsilon}), \lambda_{\varepsilon})\in Y\times X^{\prime}$ solution of
\begin{equation} \label{eq:mfeps}
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
\noalign{\smallskip} a_{\varepsilon}((y_{\varepsilon},f_{\varepsilon}), (\overline{y},\overline{f})) + b((\overline{y},\overline{f}), \lambda_{\varepsilon}) & = & l(\overline{y},\overline{f}), & \qquad \forall (\overline{y},\overline{f}) \in Y \\
\noalign{\smallskip} b((y_{\varepsilon},f_{\varepsilon}), \overline{\lambda}) & = & 0, & \qquad \forall \overline{\lambda} \in X^{\prime},
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align}
\label{eq:aeps} & a_{\varepsilon} : Y \times Y \to \mathbb{R}, \quad a_{\varepsilon}((y,f), (\overline{y},\overline{f})) := \jnt\!\!\!\!\jnt_{q_{T}} y\overline{y}\,dxdt + \varepsilon (f,\overline{f})_X,
\\
\label{eq:bf} & b: Y \times X^{\prime} \to \mathbb{R}, \quad b((y,f),\lambda) := \int_0^T \langle \lambda, Ly-f\rangle_{H_0^1(\Omega),H^{-1}(\Omega)} \, dt,\\
\label{eq:lf} & l: Y \to \mathbb{R}, \quad l(y,f) := \jnt\!\!\!\!\jnt_{q_{T}} y_{obs} \,y\, dxdt.
\end{align}
\begin{theorem}\label{th:mfeps} Under the hypothesis \eqref{iobs}, the following hold :
\begin{enumerate}
\item The mixed formulation (\ref{eq:mfeps}) is well-posed.
\item The unique solution $((y_{\varepsilon},f_{\varepsilon}), \lambda_{\varepsilon}) \in Y\times X^{\prime}$ is the saddle-point of the Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}_{\varepsilon}:Y\times X^\prime\to \mathbb{R}$ defined by
\[
\mathcal{L}_{\varepsilon}((y,f), \lambda):= \frac{1}{2}a_{\varepsilon}((y,f),(y,f)) + b((y,f),\lambda)- l(y,f).
\]
Moreover, the pair $(y_{\varepsilon},f_{\varepsilon})$ solves the extremal problem $(\mathcal{P}_{\varepsilon})$.
\item The following estimates hold :
\begin{equation}
\Vert (y_{\varepsilon},f_{\varepsilon}) \Vert_Y= \left(\Vert y_{\varepsilon}\Vert^2_{L^2(q_T)}+\varepsilon \Vert f_{\varepsilon}\Vert^2_{} \right)^{1/2}\leq \Vert y_{obs}\Vert_{L^2(q_T)} \label{ineqy_th1}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\Vert \lambda_{\varepsilon}\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)} \leq 2\sqrt{C_{\Omega,T}+\eta} \Vert y_{obs}\Vert_{L^2(q_T)} \label{estimate_lambdaeps}
\end{equation}
for some constant $C_{\Omega,T}>0$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
The proof is very closed to the proof of Theorem \ref{th:mf}. In particular, the obtention of the inf-sup property is obtained by taking, for any $\lambda\in X^{\prime}$, $f=0$ and $y$ as in (\ref{infsup_y0}) so that the inf-sup constant
\begin{equation}
\delta_{\varepsilon}:=\inf_{\lambda\in X^{\prime}} \sup_{(y,f)\in Y} \frac{b((y,f),\lambda)}{\Vert (y,f) \Vert_Y \Vert \lambda\Vert_{X^{\prime}}}
\end{equation}
is bounded by above by $(C_{\Omega,T}+\eta)^{-1/2}$ uniformly with respect to $\varepsilon$.
Remark in particular that the inequality (\ref{ineqy_th1}) implies that, at the optimality, since $\varepsilon>0$, the equality $\Vert y-y_{obs}\Vert_{L^2(q_T)}=0$ can not hold if $f_{\varepsilon}\neq 0$.
\begin{remark}\label{inf-sup_proof2}
We may also prove the inf-sup property using the variable $f$: for any $\lambda\in X^{\prime}$, we set $y=0$ and $f=\Delta\lambda\in X$. We get
\begin{equation}
\nonumber
\sup_{(y,f)\in Y} \frac{b((y,f),\lambda)}{\Vert (y,f) \Vert_Y \Vert \lambda \Vert_{X^{\prime}} } \geq \frac{b((0,\Delta \lambda),\lambda)}{\Vert (0,\Delta \lambda) \Vert_{Y} \Vert \lambda \Vert_{X^{\prime}} }= \frac{1}{\sqrt{\varepsilon+\eta}}
\end{equation}
so that $\delta_{\varepsilon}\geq (\varepsilon+\eta)^{-1/2}$. Therefore, the estimate
\begin{equation}
\Vert \lambda_{\varepsilon}\Vert_{X^{\prime}} \leq \frac{2}{\delta_{\varepsilon}} \Vert y_{obs}\Vert_{L^2(q_T)} \nonumber
\end{equation}
implies that
\begin{equation}
\Vert \lambda_{\varepsilon}\Vert_{X^{\prime}} \leq 2\sqrt{\varepsilon+\eta}\Vert y_{obs}\Vert_{L^2(q_T)}.\label{estimate_lambdaepsnew}
\end{equation}
This argument is valid if and only if $f$ is distributed everywhere in $Q_T$. \hfill$\Box$
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}\label{FVeps}
The estimate (\ref{estimate_lambdaepsnew}) implies that the multiplier $\lambda_{\varepsilon}$ vanishes in $X^{\prime}$ as $\varepsilon+\eta\to 0^+$ (recall that $\varepsilon$ and $\eta$ can be chosen arbitrarily small in (\ref{eq:pseta})).
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}\label{rq_stab_eps}
\begin{itemize}
\item[]
\item[(a)] Assuming enough regularity on the solution $\lambda_{\varepsilon}$, precisely that $L\lambda_\varepsilon\in L^2(Q_T)$ and $(\lambda,\lambda_t)_{t=0,T}\in H_0^1(\Omega)\times L^2(\Omega)$, we easily check that the multiplier $\lambda_{\varepsilon}$ satisfies the following relations :
\begin{equation}
\nonumber
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
& L\lambda_{\varepsilon}=-(y_{\varepsilon}-y_{obs})_{1_\omega}, \quad Ly_{\varepsilon}-f_{\varepsilon}=0, \quad \varepsilon f_{\varepsilon}+\Delta \lambda_{\varepsilon}=0\quad\textrm{in}\quad Q_T, \\
& \lambda_{\varepsilon}=0\quad \textrm{in}\quad \Sigma_T, \\
& \lambda_{\varepsilon}=\lambda_{\varepsilon,t}=0\quad\textrm{on}\ \Omega \times \{0,T\}.
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
Therefore, $\lambda_{\varepsilon}$ is an exact controlled solution of the wave equation through the control $-(y_{\varepsilon}-y_{obs})\, 1_{\omega}$ and from (\ref{estimate_lambdaepsnew})
implies that
\begin{equation}
\Vert y_{\varepsilon}-y_{obs}\Vert_{L^2(q_T)} \to 0 \quad \textrm{as}\quad \varepsilon\to 0^+. \label{lim_eps}
\end{equation}
Remark however that $f_{\varepsilon}$ may not be bounded in $X^{\prime}$ uniformly w.r.t. $\varepsilon$ (contrarily to the sequence $(\sqrt{\varepsilon} f_{\varepsilon})_{\varepsilon>0}$).
\item[(b)] The equality $Ly_{\varepsilon}=f_{\varepsilon}$ becomes $\varepsilon Ly_{\varepsilon}=-\Delta\lambda_{\varepsilon}$ and leads to $L(\varepsilon \Delta^{-1}Ly_{\varepsilon})=-L\lambda_{\varepsilon}=(y_{\varepsilon}-y_{obs})_{1_\omega}$. Finally,
$y_{\varepsilon}$ solves, at least in $\mathcal{D}^{\prime}$, the boundary value problem
\begin{equation}
\nonumber
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
& L(\varepsilon (-\Delta ^{-1})L y_{\varepsilon} ) + y_{\varepsilon}\,1_{\omega} = y_{obs}\, 1_{\omega}, \quad \textrm{in}\quad Q_T, \\
& (\varepsilon Ly_{\varepsilon})=(\varepsilon Ly_{\varepsilon})_t=0, \quad \textrm{in}\quad \Omega\times \{0,T\} \\
& y_{\varepsilon} =0, \quad \textrm{on}\quad \Sigma_T
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
or equivalently the variational formulation: find $y_{\varepsilon}\in Z$ (see \eqref{refZ}) solution of
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon \int_0^T \langle Ly_{\varepsilon},L\overline{y} \rangle_{H^{-1}(\Omega)} dt + \jnt\!\!\!\!\jnt_{q_{T}} y_{\varepsilon} \, \overline{y} \,dxdt = \jnt\!\!\!\!\jnt_{q_{T}} y_{obs} \overline{y}\, dxdt, \quad\forall \overline{y}\in Z \label{FV_eps}
\end{equation}
which actually can be obtained directly from the cost $J_{\varepsilon}$, replacing from the beginning $f$ by the term $Ly$. From the Lax-Milgram lemma, (\ref{FV_eps}) is well-posed and the following estimates hold :
$$
\Vert y_{\varepsilon}\Vert_{L^2(q_T)}\leq \Vert y_{obs}\Vert_{L^2(q_T)}, \quad \sqrt{\varepsilon}\Vert Ly_{\varepsilon}\Vert_{X}\leq \Vert y_{obs}\Vert_{L^2(q_T)}.
$$
This kind of variational formulation involving the fourth order term $Ly_{\varepsilon}Ly$ has been derived and used in \cite{NC-EFC-AM} in a controllability context.
\end{itemize}
\end{remark}
For any $\varepsilon>0$ and any $y_{obs}\in L^2(q_T)$, the method allows to recover a couple $(y_{\varepsilon},f_{\varepsilon})$ such that $L y_{\varepsilon}=f_{\varepsilon}$ in $Q_T$ and $y_{\varepsilon}$ is closed to $y_{obs}$ (see (\ref{lim_eps})). In view of the loss of uniqueness, we have no information on the limit of the sequence as $\varepsilon\to 0$: the sequence may be unbounded at the limit in $L^2(Q_T)\times L^2(Q_T)$ even if $y_{obs}$ is the restriction to $q_T$ of a solution of (\ref{eq:wave}).
\begin{remark} Contrarily to the inf-sup property, the coercivity of $a_{\varepsilon}$ over $\mathcal{N}(b)$ does not hold uniformly with respect to $\varepsilon$. Recall that the $\varepsilon$-term has been introduced to get a norm for $Y$. This enforces us to add this term in the mixed formulation.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
\textit{A fortiori}, if the initial condition $(y_0,y_1)\in \boldsymbol{H}$ is known, one may recover the pair $(y,f)\in Y$ from $y_{obs}$ and $(y_0,y_1)$. The procedure is similar; it suffices to define two additional Lagrange multipliers $(\lambda_1,\lambda_2)\in L^2(\Omega)\times H^1_0(\Omega)$ to deal with the constraint $y(\cdot,0)=y_0$ and $y_t(\cdot,0)=y_1$ respectively. The extremal problem is now :
\begin{equation}
\inf_{(y,f)\in W} J_{\varepsilon}(y,f):= \frac{1}{2}\Vert y-y_{obs}\Vert^2_{L^2(q_T)} + \frac{\varepsilon}{2}\Vert f\Vert^2_{X^{\prime}} \nonumber
\end{equation}
where $W$ is the closed subspace of $Y$ defined by
$$
W:=\{(y,f)\in Y; \, Ly-f=0 \,\, \textrm{in}\,\, X^{\prime}, (y(\cdot,0),y_t(\cdot,0))=(y_0,y_1)\,\, \textrm{in}\,\, \boldsymbol{H}\}.
$$
The corresponding mixed formulation is :
find $((y_{\varepsilon},f_{\varepsilon}), (\lambda_{\varepsilon},\lambda_{\varepsilon,1},\lambda_{\varepsilon,2})) \in Y\times \Lambda$ solution of
\begin{equation} \label{eq:mfeps1}
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
\noalign{\smallskip} a_{\varepsilon}((y_\varepsilon,f_\varepsilon), (\overline{y},\overline{f})) + b((\overline{y},\overline{f}), (\lambda_\varepsilon,\lambda_{\varepsilon,1},\lambda_{\varepsilon,2})) & = & l_1(\overline{y},\overline{f}), & \qquad \forall (\overline{y},\overline{f}) \in Y \\
\noalign{\smallskip} b((y_\varepsilon,f_\varepsilon), (\overline{\lambda},\overline{\lambda_1},\overline{\lambda_2})) & = & l_2(\overline{\lambda},\overline{\lambda_1},\overline{\lambda_2}), & \qquad \forall (\overline{\lambda},\overline{\lambda_1},\overline{\lambda_2}) \in \Lambda,
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
where $a_\varepsilon$ is given by \eqref{eq:aeps} and
\begin{align}
& b: Y\times \Lambda \to \mathbb{R}, \quad b((y,f),(\lambda,\lambda_1,\lambda_2)) := \jnt\!\!\!\!\jnt_{Q_{T}} \lambda (Ly-f) \, dx dt \nonumber\\
& \hspace{5cm} + \langle y(\cdot,0),\lambda_1\rangle_{L^2(\Omega)} + \langle y_t(\cdot,0),\lambda_2 \rangle_{H^{-1}(\Omega),H_0^1(\Omega)} \nonumber\\
& l_1: Y \to \mathbb{R}, \quad l_1(y,f) := \jnt\!\!\!\!\jnt_{q_{T}} y_{obs} \overline{y}\, dxdt \nonumber\\
& l_2: \Lambda \to \mathbb{R}, \quad l_2(\lambda,\lambda_1,\lambda_2) := \langle y_0,\lambda_1\rangle_{L^2(\Omega)} + \langle y_1,\lambda_2\rangle_{H^{-1}(\Omega),H_0^1(\Omega)} \nonumber
\end{align}
with $\Lambda:=X^{\prime}\times L^2(\Omega)\times H^1_0(\Omega)$.
Using the estimate (\ref{iobs}), we easily show that this formulation is well-posed. \hfill$\Box$
\end{remark}
In view of Remark \ref{rq_stab_eps} (a), we may also associate to the mixed formulation \eqref{eq:mfeps} a stabilized version, similarly to (\ref{eq:mfalpha}).
Again, it is very convenient to "augment" the Lagrangian (see \cite{fortinglowinski}) and consider instead the Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}_{\varepsilon,r}$ defined for any $r>0$ by
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
& \mathcal{L}_{\varepsilon,r}((y,f),\lambda):=\frac{1}{2}a_{\varepsilon,r}((y,f),(y,f))+b(y,\lambda)-l(y,f), \\
& a_{\varepsilon,r}((y,f),(y,f)):=a_{\varepsilon}((y,f),(y,f))+r\Vert Ly-f\Vert^2_X.
\end{aligned}
\nonumber
\end{equation}
Since $a_{\varepsilon}(y,y)=a_{\varepsilon,r}(y,y)$ on $W$, the Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}_{\varepsilon}$ and $\mathcal{L}_{\varepsilon,r}$ share the same saddle-point. The positive number $r$ is an augmentation parameter. Similarly, proceeding as in Section \ref{sec2_dual}, we may also associate to the saddle-point problem $\sup_{\lambda\in X^{\prime}}\inf_{(y,f)\in Y} \mathcal{L}_{r,\varepsilon}((y,f),\lambda)$ a dual problem, which again reduces the search of the couple $(y_{\varepsilon},f_{\varepsilon})$, solution of problem $(\mathcal{P}_{\varepsilon})$, to the minimization of a elliptic functional in $\lambda_{\varepsilon}$.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop_equiv_dual_eps}
For any $r>0$, let $(y_0,f_0)\in Y$ be the unique solution of
\[
a_{\varepsilon,r}((y_0,f_0),(\overline{y},\overline{f}))= l(\overline{y},\overline{f}), \quad \forall (\overline{y},\overline{f})\in Y
\]
and let $\mathcal{P}_{\varepsilon,r}$ be the strongly elliptic and symmetric operator from $X^{\prime}$ into $X^{\prime}$ defined by
$\mathcal{P}_{\varepsilon,r}\lambda:= -\Delta^{-1}(Ly-f)$ where $(y,f)\in Y$ is the unique solution to
\begin{equation}\label{eq:imageAeps}
a_{\varepsilon,r}((y,f), (\overline y,\overline f)) = b((\overline y,\overline f), \lambda), \quad \forall (\overline y,\overline f) \in Y.
\end{equation}
Then, the following equality holds
\begin{equation}\nonumber
\sup_{\lambda\in X^{\prime}}\inf_{(y,f)\in Y} \mathcal{L}_{\varepsilon,r}((y,f),\lambda) = - \inf_{\lambda\in X^{\prime}} J_{\varepsilon,r}^{\star\star}(\lambda)\quad + \mathcal{L}_{\varepsilon,r}((y_0,f_0),0).
\end{equation}
where $J_{\varepsilon,r}^{\star\star}:X^{\prime}\to X^{\prime}$ is the functional defined by
\[
J_{\varepsilon,r}^{\star\star}(\lambda) = \frac{1}{2} \int_0^T (\mathcal{P}_{\varepsilon,r} \lambda, \lambda)_{H_0^1(\Omega)} \,dt - b((y_0,f_0), \lambda).
\]
\end{proposition}
Compared to the previous section, the additional unknown $f_{\epsilon}$ on the problem guarantees that the term $\Vert y_{\varepsilon}-y_{obs}\Vert_{L^2(q_T)}$
vanishes at the limit in $\varepsilon$, for any $y_{obs}\in L^2(q_T)$, be a restriction of a solution of $(\ref{eq:wave})$ or not. The situation is different if additional assumption on $f$ enforces the uniqueness of the pair $(y,f)$ (we refer to \cite{yamamoto} and the references therein).
\section{Numerical Analysis of the mixed formulations} \label{sec_numer}
\subsection{Numerical approximation of the mixed formulation (\ref{eq:mf})}
We consider the numerical analysis of the mixed formulation (\ref{eq:mf}), assuming $r>0$. We follow \cite{NC-AM-mixedwave}, to which we refer for the details.
Let $Z_h$ and $\Lambda_h$ be two finite dimensional spaces parametrized by the variable $h$ such that $Z_h\subset Z, \Lambda_h\subset X^{\prime}$ for every $h>0$.
Then, we can introduce the following approximated problems: find the $(y_h,\lambda_h)\in Z_h\times \Lambda_h$ solution of
\begin{equation} \label{eq:mfh}
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
\noalign{\smallskip} a_r(y_h,\overline{y}_h) + b(\overline{y}_h, \lambda_h) & = & l(\overline{y}_h), & \qquad \forall \overline{y}_h\in Z_h \\
\noalign{\smallskip} b(y_h, \overline{\lambda}_h) & = & 0, & \qquad \forall \overline{\lambda}_h \in \Lambda_h.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
The well-posedness of this mixed formulation is again a consequence of two properties: the coercivity of the bilinear form $a_r$ on the subset
\[\mathcal{N}_h(b)=\{y_h\in Z_h; b(y_h,\lambda_h)=0\,\qquad \forall \lambda_h\in \Lambda_h\}.
\]
Actually, from the relation $a_r(y,y)\geq (r/\eta)\Vert y\Vert_Z^2$ for all $y\in Z$, the form $a_r$ is coercive on the full space $Z$, and so a fortiori on $\mathcal{N}_h(b)\subset Z_h\subset Z$. The second property is a discrete inf-sup condition. We note $\delta_h>0$ by
\begin{equation}
\delta_h:=\inf_{\lambda_h\in \Lambda_h}\sup_{y_h\in Z_h} \frac{b(y_h,\lambda_h)}{\Vert \lambda_h\Vert_{X^{\prime}}\Vert y_h\Vert_Z}. \label{infsupdiscret}
\end{equation}
For any fixed $h$, the spaces $Z_h$ and $\Lambda_h$ are of finite dimension so that the infimum and supremum in (\ref{infsupdiscret}) are reached: moreover, from the property of the bilinear form $a_r$, it is standard to check that $\delta_h$ is strictly positive. Consequently, for any fixed $h>0$, there exists a unique couple $(y_h,\lambda_h)$ solution of (\ref{eq:mfh}).
We then have the following estimate.
\begin{proposition} \label{prop_estimateh_eps0}
Let $h>0$. Let $(y,\lambda)$ and $(y_h,\lambda_h)$ be the solution of (\ref{eq:mf}) and of (\ref{eq:mfh}) respectively. Let $\delta_h$ the discrete inf-sup constant defined by (\ref{infsupdiscret}). Then,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:est_e01}
& \Vert y-y_h \Vert_{Z} \leq 2\biggl(1+\frac{1}{\sqrt{\eta} \delta_h}\biggr)d(y,Z_h)+\frac{1}{\sqrt{\eta}} d(\lambda,\Lambda_h), \\
\label{eq:est_e02}
& \Vert \lambda-\lambda_h \Vert_{X^{\prime}} \leq \biggl(2+\frac{1}{\sqrt{\eta}\delta_h}\biggr)\frac{1}{\delta_h}d(y,Z_h)+
\frac{3}{\sqrt{\eta} \delta_h} d(\lambda,\Lambda_h)
\end{align}
where
$ d(\lambda,\Lambda_h):=\inf_{\lambda_h\in \Lambda_h} \Vert \lambda-\lambda_h\Vert_{X^{\prime}}$
and
$$
\begin{aligned}
d(y,Z_h):=& \inf_{y_h\in Z_h}\Vert y-y_h\Vert_Z\\
=& \inf_{y_h \in Z_h} \biggl( \Vert y-y_h\Vert^2_{L^2(q_T)}+ \eta \Vert L(y-y_h) \Vert^2_X \biggr)^{1/2}
\end{aligned}
$$
\end{proposition}
\textsc{Proof-} From the classical theory of approximation of saddle point problems (see \cite[Theorem 5.2.2]{brezzi_new}) we have that
\begin{align}
\nonumber
\Vert y-y_h \Vert_{Z} \leq & \left( \frac{2 \| a_r \|_{(Z\times Z)^{\prime}}}{\alpha_0} + \frac{2 \| a_r \|_{(Z\times Z)^{\prime}}^\frac12 \| b \|_{(Z\times X^\prime)^{\prime}}}{\alpha_0^\frac12 \delta_h} \right) d(y,Z_h) \\
& +\frac{\Vert b\Vert_{(Z\times X^\prime)^{\prime}}}{\alpha_0} d(\lambda,\Lambda_h)
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}\nonumber
\Vert \lambda-\lambda_h \Vert_{X^{\prime}} \leq &
\left( \frac{2\| a_r \|_{(Z\times Z)^{\prime}}^\frac32}{\alpha_0^\frac12 \delta_h} + \frac{\| a_r \|_{(Z\times Z)^{\prime}} \| b \|_{(Z\times X^\prime)^{\prime}}}{\delta_h^2} \right) d(y,Z_h) \\
& + \frac{3 \| a_r \|^\frac12 \| b \|_{(Z\times X^\prime)^{\prime}}}{\alpha_0^\frac12 \delta_h} d(\lambda,\Lambda_h).
\end{align}
Since, $\Vert a_r\Vert_{(Z\times Z)^{\prime}}=\alpha_0=1$; $\Vert b\Vert_{(Z\times \Lambda)^{\prime}}= \frac{1}{\sqrt{\eta}}$, the result follows. \hfill$\Box$
\begin{remark}
For $r=0$, the discrete mixed formulation (\ref{eq:mfh}) is not well-posed over $Z_h\times \Lambda_h$ because the form $a_{r=0}$ is not coercive over the discrete kernel of $b$: the equality $b(y_h,\lambda_h)=0$ for all $\lambda_h\in \Lambda_h$ does not imply in general that $L y_h$ vanishes. Therefore, the term $r \Vert Ly_h\Vert^2_{X}$, which appears in the Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}_r$, may be understood as a stabilization term: for any $h>0$, it ensures the uniform coercivity of the form $a_r$ and vanishes at the limit in $h$. We also emphasize that this term is not a regularization term as it does not add any regularity on the solution $y_h$.
\end{remark}
Let $n_h=\dim Z_h, m_h=\dim \Lambda_h$ and let the real matrices $A_{r,h}\in \mathbb{R}^{n_h,n_h}$, $B_{h}\in \mathbb{R}^{m_h,n_h}$, $J_h\in \mathbb{R}^{m_h,m_h}$ and $L_h\in \mathbb{R}^{n_h}$ be defined by
\begin{equation}
\label{def_matrix}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
& a_r( y_h, \overline{y_h})= \langle A_{r,h} \{y_h\}, \{\overline{y_h}\} \rangle_{\mathbb{R}^{n_h},\mathbb{R}^{n_h}} & \forall y_h,\overline{y_h}\in Z_h,\\
& b(y_h,\lambda_h)= \langle B_{h} \{y_h\}, \{\lambda_h\} \rangle_{\mathbb{R}^{m_h},\mathbb{R}^{m_h}} & \forall y_h\in Z_h, \lambda_h\in \Lambda_h,\\
& \jnt\!\!\!\!\jnt_{Q_{T}} \lambda_h\overline{\lambda_h}\,dx\,dt= \langle J_h \{\lambda_h\}, \{\overline{\lambda_h}\} \rangle_{\mathbb{R}^{m_h},\mathbb{R}^{m_h}} & \forall \lambda_h,\overline{\lambda_h}\in \Lambda_h, \\
& l(y_h)= \langle L_h,\{y_h\} \rangle_{\mathbb{R}^{n_h}} & \forall y_h\in Z_h,
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
where $\{y_h\}\in \mathbb{R}^{n_h}$ denotes the vector associated to $y_h$ and $\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle_{\mathbb{R}^{n_h},\mathbb{R}^{n_h}}$ the usual scalar product over $\mathbb{R}^{n_h}$. With these notations, the problem (\ref{eq:mfh}) reads as follows: find $\{y_h\}\in \mathbb{R}^{n_h}$ and $\{\lambda_h\}\in \mathbb{R}^{m_h}$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{matrixmfh}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
A_{r,h} & B_h^T \\
B_h & 0
\end{array}
\right)_{\mathbb{R}^{n_h+m_h,n_h+m_h}}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\{y_h\} \\
\{\lambda_h\}
\end{array}
\right)_{\mathbb{R}^{n_h+m_h}} =
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
L_h \\
0
\end{array}
\right)_{\mathbb{R}^{n_h+m_h}}.
\end{equation}
The matrix $A_{r,h}$ as well as the mass matrix $J_h$ are symmetric and positive definite for any $h>0$ and any $r>0$. On the other hand, the matrix of order $m_h+n_h$ in (\ref{matrixmfh}) is symmetric but not positive definite. We use exact integration methods developed in \cite{dunavant} for the evaluation of the coefficients of the matrices. The system (\ref{matrixmfh}) is solved using the direct LU decomposition method.
\subsubsection{$C^1$-finite elements and order of convergence for $N=1$}
The finite dimensional and conformal space $Z_h$ must be chosen such that $Ly_h$ belongs to $X=L^2(0,T; H^{-1}(\Omega))$ for any $y_h\in Z_h$. This is guaranteed, for instance, as soon as $\varphi_h$ possesses second-order derivatives in $L^2_{loc}(Q_T)$. As in \cite{NC-AM-mixedwave}, we consider a conformal approximation based on functions continuously differentiable with respect to both variables $x$ and $t$.
We introduce a triangulation $\mathcal{T}_h$ such that $\overline{Q_T}=\cup_{K\in \mathcal{T}_h} K$ and we assume that $\{\mathcal{T}_h\}_{h>0}$ is a regular family. We note
$
h:=\max\{\textrm{diam}(K), K\in \mathcal{T}_h\},
$
where $\textrm{diam}(K)$ denotes the diameter of $K$. Then, we introduce the space $Z_h$ as follows :
\begin{equation}
Z_h=\{y_h\in Z \subset C^1(\overline{Q_T}): z_h\vert_K\in \mathbb{P}(K) \quad \forall K\in \mathcal{T}_h, \,\, z_h=0 \,\,\textrm{on}\,\,\Sigma_T\}, \label{defZh}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbb{P}(K)$ denotes an appropriate space of functions in $x$ and $t$. In this work, we consider two choices, in the one-dimensional setting (for which $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}$, $Q_T\subset \mathbb{R}^2$):
\begin{enumerate}
\item The \textit{Bogner-Fox-Schmit} (BFS for short) $C^1$-element defined for rectangles. It involves $16$ degrees of freedom, namely the values of $y_h, y_{h,x}, y_{h,t}, y_{h,xt}$ on the four vertices of each rectangle $K$.
Therefore $\mathbb{P}(K)= \mathbb{P}_{3,x}\otimes \mathbb{P}_{3,t}$ where $\mathbb{P}_{r,\xi}$ is by definition the space of polynomial functions of order $r$ in the variable $\xi$. We refer to \cite[ch. II, sec. 9, p. 94]{ciarletfem}.
\item The reduced \textit{Hsieh-Clough-Tocher} (HCT for short) $C^1$-element defined for triangles. This is a so-called composite finite element and involves $9$ degrees of freedom, namely, the values of $y_h,y_{h,x}, y_{h,t}$ on the three vertices of each triangle $K$. We refer to \cite[ch. VII, sec. 46, p. 285]{ciarletfem} and to \cite{bernadouHCT,meyer} where the implementation is discussed.
\end{enumerate}
We also define the finite dimensional space
\[
\Lambda_h=\{\lambda_h\in C^0(\overline{Q_T}), \lambda_h\vert_K\in \mathbb{Q}(K) \quad \forall K\in \mathcal{T}_h \}.
\]
where $\mathbb{Q}(K)$ denotes the space of affine functions both in $x$ and $t$ on the element $K$.
For any $h>0$, we have $Z_h\subset Z$ and $\Lambda_h\subset X^{\prime}$.
We then have the following result:
\begin{proposition}[BFS element for $N=1$ - Rate of convergence for the norm $Z$] \label{propeps0}
Let $h>0$, let $k\in \{1,2\}$ be a positive integer. Let $(y,\lambda)$ and $(y_h,\lambda_h)$ be the solution of (\ref{eq:mf}) and (\ref{eq:mfh}) respectively. If the solution $(y,\lambda)$ belongs to $H^{k+2}(Q_T)\times H^k(Q_T)$, then there exists two positives constants
\[ K_i=K_i(\Vert y\Vert_{H^{k+2}(Q_T)}, \Vert c \Vert_{C^1(\overline{Q_T})},\Vert d \Vert_{L^{\infty}(Q_T)}), \qquad i \in \{ 1,2\},\]
independent of $h$, such that
\begin{align}
\Vert y-y_h \Vert_Z & \leq K_1 \frac{h^{k-1}}{\sqrt{\eta}}\biggl( (\sqrt{\eta}+\frac{1}{\delta_h}) (h^3+\sqrt{\eta} h) + 1 \biggr), \label{eq:yyh0}\\
\Vert \lambda-\lambda_h \Vert_{X^{\prime}} & \leq K_2 \frac{h^{k-1}}{\sqrt{\eta}\delta_h}\biggl( (\sqrt{\eta}+\frac{1}{\delta_h}) (h^3+\sqrt{n}h) + 1 \biggr)\label{eq:llh0}.
\end{align}
\end{proposition}
\par\noindent
\textsc{Proof -}
From \cite[ch. III, sec. 17]{ciarletfem}, for any $\lambda\in H^k(Q_T)$, $k\leq 2$, there exists $C_1=C_1(\Vert \lambda\Vert_{H^k(Q_T)})$
such that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:est0h}
\Vert \lambda-\Pi_{\Lambda_h,\mathcal{T}_h}(\lambda)\Vert_{X^{\prime}} \leq C_1 h^{k-1}, \quad \forall h>0
\end{equation}
where $\Pi_{\Lambda_h,\mathcal{T}_h}$ designates the interpolant operator from $X^{\prime}$ to $\Lambda_h$ associated to the regular mesh $\mathcal{T}_h$.
Similarly, for any $y\in H^{k+2}(Q_T)$, there exist $C_2=C_2(\Vert y\Vert_{H^{k+2}(Q_T)})$ such that for every $h > 0$ we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:est1h}
\Vert y-\Pi_{Z_h,\mathcal{T}_h}(y)\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)} \leq C_2 h^{k+2}, \quad \Vert y-\Pi_{Z_h,\mathcal{T}_h}(y)\Vert_{H^2(Q_T)} \leq C_2 h^k.
\end{equation}
Then, observing that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:est2h}
\Vert Ly-Ly_h\Vert_X \leq K(\Vert c\Vert_{C^1(\overline{Q_T})}, \Vert d\Vert_{L^{\infty}(Q_T)})\Vert y-y_h\Vert_{H^2(Q_T)},
\end{equation}
for some positive constant $K$, we get that
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
d(y,Z_h)&=\inf_{y_h \in Z_h} \left( \|y-y_h\|^2_{L^2(q_T)} + \eta \|Ly - Ly_h\|^2_{X}\right)^2 \\
&\leq C_2 \biggl((h^{k+2}) ^2 + \eta K^2 (h^k)^2\biggr)^{1/2} \\
& \leq C_2 (h^{k+2}+\sqrt{n}K\,h^k)
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:ch}
\end{equation}
and then from Proposition \ref{prop_estimateh_eps0}, we get that
\begin{equation}
\Vert y-y_h \Vert_{Z} \leq 2\biggl(1+\frac{1}{\sqrt{\eta} \delta_h}\biggr)C_2(h^{k+2}+\sqrt{n}K\,h^k)+\frac{1}{\sqrt{\eta}} C_1h^{k-1}.
\end{equation}
Similarly,
\begin{equation*}
\Vert \lambda-\lambda_h \Vert_{X^{\prime}}\leq \biggl(2+\frac{1}{\sqrt{\eta} \delta_h}\biggr)\frac{1}{\delta_h} C_2 (h^{k+2}+\sqrt{n}K\,h^k)+\frac{3}{\sqrt{\eta}\delta_h} C_1h^{k-1}.
\end{equation*}
From the last two estimates, we obtain the conclusion of the proposition.
\hfill$\Box$
It remains now to deduce the convergence of the approximated solution $y_h$ for the $L^2(Q_T)$ norm: this is done using the observability estimate (\ref{iobs}). Precisely, we write that $(y-y_h)$ solves
\begin{equation}
\nonumber
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
& L(y-y_h)=-L y_h \quad \text{in } Q_T \\
& ((y-y_h), (y-y_h)_t)(0) \in \boldsymbol{H} \\
& y-y_h=0 \quad \text{on } \Sigma_T.
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
Therefore using (\ref{estimate_qTQT}), there exists a constant $C(C_{\Omega,T},C_{obs})$ such that
\begin{equation}
\Vert y-y_{h} \Vert^2_{L^2(Q_T)} \leq C(C_{\Omega,T},C_{obs}) ( \Vert y-y_h \Vert^2_{L^2(q_T)} + \Vert L y_h\Vert^2_{X}) \nonumber
\end{equation}
from which we deduce, in view of the definition of the norm $Y$, that
\begin{equation}
\Vert y-y_h \Vert_{L^2(Q_T)} \leq C(C_{\Omega,T},C_{obs}) \max(1,\frac{2}{\sqrt{\eta}}) \Vert y-y_h\Vert_Z. \label{eq:estyL2}
\end{equation}
Eventually, by coupling (\ref{eq:estyL2}) and Proposition \ref{propeps0}, we obtain the following result :
\begin{theorem}[BFS element for $N=1$ - Rate of convergence for the norm $L^2(Q_T)$] \label{theps0}
Assume that the hypothesis \eqref{iobs} holds. Let $h>0$, let $k\in \{1,2\}$ be a positive integer and let $\eta < 1$. Let $(y,\lambda)$ and $(y_h,\lambda_h)$ be the solution of (\ref{eq:mf}) and (\ref{eq:mfh}) respectively. If the solution $(y,\lambda)$ belongs to $H^{k+2}(Q_T)\times H^k(Q_T)$, then there exists two positives constant $K=K(\Vert y\Vert_{H^{k+2}(Q_T)}, \Vert c \Vert_{C^1(\overline{Q_T})},$ $\Vert d \Vert_{L^{\infty}(Q_T)},C_{\Omega,T},C_{obs})$, independent of $h$, such that
\begin{equation}
\Vert y-y_h \Vert_{L^2(Q_T)} \leq K \max(1,\frac{2}{\sqrt{\eta}}) \frac{h^{k-1}}{\sqrt{\eta}}\biggl( (\sqrt{\eta}+\frac{1}{\delta_h}) (h^3+\sqrt{\eta} h) + 1 \biggr). \label{estimate_L2_eps0}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}\label{better_estimate}
Estimate (\ref{estimate_L2_eps0}) is not fully satisfactory as it depends on the constant $\delta_h$.
In view of the complexity of both the constraint $Ly=0$ and of the structure of the space $Z_h$, the theoretical estimation of the constant $\delta_h$ with respect to $h$ is a difficult problem. However, as discussed at length in \cite[Section 2.1]{NC-AM-mixedwave}, $\delta_h$ can be evaluated numerically for any $h$, as the solution of the following generalized eigenvalue problem (taking $\eta=r$, so that $a_r(y,y)$ is exactly $\Vert y \Vert^2_{Z}$):
\begin{equation}\label{eigenvalue}
\delta_h = \inf\biggl\{\sqrt{\delta}: B_h A_{r,h}^{-1} B_h^T \{\lambda_h\} = \delta \,J_h \{\lambda_h\}, \quad \forall\, \{\lambda_h\}\in \mathbb{R}^{m_h}\setminus\{0\}\biggr\}
\end{equation}
where the matrix $A_{r,h}$, $B_h$ and $J_h$ are defined in (\ref{def_matrix}).
Table \ref{tab:infsup} reports the values of $\delta_h$ for $r=1$ and $r=h^{-2}$ for several values of $h$, $T=2$, $\omega=(0.1,0.3)$ and the BFS element.
As in \cite{NC-AM-mixedwave} where the boundary situation is considered with more details, these values suggests that, asymptotically in $h$, the constant $\delta_{r,h}$ behaves like :
\begin{equation}
\delta_{r,h}\approx C_r \frac{1}{\sqrt{r}} \quad \textrm{as} \quad h \to 0^+ \label{behavior_deltah_eps0}
\end{equation}
with $C_r>0$, a uniformly bounded constant w.r.t. $h$.
\begin{table}[http]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|cccc|}
\hline
$h$ & $7.01\times 10^{-2}$ & $3.53\times 10^{-2}$ & $1.76\times 10^{-2}$ & $8.83\times 10^{-3}$ \tabularnewline
\hline
$r=1$ & $3.58$ & $3.48$ & $3.42$ & $3.40$ \tabularnewline
$r=h^{-2}$ & $2.53\times 10^{-1}$ & $1.23\times 10^{-1}$ & $6.05\times 10^{-2}$ & $3.01\times 10^{-2}$ \tabularnewline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{$\varepsilon=0$: $T=2$ - $\delta_{r,h}$ for $r=1$ and $r=h^{-2}$ with respect to $h$. }
\label{tab:infsup}
\end{table}
Consequently, in view of \ref{behavior_deltah_eps0}, the right hand side of the estimate (\ref{estimate_L2_eps0}) of $\Vert y-y_{h}\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}$ behaves, taking $\eta=r$ and $r>1$
so that $\max(1,\frac{1}{\sqrt{r}})=1$, like
$$
\Vert y-y_{h}\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)} \leq K h^{k-1} \biggl(\sqrt{r}h+\frac{1}{\sqrt{r}}\biggr)
$$
and reaches its minimum for $r=1/h$, leading to $\Vert y-y_{h}\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)} \leq K h^{k-1/2}$.
\end{remark}
Eventually, when the space $Z_h$ is based on the HCT element, Theorem \ref{theps0} and Remark \ref{better_estimate} still hold for $k=1$. From \cite[ch. VII, sec. 48, p. 295]{ciarletfem}, we use that, for $k\in \{0,1\}$, there exists a constant $C_2>0$ such
\begin{equation}
\Vert y-\Pi_{Z_h,\mathcal{T}_h}(y)\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)} \leq C_2 h^{k+2}, \quad \Vert y-\Pi_{Z_h,\mathcal{T}_h}(y)\Vert_{H^2(Q_T)} \leq C_2 h^k.
\end{equation}
Then, we use that the error $\Vert y-y_h\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}$ is again controlled by the error on the Lagrange multiplier $\lambda$ through the term $d(\lambda,\Lambda_h)$ in (\ref{eq:est_e01}) to conclude.
\subsection{Numerical approximation of the mixed formulation (\ref{eq:mfalpha})}
We address the numerical approximation of the \textit{stabilized} mixed formulation (\ref{eq:mfalpha}) with $\alpha \in (0,1)$ and $r>0$. Let $h$ be a real parameter.
Let $Z_h$ and $\widetilde\Lambda_h$ be two finite dimensional spaces such that
$$
Z_h\subset Z, \quad \widetilde\Lambda_h\subset \Lambda, \qquad \forall h>0.
$$
The problem (\ref{eq:mfalpha}) becomes : find $(y_{h}, \lambda_{h}) \in Z_h\times \widetilde\Lambda_h$ solution of
\begin{equation} \label{eq:mfalphah}
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
\noalign{\smallskip} a_{r,\alpha}(y_h, \overline{y}_h) + b_{\alpha}( \lambda_h, \overline{y}_h) & = & l_{1,\alpha}(\overline{y}_h), & \qquad \forall \overline{y}_h \in Z_h \\
\noalign{\smallskip} b_{\alpha}( \overline{\lambda}_h, y_h) - c_{\alpha}(\lambda_h,\overline{\lambda}_h)& = & l_{2,\alpha}(\overline{\lambda}_h), & \qquad \forall \overline{\lambda}_h \in \widetilde\Lambda_h,
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
Proceeding as in the proof of \cite[Theorem 5.5.2]{brezzi_new}, we first easily show that the following estimate holds .
\begin{lemma} \label{lemmastab} Let $(y,\lambda)\in Y\times \Lambda$ be the solution of (\ref{eq:mfalpha}) and $(y_h,\lambda_h)\in Z_h\times \widetilde{\Lambda_h}$ be the solution of (\ref{eq:mfalphah}). Then we have,
\begin{align}
\frac{1}{4}\theta_1 \Vert y-y_h\Vert_{Z}^2 + \frac{1}{4}\theta_2 \Vert \lambda-\lambda_h\Vert_{\widetilde\Lambda}^2 \leq & \biggl(\frac{\Vert a_{r,\alpha}\Vert^2}{\alpha_a}+\frac{\Vert b_\alpha\Vert^2}{\alpha_c}+\frac{\theta_1}{2}\biggr) \inf_{\overline{y}_h\in Z_h} \Vert\overline{y}_h-y\Vert_Z^2 \nonumber \\
& + \biggl(\frac{\Vert b_{\alpha}\Vert^2}{\theta_1}+\frac{\alpha^2}{\theta_2}+\frac{\theta_2}{2}\biggr) \inf_{\overline{\lambda}_h\in \widetilde{\Lambda_h}}\Vert \overline{\lambda}_h-\lambda\Vert_{\Lambda}^2
\end{align}
with $\Vert a_{r,\alpha}\Vert\leq \max(1-\alpha, \eta^{-1}r)$, $\Vert b_{\alpha}\Vert\leq \max(\eta^{-1/2},\alpha)$. Parameters $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$ are defined in (\ref{estimate_solalpha}).
\end{lemma}
Concerning the space $\widetilde\Lambda_h$, since $L\lambda_h$ should belong to $L^2(Q_T)$, a natural choice is
\begin{equation}
\widetilde\Lambda_h=\{\lambda\in Z_h; \lambda(\cdot,0)=\lambda_t(\cdot,0)=0\}. \label{choice_lambdah_alpha}
\end{equation}
where $Z_h\subset Z$ is defined by (\ref{defZh}).
Then, using Lemma \ref{lemmastab} and the estimate (\ref{eq:ch}), we obtain the following result.
\begin{proposition}[BFS element for $N=1$ - Rate of convergence - Stabilized formulation]
Let $h>0$, let $k \leq 2$ be a positive integer and let $\alpha\in (0,1)$. Let $(y,\lambda)$ and $(y_h,\lambda_h)$ be the solution of (\ref{eq:mfalpha}) and (\ref{eq:mfalphah}) respectively. If $(y,\lambda)$ belongs to $H^{k+2}(Q_T)\times H^{k+2}(Q_T)$, then there exists a positive constant $K=K(\Vert y\Vert_{H^{k+2}(Q_T)}, \Vert c \Vert_{C^1(\overline{Q_T})},\Vert d \Vert_{L^{\infty}(Q_T)},\alpha,r,\eta)$ independent of $h$, such that
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\Vert y-y_h \Vert_Z + \Vert \lambda-\lambda_h \Vert_{\Lambda} \leq K h^k.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
In particular, arguing as in the previous section, we get
\begin{theorem}[Rate of convergence for the norm $L^2(Q_T)$ Stabilized formulation]
Assume that the hypothesis \eqref{iobs} holds. Let $h>0$, let an integer $k\leq 2$. Let $(y,\lambda)$ and $(y_{h},\lambda_{h})$ be the solution of (\ref{eq:mfalpha}) and (\ref{eq:mfalphah}) respectively. If the solution $(y, \lambda)$ belongs to $H^{k+2}(Q_T)\times H^{k+2}(Q_T)$, then there exist a positive constant $K=K(\Vert y\Vert_{H^{k+2}(Q_T)}, \Vert \lambda\Vert_{H^{k+2}(Q_T)}, \Vert c \Vert_{C^1(\overline{Q_T})},\Vert d \Vert_{L^{\infty}(Q_T)},\alpha,r,\eta)$ independent of $h$ such that
\begin{equation}
\Vert y-y_h\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)} \leq K \frac{h^k}{\sqrt{\eta}}.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\section{Numerical experiments}\label{sec_experiment}
We now report and discuss some numerical experiments corresponding to mixed formulation (\ref{eq:mfh}) and (\ref{eq:mfalphah}) for $N=1$ and $N=2$.
\subsection{One dimensional case ($N = 1$)}
We take $\Omega=(0,1)$. In order to check the convergence of the method, we consider explicit solutions of (\ref{eq:wave}). We define the smooth initial condition (see \cite{cindea_moireau}):
\begin{equation}
\nonumber
(\textbf{EX1})\quad
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
& y_0(x)=16x^2(1-x)^2, \\
& y_1(x)= (3x-4x^3)\, 1_{(0,0.5)}(x) + (4x^3-12x^2+9x-1)\, 1_{(0.5,1)}(x),
\end{aligned}
x\in (0,1)
\right.
\end{equation}
and $f=0$. The corresponding solution of (\ref{eq:wave}) with $c\equiv 1, d\equiv 0$ is given by
$$
y(x,t)=\sum_{k>0} \biggl(a_k \cos(k\pi t) + \frac{b_k}{k\pi}\sin(k\pi t)\biggr) \sqrt{2} \sin(k\pi x)
$$
with
$$
a_k=\frac{32\sqrt{2}(\pi^2k^2-12)}{\pi^5 k^5} ((-1)^k-1), \quad b_k=\frac{48\sqrt{2}\sin(\pi k/2)}{\pi^4 k^4}, \quad k>0.
$$
We also define the initial data in $H_0^1(\Omega)\times L^2(\Omega)$
\begin{equation}
\nonumber
(\textbf{EX2}) \quad
y_0(x)=1-\vert 2x-1\vert, \quad y_1(x)= 1_{(1/3,2/3)}(x), \qquad x\in (0,1)
\end{equation}
for which the Fourier coefficients are
$$
a_k=\frac{4\sqrt{2}}{\pi^2 k^2} \sin(\pi k/2), \quad b_k= \frac{1}{\pi k}(\cos(\pi k/3)-\cos(2\pi k/3)), \quad k>0.
$$
\subsubsection{The cylindrical case: $q_T=\omega\times (0,T)$}
\label{sec:eps0}
We consider the case $\varepsilon=0$ described in Section \ref{recovering_y}. We take $\omega=(0.1,0.3)$ and $T=2$ for which the inequality (\ref{iobs}) holds true.
We consider the BFS finite element with uniform triangulation (each element $K$ of the triangulation $\mathcal{T}_h$ is a rectangle of lengths $\Delta x$ and $\Delta t$ so that $h=\sqrt{(\Delta x)^2+(\Delta t)^2}$). We recall that the direct method amounts to solve, for any $h$, the linear system (\ref{matrixmfh}). We use the LU decomposition method. Table \ref{tab:ex1_T2} collects some norms with respect to $h$ for the initial data (\textbf{EX1}) for $r=1$ and for $\Delta x=\Delta t$. We observe a linear convergence for the variables $y_h$, $\lambda_h$ for the $L^2$-norm:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\Vert y-y_h\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}}{\Vert y\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}}=\mathcal{O}(h^{1.03}), \quad \frac{\Vert y-y_h\Vert_{L^2(q_T)}}{\Vert y\Vert_{L^2(q_T)}}=\mathcal{O}(h^{0.98}), \quad \Vert \lambda_h\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}=\mathcal{O}(h^{0.98}).
\end{equation}
In agreement with Remark \ref{rk_lambda_sys}, since $y_{obs}$ is by construction the restriction to $q_T$ of a solution of (\ref{eq:wave}), the sequence $\lambda_h$, approximation of $\lambda$, vanishes as $h\to 0$.
The $L^2$-norm of $Ly_h$ do also converges to $0$ with $h$, with a lower rate:
\begin{equation}
\Vert L y_h\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}=\mathcal{O}(h^{0.71}).
\end{equation}
\begin{table}[http]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|ccccc|}
\hline
$h$ & $7.01\times 10^{-2}$ & $3.53\times 10^{-2}$ & $1.76\times 10^{-2}$ & $8.83\times 10^{-3}$ & $4.42\times 10^{-3}$ \tabularnewline
\hline
$\frac{\Vert y-y_h\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}}{\Vert y\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}}$ & $9.55\times 10^{-2}$ & $4.58\times 10^{-2}$ & $2.24\times 10^{-2}$ & $1.10\times 10^{-2}$ & $5.52\times 10^{-3}$\tabularnewline
$\frac{\Vert y-y_h\Vert_{L^2(q_T)}}{\Vert y\Vert_{L^2(q_T)}}$ & $8.35\times 10^{-2}$ & $4.28\times 10^{-2}$ & $2.16\times 10^{-2}$ & $1.09\times 10^{-2}$ & $5.51\times 10^{-3}$ \tabularnewline
$\Vert L y_h\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}$ & $5.62\times 10^{-3}$ & $3.21\times 10^{-3}$ & $1.78\times 10^{-3}$ & $9.99\times 10^{-4}$ & $8.54\times 10^{-4}$\tabularnewline
$\Vert \lambda_h\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}$ & $2.67\times 10^{-5}$ & $1.37\times 10^{-5}$ & $6.89\times 10^{-6}$ & $3.44\times 10^{-6}$ & $1.76\times 10^{-6}$\tabularnewline
$\kappa$ & $1.4\times 10^{10}$ & $4.6\times 10^{11}$ & $1.3\times 10^{13}$ & $4.2\times 10^{14}$ & $1.3\times 10^{16}$ \tabularnewline
card($\{\lambda_h\}$) & $861$ & $3\ 321$ & $13\ 041$ & $51\ 681$ & $205\ 761$\tabularnewline
$\sharp$ \textrm{CG iterates} & $27$ & $42$ & $70$ & $96$ & $90$\tabularnewline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Example \textbf{EX1} - $r=1$ - $T=2$ - $\Vert y\Vert_{L^2(q_T)}=5.95\times 10^{-2}$ - $\Vert y\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}=1.59\times 10^{-1}$.}
\label{tab:ex1_T2}
\end{table}
We also check that the minimization of the functional $J^{\star\star}_r$ introduced in Proposition \ref{prop_equiv_dual} leads exactly to the same result: we recall that the minimization of the functional $J^{\star\star}_r$ corresponds to the resolution of the associate mixed formulation by an iterative Uzawa type method. The minimization is done using a conjugate gradient algorithm ( we refer to \cite[Section 2.2]{NC-AM-mixedwave} for the algorithm). Each iteration amounts to solve a linear system involving the matrix $A_{r,h}$ which is sparse, symmetric and positive definite. The Cholesky method is used. The performance of the algorithm depends on the conditioning number of the operator $\mathcal{P}_r$: precisely, it is known that (see for instance \cite{Daniel1971}),
\[
\Vert \lambda^n-\lambda\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)} \leq 2\sqrt{\nu(\mathcal{P}_r)} \biggl(\frac{\sqrt{\nu(\mathcal{P}_r)}-1}{\sqrt{\nu(\mathcal{P}_r)}+1} \biggr)^n \Vert \lambda^0-\lambda\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}, \quad \forall n\geq 1
\]
where $\lambda$ minimizes $J_r^{\star\star}$. $\nu(\mathcal{P}_r)=\Vert \mathcal{P}_r\Vert \Vert \mathcal{P}_r^{-1}\Vert$ denotes the condition number of the operator $\mathcal{P}_r$. As discussed in \cite[Section 4.4]{NC-AM-mixedwave}, the conditioning number of $\mathcal{P}_r$ restricted to $\Lambda_h\subset L^2(Q_T)$ behaves asymptotically as $C_r^{-2}h^{-2}$. Table \ref{tab:ex1_T2} reports the number of iterations of the algorithm, initiated with $\lambda^0=0$ in $Q_T$. We take $\epsilon=10^{-10}$ as a stopping threshold for the algorithm (the algorithm is stopped as soon as the norm of the residue $g^n$ given here by $Ly^n$ satisfies $\Vert g^n\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}\leq 10^{-10} \Vert g^0\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}$).
Table \ref{tab:ex1_T2} reports the number of iterates to reach convergence, with respect to $h$. We observe that this number is sub-linear with respect to $h$, precisely, with respect to the dimension $m_h=card(\{\lambda_h\})$ of the approximated problems. This renders this method very attractive from a numerical point of view.
From Remark \ref{FVeps}, we also check the convergence w.r.t. $h$ when we assume from the beginning that the multiplier $\lambda$ vanishes (see Table \ref{tab:ex1_T2_lambda}). This amounts to minimize the functional $J_r$
given by (\ref{def_Jyr}) or, equivalently, to perform exactly one iteration of the conjugate gradient algorithm we have just discussed. With $r=1$, we observe a weaker convergence :
\begin{equation}
\frac{\Vert y-y_h\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}}{\Vert y\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}}=\mathcal{O}(h^{0.574}), \quad \frac{\Vert y-y_h\Vert_{L^2(q_T)}}{\Vert y\Vert_{L^2(q_T)}}=\mathcal{O}(h^{0.94}).
\end{equation}
This example illustrates that the convergence of $Ly_h$ to $0$ in the norm $L^2(0,T,H^{-1}(0,1))$ is enough here to guarantee the convergence of the approximation $y_h$: we get
that $h \Vert L y_h\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)} \approx \Vert L y_h\Vert_{L^2(0,T; H^{-1}(0,1)}=\mathcal{O}(h^{0.3})$ while $\Vert L y_h\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}$ slightly increases. Obviously, in this specific situation, a larger $r$ (acting as a penalty term) independent of $h$ yields a lower $\Vert Ly_h\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}$ norm.
\begin{table}[http]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|ccccc|}
\hline
$h$ & $7.01\times 10^{-2}$ & $3.53\times 10^{-2}$ & $1.76\times 10^{-2}$ & $8.83\times 10^{-3}$ & $4.42\times 10^{-3}$ \tabularnewline
\hline $\frac{\Vert y-y_h\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}}{\Vert y\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}}$ & $9.74\times 10^{-2}$ & $4.90\times 10^{-2}$ & $2.84\times 10^{-2}$ & $2.16\times 10^{-2}$ & $2.01\times 10^{-2}$\tabularnewline
$\frac{\Vert y-y_h\Vert_{L^2(q_T)}}{\Vert y\Vert_{L^2(q_T)}}$ & $8.35\times 10^{-2}$ & $4.28\times 10^{-2}$ & $2.18\times 10^{-2}$ & $1.12\times 10^{-2}$ & $6.21\times 10^{-3}$\tabularnewline
$\Vert L y_h\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}$ & $7.72\times 10^{-3}$ & $1.11\times 10^{-2}$ & $2.01\times 10^{-2}$ & $3.40\times 10^{-2}$ & $4.79\times 10^{-2}$\tabularnewline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Example \textbf{EX1} - $r=1$ - $T=2$ - $\lambda$ fixed to zero.}
\label{tab:ex1_T2_lambda}
\end{table}
On the contrary, we check that the convergence to $0$ of $\Vert y-y_h\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}$ is lost when the inequality (\ref{iobs}) is not satisfied: Table \ref{tab:ex1_T1} collects the norms w.r.t. $h$ for the same data except the value $T=1$ (for which the uniqueness of the solution is lost): we observe that $\Vert y-y_h\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}$ increases as $h\to 0$.
As an illustration of the loss of uniqueness, these value also yields to a larger conditioning number $\kappa$ of the matrix $A_{r,h}$.
\begin{table}[http]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|ccccc|}
\hline
$h$ & $7.01\times 10^{-2}$ & $3.53\times 10^{-2}$ & $1.76\times 10^{-2}$ & $8.83\times 10^{-3}$ & $4.42\times 10^{-3}$ \tabularnewline
\hline
$\frac{\Vert y-y_h\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}}{\Vert y\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}}$ & $1.21\times 10^{-1}$ & $1.08\times 10^{-1}$ & $1.34\times 10^{-1}$ & $2.42\times 10^{-1}$ & $5.19\times 10^{-1}$\tabularnewline
$\frac{\Vert y-y_h\Vert_{L^2(q_T)}}{\Vert y\Vert_{L^2(q_T)}}$ & $8.40\times 10^{-2}$ & $4.34\times 10^{-2}$ & $2.22\times 10^{-2}$ & $1.12\times 10^{-2}$ & $5.62\times 10^{-3}$\tabularnewline
$\Vert L y_h\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}$ & $5.62\times 10^{-2}$ & $2.77\times 10^{-2}$ & $2.63\times 10^{-2}$ & $2.25\times 10^{-2}$ & $2.15\times 10^{-2}$\tabularnewline
$\Vert \lambda_h\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}$ & $1.84\times 10^{-5}$ & $9.48\times 10^{-6}$ & $4.76\times 10^{-6}$ & $2.38\times 10^{-6}$ & $1.19\times 10^{-6}$\tabularnewline
$\kappa$ & $1.2\times 10^{11}$ & $9.8\times 10^{12}$ & $1.1\times 10^{15}$ & $1.5\times 10^{17}$ & $2.7\times 10^{19}$ \tabularnewline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Example \textbf{EX1} - $r=1$ - $T=1$ - $\Vert y_{ex}\Vert_{L^2(q_T)}=4.21\times 10^{-2}$ - $\Vert y_{ex}\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}=1.12\times 10^{-1}$.}
\label{tab:ex1_T1}
\end{table}
Similar conclusions hold with the less regular initial data (\textbf{EX2}). Numerical results are reported in Table \ref{tab:ex2_T2}. We still observe a linear convergence w.r.t. $h$ of
$\Vert y-y_h\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}$, $\Vert y-y_h\Vert_{L^2(q_T)}$ and $\Vert \lambda_h\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}$. One notable difference is that the convergence rate is weaker for the norm $\Vert L y_h\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}$:
\begin{equation}
\Vert L y_h\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}=\mathcal{O}(h^{0.123}).
\end{equation}
Again, this is enough to guarantee the convergence of $y_h$ toward a solution of the wave equation: recall that then $\Vert L y_h\Vert_{L^2(0,T;H^{-1}(0,1))}=\mathcal{O}(h^{1.123})$.
We also observe that the number of iterates in the $CG$ algorithm remains largely sub-linear but is slightly larger: precisely, we have $\sharp$ iter $=\mathcal{O}(h^{-0.71})$.
Table \ref{tab:ex2_T1} illustrates the case $T=1$ while Table \ref{tab:ex2_T2_lambda} illustrates the minimization of $J_r$ (see \ref{def_Jyr}), both for $r=1$.
\begin{table}[http]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|ccccc|}
\hline
$h$ & $7.01\times 10^{-2}$ & $3.53\times 10^{-2}$ & $1.76\times 10^{-2}$ & $8.83\times 10^{-3}$ & $4.42\times 10^{-3}$ \tabularnewline
\hline
$\frac{\Vert y-y_h\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}}{\Vert y\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}}$ & $1.01\times 10^{-1}$ & $4.81\times 10^{-2}$ & $2.34\times 10^{-2}$ & $1.15\times 10^{-2}$ & $5.68\times 10^{-3}$\tabularnewline
$\frac{\Vert y-y_h\Vert_{L^2(q_T)}}{\Vert y\Vert_{L^2(q_T)}}$ & $1.34\times 10^{-1}$ & $5.05\times 10^{-2}$ & $2.37\times 10^{-2}$ & $1.16\times 10^{-2}$ & $5.80\times 10^{-3}$\tabularnewline
$\Vert L y_h\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}$ & $7.18\times 10^{-2}$ & $6.59\times 10^{-2}$ & $6.11\times 10^{-2}$ & $5.55\times 10^{-2}$ & $5.10\times 10^{-2}$\tabularnewline
$\Vert \lambda_h\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}$ & $1.07\times 10^{-4}$ & $4.70\times 10^{-5}$ & $2.32\times 10^{-5}$ & $1.15\times 10^{-5}$ & $5.76\times 10^{-6}$\tabularnewline
$\sharp$ \textrm{CG iterates} & $29$ & $46$ & $83$ & $133$ & $201$\tabularnewline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Example \textbf{EX2} - $r=1$ - $T=2$ - $\Vert y\Vert_{L^2(q_T)}=1.56\times 10^{-1}$ - $\Vert y\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}=4.14\times 10^{-1}$.}
\label{tab:ex2_T2}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[http]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|ccccc|}
\hline
$h$ & $7.01\times 10^{-2}$ & $3.53\times 10^{-2}$ & $1.76\times 10^{-2}$ & $8.83\times 10^{-3}$ & $4.42\times 10^{-3}$ \tabularnewline
\hline
$\frac{\Vert y-y_h\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}}{\Vert y\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}}$ & $2.74\times 10^{-1}$ & $4.15\times 10^{-1}$ & $6.30\times 10^{-1}$ & $1.21$ & $2.62$\tabularnewline
$\frac{\Vert y-y_h\Vert_{L^2(q_T)}}{\Vert y\Vert_{L^2(q_T)}}$ & $1.37\times 10^{-1}$ & $5.76\times 10^{-2}$ & $2.89\times 10^{-2}$ & $2.41\times 10^{-2}$ & $7.76\times 10^{-3}$\tabularnewline
$\Vert L y_h\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}$ & $5.97\times 10^{-2}$ & $4.96\times 10^{-2}$ & $4.96\times 10^{-2}$ & $4.52\times 10^{-2}$ & $4.21\times 10^{-2}$\tabularnewline
$\Vert \lambda_h\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}$ & $4.97\times 10^{-5}$ & $2.32\times 10^{-5}$ & $1.15\times 10^{-5}$ & $5.76\times 10^{-5}$ & $2.87\times 10^{-6}$\tabularnewline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Example \textbf{EX2} - $r=1$ - $T=1$ - $\Vert y\Vert_{L^2(q_T)}=1.104\times 10^{-1}$ - $\Vert y\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}=2.93\times 10^{-1}$.}
\label{tab:ex2_T1}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[http]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|ccccc|}
\hline
$h$ & $7.01\times 10^{-2}$ & $3.53\times 10^{-2}$ & $1.76\times 10^{-2}$ & $8.83\times 10^{-3}$ & $4.42\times 10^{-3}$ \tabularnewline
\hline
$\frac{\Vert y-y_h\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}}{\Vert y\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}}$ & $1.02\times 10^{-1}$ & $5.27\times 10^{-2}$ & $3.18\times 10^{-2}$ & $2.48\times 10^{-2}$ & $2.25\times 10^{-2}$\tabularnewline
$\frac{\Vert y-y_h\Vert_{L^2(q_T)}}{\Vert y\Vert_{L^2(q_T)}}$ & $1.34\times 10^{-1}$ & $5.06\times 10^{-2}$ & $2.37\times 10^{-2}$ & $1.21\times 10^{-2}$ & $6.65\times 10^{-3}$\tabularnewline
$\Vert L y_h\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}$ & $7.43\times 10^{-2}$ & $7.43\times 10^{-2}$ & $8.65\times 10^{-2}$ & $1.10\times 10^{-1}$ & $1.37\times 10^{-2}$\tabularnewline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Example \textbf{EX2} - $r=1$ - $T=2$ - $\lambda$ fixed to zero.}
\label{tab:ex2_T2_lambda}
\end{table}
We end this section with some numerical results for the stabilized mixed formulation (\ref{eq:mfalphah}). The main difference is that the multiplier $\lambda$
is approximated in a much richer space $\widetilde\Lambda_h$ (see \ref{choice_lambdah_alpha}) leading to larger linear system. Table \ref{tab:ex2_T2_stab}
consider the case of the example \textbf{EX2} with $T=2$ and $\alpha=1/2$. In order to compare with the formulation (\ref{eq:mfh}), we take again $r=1$. We observe the convergence w.r.t $h$ and obtain slightly better rates and constants than in Table \ref{tab:ex2_T2}: in particular, we have $\Vert y-y_h\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)} / \Vert y\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)} =\mathcal{O}(h^{1.10})$.
This is partially due to the fact that the space $\widetilde{\Lambda}_h$ used for the variable $\lambda_h$ in (\ref{eq:mfalphah}) is richer than the space $\Lambda_h$ used in (\ref{eq:mfh}). However, for $\alpha=0$ leading to the non stabilized mixed formulation, the space $\widetilde{\Lambda}_h$
is too rich and produce poor result, while we obtain very similar results for any values of $\alpha$ in $(0,1]$. Finally, we also check that - in contrast with the mixed formulation (\ref{eq:mfh}) - the positive parameter $r$ does not affect the numerical results.
\begin{table}[http]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|ccccc|}
\hline
$h$ & $7.01\times 10^{-2}$ & $3.53\times 10^{-2}$ & $1.76\times 10^{-2}$ & $8.83\times 10^{-3}$ & $4.42\times 10^{-3}$ \tabularnewline
\hline
$\frac{\Vert y-y_h\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}}{\Vert y\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}}$ & $8.48\times 10^{-2}$ & $4.01\times 10^{-2}$ & $1.85\times 10^{-2}$ & $8.66\times 10^{-3}$ & $4.01\times 10^{-3}$\tabularnewline
$\frac{\Vert y-y_h\Vert_{L^2(q_T)}}{\Vert y\Vert_{L^2(q_T)}}$ & $2.80\times 10^{-1}$ & $7.26\times 10^{-2}$ & $2.61\times 10^{-2}$ & $1.12\times 10^{-2}$ & $5.05\times 10^{-3}$ \tabularnewline
$\Vert L y_h\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}$ & $7.25\times 10^{-2}$ & $6.59\times 10^{-2}$ & $6.16\times 10^{-2}$ & $5.58\times 10^{-2}$ & $5.08\times 10^{-2}$\tabularnewline
$\Vert \lambda_h\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}$ & $4.11\times 10^{-3}$ & $2.04\times 10^{-3}$ & $1.49\times 10^{-3}$ & $1.01\times 10^{-3}$ & $7.37\times 10^{-4}$\tabularnewline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Example \textbf{EX2} - $r=1$ - $T=2$ - $\alpha=1/2$ - $\Vert y\Vert_{L^2(q_T)}=5.95\times 10^{-2}$ - $\Vert y\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}=1.59\times 10^{-1}$.}
\label{tab:ex2_T2_stab}
\end{table}
We also emphasize that this variational method which requires a finite element discretization of the time-space $Q_T$ is particularly well-adapted to mesh optimization. Still for the example \textbf{EX2}, Figure \ref{fig:adapt} depicts a sequence of four distinct meshes of $Q_T=(0,1)\times (0,T)$: the sequence is initiated with a coarse and regularly distributed mesh. The three other meshes are successively obtained by local refinement based on the norm of the gradient of $y_h$ on each triangle of $\mathcal{T}_h$. As expected, the refinement is concentrated around the lines of singularity of $y_h$ travelling in $Q_T$, generated by the singularity of the initial position $y_0$. The four meshes contain $792, 2\ 108, 7\ 902$ and $14\ 717$ triangles respectively (see Table \ref{tab:adapt}). The results obtained using the reduced HCT finite element are reported in Table \ref{tab:adapt}.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{F1} & \hspace{1cm}\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{F2} \\
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{F3} & \hspace{1cm}\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{F4}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Iterative refinement of the triangular mesh over $Q_T$ with respect to the variable $y$.}
\label{fig:adapt}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|cccc|}
\hline
Mesh number & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \tabularnewline
\hline
$\sharp$ elements & $792$ & $2\ 108$ & $7\ 902$ & $14\ 717$ \tabularnewline
$\sharp$ points & $429$ & $1\ 101$ & $4\ 041$ & $7\ 462$ \tabularnewline
$\frac{\Vert y-y_h\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}}{\Vert y\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}}$ & $1.34 \times 10^{-2}$ & $8.69 \times 10^{-3}$ & $6.01 \times 10^{-3}$ & $5.9 \times 10^{-3}$ \tabularnewline
$\Vert\lambda \Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}$ & $1.14 \times 10^{-5}$ & $7.99 \times 10^{-6}$ & $5.02 \times 10^{-6}$ & $4.79 \times 10^{-6}$\tabularnewline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Example \textbf{(EX2)} - Information concerning the meshes and approximation errors for mesh adaptation strategy.}
\label{tab:adapt}
\end{table}
\subsubsection{The non-cylindrical case}
We numerically illustrate the reconstruction of the state of the wave equation \eqref{eq:wave} from measurements $y_{obs}$ which are available in domains $q_T \subset Q_T$ non-constant in time (considered recently in \cite{CC-NC-AM} in a controllability context). Time dependent domains also appears for time under sampled observations (or measurements): we refer to \cite{cindea_imperiale_moireau}. In what follows we take $T = 2$ and $q_T$ to be one of the two following domains:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:qTvar1}
q_{T}^1 := \left\{
(x, t) \in Q_T \text{ such that } \left| x - \frac{3t}{5T} - \frac{1}{5}\right| < \frac{1}{10} \text{ for every } t \in (0, T)
\right\},
\end{equation}
\begin{align} \nonumber
q_T^2 := & \left( \frac{1}{10}, \frac{2}{10}\right) \times \left(0, \frac{T}{4}\right) \bigcup \left( \frac{1}{2}, \frac{7}{10}\right) \times \left(\frac{T}{4}, \frac{T}{2}\right) \\
\label{eq:qTvar2}
& \bigcup \left( \frac{1}{5}, \frac{2}{5}\right) \times \left(\frac{T}{2}, \frac{3T}{4}\right) \bigcup \left( \frac{7}{10}, \frac{9}{10}\right) \times \left(\frac{3T}{4}, T\right).
\end{align}
These two pairs $(T,q^i_T)$ $i=1,2$ satisfy the standard geometric optic condition: therefore, using \cite{CC-NC-AM}, Proposition 2.1, inequality (\ref{iobs}) holds true. Both domains $q_T^1$ and $q_T^2$ are displayed in Figure \ref{fig:qTvar} with the coarsest of the meshes that are used for the numerical experiments in this section.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\includegraphics[width=0.28\textwidth]{domainVar1} & \qquad &
\includegraphics[width=0.28\textwidth]{domainVar2} \\
(a) & &(b)
\end{tabular}
\caption{Domain $q_T^1$ (a) and domain $q_T^2$ (b) triangulated using some coarse meshes.}
\label{fig:qTvar}
\end{figure}
We consider five levels of regular triangular meshes and use the reduced Hsieh-Clough-Tocher finite element.
We illustrate our method on the reconstruction of the solution of the wave equation corresponding to initial data \textbf{(EX2)} considered in Section \ref{sec:eps0}.
Since domains $q_T^1$ and $q_T^2$ satisfy the geometric optic condition, we obtain similar results as in the case $q_T = \omega \times (0, T)$ studied in the previous section. More precisely, these results are reported in Table \ref{tab:ex2_T2_qT1} and Table \ref{tab:ex2_T2_qT2} for domain $q_T^1$ and $q_T^2$ respectively.
\begin{table}[http]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|ccccc|}
\hline
$h$ & $7.18 \times 10^{-2}$ & $3.59 \times 10^{-2}$ & $1.79 \times 10^{-2}$ & $9 \times 10^{-3}$ & $4.5 \times 10^{-3}$ \tabularnewline
\hline
$\frac{\Vert y-y_h\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}}{\Vert y\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}}$ & $ 2.02\times 10^{-2} $ & $ 7.83\times 10^{-3} $ & $ 3.32\times 10^{-3} $ & $ 1.36\times 10^{-3} $ & $ 6.27\times 10^{-4} $\tabularnewline
$\frac{\Vert y-y_h\Vert_{L^2(q_T)}}{\Vert y\Vert_{L^2(q_T)}}$ & $ 1.85\times 10^{-2} $ & $ 6.69\times 10^{-3} $ & $ 2.40\times 10^{-3} $ & $ 1.03\times 10^{-3} $ & $ 4.56\times 10^{-4} $\tabularnewline
$\Vert L y_h\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}$ & $ 3.41 $ & $ 3.78 $ & $ 4.15 $ & $ 4.47 $ & $ 4.76 $ \tabularnewline
$\Vert \lambda_h\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}$ & $ 1.97\times 10^{-5} $ & $ 7.03\times 10^{-6} $ & $ 1.70\times 10^{-6} $ & $ 4.14\times 10^{-7} $ & $ 1.10\times 10^{-7} $\tabularnewline
$\kappa$ & $ 1.18\times 10^{8} $ & $ 1.84\times 10^{9} $ & $ 1.61\times 10^{10} $ & $ 1.75\times 10^{11} $ & $ 1.38\times 10^{12} $ \tabularnewline
$\text{card}(\{ \lambda_h \})$ & $ 429 $ & $ 1\ 633 $ & $ 6\ 369 $ & $ 25\ 153 $ & $ 99\ 969 $ \tabularnewline
$\sharp$ \textrm{CG iterates} & $108$ & $206$ & $392$ & $954$ & $2\ 009$\tabularnewline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Observation domain $q_T^1$. Example \textbf{EX2} - $r=1$ - $T=2$ - $\Vert y\Vert_{L^2(q_T)}=2.75\times 10^{-1}$ - $\Vert y\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}=5.87\times 10^{-1}$.}
\label{tab:ex2_T2_qT1}
\end{table}
Remark that the number of iterations needed for the conjugate gradient algorithm in order to achieve a residual smaller than $10^{-10}$ when we minimize the functional $J^{\star\star}$ over $\Lambda_h$ is slightly larger than in the situations described in the previous section.
\begin{table}[http]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|ccccc|}
\hline
$h$ & $6.24 \times 10^{-2}$ & $3.12 \times 10^{-2}$ & $1.56 \times 10^{-2}$ & $7.8 \times 10^{-3}$ & $3.9 \times 10^{-3}$ \tabularnewline
\hline
$\frac{\Vert y-y_h\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}}{\Vert y\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}}$ & $ 1.38\times 10^{-2} $ & $ 6.37\times 10^{-3} $ & $ 2.64\times 10^{-3} $ & $ 1.15\times 10^{-3} $ & $ 5.25\times 10^{-4} $ \tabularnewline
$\frac{\Vert y-y_h\Vert_{L^2(q_T)}}{\Vert y\Vert_{L^2(q_T)}}$ & $ 1.27\times 10^{-2} $ & $ 4.79\times 10^{-3} $ & $ 2.02\times 10^{-3} $ & $ 9.11\times 10^{-4} $ & $ 4.29\times 10^{-4} $ \tabularnewline
$\Vert L y_h\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}$ & $ 3.86 $ & $ 3.45 $ & $ 3.36 $ & $ 3.85 $ & $ 4.16 $ \tabularnewline
$\Vert \lambda_h\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}$ & $ 6.37\times 10^{-6} $ & $ 1.65 \times 10^{-6} $ & $ 3.88\times 10^{-7} $ & $ 9.74\times 10^{-8} $ & $ 2.90\times 10^{-8} $ \tabularnewline
$\kappa$ & $ 2.02\times 10^{8} $ & $ 2.62\times 10^{9} $ & $ 2.05\times 10^{10} $ & $ 1.61\times 10^{11} $ & $ 1.32\times 10^{12} $ \tabularnewline
$\text{card}(\{ \lambda_h \})$ & $ 554 $ & $ 2\ 135 $ & $ 8\ 381 $ & $ 33\ 209 $ & $ 132\ 209 $\tabularnewline
$\sharp$ \textrm{CG iterates} & $141$ & $331$ & $720$ & $1\ 446$ & $3\ 318$\tabularnewline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Observation domain $q_T^2$. Example \textbf{EX2} - $r=1$ - $T=2$ - $\Vert y\Vert_{L^2(q_T)}=2.75\times 10^{-1}$ - $\Vert y\Vert_{L^2(Q_T)}=5.87\times 10^{-1}$.}
\label{tab:ex2_T2_qT2}
\end{table}
The exact solution $y$ corresponding to initial data \textbf{(EX2)} is displayed in Figure \ref{fig:ex_vs_R} (a) using the third mesh of the domain in Figure \ref{fig:qTvar} (b).
Figure \ref{fig:ex_vs_R} (b) illustrates the solution $y_h$ of the mixed formulation \eqref{eq:mfh}, where the observation $y_{obs}$ is obtained as the restriction of $y$ to $q_T^2$.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{yEx} &
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{yR} \\
(a) & (b)
\end{tabular}
\caption{Example \textbf{(EX2)} (a) Reference solution. (b) Solution reconstructed from the observation $y_{obs} = y|_{q_T^2}$.}
\label{fig:ex_vs_R}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Two-dimensional space case ($N = 2$)}
We now illustrate the method introduced in Section \ref{recovering_y} in the two-dimensional case. The procedure is similar but a bit more involved on a computational point of view, since $Q_T$ is now a subset of $\mathbb{R}^3$.
In order to approach the mixed-formulation \eqref{eq:mf}, we consider a mesh $\mathcal{T}_h$ of the domain $Q_T = \Omega \times (0,T)$ formed by triangular prisms. This mesh is obtained by extrapolating along the time axis a triangulation of the spatial domain $\Omega$. For an example in the case $\Omega=(0,1)^2$ and $T=2$ see Figure \ref{fig:mesh} (b) and for an example in the case of non-rectangular domains $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^2$ see Figure \ref{fig:heart} (b). For both examples, the extrapolation along the the time axis is uniform : the height of the prismatic elements $\Delta t$ is constant.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{square} &\qquad&
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{mesh.pdf} \\
(a) && (b)
\end{tabular}
\caption{(a) Example of sets $\Omega$ and $\omega$. (b) Example of mesh for $\Omega=(0,1)^2$ and $T = 2$.}
\label{fig:mesh}
\end{figure}
Let $Z_h$ be the finite dimensional space defined as follows
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Yh}
Z_h = \left\{
\begin{array}{l|l}
\varphi_h = \psi(x_1, x_2) \theta(t) \in C^1(Q_T) & \psi|_{K_{x_1x_2}} \in \mathbb{P}(K_{xy}), \theta|_{K_t} \in \mathbb{Q}(K_t) \\
\varphi_h = 0 \text{ on } \Sigma_T & \text {for every } K = K_{x_1x_2} \times K_t \in \mathcal{T}_h.
\end{array}
\right\},
\end{equation}
$\mathbb{P}(K_{x_1x_2})$ is the space of functions corresponding to the reduced {\em Hsieh-Clough-Tocher} (HCT for short) $C^1$-element recalled in Section 4.1.1; $\mathbb{Q}(K_t)$ is a space of degree three polynomials on the interval $K_t$ of the form $[t_j,t_{j+1}]$ defined uniquely by their value and the value of their first derivative at the point $t_j$ and $t_{j+1}$. In other words, $Y_h$ is the finite element space obtained as a tensorial product between the reduced HCT finite element and cubic Hermite finite element.
We check that on each element $K=K_{x_1x_2}\times K_t$, the function $\varphi_h$ is
determined uniquely in term of the values of $\Sigma_K:=\{\varphi(a_i),\varphi_{x_1}(a_i),\varphi_{x_2}(a_i),\varphi_t(a_i),\varphi_{x_1,t}(a_i),\varphi_{x_2,t}(a_i), i=1,\cdots,6\}$ at the six nodes $a_i$ of $K$. Therefore, $\dim \Sigma_K=36$.
Similarly, let $\Lambda_h$ be the finite dimensional space defined by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Lambdah}
\Lambda_h = \left\{
\begin{array}{l|l}
\hspace{-0.1cm}\varphi_h = \psi(x_1, x_2) \theta(t) \in C^0(Q_T) & \psi|_{K_{x_1x_2}} \in \mathbb{P}_1(K_{x_1x_2}), \theta|_{K_t} \in \mathbb{Q}_1(K_t) \\
\varphi_h = 0 \text{ on } \Sigma_T & \text {for every } K = K_{x_1x_2} \times K_t \in \mathcal{T}_h
\end{array}
\right\},
\end{equation}
where $\mathbb{P}_1(K_{x_1x_2})$ and $\mathbb{Q}_1(K_t)$ are the spaces of degree one polynomials on the triangle $K_{x_1x_2}$ and interval $K_t$ respectively.
For any $h$, we check that $Z_h\subset Z$ and that $\Lambda_h\subset \Lambda$.
\subsubsection{Wave equation in a square}
\label{sec:square}
We first consider the case $\Omega$ defined by the unit square and again some explicit solutions used in \cite{cindea_moireau}.
Precisely, we define the following smooth initial condition:
\begin{equation}
(\textbf{EX1--2D}) \quad
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
y_0(x_1, x_2) = 256 x_1^2 x_2^2 (1-x_1)^2 (1-x_2)^2 \\
y_1(x_1, x_2) = (1 - |2x_1 - 1|)(1 - |2x_2 - 1|)
\end{array}
\right. \quad (x_1, x_2) \in \Omega
\end{equation}
The corresponding solution of (\ref{eq:wave}) with $c\equiv 1, \ d\equiv 0$ and $f\equiv 0$ is given by :
\begin{equation}\label{eq:solex}
y(x_1, x_2, t) = \sum_{k,l > 0} \left( a_{kl} \cos (\mu_{kl} t) + \frac{b_{kl}}{\mu_{kl}} \sin(\mu_{kl} t) \right) \sin(k \pi x)\sin(l \pi y),
\end{equation}
where $\mu_{kl} = \pi \sqrt{k^2 + l^2}$ for every $k, l \in \mathbb{Z}^*$ and
\begin{align*}
&a_{kl} = 2^{10} \frac{(\pi^2 k^2 - 12)(\pi^2 l^2 - 12)}{\pi^{10} k^5 l^5}((-1)^k - 1)((-1)^l - 1) \\
&b_{kl} = \frac{2^5}{\pi^4 k^2 l^2} \sin \frac{\pi k}{2} \sin \frac{\pi l}{2}.
\end{align*}
We also define the following initial data $(y_0, y_1) \in H_0^1(\Omega) \times L^2(\Omega)$:
\begin{equation}
(\textbf{EX2--2D}) \quad
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
y_0(x_1, x_2) = (1 - |2x_1 - 1|)(1 - |2x_2 - 1|) \\
y_1(x_1, x_2) = \boldsymbol{1}_{(\frac{1}{3}, \frac{2}{3})^2}(x_1, x_2)
\end{array}
\quad (x_1, x_2) \in \Omega.
\right.
\end{equation}
The Fourier coefficients of the corresponding solution are
\begin{align*}
&a_{kl} = \frac{2^5}{\pi^4 k^2 l^2} \sin \frac{\pi k}{2} \sin\frac{\pi l}{2} \\
&b_{kl} = \frac{1}{\pi^2 k l} \left( \cos \frac{\pi k}{3} - \cos \frac{2\pi k}{3}\right) \left( \cos \frac{\pi l}{3} - \cos \frac{2\pi l}{3}\right).
\end{align*}
In what follows, we consider $\omega$ the subset of $\Omega$ described in Figure \ref{fig:mesh} (a) and given by:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:omegaS}
\omega = \left( (0, 0.2) \times (0,1) \right) \cup \left( (0,1) \times (0, 0.2) \right).
\end{equation}
It is easy to see that this choice of $\omega$ and $T = 2$ provide a domain $q_T=\omega\times (0,T)$ which satisfies the geometric optic condition, and, hence, inequality \eqref{iobs} holds. We consider 3 levels of meshes of $Q_T$, labelled from 1 to 3 and containing the number of elements (prisms) and nodes listed in Table \ref{tab:mesh}.
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|ccc|}
\hline
Mesh Number & 1 & 2 & 3 \\
\hline
Number of elements & 5 320 & 15 320 & 42 230 \\
Number of nodes & 3 234 & 8 799 & 23 370\\
$\Delta t$ & $0.2$ & $0.1$ & $0.05$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Characteristics of the meshes used for $Q_T = (0,1)^2 \times (0,2)$.}
\label{tab:mesh}
\end{table}
For each of these meshes we solve the mixed formulation \eqref{eq:mf} with the term $y_{obs}$ appearing in the right-hand side obtained as the restriction to $q_T$ of the solution computed by \eqref{eq:solex} for initial data \textbf{EX1--2D} and \textbf{EX2--2D}.
Table \ref{tab:EX1} concerns the example \textbf{EX1--2D}. In this table we list the norm of the relative error between the exact solution $y$ given by \eqref{eq:solex} and the solution $y_h$ of the mixed formulation \eqref{eq:mf}, the $L^2$ norm of $Ly_h$ and the $L^2$ norm of the Lagrange multiplier $\lambda_h$.
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|ccc|}
\hline
Mesh number & 1 & 2 & 3 \\
\hline
$\frac{\|y-y_h\|_{L^2(Q_T)}}{\|y\|_{L^2(Q_T)}}$ & $4.58 \times 10^{-2}$ & $3.18 \times 10^{-2}$ & $1.38 \times 10^{-2}$ \\
$\|Ly_h\|_{L^2(Q_T)}$ & $1.44$ & $1.05$ & $1.05$\\
$\|\lambda_h\|_{L^2(Q_T)}$ & $2.87 \times 10^{-5}$ & $1.36 \times 10^{-5}$ & $7.34 \times 10^{-6}$ \\
$\sharp$ CG iterates & 121 & 180 & 168\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{$\varepsilon = 0$: Example \textbf{EX1--2D} - $r = 1$.}
\label{tab:EX1}
\end{table}
As theoretically stated in Remark \ref{rk_lambda_sys} and observed in numerical experiments in the case $N = 1$ (see, for instance, Table \ref{tab:EX1}), the Lagrange multiplier $\lambda_h$ vanishes as $h\to 0$. In Table \ref{tab:EX1-lambdazero} we display the results obtained by numerically solving the variational problem \eqref{eq:mf} obtained from the mixed formulation when $\lambda_h = 0$.
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|ccc|}
\hline
Mesh number & 1 & 2 & 3 \\
\hline
$\frac{\|y-y_h\|_{L^2(Q_T)}}{\|y\|_{L^2(Q_T)}}$ & $7.05 \times 10^{-2}$ & $4.44 \times 10^{-2}$ & $2.37 \times 10^{-2}$ \\
$\|Ly_h\|_{L^2(Q_T)}$ & $1.31$ & $0.97$ & $0.97$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Example \textbf{EX1--2D} -- $r = 1$ -- $\lambda$ fixed to zero.}
\label{tab:EX1-lambdazero}
\end{table}
Tables \ref{tab:EX2} and \ref{tab:EX2-lambdazero} display the results obtained for the initial data specified by \textbf{EX2--2D}, for the solutions $(y_h, \lambda_h)$ of the mixed formulation and for the variational problem obtained when $\lambda_h = 0$ respectively.
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|ccc|}
\hline
Mesh number & 1 & 2 & 3 \\
\hline
$\frac{\|y-y_h\|_{L^2(Q_T)}}{\|y\|_{L^2(Q_T)}}$ & $4.74 \times 10^{-2}$ & $3.72 \times 10^{-2}$ & $2.09 \times 10^{-2}$ \\
$\|Ly_h\|_{L^2(Q_T)}$ & $1.18$ & $0.89$ & $1.06$\\
$\|\lambda_h\|_{L^2(Q_T)}$ & $3.21 \times 10^{-5}$ & $1.46 \times 10^{-5}$ & $1.17 \times 10^{-5}$ \\
$\sharp$ CG iterates & $128$ & $191$ & $168$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Example \textbf{EX2--2D} -- $r = 1$.}
\label{tab:EX2}
\end{table}
The results are similar for both examples. In both cases we observe a linear convergence of $y_h$ to $y$ in the norm $L^2$ over $Q_T$ when $h$ goes to zero. Similarly, the norm $\|\lambda_h\|_{L^2(Q_T)}$ linearly decreases as $h$ goes to zero.
\begin{table}[ht!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|ccc|}
\hline
Mesh number & 1 & 2 & 3 \\
\hline
$\frac{\|y-y_h\|_{L^2(Q_T)}}{\|y\|_{L^2(Q_T)}}$ & $6.75 \times 10^{-2}$ & $4.93 \times 10^{-2}$ & $3.37 \times 10^{-2}$ \\
$\|Ly_h\|_{L^2(Q_T)}$ & $1.07$ & $0.82$ & $0.97$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Example \textbf{EX2--2D} -- $r = 1$ -- $\lambda$ fixed to zero.}
\label{tab:EX2-lambdazero}
\end{table}
\subsubsection{Wave equation in a non-rectangular domain of $\mathbb{R}^2$}
Let $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^2$ be a domain with a regular boundary and $\omega$ a non-empty subset with regular boundary. An example of such a configuration is illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:heart} (a). As in the previous section, we take $T = 2$ and we build a mesh formed by triangular prisms of the domain $Q_T = \Omega \times (0, T)$. An example of such a mesh associated to the domain $\Omega$ is displayed in Figure \ref{fig:heart} (b). This mesh is composed by $17 \ 934$ nodes distributed in $32 \ 140$ prismatic elements (this mesh corresponds to the mesh number 2 described in Table \ref{tab:mesh_h}).
\begin{figure}[ht]
\hspace{-0.6cm}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[width=0.51\textwidth]{heartm} &
\includegraphics[width=0.44\textwidth]{heart3dpng} \\
(a) & (b)
\end{tabular}
\caption{(a) Example of sets $\Omega$ and $\omega$. (b) Example of mesh of the domain $Q_T$.}
\label{fig:heart}
\end{figure}
We consider three levels of meshes of the domain $Q_T$ formed by the number of prisms and containing the number of nodes reported in Table \ref{tab:mesh_h}.
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|ccc|}
\hline
Mesh number & 1 & 2 & 3\\
\hline
Number of elements & 5 730 & 32 1400 & 130 280 \\
Number of nodes & 3 432 & 17 934 & 69 864 \\
Height of elements ($\Delta t$) & 0.2 & 0.1 & 0.05 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Characteristics of the three meshes associated with $Q_T$.}
\label{tab:mesh_h}
\end{table}
Comparing to the situation described in Subsection \ref{sec:square}, the eigenfunctions and eigenvectors of the Dirichlet Laplace operator defined on $\Omega$ are not explicitly available here. Consequently, from a given set of initial data, we numerically solve the wave equation \eqref{eq:wave} using a standard time-marching method, from which we can extract an observation on $q_T$. Precisely, we use a $P_1$ finite elements method in space coupled with a Newmark unconditionally stable scheme for the time discretization. Hence, we solve the wave equation on the same mesh which was extrapolated in time in order to obtain the mesh number 2 of $Q_T$. This two-dimensional mesh contains $1 \ 704$ nodes and $3 \ 257$ triangles. The time discretization step is $\Delta t = 10^{-2}$. We denote $\overline{y}_h$ the solution obtained in this way for the initial data $(y_0, y_1) \in H_0^1(\Omega) \times L^2(\Omega)$ given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:idheart}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
-\Delta y_0 = 10, &\quad \text{in } \Omega \\
y_0 = 0, & \quad \text{on } \partial \Omega,
\end{array}
\right.
\qquad y_1 =0.
\end{equation}
From $\overline{y}_h$ we generate the observation $y_{obs}$ as the restriction of $\overline{y}_h$ to $q_T$. Finally, from this observation we reconstruct $y_h$ as the solution of the mixed formulation \eqref{eq:mfeps} on each of the three meshes described in Table \ref{tab:mesh_h}. Table \ref{tab:h} display some norms of $y_h$ and $\lambda_h$ obtained for the three meshes and illustrates again the convergence of the method.
\begin{table}[ht!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|ccc|}
\hline
Mesh number & 1 & 2 & 3\\
\hline
$\frac{\|\overline{y}_h - y_h\|_{L^2(Q_T)}}{\|\overline{y}_h\|_{L^2(Q_T)}}$ & $1.88 \times 10^{-1}$ & $8.04 \times 10^{-2}$ & $7.11 \times 10^{-2}$ \\
$\|Ly_h\|_{L^2(Q_T)}$ & $3.21$ & $2.01$ & $1.57$\\
$\|\lambda_h\|_{L^2(Q_T)}$ & $8.26 \times 10^{-5}$ & $3.62 \times 10^{-5}$ & $2.84 \times 10^{-5}$ \\
$\sharp$ CG iterates & 52 & 167 & 400 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Initial data $(y_0,y_1)$ given by (\ref{eq:idheart}) - $r = 1$.}
\label{tab:h}
\end{table}
Figure \ref{fig:idheart} (a) displays the solution $y_0$ of \eqref{eq:idheart} and Figure \ref{fig:idheart} (b) displays the initial position $y_h(\cdot, 0)$ corresponding to the solution of our inverse problem. The error between these two functions is given by $\|y_0 - y_h(\cdot, 0)\|_{L^2(\Omega)} = 2.05 \times 10^{-2}$ which is consistent with the results reported in Table \ref{tab:h}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{heartYex0} & \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{heartYR0} \\
(a) & (b)
\end{tabular}
\caption{(a) Initial data $y_0$ given by \eqref{eq:idheart}. (b) Reconstructed initial data $y_h(\cdot, 0)$.}
\label{fig:idheart}
\end{figure}
\section{Concluding remarks and perspectives} \label{sec_conclusion}
The mixed formulations we have introduced here in order to address inverse problems for the wave equation seems original. These formulations are nothing else than the Euler systems associated to least-squares type functionals and depend on both the state to be reconstruct and a Lagrange multiplier. This Lagrange multiplier is introduced to take into account the state constraint $Ly-f=0$ and turns out to be the controlled solution of a wave equation with the source term $(y-y_{obs})\,1_{q_T}$. This approach, recently used in a controllability context in \cite{NC-AM-mixedwave}, leads to a variational problem defined over time-space functional Hilbert spaces, without distinction between the time and the space variable.
The main ingredient allowing to prove the well-posedness of the mixed formulation and therefore the reconstruction of the solution, is a generalized observability inequality, assuming here
some geometric conditions on the observation zone.
At the practical level, the discrete mixed time-space formulation is solved in a systematic way in the framework of the finite element theory. The approximation is conformal allowing to obtain the strong convergence of the approximation as the discretization parameters tends to zero. In particular, we emphasize that there is no need, contrarily to the classical approach, to prove some uniform discrete observability inequality: we simply use the observability equality on the finite dimensional discrete space. The resolution amounts to solve a sparse symmetric linear system : the corresponding matrix can be preconditioned if necessary, and may be computed once for all as it does not depend on the observation $y_{obs}$. Eventually, the space-time discretization of the domain allows an adaptation of the mesh so as to reduce the computational cost and capture the main features of the solutions. Similarly, this space-time formulation is very appropriate to the non-cylindrical situation.
In agreement with the theoretical convergence, the numerical experiments reported here display a very good behavior and robustness of the approach: the reconstructed approximate solution converges strongly to the solution of the wave equation associated to the available observation. Remark that from the continuous dependence of the solution with respect to the observation, the method is robust with respect to the possible noise on the data.
As mentioned at the end of Section \ref{recovering_y_f}, additional assumption on the source term allows to determine uniquely the pair $(y,f)$ from a partial measurement on $q_T$ or on a part $\Sigma_T$ sufficiently large of the boundary. For instance, from \cite[Theorem 2.1]{yamamoto}, assuming that the source term takes the form $f(x,t)=\sigma(t) \mu(x)$ with $\sigma\in C^1([0,T])$, $\sigma(0)\neq 0$ and $\mu\in H^{-1}(\Omega)$, then the following holds: there exists a positive constant $C$ such that
\begin{equation}
\Vert \mu\Vert^2_{H^{-1}(\Omega)} \leq C\biggl( \biggl\Vert \frac{\partial y}{\partial \nu}\biggr\Vert^2_{L^2(\Sigma_T)} + \Vert Ly-\sigma(t)\mu(x)\Vert^2_{L^2(Q_T)}\biggr), \quad \forall (y,\mu)\in S
\end{equation}
where $y$ solves (\ref{eq:wave}) with $(y_0,y_1)\equiv 0$, $c=1$ and $(\Sigma_T,T,Q_T)$ satisfies a geometric condition and $S$ denotes an appropriate functional space. Using this inequality (similar to \ref{iobs}), we can study the mixed formulation associated to the Lagrangian from $S\times L^2(Q_T)\to \mathbb{R}$ defined by
$$
\mathcal{L}((y,\mu),\lambda):= \frac{1}{2}\biggl\Vert \frac{\partial y}{\partial\nu}-y_{obs}\biggr\Vert^2_{L^2(\Sigma_T)} + \int_{Q_T} \lambda (Ly-\sigma \mu) \, dx\,dt
$$
to fully reconstruct $y$ and $\mu$ from $y_{obs}$ and $\sigma$.
Eventually, since the mixed formulations rely essentially on a generalized observability inequality, it may be employed to any other observable systems for which such property is available :
we mention notably the parabolic case usually -- in view of regularization property -- badly conditioned and for which direct and robust methods are certainly very advantageous. We refer to \cite{munch_desouza} where this issue is investigated.
\bibliographystyle{siam}
|
\section{Introduction}
Viruses are experts on the inner working of cells and their investigation has contributed strongly to our understanding
of the physical principles at work in biological systems. In particular, the study of viruses
has demonstrated the amazing power of biological self-assembly in an experimentally and theoretically accessible system.
In their physiological context, viruses rely on the molecular machinery of their host
to reproduce both their genomic material and the protein capsid usually encapsulating it~\cite{Roos2010,Cann2001}.
Typically the capsid is assembled from many copies of only a few different capsid proteins
and shows icosahedral or helical symmetry \cite{Rossmann1989,Caspar1956,Franklin1955,Crick1956,Caspar1962}.
The elementary assembly blocks for the assembly of a capsid are termed \textit{capsomeres}. They can either consist of single capsid proteins or of preassembled sets of capsid proteins.
For many viruses the formation of the capsid can be reproduced in vitro \cite{Fraenkel-Conrat1955,Finch1968}.
The dynamics of in vitro assembly has been analyzed using light and small-angle X-ray scattering techniques~\cite{Zlotnick1999,Zlotnick2000,Casini2004,Kler2012}.
While capsid assembly of viruses with single-stranded genomic material often requires the presence of the
genomic material as an 'electrostatic glue' \cite{Bruinsma2006,Roos2010}, this is typically not possible for
double-stranded genomic material due to its larger bending stiffness. These viruses typically assemble
their capsid without the genomic material, which is then inserted into the capsid by a motor \cite{Sun2010,Roos2010}.
Despite the plethora of known capsid structures~\cite{Carrillo-Tripp2009}, the dynamic assembly process of the virus shell is still far from being fully understood. As experimental possibilities for detailed
monitoring of the assembly dynamics are limited, modeling can significantly help to increase our understanding of the mechanisms that govern the assembly process.
In the past various techniques
ranging from coarse-grained molecular dynamics or Brownian dynamics simulations~\cite{Schwartz1998,Rapaport1999,Rapaport2004,Hagan2006,Freddolino2006,Nguyen2007,Rapaport2008,Rapaport2012,Baschek2012}
through Monte Carlo simulations~\cite{Wilber2007,Wilber2009,Johnston2010} and discrete stochastic approaches~\cite{Zhang2005a,Zhang2006,Hemberg2006,Keef2006,Sweeney2008}
to thermodynamic descriptions \cite{Zlotnick1994,Zlotnick1999,Endres2002,Katen2009} have been used to elucidate different aspects of the assembly process.
For example, the influence of capsomere shape~\cite{Rapaport2004,Rapaport2012} or the emergence of polymorphic structures~\cite{Nguyen2008,Elrad2008,Nguyen2009} have been investigated
with such theoretical approaches. The different techniques used to study virus capsid assembly have been recently reviewed by Hagan~\cite{Hagan2014}.
Several studies have shown that the successful assembly of complete capsids starting from a fixed number of assembly subunits requires intermediate (or even optimal) bond strengths~\cite{Endres2002,Hagan2006,Nguyen2007,Rapaport2008,Katen2009,Johnston2010,Zlotnick2011,Hagan2011,Baschek2012}.
At low bond strengths (or high temperature) the formation of large clusters is suppressed.
At high bond strengths (or low temperature), by contrast, the simultaneous formation of stable assembly intermediates, which cannot recombine into complete capsids, or the formation of large, misassembled structures with non-native binding interactions can prevent the formation of complete capsids. In this case the system becomes kinetically trapped.
While in vitro studies and computer simulations usually work with a finite initial number of capsomeres that are increasingly used up during the capsid assembly process, in the physiological context of the cell the capsomeres are produced in a continuous fashion.
In a recent stochastic simulation study, it has been shown for the case of genome-stabilized capsids (as for example
for the bacteriophage MS2) that this 'protein ramp' can make virus assembly very robust against kinetic trapping \cite{Dykeman2014}.
While bacteriophages typically kill the host cell to start a new round of infection, many animal and plant viruses
tend to follow strategies that keep the host cell alive at least for a certain period of time.
This is especially true for human viruses such as hepatitis B virus (HBV), human adeno virus (HAdV) or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV),
which lead to persistent infections. Recently the role of dynamic protein supply for viral capsid assembly has been studied
from a systems level perspective using a kinetic
gene expression model with exponential protein production and a master equation
for capsid assembly~\cite{Zhdanov2014}. However, the effect
of continuous protein production has not been studied yet in a spatial model. For empty capsid assembly, it has been shown
earlier with Brownian dynamics that steady states exist in which the removal of large clusters
is balanced by the reinsertion of the corresponding monomers~\cite{Hagan2011}. However,
the effect of the capsomere supply rate on these steady states has not been studied yet.
Inspired by the notion of continuous virus production, we use coarse-grained Brownian dynamics simulations to investigate the assembly
of empty T1 capsids in the presence of a dynamic capsomere supply. In order to avoid crowding of the reaction volume by
large clusters and motivated by the exit of completed virions from the cell by budding or exocytosis~\cite{Freed2004,Morita2004,Saksena2006,Mukhopadhyay2005},
capsids are removed from the simulation in the moment that they are completed.
Our simulations suggest that there exists a certain range of bond strengths in which the influx of new capsomeres is balanced by capsid removal. This steady-state region is surrounded by parameter regions in which successful capsid assembly is prohibited by crowding of the reaction volume; depending on influx rate and bond strength, crowding is observed either with small or large intermediates.
Our main result is that the favorable region for continuous virus production becomes larger for lower influx rates.
Our work identifies essential limits of viral self-assembly in a dynamic context and suggests that bond strength has to be less fine-tuned in a cellular context than in in vitro experiments.
\section{Methods}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics{Fig1}
\caption{Schematic illustration of our simulations. Capsomeres are randomly inserted into the simulation volume with a rate $\ensuremath{k_{i}}$ while completed capsids are removed immediately (including the intermediates they might contain inside). This simple model mimics the situation in human cells with persistent infections
in which capsomeres are continuously produced by translation and completed capsids leave by budding or exocytosis.}
\label{fig:Model_explanation}
\end{figure*}
To investigate the effect of a continuous influx of capsomeres on virus assembly, we use an efficient coarse-grained Brownian dynamics approach, which has previously been used to study the effect of reactivity switching during the assembly process~\cite{Baschek2012}.
Here we consider a T1 capsid which is composed of 60 identical capsomeres \cite{Caspar1962}.
Each capsomere is described by a hard sphere which is equipped with spherical patches (see Fig.~\ref{fig:Model_explanation}).
The spatial arrangement of the patches reflects the capsid geometry according to the local rules scheme developed by Berger et al.~\cite{Berger1994,Schwartz1998}.
All assembly intermediates formed during the assembly process are treated as rigid objects and are propagated according to their translational and rotational diffusive properties~\cite{Schluttig2008,Schluttig2009}, which are evaluated on-the-fly upon their formation~\cite{Carrasco1999,Schluttig2009}.
If an overlap between two complementary patches is realized by diffusion, a bond is formed with the probability $P_\text{react}=k_a \Delta t \ll 1$.
This bond can be established either between two unconnected clusters (inter-bond) or in an already connected cluster (intra-bond).
Otherwise we only consider one type of bond to keep the number of parameters small.
We assume that bond formation is achieved by strong local forces such that this process is very fast on the time scale of our simulations.
Therefore upon formation of an inter-bond, the clusters instantaneously assume the correct relative position and orientation for the
assembly of the capsid unless the necessary reorientation results in a steric overlap either between the two merging clusters or with other clusters.
We note that our approach based on patchy particles and local rules does not allow us to study the formation of
aberrant cluster with non-native interactions \cite{Nguyen2007,Hagan2006,Hagan2011}. Because we do not consider any forces, our approach also
does not allow us to investigate strained capsids, as possible in molecular dynamics or Brownian dynamics
simulations with potentials.
In order to study reversible dynamics, every existing bond can also dissociate with the probability $P_\text{dissoc}=k_d \Delta t \ll 1$.
If bond dissociation results in two unconnected clusters, they are positioned relative to each other according to a computational scheme which ensures detailed balance in order to prevent additional, non-physical driving forces for the self-assembly~\cite{Klein2014}.
Intra-bond formation in an already connected cluster leads to an additional stabilization of the cluster as closed loops are formed, in which every capsomere is connected to at least two neighboring capsomeres.
For such a loop structure to break apart it is necessary that all bonds have to be in the open state simultaneously.
The formation/dissociation of an intra-bond does not affect the structure of the complex.
The energy gain by bond formation is related to the microscopy rates by $E=-k_B T \ln (k_a / k_d)$, where $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant~\cite{Klein2014}.
To study the effect of a continuous supply of capsomeres on the assembly dynamics, we introduce the influx rate $\ensuremath{k_{i}}$.
We place a new capsomere in the simulation volume in each time step with the probability $p_\text{in}=\ensuremath{k_{i}} \Delta t \ll 1$. Position and orientation of the new capsomere are randomly chosen with the constraint that no steric overlap with existing clusters is created. Inspired by virus exit strategies like budding or exocytosis, which in principle can lead to a steady state of virus production, complete capsids are removed immediately upon formation together with all intermediates inside the capsid (compare Fig.~\ref{fig:Model_explanation}). This removal rule is based on the assumption that complete capsids are much more stable than partially assembled capsids and that cellular mechanisms exist that are exploited by
the virus to leave the cell. We note that our model does neither incorporate any details of the production mechanism nor any details of the exit mechanism, but is kept as simple as possible in order to investigate the underlying physical principles of the assembly process in such a dynamic setup. For the same reason we focus on the assembly of T1 virus capsids and assume all bonds to be identical.
For the following it is helpful to introduce the concept of dimensionless bond strength $\ensuremath{k_{s}}$, which is defined by the ratio of the microscopic association rate $k_a$ and the microscopic dissociation rate $k_d$:
\begin{align}
\ensuremath{k_{s}}=k_a/k_d\ . \label{eq:bond_strength}
\end{align}
Note that bond strength is similar to, but different from the equilibrium association constant $K_\text{eq}$ for a bimolecular reaction, because it is defined by the ratio of microscopic rates (with the physical dimension $1/s$) rather than by the ratio of a macroscopic association rate constant $k_\text{on}$ (with physical dimension $1/(s M)$) and a macroscopic dissociation rate $k_\text{off}$ (with physical dimension $ 1/s$).
For the reaction between two clusters (without any closed loops) $K_\text{eq}=V^\star k_s$ is related to $\ensuremath{k_{s}}$ by the encounter volume $V^\star$ (with physical dimension $m^3$) which is defined by all two-particle configurations of the two clusters with an overlap of complementary patches \cite{Klein2014}.
For the case of virus assembly investigated here, $\ensuremath{k_{s}}$ is not only a measure for the strength of inter cluster bonds, but also for the stability of closed loops.
In order to avoid the need to exhaustively scan parameter space and motivated by previous results quantifying the success of assembly as a function of $k_a$ and $k_d$~\cite{Baschek2012}, we use a linear relation between dissociation and association rate $k_d=m k_a +c$ with $c=\SI{0.0111}{\nano\second} ^{-1}$ and $m=-0.0011$ to explore the parameter space ranging from very strong to very weak bond strength. When varying $\ensuremath{k_{s}}$ from $10^2$ to $10^5$ we explore association and dissociation rates in the range of $k_a\in [\SI{1}{\nano\second}^{-1},\SI{10}{\nano\second}^{-1}]$ and $k_d \in [\SI{1e-4}{\nano\second}^{-1},\SI{0.01}{\nano\second}^{-1}]$, respectively.
All simulations have been performed at a time resolution of $\Delta t=\SI{0.01}{\nano\second}$ using periodic boundary conditions. Capsomeres are modeled as hard spheres of radius $R_\text{steric}=\SI{1}{\nano\meter}$. Each capsomere is equipped with three distinct spherical patches reflecting the geometry of the T1 capsid. Each patch has a radius of $r_\text{patch}=\SI{0.3}{\nano\meter}$ with the center of the patch being located on the surface of the hard sphere. A bond can only be established between complementary patches according to the local rules. The diffusive properties of all intermediates are represented by their mobility matrices which are evaluated at room temperature $T=\SI{293}{\kelvin}$ using the viscosity of aqueous medium $\eta=\SI{1}{\milli \pascal \second}$.
Given the typical time and length scales $l_0=\SI{1}{\nano\meter}$ and $t_0=\SI{1}{\nano\second}$ of our simulations, we define the dimensionless length parameter $\lambda=l/l_0$ and the dimensionless time parameter $\tau=t/t_0$ in order to simplify the notation. Furthermore, we introduce the dimensionless box volume $\Lambda=V_\text{box}/l_0^3$, the dimensionless particle concentration $\rho=N/\Lambda$, where $N$ is the number of capsomeres in the simulation volume, and the normalized influx rate $\ensuremath{\kappa_{i}}=\ensuremath{k_{i}} t_0 10^6/\Lambda$. $\ensuremath{\kappa_{i}}$ can be understood as the rate of concentration increase due to the influx of capsomeres. Using the normalized influx rate $\ensuremath{\kappa_{i}}$ instead of $\ensuremath{k_{i}}$ allows us to compare the assembly process for different sizes of the simulation volume. Our simulation volume has a typical linear extension of 30 to 50 nanometers, leading to reasonable
computing times for complete capsid assembly.
Considering particles which are equipped with only one spherical patch we can relate the values of $\ensuremath{k_{s}}$ used here to $K_\text{eq}$ and estimate the speed of the reaction dynamics for this case. In contrast to the capsomeres these particles can only form dimers. The encounter volume for this reaction is $V^\star\approx0.11 {\nano\meter}^3$ (compare reference~\cite{Klein2014} for details on the calculation) and the equilibrium association constants $K_\text{eq}$ range from $6.6 M^{-1}$ to $6.6\times 10^3 M^{-1}$ for the values of bond strength used here ($10^2 \le k_s \le 10^5$).
Thus our simulations proceed at a relatively high concentration in the mM-range.
In order to estimate the influence of the patch size for the speed of the reaction, we use an algorithm developed by Zhou and coworkers~\cite{Zhou1990,Zhou1996} with which the diffusive association rate constant $k_D$ can be estimated based on the survival probability of two clusters starting in an encounter \cite{Klein2014}. For the dimerization we estimate $k_D\approx 6.25 \times 10^8 M^{-1}s^{-1}$.
The diffusive dissociation rate constant then follows as $k_{D,b}=k_D/V^\star$.
Depending on the values of the microscopic reaction rate $k_a$ the macroscopic association rate constant $k_+=k_D k_a/(k_a+k_{D,b})$ is in the range of $6.0\times10^7 M^{-1} s^{-1}$ to $3.21\times10^8 M^{-1} s^{-1}$. For lower values of $k_+$ the reaction can be considered as reaction-limited ($k_a < k_{D,b}$) while for higher values of $k_+$ the assembly is equally influenced by reaction and diffusion ($k_a\approx k_{D,b}$) \cite{Eigen1974}. Although bimolecular reactions in this range of macroscopic association rate constants $k_+$ are typically considered diffusion-limited \cite{Schreiber2009}, the relatively large patch sizes used here allow for rapid formation of the diffusive encounter so that the reactions in our simulations are at least partly reaction-limited according to the classification scheme by Eigen \cite{Eigen1974}. The macroscopic dissociation rate $k_{-}=k_{D,b}k_d/(k_a+k_{D,b})$ ranges from $ 4.8 \times{10}^4 s^{-1}$ to $9.0 \times 10^{6} s^{-1}$, which is approximately the same range as for the microscopic dissociation rate.
It is instructive to compare the reaction rate constants and equilibrium constants for dimerization used in our simulations to the rates inferred by Xie at al.~\cite{Xie2012} with a non-spatial model from published light-scattering data of the in vitro assembly of hepatitis B virus (HBV) virus \cite{Zlotnick1999}, cowpea chlorotic mottle virus (CCMV) \cite{Zlotnick2000} and human papillomavirus (HPV) \cite{Casini2004}. We first note that
Xie et al. consider closed loops as being infinitely stable which allows for capsid assembly at lower concentrations than in our case.
Nevertheless we find that for HBV and CCMV, our equilibrium association constants are well within the range reported by Xie at al., while our association rate constants are larger by two orders of magnitude. In this context, we note that the use of high concentrations and enhanced assembly dynamics is a common limitation of particle-based simulations of capsid assembly~\cite{Hagan2006,Rapaport2008,Guo2009,Rapaport2010,Baschek2012}.
In our setup, concentrations are not fixed, but arise from the dynamic influx. In practice,
capsomere and capsid production rates can vary widely for different viruses and different host systems.
For influenza virus, for example, a production rate of $10^4$ virions over 10 hours has been reported after start of viral protein translation \cite{Heldt2012}. For HIV, in contrast, only 800 virions are produced over 8 h after start of viral protein translation \cite{Reddy1999}.
Similar variations also exist for the transcription and translation rates. As we will see below,
our capsid production rate is of the order of $10^8$ virions per hour in a small reaction volume
because we consider a small generic virus with only 60 identical components, relatively high
influx rates and accelerated dynamics.
\section{Results}
First we qualitatively characterize typical responses of our simulation setup at different bond strengths. For this purpose the time course of the total number of capsomeres placed inside and removed from the simulation volume is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:inoutflow_vs_time} for two different values of $\ensuremath{k_{s}}$ and a normalized influx rate of $\ensuremath{\kappa_{i}}=2.593$ (a movie for the inital stages of capsid assembly is
provided as supplementary movie S1). The number of capsomeres placed inside the simulation volume (black, solid line) shows the expected linear increase defined by the influx rate. For the low bond strength of $\ensuremath{k_{s}}=1179$ (red, dashed lines) two individual trajectories are shown. For these trajectories we see that after an initial lag phase without capsid completion (the length of the lag phase depends strongly on the rate of capsomere influx and the established concentration in the simulation volume ($0.5-2.0\times \si{10^4}{\nano \second}$)) a steady state with constant capsomere concentration is established in which capsomere influx and capsid removal balance each other (a movie for the steady state is provided as supplementary movie S2).
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{Fig2}
\caption{Evolution of the total number of capsomeres placed inside and removed from the simulation volume. The black, solid line depicts the number of capsomeres placed inside the simulation volume with $\ensuremath{\kappa_{i}}=2.593$.
The red, dashed lines show individual trajectories of the number of capsomeres which are removed from the simulation volume due to capsid completion for a bond strength of $\ensuremath{k_{s}}=1179$, resulting in a steady state. The blue, dotted lines show individual trajectories of removed capsomeres for a bond strength of $\ensuremath{k_{s}}=8483$ at which crowding occurs.}
\label{fig:inoutflow_vs_time}
\end{figure}
For the higher bond strength of $\ensuremath{k_{s}}=8483$ (blue, dotted lines) the trajectories behave very differently. After the initial lag phase the rate of capsomere removal due to capsid completion is almost compensating the capsomere influx for a certain period of time until the rate of capsid completion drastically slows down. The time point at which this slow-down in capsid production is observed strongly varies between different trajectories. Once capsid completion has started to slow down, the concentration in the simulation volume quickly increases due to the influx of further capsomeres and the simulation volume eventually becomes crowded. If the volume fraction of the simulation which is occupied by capsomeres is too large, further assembly is prohibited. For the following we therefore introduce a crowding-threshold. This threshold is reached when 35\% of the simulation volume is occupied by capsomeres and trajectories reaching this threshold are aborted. The chosen threshold is much larger than the highest steady-state concentration established in our simulations and a trajectory reaching this high concentration will certainly lead to a full stop of assembly.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics{Fig3}
\caption{Phase diagrams with the different assembly regimes for different simulation volumes.
(a) and (b) show the averaged capsomere concentration $\rho$ as a function of influx rate $\ensuremath{\kappa_{i}}$ and
bond strength $\ensuremath{k_{s}}$ for a simulation volume of $\Lambda_1=27000$ and $\Lambda_2=42875$, respectively.
(c) and (d) show the fraction of trajectories which became crowded during the simulation time as a function of $\ensuremath{\kappa_{i}}$ and $\ensuremath{k_{s}}$ for a simulation volume of $\Lambda_1$ and $\Lambda_{2}$, respectively.
Each data point is obtained from 16 independent trajectories using a simulation time of $\tau_\text{sim}=10^6$.
}
\label{fig:combined1}
\end{figure*}
We now systematically investigate the assembly process as a function of bond strength $\ensuremath{k_{s}}$ and normalized influx rate $\ensuremath{\kappa_{i}}$. In our dynamic setup the rate of capsid production is prescribed by the influx of capsomeres and hence cannot be used as a measure for the quality of the assembly process. Instead we measure the ability of the assembly process to compensate the influx of new capsomeres. As can be seen for the case of a steady state in Fig.~\ref{fig:inoutflow_vs_time} the concentration in the simulation volume linearly increases until a steady concentration is reached at which the assembly of full capsids compensates the influx of new monomers. Thus, for a driven system with a continuous influx of capsomeres the concentration established in the simulation volume for a given $\ensuremath{\kappa_{i}}$ is a measure for the efficiency of the assembly process: the lower the established concentration, the higher the efficiency (ability of the assembly process to compensate the influx).
In Fig.~\ref{fig:combined1} (a) and (b) the average capsomere concentration $\rho$ during our simulations is shown for two different simulation volumes, respectively. Here only those parameter combinations are shown for which a steady state is established in all trajectories during the simulation time.
If no steady state is established (X), the average concentration does not provide a valid measure for the efficiency of the assembly process as the concentration in trajectories showing crowding rapidly increases until they are finally aborted. Hence for parameter combinations where at least one trajectory shows crowding we instead quantify the ability of the assembly process to compensate the influx of new capsomeres by the fraction of crowded trajectories $\varphi$: the higher the crowding fraction is the smaller the ability of the assembly process to compensate the influx of new capsomeres. This is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:combined1}(c) and (d) for the two different simulation volumes, respectively.
In general, we see from Fig.~\ref{fig:combined1} (a) and (b) that for every value of $\ensuremath{\kappa_{i}}$ used here the lowest concentration is found at intermediate bond strengths of $\ensuremath{k_{s}}\approx10^3$. This is similar to assembly under static conditions where intermediate bond strengths show the largest yield of full capsids.
Moreover, a minimum bond strength of around $2\times 10^2$ is necessary for any assembly to occur. Below this threshold in bond strength the simulation volume becomes crowded almost independent of the normalized influx rate $\ensuremath{\kappa_{i}}$.
For high normalized influx rates we see that only a narrow range of intermediate bond strengths exists for which a steady state is established in our simulations in all trajectories, and the steady-state concentration even at optimal $\ensuremath{k_{s}}$ is very high. Here the simulation volume does not only become crowded for very small $\ensuremath{k_{s}}$, but a distinct crowding regime exists at high $\ensuremath{k_{s}}$. Thus, in the case of a high forcing of the system due to a rapid influx of capsomeres (corresponding to a fast production of capsids) establishing a steady state requires an optimal bond strength.
By decreasing the normalized influx rate of capsomeres (lower forcing of the system) the average concentration established in the simulation volume also decreases (Fig.~\ref{fig:combined1} (a) and (b)) as there is more time for the assembly to proceed in between the addition of new capsomeres. Interestingly, the crowding regime at high bond strengths shrinks with decreasing $\ensuremath{\kappa_{i}}$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:combined1}(c) and (d)), and for $\ensuremath{\kappa_{i}}=1.111$ a broad range of $\ensuremath{k_{s}}$ (also extending to very high $\ensuremath{k_{s}}$) exists for which a steady state of capsid production is observed. This is a clear difference between the dynamically driven system analyzed here and static systems with a fixed capsomere concentration. While in the static case kinetic trapping would prevent any capsid assembly at high values of $\ensuremath{k_{s}}$, the continuous influx of new capsomeres reduces the requirement for an optimal bond strength and successful assembly is possible even at very high $\ensuremath{k_{s}}$.
As $\kappa_i$ has been normalized by the simulation volume and can be understood as the rate of increase in concentration due to the influx of capsomeres, one expects our findings to be independent of the system size. Comparing the average concentration $\rho$ in the smaller simulation volume (Fig.~\ref{fig:combined1}(a)) and in the larger volume (Fig.~\ref{fig:combined1}(b)) we indeed see that the average concentrations are almost identical in both cases if the rate of capsomere influx is appropriately scaled. This allows for a volume independent comparison of the effect of a dynamic influx of capsomeres on the assembly process. On the contrary, the crowding tendency especially at high bond strengths and high values of $\ensuremath{\kappa_{i}}$ is reduced in the larger simulation volume (Fig.~\ref{fig:combined1}d) when compared to the smaller simulation volume (Fig.~\ref{fig:combined1}c). Thus the crowding tendency depends on the system size in a non-trivial manner and reflects the stochastic nature of the crowding process with fluctuations being reduced in larger systems as will be discussed in detail below.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics{Fig4}
\caption{Time evolution of the capsomere concentration for different assembly regimes ($\ensuremath{\kappa_{i}}=2.592$, $\Lambda=27000$). For each of the different regimes one representative snapshot is shown in the lower row, with size-dependent color coding. Simulation data for (a) assembly without crowding at intermediate bond strength $\ensuremath{k_{s}}=1179$, (b) assembly with crowding at low bond strength $\ensuremath{k_{s}}=164$, and (c) assembly with crowding at high bond strength $\ensuremath{k_{s}}=8483$. The dashed black line represents the crowding limit at which trajectories are aborted.
}
\label{fig:combined2}
\end{figure*}
In order to further characterize the different regimes, individual trajectories of the time evolution of the capsomere concentration $\rho$ for three different bond strengths with $\ensuremath{\kappa_{i}}=2.592$ and $\Lambda=27000$ are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:combined2} (a)-(c)
(the lower row shows corresponding simulation snapshots).
Fig.~\ref{fig:combined2}(a) shows the evolution of $\rho$ of independent trajectories for intermediate bond strength $\ensuremath{k_{s}}=1179$. Here no crowding of the simulation volume occurs and a steady state is established in all simulations. After an initial phase with an increase in $\rho$ a constant concentration is established in all simulations and individual trajectories stochastically fluctuate around this constant concentration. Thus, the average concentration in this case can indeed be used to characterize the system.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:combined2}(b) the time evolution of $\rho$ for low bond strength $\ensuremath{k_{s}}=164$ is shown. In this case the bond strength is below the minimum $\ensuremath{k_{s}}$ needed for assembly of larger clusters, and the concentration in all trajectories linearly increases with simulation time leading to an almost deterministic abortion of the simulations due to crowding.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:combined2}(c) the evolution of concentration is shown for high bond strength $\ensuremath{k_{s}}=8483$. This case corresponds to crowding of the simulation volume at high bond strengths $\ensuremath{k_{s}}$ and high normalized influx rate $\ensuremath{\kappa_{i}}$. Compared to the almost deterministic crowding process at very low bond strengths (Fig.~\ref{fig:combined2}(b)), we see that the crowding characteristic for this case is fundamentally different as now crowding of the simulation volume occurs stochastically. In all trajectories shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:combined2}(c) a very high, quasi-constant concentration is established for a certain period of time until the system stochastically reaches an unfavorable configuration. Once such a configuration is reached, the formation of further capsids is hindered. This leads to an increase in concentration, which further slows down capsid production presumably due to steric collisions during the reaction process, and the system then quickly becomes crowded with large capsid intermediates due to the addition of new capsomeres.
A similar crowding characteristic is observed at high $\ensuremath{\kappa_{i}}$ for bond strengths ($\ensuremath{k_{s}}\approx 268.0$) which are slightly above the threshold in $\ensuremath{k_{s}}$ necessary for any capsid assembly. In this case again capsid completion can balance capsomere influx for a certain period of time until the simulation volume quickly becomes crowded albeit in this case with a high fraction of small clusters.
In general, stochastic crowding of the simulation volume requires a very high concentration of capsomeres. In this case the realization of an unfavorable configuration hinders capsid assembly for a certain time and the influx of new capsomeres leads to a further increase in concentration which in turn hinders further assembly due to steric collisions. Thus, once a certain concentration is surpassed in our simulations the simulation volume inevitably becomes crowded as the assembly process cannot compensate the influx of new capsomeres. The observation that the crowding process is triggered stochastically by the realization of an unfavorable configuration of the system agrees well with the previous observation that the stochastic crowding tendency decreases with system size (compare Fig.~\ref{fig:combined1} (c) and (d)). For a larger system the relative fluctuations in concentration decrease and the probability that an unfavorable configuration of the whole system is realized is reduced.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics{Fig5}
\caption{Relative population of different cluster sizes $p_k$ for $\ensuremath{\kappa_{i}}=2.593$ and different values of $\ensuremath{k_{s}}$ as a function of the cluster size. The red, solid lines correspond to bond strengths without any crowding of the simulation volume ($439\leq \ensuremath{k_{s}} \leq 1931$). The blue, dashed and dotted lines and the green, dashed lines correspond to bond strengths where all trajectories showed crowding at high ($\ensuremath{k_{s}}\geq8483$) or at low bond strengths ($\ensuremath{k_{s}}=100$ and $\ensuremath{k_{s}}=164$), respectively.}
\label{fig:csd_box_crowding_motifs}
\end{figure}
In order to further analyze the mechanisms leading to crowding we compare the relative population of cluster sizes $p_k=f_k \times k/N$ for different cases. Here $f_k$ is the number of clusters of size $k$ and $N$ the total number of capsomeres in our simulation volume. Thus $p_k$ is the probability that an arbitrarily chosen capsomere is part of a k-sized intermediate. In Fig.~\ref{fig:csd_box_crowding_motifs} $p_k$ is shown for different bond strengths and a normalized influx rate of $\ensuremath{\kappa_{i}}=2.593$ on a logarithmic scale. Here $p_k$ has been first averaged over the whole simulation time of a trajectory and subsequently over 16 independent trajectories.
For the intermediate bond strengths for which no crowding is observed (red, solid lines) small and large cluster sizes dominate. This is in agreement with previous observations characterizing successful assembly from a fixed concentration of capsomeres~\cite{Rapaport2004,Zlotnick1994} and indicates that in this regime successful assembly proceeds by the addition of small clusters to only a few larger, stable assembly intermediates. For crowded runs at very low bond strengths (green, dashed lines) only small cluster sizes are populated and no capsid completion is observed. This explains the quasi-deterministic increase in concentration shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:combined2}(b).
For crowded runs at very high bond strengths (blue, dashed and dotted lines) the relative population at large cluster sizes strongly resembles the relative population without crowding. In contrast the population of small cluster sizes is strongly reduced for the crowded runs while the population of intermediate cluster sizes ($k\approx10$) is increased. This shows that in this case new capsomeres are quickly absorbed by existing clusters and the system becomes eventually crowded with intermediate and large capsid fragments. Interestingly the quick depletion of single capsomeres has previously been identified as characteristic for kinetic trapping during capsid assembly~\cite{Endres2002,Katen2009,Zlotnick2011,Baschek2012}. This shows that kinetic trapping and box crowding at high bond strengths are strongly connected phenomena.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics{Fig6}
\caption{Averaged capsomere concentration $\rho$ and fraction of crowded trajectories $\varphi$ as a function of bond strength $\ensuremath{k_{s}}$ for a normalized capsomere influx rate of $\kappa_i=0.185$ when placing 600 additional, non-specific crowders inside a simulation volume of size $\Lambda_1=27000$. Each data point is obtained from 16 independent trajectories using a total simulation time of $\tau_\text{sim}=6\times 10^5$. On the right a representative simulation snapshot is shown for $\ensuremath{k_{s}}=1179$ and with size-dependent color coding of the capsid fragments. The additional crowders are colored in gray.
}
\label{Fig.5_crowders}
\end{figure*}
As we have seen, crowding effects are essential to understand capsid assembly, but until now
we only have considered self-crowding by viral components. In the cell, crowding will be
established also by other crowders and therefore lower (more physiological) concentrations of viral
components are expected to be sufficient to result in similar effects as described here.
In order to test the validity of our findings in the presence of additional, non-specific macromolecular crowders, we have
used our dynamic simulation setup with non-reactive crowders. To this end we place a total of 600 spherical crowders inside a simulations volume of size $\Lambda_1=27000$. These crowders have the same radius as the capsomeres, however, they do not participate in any reactions (no patches). In the simulation volume we now have a total concentration of $\rho_\text{total}=\rho+\rho_\text{crowder}$ with the concentration of crowders $\rho_\text{crowder}$ being kept constant throughout the simulations. This implies that any crowder found inside a complete capsid is placed back into the simulation volume. The upper (red) histogram in Fig.~\ref{Fig.5_crowders} shows the dependence of the average concentration $\rho$ observed during our simulations on the bond strength $\ensuremath{k_{s}}$ for a normalized influx rate of $\kappa_i=0.185$. Again $\rho$ is only shown for those values of $\ensuremath{k_{s}}$ for which a steady-state was established in all trajectories during the simulation time. The lower (blue) histogram depicts the fraction of crowded runs $\varphi$ for different bond strengths. In addition a representative snapshot of the assembly system including the additional crowding agents is shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig.5_crowders}. Comparing the dependence of $\rho$ on the bond strength $\ensuremath{k_{s}}$, we see the same qualitative behavior with additional crowders (Fig.~\ref{Fig.5_crowders}) and without crowders (Fig.~\ref{fig:combined1}). In both cases assembly is most efficient at intermediate bond strengths. Furthermore in Fig.~\ref{Fig.5_crowders} we again observe two regions (at very low and very high bond strength) in which the simulation volume becomes too crowded for a steady state to be established in all trajectories. This is similar to the two self-crowding regions observed in Fig.~\ref{fig:combined1} at high normalized rates of capsomere influx. However, the normalized influx rate of capsomeres used in Fig.~\ref{Fig.5_crowders} is smaller than those used in Fig.~\ref{fig:combined1}. This suggests that, although the qualitative dependence remains the same, it is more difficult to establish a steady-state virus production in already pre-crowded environments and lower rates of influx are required in this case.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics{Fig7}
\caption{Comparison of capsid yield for a fixed initial capsomere concentration and for a continuous influx of capsomeres. Here the yield of complete capsids in a simulation volume of $\Lambda=125000$ is shown as a function of the bond strength $\ensuremath{k_{s}}$ after a simulation time of $\tau_\text{sim}=10^7$. The blue histogram shows the yield when initially placing 1000 capsomeres in the simulation volume. The red histograms on the other hand show the yield of capsids when gradually increasing the number of capsomeres from zero with a rate of $\ensuremath{\kappa_{i}}=0.24$ (light red) and $\ensuremath{\kappa_{i}}=0.08$ (dark red), respectively, until a total of 1000 capsomeres is reached. The yield has been averaged over 16 different runs.}
\label{fig:ComparisonInfluxConst}
\end{figure}
After having analyzed the different mechanisms which prevent a steady state from being established, we now focus on small normalized influx rates. As can be seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:combined1}(a) and (b)
a steady state with continuous capsid production is established even for very high bond strengths if the normalized influx rate is small enough. This suggests that a gradual influx of capsomeres can prevent or at least reduce kinetic trapping.
In order to verify that dynamic capsomere influx indeed reduces the requirement of an optimal bond strength we compare the yield of capsids for two different setups: a static setup initially starting with $N_0=1000$ capsomeres and a dynamic setup in which a total of $1000$ capsomeres is placed in the simulation volume with a certain rate. In both cases complete capsids are considered to be stable and are taken out of the simulation volume. In Fig.~\ref{fig:ComparisonInfluxConst} the yield of full capsids after a simulation time of $\tau_\text{sim}=10^7$ is shown as a function of the bond strength $\ensuremath{k_{s}}$. The blue histogram shows the yield in the static case while the red histograms show the yield when gradually placing new monomers into the simulation volume with a normalized influx rate of $\ensuremath{\kappa_{i}}=0.24$ (light red) and $\ensuremath{\kappa_{i}}=0.08$ (dark red).
At low bond strengths ($\ensuremath{k_{s}} \leq 720$) the yield in the static case is slightly higher than in the dynamic case. Thus, for small bond strengths it is beneficial if a larger number of capsomeres is available throughout the whole simulation time. In the case of optimal bond strengths ($\ensuremath{k_{s}}=1179-1931$) no difference between the two setups is observed as assembly at these bond strengths proceeds quickly, and almost all simulations show the maximum yield of 16 capsids within the simulation time.
When further increasing the bond strength we see, however, that the yield in the static case quickly drops and no complete capsids are observed above $\ensuremath{k_{s}}=8483$. In this case kinetic trapping completely prevents the formation of capsids. For the dynamic case, in contrast, we still observe considerable yield of capsids above $\ensuremath{k_{s}}=8483$ with the yield being higher for the lower normalized influx rate used. This indeed shows that a dynamic setup with a gradual supply of capsomeres reduces the selectivity for an optimal bond strength and makes the assembly process more robust and less vulnerable against kinetic trapping.
\section{Conclusion}
The assembly of the viral protein shell, the capsid, from elementary assembly units (capsomeres) is a key step during the replication of most viruses. The assembly process needs to be sufficiently robust to guarantee the successful formation of the capsid in the dynamic environment of the host cell. While for test tube experiments on capsid assembly the material available for the assembly process remains constant, in the cellular environment the elementary building blocks for the assembly process are continuously produced by the biomolecular machinery of the cell \cite{Dykeman2014}.
Here we have investigated the role of a dynamic supply of capsomeres and the removal of complete capsids for the assembly of empty T1 virus capsids by using a minimal spatial model based on coarse-grained Brownian dynamics simulations. It has been shown earlier that such a setup can result in a steady state with capsomere influx being balanced by capsid completion \cite{Hagan2011}. Our simulations reveal that for very high rates of capsomere influx the assembly process is only able to compensate the influx of new capsomeres in a narrow range of intermediate bond strengths while outside this range the simulation volume becomes crowded. At lower bond strengths the formation of larger clusters is prohibited and the simulation volume becomes crowded almost deterministically with small clusters. At higher bond strengths, in contrast, the simulation volume becomes crowded with large, incompatible assembly intermediates. This crowding process is triggered stochastically by the formation of an unfavorable configuration of the system. While crowding of the simulation volume at very low bond strengths is nearly independent of the influx rate of capsomeres, the crowding regime at high bond strengths vanishes for a slower influx of capsomeres. Thus, for smaller rates of capsomere influx a steady state with continuous capsid production is established even for very high bond strengths.
Recently Smith et al.~\cite{Smith2014} combined a Gillespie type of approach with Green's function reaction dynamics simulations to infer the effect of additional macromolecular crowders on virus capsid assembly. Here we have consider this important aspect in a fully spatial context.
When placing non-reactive macromolecular crowding agents inside our simulation volume, we observe the same trends with regard to bond strength (optimal assembly at intermediate bond strength and crowding of our simulation volume at high and low bond strength).
In the case of extra crowding, our simulations require the use of lower rates of capsomere influx in order to establish a continuous production of complete capsids, thus bringing our simulations closer to the physiological situation.
Comparing the yield of complete capsids under static conditions with a fixed concentration to the yield of complete capsids when gradually increasing the concentration, we demonstrated that the vulnerability of the assembly process to kinetic trapping can be significantly reduced if the concentration of capsomeres is dynamically increased. This conclusion agrees with the recent finding of a discrete stochastic simulation for genome-stabilized virus assembly that a linear increase in protein concentration dramatically increases the robustness against
kinetic trapping \cite{Dykeman2014}.
To rationalize these results, it is helpful to think of assembly in terms of a free energy landscape (similar to transition networks in protein folding~\cite{Noe2007,Noe2008}). In the picture of the free energy landscape a kinetically trapped assembly process has reached a stable local minimum that prevents the formation of the desired minimum energy configuration. At high bond strengths and high concentrations the free energy landscape of the assembly process is very rough, and trapping in a local minimum is thus very likely. The gradual influx of new assembly material can be understood as a tilting of the free energy landscape. Thus, by continuously providing new capsomeres the assembly process can be guided towards the global minimum corresponding to the formation of full capsids and the dynamic capsomere supply prevents the system from becoming trapped in a local minimum configuration.
As discussed before in our simulations we use enhanced assembly dynamics and relatively large influx rates
to achieve reasonable computing times for our particle-based simulations of empty capsid assembly.
Thus our simulations include the full effect of diffusional encounters and excluded volume interactions.
Our simulations suggest that qualitatively similar results are to be expected for lower rates of capsomere influx,
which we use when accounting for the presence of additional macromolecular crowders.
However, further progress in this direction needs algorithmic advances, including the use of GPU-code
and analytical or resampling techniques to speed up simulation times \cite{vanZon2005,vanZon2005_prl,Takahashi2010,Margaret2014}.
Such advances then would allow us to also address more complicated virus architectures with different bond types,
virus misfits, genome-assisted assembly and the interplay between virus assembly and gene expression.
Although our simulations are performed with enhanced assembly dynamics and high rates of capsomeres influx, we believe that our findings have strong implications for the assembly process of virus shells under (dynamic) in vivo conditions. In particular our simulations suggest that kinetic trapping, which is often thought of as a major limitation preventing the successful assembly of complete capsids under (static) in vitro conditions,
might only play a minor role in vivo if the supply of new capsomeres by the host cell is slow enough. Although assembly is still most efficient at intermediate bond strength, a dynamic supply of capsomeres should allow for robust self-assembly in a wide range of bond strengths without the need for additional helper proteins or scaffolds. This finding is compatible with the results by Dykeman et al. \cite{Dykeman2014} and Hagan et al. \cite{Hagan2011} using different setups. Moreover, our dynamic, particle-based simulations show that self-crowding of the simulation volume can prevent steady-steady capsid assembly at high rates of capsomere influx and high bond strengths.
Our simulations suggest that in the presence of other macromolecular crowders the effect of self-crowding due to the continuous production of capsomeres might occur for much lower rates of capsomere influx (and also lower capsomer concentrations). Here further investigations are necessary to clarify the relevance of this regime for in vivo capsid assembly. One way to test our predictions is to use in vitro experiments. The setup studied in our simulations could be experimentally realized using a microfluidic device that allows to control capsomere influx. At the same time, the bond strength might be controlled by changing temperature or ionic conditions. Capsid removal could be implemented simply by sedimentation \cite{Hagan2011}, by filtering or by boundaries that are sticky to completed capsids. For such a setup, we expect that the yield of full capsids at high bond strengths (low temperatures) depends on the rate of concentration increase. In particular, decreasing the rate of capsomere influx should result in a higher yield of full capsids.
As the assembly of a simple icosahedral capsid can be considered as a paradigm for protein assemblies \cite{Johnson1997} or artificial assembly systems in general~\cite{Zhang2003,Olson2007}, our findings also apply for other complex assembly structures. While recent advances in the design of artificial assembly from colloidal particles have aimed at a dynamic control of the inter-particle interactions~\cite{Leunissen2009,Michele2013} to increase the yield of the desired target structure, our simulations strongly suggest that a dynamic control of the material available for the assembly process can further help to increase the yield of the desired structure in artificial self-assembly systems. In these systems the effect of self-crowding discussed in our manuscript might also play an important role, depending on the rate of supply of new assembly material and the accessible assembly volume.
\begin{acknowledgments}
HCRK was supported by a fellowship from
the Cusanuswerk. USS is member of the CellNetworks
cluster of excellence and of the collaborative
research center SFB 1129 (Integrative analysis of
pathogen replication and spread) at Heidelberg.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
Traditionally, the Infeld-van der Waerden $\gamma \varepsilon $-formalisms
[1] constitute the classical two-component spinor framework for general
relativity. The construction of these formalisms was primarily aimed at
exhibiting an elementary description of the dynamics of Dirac fields in
generally relativistic spacetimes. Such formalisms had been designed
originally much earlier than the achievement of the definitive conditions
for a curved space to admit spinor structures locally [2-4]. The legitimacy
of the procedures for building up them relies crucially upon the existence
of sets of Hermitian connecting objects at non-singular spacetime points.
Their affine prescriptions were formally shaped upon the ones that occur in
the realm of general relativity. Thus, the generalized Weyl gauge group [5]
is taken to operate on spin spaces set up locally in a way that does not
depend at all upon the action of manifold mapping groups. Loosely speaking,
all curvature spinors arise from the decomposition of mixed world-spin
quantities that result from the action of torsionless covariant derivative
commutators on arbitrary spin vectors [1, 6]. The $\gamma \varepsilon
-formalisms were extensively utilized over the years by many authors in
several different ways [6-29], noticeably enough, to reconstruct some
classical generally relativistic structures and to transcribe classification
schemes for world curvature tensors. Notwithstanding the fact that the
construction of curvature spinors is implicitly carried by the formalisms,
the spin curvatures that occur in the classification schemes and some of the
spinor structures mentioned above were obtained in an artificial way by
carrying out straightforward spinor translations of Riemann and Weyl
tensors. A fairly complete algebraic description of the affine and curvature
structures tied in with the formalisms is supplied in Refs. [30-32].
The most striking physical feature of the $\gamma \varepsilon $-framework
lies over the result that any curvature spinors are expressed as sums of
purely gravitational and electromagnetic contributions which produce, in an
inextricably geometric way, the occurrence of wave functions for gravitons
and photons of both handednesses. The gravitational contributions for the
\varepsilon $-formalism were utilized in Refs. [18, 19] to support a spinor
translation of Einstein's equations. It had been established a little
earlier [20] that any of them should show up as a spinor pair which must be
associated to the irreducible decomposition of a Riemann tensor. Any
gravitational wave functions for either formalism are defined as totally
symmetric curvature pieces that occur in spinor decompositions of Weyl
tensors [18]. On the other hand, each electromagnetic curvature contribution
emerges as a pair of suitably contracted pieces\ which enter the spinor
representation of a locally defined Maxwell bivector [30]. The work of Ref.
[4] gives a rough description of the propagation of gravitons for the
\varepsilon $-formalism together with a derivation of the patterns for their
interactions with external electromagnetic fields. In Refs. [30, 32], the
full $\gamma \varepsilon $-description of the propagation of spin curvatures
in vacuum is brought out. It thus appears that the couplings between
gravitons and photons are strictly borne in both formalisms by the wave
equations that govern the electromagnetic propagation. The propagation of
gravitons in the presence of arbitrary sources is described in Ref. [33]
where a somewhat important condition on the first covariant derivative of
energy-momentum tensors is deduced. A specialization of this description for
the particular case of sources coming from eletromagnetic curvatures, is
given in Ref. [26]. The work of Ref. [27] touches upon an interesting
situation concerning the occurrence of geometric sources in the field
equations for Infeld-van der Waerden photons. In Ref. [30], it was suggested
for the first time that a description of some of the physical properties of
the cosmic microwave background could be achieved by looking at the
propagation in Friedmann-like conformally flat spacetimes of electromagnetic
curvatures. A notable class of conformally flat spacetimes which admit
decomposable Christoffel connexions, was considered in Ref. [21] in
conjunction with a derivation of the corresponding spin-affine and curvature
configurations for the $\gamma $-formalism. It was shown thereabout that the
whole derivation can actually be implemented only if a specific constancy
property is imposed on one of the spin densities borne by the expression for
a characteristic $\gamma $-metric function. Explicit expressions for the
gravitational spinors of those spacetimes were then derived. A detailed
description of the interaction couplings that take place in the formulation
of Dirac's theory in curved spacetimes has likewise been given [22]. This
latter work has really made up the original description of Dirac fields as
given by Infeld and van der Waerden.
In the present work, we exhibit the formulation of the theory of classical
Proca fields within the framework of the $\gamma $-formalism. The theory of
spin densities and the gauge transformations inherently borne by the
\varepsilon $-formalism [30, 31] will not be exhibited by this point since
the $\varepsilon $-counterparts of our key developments do not bring forth
any further formal insight. The spinor field equations are obtained out of
transcribing directly the statements that make out the world version of the
theory. Some well-known calculational techniques are then utilized for
deriving the wave equations that control the propagation of the fields taken
into consideration. Indeed, these techniques are just the same as the ones
employed in Refs. [23, 30] for obtaining the typical wave equations of the
entire $\gamma \varepsilon $-framework. Hence, no interaction couplings
between Proca fields and electromagnetic curvatures are ultimately carried
by the resulting wave equations. What comes about is, in effect, that the
only interactions which occur in the theoretical context being considered
involve strictly Proca fields and wave functions for gravitons. One of our
motivations for elaborating upon the situation entertained herein is related
to the absence from the literature of any systematic two-component
description of the propagation of massive spinning bosons in generally
relativistic spacetimes. In our view, it might be worthwhile to work out
such a massive case towards exhibiting the patterns of the couplings that
should arise in the pertinent context. It is from this fact that the main
physical aim of our paper stems.
We will adopt the notation adhered to in Ref. [30] except that spacetime
components will now be labelled by lower-case Greek letters. Kernel letters
for world and spin quantities will broadly appear as Greek and Latin
letters. In particular, we denote as $x^{\mu }$ some local coordinates on a
spacetime $\mathfrak{M}$ equipped with a torsionless covariant derivative
operator $\nabla _{\mu }$. A world metric tensor $g_{\mu \nu }$ on
\mathfrak{M}$ presumably bears the local signature $(+---)$. We thus require
$g_{\mu \nu }$ to fulfill at the outset the metric compatibility condition
of general relativit
\begin{equation*}
\nabla _{\mu }g_{\lambda \sigma }=0,
\end{equation*
which means that we shall allow for the (unique) Levi-Civita connection
associated to $\nabla _{\mu }$. The partial derivative operator for $x^{\mu
} $ is denoted by $\partial _{\mu }$, and the Riemann tensor of $\nabla
_{\mu } $ is written as $R_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }$. Our sign convention
for the respective Ricci tensor $R_{\mu \nu }$ is the same as the one
adopted in Ref. [4]. The determinant of $g_{\mu \nu }$ and the covariant
alternating world density in $\mathfrak{M}$ will especially be denoted as
\mathfrak{g}$ and $\mathfrak{\epsilon }_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }$,
respectively. We shall use the primed-unprimed index notation of Ref. [4]
upon dealing with conjugate spinor components. World indices all range over
the four values $0,1,2,3$ whereas spinor indices take either the values $0,1$
or $0^{\prime },1^{\prime }$. We will utilize the convention according to
which the effect on any index block of the actions of the symmetry and
antisymmetry operators is indicated by surrounding the indices singled out
with round and square brackets, respectively. A horizontal bar lying over a
kernel letter will sometimes be used to denote the operation of complex
conjugation. Further conventions will be explained in due course.
Our outline has been set as follows. For the sake of consistency, the world
version of the Proca theory is formulated in Section 2 on the basis of the
standard least-action principle for classical fields in curved spacetimes
[34]. Section 3 brings out the overall system of spinor field equations. In
Section 4, we carry out the derivation of our wave equations. Some remarks
on our work are made in Section 5. The calculational techniques referred to
above shall be taken for granted from the beginning.
\section{World theory}
The least-action principle for the Proca theory in $\mathfrak{M}$ is written
a
\begin{equation}
\delta S=\delta \int_{\Omega }\mathcal{L}\sqrt{-\mathfrak{g}}d^{4}x=0,
\label{e1}
\end{equation
where $\mathcal{L}$ denotes the Lagrangian densit
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}=-\frac{1}{4}f^{\mu \nu }f_{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{2}m^{2}A^{\mu
}A_{\mu }, \label{e2}
\end{equation
which carries the Proca bivecto
\begin{equation}
f_{\mu \nu }=2\partial _{\lbrack \mu }A_{\nu ]}=2\nabla _{\lbrack \mu
}A_{\nu ]}, \label{e3}
\end{equation
with $A_{\mu }$ and $m$ being a Proca potential and the mass of $f_{\mu \nu
} $. Usually, the variation $\delta $ bears linearity and obeys the Leibniz
rule, in addition to being defined so as to commute with partial derivatives
and integrations. The integral of Eq. (\ref{e1}) is taken over a volume
\Omega $ in $\mathfrak{M}$ whose closure is compact, an
\begin{equation}
d^{4}x=\frac{1}{4!}\mathfrak{\epsilon }_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }dx^{\mu
}\wedge dx^{\nu }\wedge dx^{\lambda }\wedge dx^{\sigma } \label{e4}
\end{equation
defines an elementary volume density in $\Omega $, with the symbol
\textquotedblleft $\wedge $\textquotedblright\ thus denoting the wedge
product.
With the help of Eqs. (\ref{e2}) and (\ref{e3}), we can rewrite the
statement (\ref{e1}) a
\begin{equation}
\delta S=\int_{\Omega }(-f^{\mu \nu }\partial _{\mu }\delta A_{\nu
}+m^{2}A^{\nu }\text{$\delta $}A_{\nu })\sqrt{-\mathfrak{g}}d^{4}x=0,
\label{e5}
\end{equation
where $\delta A_{\nu }$ is taken as an arbitrary covariant quantity in
\Omega $ that vanishes on the boundary $\partial \Omega $ of $\Omega $.
Hence, performing an integration by parts in (\ref{e5}), yield
\begin{align}
& \int_{\Omega }[\frac{1}{\sqrt{-\mathfrak{g}}}\partial _{\mu }(\sqrt{
\mathfrak{g}}f^{\mu \nu })+m^{2}A^{\nu }]\sqrt{-\mathfrak{g}}\delta A_{\nu
}d^{4}x \notag \\
& -\int_{\partial \Omega }f^{\mu \nu }\sqrt{-\mathfrak{g}}\delta A_{\nu
}d^{3}x_{\mu }=0, \label{e6}
\end{align
wit
\begin{equation}
d^{3}x_{\mu }=\frac{1}{3!}\mathfrak{\epsilon }_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma
}dx^{\nu }\wedge dx^{\lambda }\wedge dx^{\sigma }, \label{e7}
\end{equation
whence we can write down the field equation
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{-\mathfrak{g}}}\partial _{\mu }(\sqrt{-\mathfrak{g}}f^{\mu
\nu })+m^{2}A^{\nu }=0, \label{e8}
\end{equation
which amount to the same thing a
\begin{equation}
\nabla _{\mu }f^{\mu \nu }+m^{2}A^{\nu }=0. \label{e9}
\end{equation}
Equations (\ref{e9}) constitute the first world half of Proca's theory in
\mathfrak{M}$. The second half comes into play as the Bianchi identit
\begin{equation}
\nabla _{\lbrack \mu }f_{\lambda \sigma ]}=0, \label{e10}
\end{equation
which can be reexpressed a
\begin{equation}
\nabla ^{\mu }{}f_{\mu \nu }^{\ast }=0, \label{e11}
\end{equation
where
\begin{equation}
f_{\mu \nu }^{\ast }=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{-\mathfrak{g}}\mathfrak{\epsilon
_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }f^{\lambda \sigma } \label{e12}
\end{equation
is the dual bivector of $f_{\mu \nu }$. It follows that, by taking the
covariant divergence of the left-hand side of Eq. (\ref{e9}), likewise
implementing the commutator expansio
\begin{equation}
\lbrack \nabla _{\mu },\nabla _{\nu }]f^{\mu \nu }=R_{\mu \nu \lambda
}{}^{\mu }f^{\lambda \nu }+R_{\mu \nu \lambda }{}^{\nu }f^{\mu \lambda
}=2R_{\mu \nu }f^{\mu \nu }\equiv 0, \label{e14}
\end{equation
we promptly arrive a
\begin{equation}
\nabla _{\mu }A^{\mu }=0. \label{e15}
\end{equation
A similar procedure involves inserting (\ref{e3}) into (\ref{e9}) to ge
\begin{equation}
(\square +m^{2})A_{\mu }-\nabla _{\lambda }\nabla _{\mu }A^{\lambda }=0,
\label{e16}
\end{equation
whence, making use of the equalit
\begin{equation}
\nabla _{\lambda }\nabla _{\mu }A^{\lambda }=\nabla _{\mu }(\nabla _{\lambda
}A^{\lambda })+R_{\lambda \mu \sigma }{}^{\lambda }A^{\sigma }, \label{e17}
\end{equation
and calling upon (\ref{e15}), we end up with the wave equatio
\begin{equation}
(\square +m^{2})A_{\mu }+R_{\mu }{}^{\lambda }A_{\lambda }=0. \label{e18}
\end{equation}
\section{Spinor field equations}
By definition, any Proca wave functions enter formal bivector expansions like
\begin{equation}
\sigma _{AA^{\prime }}^{\mu }\sigma _{BB^{\prime }}^{\nu }f_{\mu \nu
}=f_{AA^{\prime }BB^{\prime }}=\gamma _{A^{\prime }B^{\prime }}\psi
_{AB}+\gamma _{AB}\psi _{A^{\prime }B^{\prime }}, \label{e19}
\end{equation
wit
\begin{equation}
\psi _{AB}=\frac{1}{2}f_{ABC^{\prime }}{}^{C^{\prime }}=\psi _{(AB)},\text{
\psi _{A^{\prime }B^{\prime }}=\frac{1}{2}f_{A^{\prime }B^{\prime
}C}{}^{C}=\psi _{(A^{\prime }B^{\prime })}, \label{e20}
\end{equation
and $(\gamma _{AB},$ $\gamma _{A^{\prime }B^{\prime }})$ being a pair of
covariant metric spinors for the $\gamma $-formalism. The $\sigma $-symbols
carried by Eq. (\ref{e19}) are some appropriate Hermitian connecting
objects, which supposedly fulfill the covariant constancy requirement (see,
for instance, Ref. [32]
\begin{equation}
\nabla _{\mu }\sigma _{BB^{\prime }}^{\lambda }=0. \label{e21}
\end{equation
Accordingly, either of $\psi _{AB}$ and $\psi _{A^{\prime }B^{\prime }}$ is
a massive spin-one uncharged field that represents locally the six degrees
of freedom of $f_{\mu \nu }$ in $\mathfrak{M}$. The corresponding
field-potential relationships are given b
\begin{equation}
\psi _{AB}=-\nabla _{(A}^{C^{\prime }}A_{B)C^{\prime }},\text{ }\psi
_{A^{\prime }B^{\prime }}=-\nabla _{(A^{\prime }}^{C}A_{B^{\prime })C}
\label{e22}
\end{equation
an
\begin{equation}
\psi {}^{AB}=\nabla _{C^{\prime }}^{(A}A^{B)C^{\prime }},\text{ }\psi
^{A^{\prime }B^{\prime }}=\nabla _{C}^{(A^{\prime }}A^{B^{\prime })C}.
\label{e23}
\end{equation}
In passing, we point out that, in deriving Eqs. (\ref{e22}) and (\ref{e23}),
it may be necessary to implement the Infeld-van der Waerden eigenvalue
equations [6, 31
\begin{equation}
\nabla _{\mu }\gamma _{BC}=i\beta _{\mu }\gamma _{BC},\text{ }\nabla _{\mu
}\gamma ^{BC}=-i\beta _{\mu }\gamma ^{BC}, \label{e24}
\end{equation
as well as their complex conjugates. The quantity $\beta _{\mu }$ amounts to
the world vecto
\begin{equation}
\beta _{\mu }=\nabla _{\mu }\Phi +2\Phi _{\mu }, \label{e25}
\end{equation
which is invariant under the action of the Weyl gauge group [1, 6], with
\Phi $ and $\Phi _{\mu }$ being, respectively, the polar argument of the
independent component of $\gamma _{AB}$ and a $\gamma $-formalism
electromagnetic potential. It is useful to introduce the Maxwell bivector
associated to $\Phi _{\mu }$. We have, in effect
\begin{equation}
F_{\mu \nu }=2\partial _{\lbrack \mu }\Phi _{\nu ]}=2\nabla _{\lbrack \mu
}\Phi _{\nu ]}. \label{e26}
\end{equation
The spinor decomposition of $F_{\mu \nu }$ takes up the wave functions $\phi
_{AB}$ and $\phi _{A^{\prime }B^{\prime }}$ which thus supply dynamical
states for Infeld-van der Waerden photons in $\mathfrak{M}$. These wave
functions essentially constitute the electromagnetic curvature of $\mathfrak
M}$, thereby being deeply rooted into the geometric structure of $\mathfrak{
}$. It is obvious that the geometric field-potential relationships may right
away be attained from (\ref{e22}) and (\ref{e23}) by making trivial
replacements of kernel letters. Such relationships shall be utilized later
in Section 4.
The first spinor half of Proca's theory arises here from the two-component
transcription of Eq. (\ref{e9}) whence, by invoking (\ref{e21}), we obtain
the field equations\footnote
The symbol \textquotedblleft c.c.\textquotedblright\ will henceforth denote
an overall complex conjugate piece.
\begin{equation}
\nabla ^{AA^{\prime }}(\gamma _{A^{\prime }B^{\prime }}\psi _{AB}+\text{c.c.
)+m^{2}A_{BB^{\prime }}=0. \label{e27}
\end{equation
The second half now consists of the statements
\begin{equation}
\nabla ^{AA^{\prime }}f_{AA^{\prime }BB^{\prime }}^{\ast }=i\nabla
^{AA^{\prime }}\left( \gamma _{AB}\psi _{A^{\prime }B^{\prime }}-\text{c.c.
\right) =0, \label{e28}
\end{equation
which effectively account for the dual expansio
\begin{equation}
\sigma _{AA^{\prime }}^{\mu }\sigma _{BB^{\prime }}^{\nu }f_{\mu \nu }^{\ast
}=i(\gamma _{AB}\psi _{A^{\prime }B^{\prime }}-\gamma _{A^{\prime }B^{\prime
}}\psi _{AB}). \label{e29}
\end{equation
Of course, Eq. (\ref{e28}) may be reset as the Hermitian configuratio
\begin{equation}
\nabla ^{AA^{\prime }}\left( \gamma _{A^{\prime }B^{\prime }}\psi
_{AB}\right) =\nabla ^{AA^{\prime }}\left( \gamma _{AB}\psi _{A^{\prime
}B^{\prime }}\right) . \label{e30}
\end{equation
We should also observe that the pattern of Eq. (\ref{e29}) oftenly emerges
from the combination of (\ref{e19}) with the alternating expansio
\begin{equation}
\sqrt{-\mathfrak{g}}\mathfrak{\epsilon }_{AA^{\prime }BB^{\prime }CC^{\prime
}DD^{\prime }}=i(\gamma _{AC}\gamma _{BD}\gamma _{A^{\prime }D^{\prime
}}\gamma _{B^{\prime }C^{\prime }}-\gamma _{AD}\gamma _{BC}\gamma
_{A^{\prime }C^{\prime }}\gamma _{B^{\prime }D^{\prime }}). \label{e31}
\end{equation}
Typically, the entire Proca theory in $\mathfrak{M}$ is written out
explicitly as the field equations
\begin{equation}
\nabla _{B^{\prime }}^{A}\psi _{AB}+\frac{1}{2}m^{2}A_{BB^{\prime }}-i\beta
_{B^{\prime }}^{A}\psi _{AB}=0 \label{e32}
\end{equation
an
\begin{equation}
\nabla _{A}^{B^{\prime }}\psi ^{AB}-\frac{1}{2}m^{2}A^{BB^{\prime }}+i\beta
_{A}^{B^{\prime }}\psi ^{AB}=0, \label{e33}
\end{equation
together with the complex conjugates of (\ref{e32}) and (\ref{e33}). A
formal simplification to it can be accomplished by utilizing Eqs. (\ref{e24
) along with metric prescriptions of the typ
\begin{equation}
\nabla ^{AB^{\prime }}\psi _{AB}=\nabla ^{AB^{\prime }}(\psi _{A}^{C}\gamma
_{CB}),\text{ }\nabla _{AB^{\prime }}\psi ^{AB}=\nabla _{AB^{\prime
}}(\gamma ^{BC}\psi _{C}^{A}). \label{e34}
\end{equation
For the unprimed wave functions, for instance, we thus have the equivalent
statement
\begin{equation}
\nabla ^{AB^{\prime }}\psi _{A}^{B}+\frac{1}{2}m^{2}A^{BB^{\prime }}=0,\text{
}\nabla _{AB^{\prime }}\psi _{B}^{A}-\frac{1}{2}m^{2}A_{BB^{\prime }}=0.
\label{e35}
\end{equation
Evidently, the symmetry borne by the wave functions makes it immaterial to
order their indices.
\section{Wave equations}
At this stage, we shall follow up the procedure which amounts to
implementing the calculational techniques mentioned in Section 1 towards
deriving the wave equations for the fields that occur in the statements (\re
{e32})-(\ref{e35}). We will initially work out the procedure for $\psi ^{AB}$
and $\psi _{A}^{B}$. The wave equation for $\psi _{AB}$ will then be
obtained by taking into effect a valence interchange rule that had been
deduced originally [30] in connection with the presentation of the general
description of $\gamma \varepsilon $-curvatures. We may certainly get the
wave equations for any primed fields by taking complex conjugates. Equations
(\ref{e24}) will be used so many times in what follows that we will no
longer refer to them explicitly.
We start by operating with $\nabla _{CB^{\prime }}$ on the configuration of
Eq. (\ref{e33}). Hence, using the operator correlatio
\begin{equation}
\nabla _{CB^{\prime }}\nabla _{A}^{B^{\prime }}=\gamma _{LC}\nabla
_{B^{\prime }}^{L}(\gamma _{MA}\nabla ^{MB^{\prime }})=i\beta _{CB^{\prime
}}\nabla _{A}^{B^{\prime }}+\gamma _{LC}\gamma _{MA}\nabla _{B^{\prime
}}^{L}\nabla ^{MB^{\prime }}, \label{e36}
\end{equation
together with the splittin
\begin{equation}
\nabla _{B^{\prime }}^{L}\nabla ^{MB^{\prime }}=\Delta ^{LM}+\frac{1}{2
\gamma ^{LM}\square \label{e37}
\end{equation
and the definition\footnote
The object $\square $\ equals the covariant D'Alembertian operator $\nabla
^{\mu }\nabla _{\mu }$ whilst $\Delta ^{AB}$ is linear and enjoys the
Leibniz rule property.
\begin{equation}
\Delta ^{AB}=\nabla _{C^{\prime }}^{(A}\nabla ^{B)C^{\prime }}, \label{e38}
\end{equation
we get the contribution
\begin{equation}
\nabla _{CB^{\prime }}\nabla _{A}^{B^{\prime }}\psi ^{AB}=i\beta
_{CB^{\prime }}\nabla _{A}^{B^{\prime }}\psi ^{AB}+(\Delta _{AC}-\frac{1}{2
\gamma _{AC}\square )\psi ^{AB}. \label{e39}
\end{equation
The $\Delta $-derivative of (\ref{e39}) read
\begin{equation}
\Delta _{AC}\psi ^{AB}=\frac{R}{6}\gamma _{CA}\psi ^{AB}+\Psi
_{AMC}{}^{B}\psi ^{AM}-2i\phi _{AC}\psi ^{AB}, \label{e40}
\end{equation
where $\phi _{AB}$ stands for a wave function for Infeld-van der Waerden
photons and $\Psi _{ABCD}$ is a wave function for gravitons in $\mathfrak{M}
. For the $\beta $-term of (\ref{e39}), we hav
\begin{equation}
i\beta _{CB^{\prime }}\nabla _{A}^{B^{\prime }}\psi ^{AB}=i(\beta
_{B^{\prime }(A}\nabla _{C)}^{B^{\prime }}-\frac{1}{2}\gamma _{AC}\beta
^{\mu }\nabla _{\mu })\psi ^{AB}. \label{e41}
\end{equation
In addition, recalling the unprimed relation of (\ref{e23}), produces the
following expansion for the differential kernel of the operated mass term
coming from (\ref{e33})
\begin{equation}
\nabla _{CB^{\prime }}A^{BB^{\prime }}=\gamma _{MC}(\psi ^{MB}+\frac{1}{2
\gamma ^{MB}\nabla _{\mu }A^{\mu }), \label{e42}
\end{equation
which, by virtue of Eq. (\ref{e15}), may be simplified t
\begin{equation}
\nabla _{CB^{\prime }}A^{BB^{\prime }}=\gamma _{MC}\psi ^{MB}. \label{e43}
\end{equation}
We have next to allow for the contributio
\begin{equation}
\nabla _{CB^{\prime }}(i\beta _{A}^{B^{\prime }}\psi ^{AB})=(i\nabla
_{CB^{\prime }}\beta _{A}^{B^{\prime }})\psi ^{AB}+i\beta _{A}^{B^{\prime
}}\nabla _{CB^{\prime }}\psi ^{AB}. \label{e44}
\end{equation
It is evident that the sum of the $\beta $-term of (\ref{e39}) with the
second term lying on the right-hand side of (\ref{e44}), bears skewness in
the indices $A$ and $C$, that is to say
\begin{equation}
i\beta _{CB^{\prime }}\nabla _{A}^{B^{\prime }}\psi ^{AB}+i\beta
_{A}^{B^{\prime }}\nabla _{CB^{\prime }}\psi ^{AB}=i\gamma _{CA}\beta _{\mu
}\nabla ^{\mu }\psi ^{AB}. \label{Add1}
\end{equation
For the other individual term of (\ref{e44}), we spell out the auxiliary
configuration
\begin{equation}
i\nabla _{B^{\prime }[C}\beta _{A]}^{B^{\prime }}=\frac{1}{2}\gamma
_{AC}(\beta ^{\mu }\beta _{\mu }-i\nabla _{\mu }\beta ^{\mu }) \label{e45}
\end{equation
an
\begin{equation}
i\nabla _{B^{\prime }(C}\beta _{A)}^{B^{\prime }}=i(\Delta _{AC}\Phi +2\phi
_{AC}), \label{e46}
\end{equation
where $\Phi $ is given by Eq. (\ref{e25}). The $\Delta $-derivative of (\re
{e46}) vanishes identically\footnote
Within the $\gamma \varepsilon $-framework, the quantity $\Phi $ is looked
upon as a world scalar subject to a suitable gauge behaviour.} because of
the torsionlessness of $\nabla _{\mu }$. It follows that, fitting pieces
together, yield
\begin{equation}
(\square +2i\beta ^{\mu }\nabla _{\mu }+\Theta +\frac{R}{3}+m^{2})\psi
^{AB}-2\Psi ^{AB}{}_{LM}\psi ^{LM}=0, \label{e47}
\end{equation
wit
\begin{equation}
\Theta \doteqdot -\beta ^{\mu }\beta _{\mu }+i\nabla _{\mu }\beta ^{\mu }.
\label{e48}
\end{equation}
The entire derivation of the wave equation for the field involved in Eqs.
\ref{e35}) does not produce any couplings other than a gravitational one
which looks like that borne by (\ref{e47}). Roughly speaking, the only
reason for this rests upon the result that we can carry out the relevant
derivation without having to call for any correlations like (\ref{e36}) or
\ref{e45}), with the valence pattern of $\psi _{A}^{B}$ accordingly ensuring
the absence of any $\phi \psi $-interactions.\footnote
The work of Ref. [30] describes in detail on the basis of the theory of spin
densities the situation related to the eventual absence of electromagnetic
contributions from $\Delta $-derivatives.} For the first of Eqs. (\ref{e35
), say, we thus reexpress (\ref{e37}) a
\begin{equation}
\nabla _{CB^{\prime }}\nabla ^{AB^{\prime }}=\gamma _{MC}(\Delta ^{AM}-\frac
1}{2}\gamma ^{AM}\square ), \label{e49}
\end{equation
and let the splitting (\ref{e49}) act on $\psi _{A}^{B}$ such that the
relation (\ref{e43}) still holds. Consequently, by taking account of the
derivativ
\begin{equation}
\Delta _{C}^{A}\psi _{A}^{B}=\frac{R}{6}\psi _{C}^{B}+\Psi ^{AB}{}_{CD}\psi
_{A}^{D}, \label{e50}
\end{equation
while resetting the kernel for the mass term a
\begin{equation}
\nabla _{CB^{\prime }}A^{BB^{\prime }}=\psi _{C}^{B}, \label{e51}
\end{equation
and making some index substitutions thereafter, we obtai
\begin{equation}
(\square +\frac{R}{3}+m^{2})\psi _{A}^{B}{}+2\Psi _{AD}{}{}^{BC}\psi
_{C}^{D}{}=0. \label{e52}
\end{equation
It is worth pointing out that the $\Delta $-derivative of (\ref{e50})
possesses the propert
\begin{equation}
\Delta ^{A[C}\psi _{A}^{B]}{}=0. \label{e53}
\end{equation}
The wave equation for $\psi _{AB}$ can indeed be derived from (\ref{e47}) by
applying to it the simultaneous interchange
\begin{equation}
i\beta ^{\mu }\nabla _{\mu }\leftrightarrow -i\beta ^{\mu }\nabla _{\mu }
\text{ }\Theta \leftrightarrow \overline{\Theta }, \label{e54}
\end{equation
which come naturally from the utilization of the differential device
\begin{equation}
\square \psi _{AB}=\square (\psi {}^{CD}\gamma _{CA}\gamma _{DB}),\text{
\square (\gamma _{CA}\gamma _{DB})=-\overline{\Upsilon }\gamma _{CA}\gamma
_{DB} \label{e55}
\end{equation
and
\begin{equation}
2(\nabla _{\mu }\psi {}^{CD})\nabla ^{\mu }(\gamma _{CA}\gamma
_{DB})=4(2\beta ^{\mu }\beta _{\mu }+i\beta ^{\mu }\nabla _{\mu })\psi _{AB},
\label{e56}
\end{equation
with the definitio
\begin{equation}
\Upsilon \doteqdot 2(\beta ^{\mu }\beta _{\mu }-\overline{\Theta }).
\label{e57}
\end{equation
We thus hav
\begin{equation}
(\square -2i\beta ^{\mu }\nabla _{\mu }+\overline{\Theta }{}+\frac{R}{3
+m^{2})\psi _{AB}-2\Psi {}_{AB}{}^{LM}\psi _{LM}=0. \label{e58}
\end{equation}
\section{Concluding remarks}
We saw that the coupling $2i\phi _{AC}\psi ^{AB}$ occurs through the
expansions (\ref{e40}) and (\ref{e46}) in the derivation that leads to the
wave equation (\ref{e47}), but it nevertheless turns out to be cancelled
when the derivation is actually carried through. If we had instead worked
out the derivation procedure for $\psi _{AB}$, then such a $\phi \psi
-coupling would have once again arisen at some intermediate calculational
steps as can clearly be seen from the combined configuration
\begin{equation*}
\left( 2\Delta ^{AC}-\gamma ^{AC}\square \right) \psi _{AB}+m^{2}\nabla
_{B^{\prime }}^{C}A_{B}^{B^{\prime }}=2i\nabla _{B^{\prime }}^{C}(\beta
^{AB^{\prime }}\psi _{AB}),
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
2\Delta ^{AC}\psi _{AB}{}=\frac{R}{3}\psi _{B}^{C}{}{}{}{}-2\Psi
_{B}{}{}^{CMN}\psi _{MN}{}+4i\phi ^{AC}{}\psi _{AB}{}
\end{equation*
an
\begin{equation*}
(\nabla _{B^{\prime }}^{(C}\beta ^{A)B^{\prime }})\psi _{AB}=\left( \Delta
^{AC}\Phi +2\phi ^{AC}\right) \psi _{AB},\text{ }\nabla _{B^{\prime
}}^{[C}\beta ^{A]B^{\prime }}=\frac{1}{2}\gamma ^{CA}\nabla _{\mu }\beta
^{\mu }.
\end{equation*
Thus, by using the prescriptio
\begin{equation*}
\nabla _{CB^{\prime }}A_{B}^{B^{\prime }}=\nabla _{CB^{\prime }}(\gamma
^{B^{\prime }C^{\prime }}A_{BC^{\prime }}),
\end{equation*
likewise invoking one of the relationships (\ref{e22}) and implementing (\re
{e15}), we could rearrange the kernel of the differentiated mass term of Eq.
(\ref{e32}) a
\begin{equation*}
\nabla _{CB^{\prime }}A_{B}^{B^{\prime }}=\psi _{BC}+i\beta _{CB^{\prime
}}A_{B}^{B^{\prime }},
\end{equation*
which particularly carries the potential couplin
\begin{equation*}
i\Phi _{CB^{\prime }}A_{B}^{B^{\prime }}=i(\Phi _{B^{\prime
}(B}A_{C)}^{B^{\prime }}-\frac{1}{2}\gamma _{BC}\Phi _{\mu }A^{\mu }).
\end{equation*
In fact, the desirable covariance of Eq. (\ref{e58}) under the geometrically
intrinsic $\gamma $-formalism gauge transformation [30
\begin{equation*}
\Phi _{\mu }\mapsto \Phi _{\mu }-\partial _{\mu }\theta ,
\end{equation*
is brought about when we call for the contributio
\begin{equation*}
2i\beta ^{AB^{\prime }}\nabla _{CB^{\prime }}\psi _{AB}=(2i\beta ^{\mu
}\nabla _{\mu }+\beta ^{\mu }\beta _{\mu })\psi _{BC}+im^{2}\beta
_{CB^{\prime }}A_{B}^{B^{\prime }},
\end{equation*
which accordingly entails the cancellation of all $\Phi $-potential
couplings.
It should be obvious that both of the wave equations (\ref{e47}) and (\re
{e58}) could be readily derived from (\ref{e52}) by taking into account the
correlation
\begin{equation*}
(\square \psi _{A}^{C}{})\gamma _{CB}=(\square -2i\beta ^{\mu }\nabla _{\mu
}+\overline{\Theta })\psi _{AB}{}
\end{equation*
an
\begin{equation*}
\gamma ^{AC}(\square \psi _{C}^{B}{})=(\square +2i\beta ^{\mu }\nabla _{\mu
}+\Theta )\psi ^{AB},
\end{equation*
along with the eigenvalue equation
\begin{equation*}
\square \gamma _{AB}=\Theta \gamma _{AB},\text{ }\square \gamma ^{AB}
\overline{\Theta }\gamma ^{AB}.
\end{equation*}
The work we have just presented has provided us with the characteristic
patterns of the $\gamma $-formalism version of the theory of classical Proca
fields. We emphasize that one of the most remarkable properties of the wave
equations deduced previously, is that the only interactions carried by them
involve Proca fields and gravitational wave functions. Hence, Proca fields
propagate in $\mathfrak{M}$ as if Infeld-van der Waerden electromagnetic
curvatures were absent. Therefore, we could say that our work has filled in
the gap associated to the absence of a formal two-component description of
external massive spin-one fields in general relativity. We believe that it
would be of considerable interest to obtain the physically meaningful
couplings involving external spinning fields, which should arise within the
torsional framework of Refs. [35, 36].
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
One of us (JGC) should acknowledge the referees for producing many
improvements on the paper. The work carried out here was supported in part
by the Brazilian agency CAPES.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
In recent years a certain paradigm has emerged which roughly says that any graph is close to being a vertex-disjoint union of expanders. Unlike the $\e$-regular partitions of Szemer{\'e}di~\cite{Szemeredi78} and the cut decompositions of Frieze-Kannan~\cite{FriezeKa99} which are relevant only for dense graphs (i.e., with $\Theta(n^2)$ edges), this paradigm is applicable for graphs of arbitrary density. Generally speaking, its usefulness stems from the fact that it allows for a divide-and-conquer approach, in essence reducing a problem on general graphs to the special case of expander graphs.
For algorithmic problems, this paradigm has been useful, for example, in designing approximation algorithms related to the Unique Games Conjecture~\cite{Khot02}, as in the seminal work of Arora-Barak-Steurer~\cite{AroraBaSt10} and of Trevisan~\cite{Trevisan05}. It has also seen applications in property-testing algorithms~\cite{CzumajShSo09,GoldreichRo99}, as well as in data structure design~\cite{PatrascuTh07}.
In graph theory, instantiations of this paradigm include the theorem of Lipton-Tarjan-Rose~\cite{LiptonRoTa79} on vertex separators in hereditary families,
the results of Linial-Saks~\cite{LinialSa93} and Leighton-Rao~\cite{LeightonRa99} on low-diameter decompositions,
as well as results in the field of graph minors~\cite{KostochkaPy88,ShapiraSu08} and cycle packing~\cite{CFS}.
See Section~\ref{sec:app} for some further discussion.
We note that in all applications of the regularity lemmas~\cite{FriezeKa99,Szemeredi78} one uses the same notion of expansion\footnote{In the setting of the
regularity lemma, expansion is referred to as being $\e$-regular.}.
On the other hand, when dealing with sparse graphs and applying the above-mentioned paradigm, each application calls for a different notion of expansion. Our main goal in this paper is to show that in several of the above-mentioned applications,
the different notions of expansion that were used are quantitatively best possible.
As it turns out, all our results can be deduced from a construction of a new family of graphs (stated in Theorem~\ref{theo:main}), whose main property is that every subgraph of it has a small \emph{edge separator}, which in particular implies small vertex/edge expansion. We next recall some basic definitions.
\begin{definition}[Edge/Vertex Separator]
An \emph{edge separator} in a graph $G=(V,E)$ is a set of edges whose removal disconnects $G$ into two (not necessarily connected) subgraphs, each on at most $\frac23\s{V}$ vertices. We write $\sep(G)$ for the minimum cardinality of an edge separator in $G$.\\
A \emph{vertex separator} is defined in the same way, only now vertices are removed rather than edges. We write $\sepV(G)$ for the minimum cardinality of a vertex separator in $G$
\end{definition}
Note that $\sepV(G)\le\sep(G)$, simply by taking an arbitrary endpoint of each separator edge.
The \emph{girth} of a graph is the minimum length of a cycle in it.
We henceforth write $\log(\cdot)$ for $\log_2(\cdot)$.
Our main technical result in this paper, stated next, implies that there exist graphs with a super-linear number of edges, whose girth is $(\log n)^{1-o(1)}$ and whose $t$-vertex subgraphs all have expansion at most $(\log t)^{-1+o(1)}$.
\begin{theo}\label{theo:main}
For any $n,k$ with $2 \le k \le \frac{1}{648}\log\log n$ there is an $n$-vertex graph $G=G_{n,k}$ satisfying:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $G$ has average degree at least $k$ and maximum degree at most $6k$.
\item $G$ has girth at least $\log n/(6k)^2$.
\item Every $t$-vertex subgraph $H$ of $G$
with $t\ge \log n/(6k)^2$
satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{eq:expansion}
\sepV(H) \le \sep(H)\le \frac{t}{\log t}\cdot(\log\log t)^2 \;.
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\end{theo}
Let us briefly explain why the quantitative estimates in Theorem \ref{theo:main} are (essentially) best possible.
First, observe that for subgraphs $H$ of $G_{n,k}$ in Theorem~\ref{theo:main} on fewer than $\log n/(6k)^2$ vertices, we of course have a much stronger
bound on $\sepV(H)$ and $\sep(H)$ than the one stated in~(\ref{eq:expansion}) for larger subgraphs. To see this, one just has to recall the following well-known fact.
\begin{fact}\label{fact:treeSep}
Every tree $T$ satisfies $\sepV(T)\le 1$.
\end{fact}
So item $(ii)$ in Theorem~\ref{theo:main} implies that subgraphs $H$ of $G_{n,k}$ on fewer than $\log n/(6k)^2$ vertices satisfy
$\sepV(H) \leq 1$ and thus also $\sep(H) \le \D(H) \le \D(G) \, (\le \log\log n)$.\footnote{$\D(\cdot)$ denotes the maximum degree of a graph.}
Note that the bound on $\sep(H)$ cannot be improved by much beyond $\D(G)$ since $G$ contains $K_{1,\D(G)}$ (the star with $\D(G)$ leaves) as a subgraph, and
it is not hard to see that $\sep(K_{1,\Delta}) \geq \Delta/3$. Second, as we discuss in Section~\ref{sec:conc}, any family of graphs
satisfying item $(iii)$ (or variants of it) contains at most $n(\log\log n)^{O(1)}$ edges, so one cannot construct graphs as above with average degree much larger than $\log\log n$. Finally, it follows from Theorem~\ref{theo:SS} below that \emph{any} graph of average degree at least $3$ has a subgraph that is not a tree and does not contain a separator of size much smaller than the one in~(\ref{eq:expansion}), so our estimate on the size of the separator in item $(iii)$ cannot be reduced by more than some $\log\log t$ terms. Actually, the proof of Theorem~\ref{theo:main} shows that in~(\ref{eq:expansion}) we can replace
the $(\log\log t)^2$ term by $(\log\log t)^{1+o(1)}$, but we chose to use the simpler/cleaner expression.
\subsection{Small set expansion}
Next we describe a strengthening of Theorem~\ref{theo:main} which will be important for some of our applications.
Notice that Theorem~\ref{theo:main} gives a graph whose every subgraph has a \emph{large} subset (i.e., consisting of at least $1/3$ of its vertices) that does not expand.
One may thus further ask for a graph that does not contain even \emph{small set expanders}; that is, a graph whose every subgraph has a small non-expanding set (i.e., consisting of $o(1)$-fraction of the vertices).
The notion of small set expanders has recently received much attention in theoretical computer science (see, e.g.,~\cite{AroraBaSt10,Steurer10,SteurerRa10}). For example, it is believed that solving unique games
is intimately connected with the problem of finding small non-expanding sets.
For a graph $H$ and a subset $\emptyset \neq A \sub V(H)$ we write $\partial_H(A)$ for the set of edges of $H$ with precisely one endpoint in $A$, and $\phi_H(A)$ for the \emph{edge expansion} of $A$ in $H$, that is,
$$\phi_H(A) = \frac{\s{\partial_H(A)}}{\s{A}} \;.$$
We have the following ``small set'' counterpart of Theorem~\ref{theo:main}. Note that here we in fact prove the stronger property that one can essentially \emph{partition} the subgraph into small non-expanding subsets.
\begin{theo}\label{theo:SSE}
Let $G=G_{n,k}$ be a graph from Theorem~\ref{theo:main} with $2 \le k \le \frac{1}{648}\log\log\log n$. For every $t$-vertex subgraph $H$ of $G$ with $t\ge \log n/(6k)^2$, and every $1/t \le \mu \le 2/3$, there are $\ceil{1/4\mu}$ mutually disjoint subsets $A_i \sub V(H)$ of size $\mu t/3 \le \s{A_i} \le \mu t$ satisfying
\begin{equation}\label{eq:SSEexpansion}
\phi_H(A_i) \le \frac{\log (1/\mu)}{\log t}\cdot(14\log\log t)^2 \;.
\end{equation}
\end{theo}
Note that in Theorem~\ref{theo:SSE} we can find, in any large subgraph $H$, subsets that simultaneously have ``measure'' $o(1)$ and edge expansion $o(1)$.
For example, by setting $\mu=1/\log t$ in~(\ref{eq:SSEexpansion}), each of the subsets $A \sub V(H)$ produced by the theorem satisfies $\s{A}/t = 1/\log t$ and
$\phi_H(A) \le (1/\log t)(14\log\log t)^3 = 1/(\log t)^{1-o(1)}$.
Similarly to Theorem~\ref{theo:main}, the quantitative estimates in Theorem~\ref{theo:SSE} are (essentially) best possible.
It follows from Theorem~\ref{theo:SS} below that any graph of average degree at least $3$ has a $t$-vertex subgraph whose every subset of measure $\mu$ has edge expansion at least $\frac{\log(1/\mu)}{\log t}(\log\log t)^{-2}$. Thus, our estimate of the edge expansion cannot be reduced by more than some $\log\log t$ terms. Finally, note that while Theorem~\ref{theo:SSE} only deals with subgraphs $H$ on at least $\log n/(6k)^2$ vertices, any smaller subgraph is
a tree (due to item $(ii)$ in Theorem~\ref{theo:main}), implying that it trivially has small subsets with weak expansion.
\subsection{Paper overview}
In Section~\ref{sec:app} we describe the main results of this paper, which are the applications of Theorems~\ref{theo:main} and~\ref{theo:SSE},
showing that many decomposition-type results that were used in different areas of research are essentially best possible.
These include applications in approximation algorithms, property testing, extremal problems in graph theory as well as the nested dissection method.
The proof of Theorem~\ref{theo:main} is given in Section~\ref{sec:proof} (with some technical proofs differed to Section~\ref{sec:add})
and the proof of Theorem~\ref{theo:SSE} is given in Section~\ref{sec:proofSSE}.
Section~\ref{sec:conc} contains some concluding remarks and open problems.
Let us thus give an overview of the proofs of the our theorems.
The main idea of the proof of Theorem~\ref{theo:main} is to start with the Boolean hypercube $Q_d$ and choose an appropriate random subgraph $G$ of it.
Using (simple) probabilistic and combinatorial arguments, we show that this random subgraph $G$ satisfies items $(i)$ and $(ii)$ of Theorem~\ref{theo:main}.
To prove the third item, we first prove that all bounded degree subgraphs of $Q_d$ have small edge expansion. To this end, we use an argument similar to the one used by Linial, London and Rabinovich~\cite{LinialLoRa95} in the setting of metric embedding.
Then, we proceed to ``boost'' this fact in order to show that every sufficiently large subgraph of $G$ actually has a small edge \emph{separator}, thus establishing item~$(iii)$ of Theorem~\ref{theo:main}.
In order to prove Theorem~\ref{theo:SSE}, we first show that the hereditary nature of item~$(iii)$ of Theorem~\ref{theo:main} can be used to iteratively find smaller and smaller subsets while controlling their expansion.
This enables us to find a single small subset having small expansion.
Next, we remove this subset and look for another small subset, this time having small expansion in the remaining subgraph. We continue in this manner until we get almost a partition of the vertex set. Finally, we show that many of the subsets we obtained have small expansion also in the original subgraph.
\section{Applications of Main Results}\label{sec:app}
\subsection{Edge density of hereditary families with small separators}
A family of graphs is said to be \emph{hereditary} if it is closed under taking induced subgraphs.
The well-known Planar Separator theorem of Lipton-Tarjan~\cite{LiptonTa79} asserts that any $n$-vertex planar graph has a vertex separator of cardinality at most $O(\sqrt{n})$. This influential result lead to many extensions for other hereditary families of graph (such as minor-free families, see~\cite{AlonSeTh94}). The notion of vertex separator in graphs has since found numerous applications in studying both pure and algorithmic problems in graph theory (see~\cite{sepbook} and its references). One of the first applications of separators was given by Lipton, Rose, and Tarjan~\cite{LiptonRoTa79} in their work on the nested dissection method. Intuitively, their result states that the reason planar graphs (and more generally minor-free graphs) have linearly many edges is that they have small separators.
\begin{theo}[\cite{LiptonRoTa79}, Theorem~10]\label{theo:LRT}
For every $\e>0$ there is $C>0$ for which the following holds. Let $\F$ be a hereditary family of graphs such that every $n$-vertex graph $G\in\F$ satisfies $\sepV(G) \le n/(\log n)^{1+\e}$.
Then every $n$-vertex graph in $\F$ has at most $Cn$ edges.
\end{theo}
We mention that Fox and Pach~\cite{FoxPa08} strengthened Theorem~\ref{theo:LRT} by proving that even separators of size
$n/\log n(\log\log n)^{1+\e}$ guarantee\footnote{The result of \cite{FoxPa08} actually shows that having separators of size $n/\log n\log\log n(\log\log\log n)^2$ suffices.} that every graph in $\F$ has $O(n)$ edges.
Using Theorem~\ref{theo:main} we next show that the separation requirement in Theorem~\ref{theo:LRT} cannot be improved much beyond $n/\log n$.
\begin{coro}\label{coro:FoxPach}
There is a hereditary family of graphs $\F$ such that every $n$-vertex graph
$G\in\F$ satisfies $\sepV(G) \le (n/\log n)(\log\log n)^2$, yet there is no $C>0$ such that every $n$-vertex graph in $\F$ has at most $Cn$ edges.
\end{coro}
\begin{proof}
Let $\F$ be the family of graphs defined as follows:
$$
\F=\{G \,:\, G \text{ is an induced subgraph of } G_{n,\log\log n/648} \text{ for some } n\}\;,
$$
where $G_{n,\log\log n/648}$ are the graphs from Theorem~\ref{theo:main}. Note that $\F$ is, by definition, a hereditary family of graphs.
By items $(ii)$ and $(iii)$ of Theorem~\ref{theo:main} (and Fact \ref{fact:treeSep}), every $n$-vertex graph $G\in\F$ satisfies $\sepV(G) \le (n/\log n)(\log\log n)^2$, as required. On the other hand, by item $(i)$ of Theorem~\ref{theo:main}, the family $\F$ contains, for every large enough $n$, an $n$-vertex graph with $\Omega(n \log\log n)$ edges. This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Decomposing a graph into edge expanders}\label{subsec:Trevisan}
Trevisan~\cite{Trevisan05}, in his work on approximating constraints satisfaction problems related to the Unique Games Conjecture,
gave a combinatorial algorithm for approximating unique games.
The main component of the algorithm is a decomposition of any graph into disjoint expanders. Given the graph underlying the unique game input, the algorithm proceeds to solve the problem on each expander separately, which, as Trevisan shows, can be done in polynomial time.
We note that we will revisit this paradigm for solving unique games in Section~\ref{subsec:ABS}, where we discuss the well-known Arora-Barak-Steurer~\cite{AroraBaSt10} algorithm.
We begin with the formal definitions.
A (linear) \emph{unique game} is a system of linear equations of the form $x_i-x_j=c_{i,j}\pmod{q}$.
Let $\UG_q(\d)$ denote the computational problem of deciding, given a unique game with equations modulo $q$, whether there is an assignment satisfying at least a $(1-\d)$-fraction of the equations or rather every assignment satisfies at most a $\d$-fraction of the equations (we are guaranteed that one of the two cases holds).
The influential Unique Games Conjecture\footnote{The version stated here was shown in~\cite{KhotKiMoOd07} to be equivalent to Khot's original formulation in~\cite{Khot02}.} of Khot~\cite{Khot02} postulates that
$\UG_q(\d)$ is NP-hard for every $0<\d<1/2$ and sufficiently large $q$.
Trevisan's algorithm efficiently solves a weaker version of $\UG_q(\d)$ (and therefore does not refute the Unique Games Conjecture).
A graph $G=(V,E)$ is said to have \emph{edge expansion} $\a$ if every subset $S\sub V$ with $\s{S}\le\s{V}/2$ satisfies $\s{\partial(S)} \ge \a\s{S}$ (recall that the \emph{edge boundary} $\partial(S)$ of $S$ is the set of edges with precisely one endpoint in $S$).
Trevisan proved the following decompositions theorem for arbitrary graphs.
Roughly speaking, it asserts\footnote{We note that prior to~\cite{Trevisan05}, Goldreich and Ron~\cite{GoldreichRo99} have implicitly proved
a result of the same spirit, whose exact quantitative properties are somewhat more complicated to state. See also~\cite{KannanVeVe04}} that, given any graph, one can remove few of the edges in order to disconnect it into disjoint
graphs of high expansion\footnote{Trevisan originally used the notion of conductance; our lower bound applies even for edge expansion.}.
\begin{theo}[\cite{Trevisan05}, Lemma~10]\label{theo:Trevisan}
Let $0<\e\le 1/2$.
From any $n$-vertex graph one can remove at most an $\e$-fraction of the edges to obtain a graph whose every connected component has edge expansion at least $\e/12\log n$.
\end{theo}
Using Theorem~\ref{theo:main} we show in Corollary \ref{coro:Trevisan} below that, already for $\e=1/2$, the expansion guarantee in Theorem~\ref{theo:Trevisan} cannot be improved much beyond $1/\log n$. In fact,
we show that the same conclusion holds even
when $\e=1-o(1)$, that is, even if one is allowed to remove all but a $o(1)$-fraction of the edges of the graph!
To this end, we will first need the following observation regarding the graphs
$G_{n,k}$ from Theorem~\ref{theo:main}.
\begin{claim}\label{claim:many_vertices}
Any subgraph of $G_{n,k}$ with average degree at least $4$ has at least $n^{1/72k^2}$ vertices.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Let $H$ be a $t$-vertex subgraph of $G$ with average degree at least $4$.
Recall the well-known fact that the girth of a $t$-vertex graph of average degree at least $4$ is at most $2\log t$ (in fact, average degree at least $3$ suffices, see~\cite{AlonHoLi02}).
Item $(ii)$ in Theorem~\ref{theo:main} thus implies $\log n/(6k)^2 \le 2\log t$,
completing the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{coro}\label{coro:Trevisan}
Let $G=G_{n,k}$ be a graph from Theorem~\ref{theo:main}. Any subgraph of $G$ with average degree at least $4$ has a connected component with edge expansion at most $(1/\log n)(15k\log\log n)^2$.
\end{coro}
\begin{proof}
Consider a subgraph of $G$ with average degree at least $4$, and note that it has a connected component $H$ with average degree at least $4$.
Writing $t$ for the number of vertices of $H$, Claim~\ref{claim:many_vertices} implies that $\log t \ge \log n/72k^2$.
It follows from item $(iii)$ in Theorem~\ref{theo:main}
that the edge expansion of $H$ is at most $(t/\log t)(\log\log t)^2\cdot(3/t) \le (1/\log n)(15k\log\log n)^2$.
\end{proof}
By Corollary~\ref{coro:Trevisan}, even after removing a fraction of $1-4/k$ of the edges of $G_{n,k}$, the remaining graph has a connected component with edge expansion at most $O((1/\log n)(k\log\log n)^2)$.
So for example, taking $k=8$ gives a bounded-degree graph such that even after removing up to half of its edges, the remaining graph has a connected component with edge expansion at most $O((1/\log n)(\log\log n)^2)$.
At the other extreme, if $k=\log\log n/648$ then even after removing a $(1-o(1))$-fraction of the edges, the remaining graph has a connected component with edge expansion at most $(1/\log n)(\log\log n)^4$.
\subsection{Threshold-rank decomposition}\label{subsec:ABS}
Recall that in Section~\ref{subsec:Trevisan} we discussed a paradigm for solving unique games by decomposing any graph into expanding subgraphs.
The same paradigm was used in the breakthrough paper of Arora, Barak and Steurer~\cite{AroraBaSt10} which gave the first algorithm to come close to refuting the Unique Games Conjecture, solving $\UG_q(\d)$ in subexponential time $\exp(q\cdot n^{\d^{1/3}})$ (here $n$ is the number of variables).
The algorithm in~\cite{AroraBaSt10} employed the \emph{eigenspace enumeration method} where, unlike Trevisan's decomposition, the pseudorandom property which the connected components must satisfy depends on the entire spectrum of their adjacency matrix.
As in Section~\ref{subsec:Trevisan}, we prove that one cannot substantially improve the obtained decomposition.
Formal definitions follow.
For a $d$-regular graph $G$, denote by $\rank_{\tau}(G)$ the number (with multiplicities) of eigenvalues $\lm$ of the
adjacency matrix of $G$ satisfying $\s{\lm} > \tau d$.
Let $R_n(\eta,\e)$ denote the minimum integer such that for any $n$-vertex
graph $G$, one can remove at most an $\e$-fraction of its edges so that each connected component $H$ of the new graph satisfies $\rank_{1-\eta}(H^*) \le R_n(\eta,\e)$, where $H^*$ is obtained from $H$ by adding self-loops to make it $\D(G)$-regular.
The main result of \cite{AroraBaSt10} can be summarized as follows.
\begin{theo}[\cite{Steurer10}, Theorem~5.6]\label{theo:ABS}
There are absolute constants $c,c' > 0$ such that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item For every $0<\eta,\e \le 1$,
$$R_n(\eta,\e) \le n^{c(\eta/\e^2)^{1/3}} \;.$$
Moreover, a decomposition achieving this bound can be found in polynomial time.\footnote{So for example, for every $d$-regular $n$-vertex graph $G$, one can efficiently
remove at most (say) $1\%$ of the edges of $G$ so that for each connected component in the resulting graph, its ``regularized'' adjacency matrix has at most $n^{O(\eta^{1/3})}$ eigenvalues larger than $(1-\eta)d$.}
\item $\UG_q(\d)$ can be solved in time $\exp(\,q \cdot R_n(O(\d),c')\,)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theo}
The first step in the algorithm of~\cite{AroraBaSt10} (item $(i)$ in Theorem~\ref{theo:ABS} which, as the authors themselves write, is the main component of the algorithm) is the efficient decomposition of any graph, by removing few of its edges, into vertex-disjoint subgraphs of small threshold rank. This decomposition is applied on the graph underlying the input unique game, and then the problem is solved on each connected component.
The second step (item $(ii)$ in Theorem~\ref{theo:ABS}) follows by applying, for each connected component, a brute force enumeration over the eigensapces corresponding to its large eigenvalues.
The second step is inspired by works of Kolla and Tulsiani~\cite{AroraKhKoStTuVi08} and Kolla~\cite{Kolla10}, who previously
used eigenspace enumeration to solve unique games on Cayley graphs.
Combining the two items of Theorem~\ref{theo:ABS} shows that the algorithm of~\cite{AroraBaSt10} runs in time $\exp(q\cdot n^{O(\d^{1/3})})$.
Note that in order to obtain a faster algorithm using the eigenspace enumeration method, one must improve the bound on $R_n(\eta,\e)$ in Theorem~\ref{theo:ABS}.
Up to the present work it was conceivable\footnote{The main tool used in~\cite{AroraBaSt10} in order to prove Theorem~\ref{theo:ABS} is a higher-order Cheeger-type inequality. It was recently shown in~\cite{BarakGoHaMeRaSt12} that this inequality is essentially best possible, but to the best of our knowledge, this does not rule out the possibility of improving Theorem~\ref{theo:ABS} by other means.} that for example $R_n(\eta,\e) \le (\log n)^{\poly(\eta)}$, say for $\e \ge \e_0$. Such a decomposition would have implied a quasipolynomial time algorithm for $\UG_q(\d)$, practically refuting\footnote{Say, under the
so-called {\em Exponential Time Hypothesis}.} the Unique Games Conjecture.
As we prove below, the bound on $R_n(\eta,\e)$ in Theorem~\ref{theo:ABS} is essentially tight. Namely, we show that one can derive from Theorem~\ref{theo:SSE} a nearly polynomial lower bound on $R_n(\eta,\e)$.
This essentially eliminates the possibility of disproving the Unique Games Conjecture using the eigenspace enumeration approach of~\cite{AroraBaSt10}. See Section~\ref{sec:conc} for more details on this.
We note that our lower bound applies even when $\e=1-o(1)$, that is, even when one is allowed to remove all but a $o(1)$-fraction of the graph's edges.
Naturally, the bound holds regardless of the running time of the decomposition algorithm.
\begin{coro}\label{coro:ABS-R}
For every $n \ge n_0$, $0<\eta \le 1$, and $\e \le 1-3000/\log\log\log n$, we have
$$R_n(\eta,\e) \ge n^{\eta/(\log\log n)^3} \;.$$
\end{coro}
For the proof of Corollary~\ref{coro:ABS-R} we will need the ``easy'' direction of the higher-order Cheeger inequality
that first appeared in~\cite{LeeOGTr12}. For completeness, we give a short and simple proof in Section~\ref{sec:add}.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:Cheeger}
Let $G=(V,E)$ be a $d$-regular (multi-)\footnote{By this we mean that we allow self-loops.}graph, and let $\lm_1\ge\lm_2\ge\cdots\ge\lm_{\s{V}}$ be the eigenvalues of the adjacency matrix of $G$. Then for every $k$,
$$\frac{d-\lm_k}{2} \le \min_{S_1,\ldots,S_k} \max_{1\le i\le k} \phi_G(S_i) \;,$$
where the minimum is over all collections of $k$ mutually disjoint, non-empty subsets of $V$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Corollary~\ref{coro:ABS-R}]
Let $G=G_{n,k}$ be a graph from Theorem~\ref{theo:main}.
We will show that any subgraph of $G$ with average degree at least $4$ has a connected component $H$ satisfying
\begin{equation}\label{eq:tr-component}
\rank_{1-\eta}(H^*) \ge \frac{1}{4} n^{\eta/k(200\log\log n)^2} \;.
\end{equation}
Setting $k=\log\log\log n/648$, this would mean that removing an $\e$-fraction of the edges of $G$, even with $\e$ as large as $1-4/k \ge 1-3000/\log\log\log n$, leaves a connected component $H$ that, for every $n\ge n_0$, satisfies $\rank_{1-\eta}(H^*) \ge n^{\eta/(\log\log n)^3}$. This would imply the desired lower bound on $R_n(\eta,\e)$.
Consider a subgraph of $G$ with average degree at least $4$ and note that it has a connected component $H$ with average degree at least $4$.
Writing $t$ for the number of vertices of $H$, Claim~\ref{claim:many_vertices} implies that $t \ge n^{1/72k^2}$ ($\ge \log n/(6k)^2$).
Apply Theorem~\ref{theo:SSE} on $H$ with $\mu=1/t^{\eta k/(20\log\log t)^2}$.
Note that, as required by Theorem~\ref{theo:SSE}, we may assume $\mu \ge 1/t$ (as one may verify, recalling $\eta \le 1$) and $\mu \le 2/3$ (as otherwise $n^{\eta/k(200\log\log n)^2}\le 1/\mu \le 3/2$, so~(\ref{eq:tr-component}) trivially holds).
We thus obtain
$$b:= \frac{1}{4\mu} = \frac14 t^{\eta k/(20\log\log t)^2} \ge \frac{1}{4} n^{\eta/k(200\log\log n)^2}$$
mutually disjoint and non-empty subsets of $H$ that each have edge expansion in $H$ at most $(\log(1/\mu)/\log t)(14\log\log t)^2 < \eta k/2$. Let $\lm_1\ge\lm_2\ge\cdots\ge\lm_{t}$ be the eigenvalues of the adjacency matrix of $H^*$ (recall that $H^*$ is obtained by adding to $H$ sufficiently many self-loops so as to make it $\D(G)$-regular). Note that adding self-loops does not alter the expansion of any subset. Therefore, Lemma~\ref{lemma:Cheeger} implies that $\D(G)-\lm_b < \eta k$. It follows that for every $1 \le i \le b$ we have $\lm_i \ge \lm_b > \D(G)-\eta k \ge (1-\eta)\D(G)$. This shows that $\rank_{1-\eta}(H^*) \ge b$, as required in~(\ref{eq:tr-component}), and therefore completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Finding a single vertex-expanding subgraph}\label{subsec:SS}
For a graph $G$, a subset $S \sub V(G)$ is said to have \emph{vertex expansion} $\a$ if $|N(S)| = \a\s{S}$, where $N(S)$ denotes the set of vertices outside of $S$ that have a neighbor in $S$.
Motivated by certain extremal problems related to graph minors, it was shown in~\cite{ShapiraSu08} that every graph $G$ contains a subgraph $H$, such that $H$ has good vertex expansion properties and almost the same average degree as $G$.
\begin{theo}[\cite{ShapiraSu08}, Lemma~1.2]\label{theo:SS}
Let $0<\e\le 2^{-8}$. Every graph $G$ of average degree $k$ contains a $t$-vertex subgraph $H$ with average degree at least $(1-\e)k$ such that every subset of $V(H)$ of size $\mu t$ with $1/t \le \mu \le 1/2$ has vertex expansion in $H$ at least
$\e\cdot\log(1/\mu)/\log t(2\log\log t)^2$.
\end{theo}
Theorem~\ref{theo:SSE}, together with item~(ii) of Theorem~\ref{theo:main} and Fact~\ref{fact:treeSep}, yields the following corollary, which shows that the expansion guarantee in Theorem~\ref{theo:SS} above is essentially best possible.
\begin{coro}\label{coro:SS}
Let $G$ be a graph from Theorem~\ref{theo:SSE}, and let $H$ be a $t$-vertex subgraph of $G$. Then for every $1/t \le \mu \le 2/3$,
there is a subset of $V(H)$ of size in $[\mu t/3,\mu t]$ whose vertex expansion in $H$ is at most $(\log (1/\mu)/\log t)\cdot(14\log\log t)^2$.
\end{coro}
\subsection{Hyperfinite families of graphs}
A graph is said to be \emph{$(\e,q)$-hyperfinite} if one can remove an $\e$-fraction of its edges and thus decompose it into connected components of size at most $q$ each. A family of graphs is said to be \emph{hyperfinite} if there is a function $q$ such that for every $\e >0$, every graph in the family is $(\e,q(\e))$-hyperfinite. Hyperfinite families of graphs have been extensively studied in recent years, mainly because of their role in the
theory of graph limits of sparse graphs (see \cite{L}).
Motivated by certain questions related to the design of property-testing algorithms, it was shown in~\cite{CzumajShSo09} that a hereditary family of graphs in which every graph has a small edge separator must be hyperfinite. More precisely, the following holds.
\begin{theo}[\cite{CzumajShSo09}, Corollary~3.2]\label{theo:CSS}
Let $\F$ be a hereditary family of graphs such that every $n$-vertex graph $G \in \F$ satisfies $\sep(G) \leq n/\log n(\log\log n)^2$.
Then, $\F$ is hyperfinite.
\end{theo}
Using Theorem~\ref{theo:main} we show that the edge-separation requirement in Theorem~\ref{theo:CSS} cannot be improved much beyond $n/\log n$.
\begin{coro}\label{coro:CSS}
The graphs $G_{n,8}$ from Theorem~\ref{theo:main} are not $(\frac12, n^{1/4608})$-hyperfinite. In particular, setting
$$\F_8=\{G \,:\, G \text{ is an induced subgraph of } G_{n,8} \text{ for some } n\}$$ we get a hereditary family of graphs that is not hyperfinite, despite the fact that every $n$-vertex graph $G \in \F_8$ satisfies $\sep(G) \le (n/\log n)(\log\log n)^2+48$.
\end{coro}
\begin{proof}
To see that the first assertion holds, note that after removing at most half of the edges of $G_{n,8}$, we obtain a graph with average degree at least $4$. This graph has a connected component $H$ of average degree at least $4$. By Claim~\ref{claim:many_vertices}, the number of vertices in $H$ is least $n^{1/4608}$.
As to the second assertion of the corollary, note that the first assertion clearly means that $\F_8$ is not hyperfinite.
Also, note that the fact that $\sep(G) \leq (n/\log n)(\log\log n)^2+48$ holds for every $G \in \F_8$ follows from items $(i)$,$(ii)$ and $(iii)$ of Theorem~\ref{theo:main} together with Fact~\ref{fact:treeSep}.
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{theo:main}}\label{sec:proof}
As mentioned earlier, in order to construct the graphs $G_{n,k}$ of Theorem~\ref{theo:main} we pick a suitable random subgraph of the hypercube.
The $d$-cube, denoted $Q_d$, is the graph with vertex set $\{0,1\}^d$ where two vertices
are adjacent if their corresponding vectors
differ in exactly one coordinate.
Note that $Q_d$ is a $d$-regular graph on $2^d$ vertices.
The proof will have three main steps, appearing in the following three subsections. In the first subsection we define the graphs $G_{n,k}$ and prove that they satisfy the first two properties of Theorem~\ref{theo:main}. In the second step we prove that large subgraphs of the
cube do not have good expansion properties. Finally, in the last subsection we combine the results from the first two subsections to prove that the graphs $G_{n,k}$ also satisfy the third property in Theorem~\ref{theo:main}, thus completing its proof.
\subsection{Construction}
Our goal in this subsection is to prove the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:construction}
For any $d\in\N$ and $2 \leq k \leq d$ there is a subgraph $Q=Q_{d,k}$ of the $d$-cube, on all $2^d$ vertices,
such that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The average degree of $Q$ is at least $k$.
\item The maximum degree of $Q$ is at most $3k$.
\item The girth of $Q$ is at least $d/(3k)^2$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
For the proof of the above lemma we will need the following upper bound on the number of cycles of a given length in the cube.
\begin{claim}\label{claim:cycles}
The number of cycles of length $2\l$ in the $d$-cube is at most $2^d (d\l)^{\l}$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
We will show that the number of closed walks of length $2\l$, starting and ending at a given vertex, is at most $(d\l)^{\l}$; this would immediately imply the stated bound.
We claim that each such closed walk corresponds to a sequence $(x_1,\ldots,x_{2\l})\in[d]^{2\l}$ with the property that $\s{\{i\in[2\l]\,:\, x_i=t\}}$ is even for every $t\in [d]$. To see this, recall that each vertex in the graph corresponds to an element of $\{0,1\}^d$. The claim follows by considering, for each edge along a closed walk beginning (and ending) with a given vertex, the unique index in which the bit ``flips''.
So all that is left is to bound from above the number of sequences as above.
Now, observe that all these sequences can be generated by first partitioning the set of indices $\{1,\ldots,2\l\}$ into $\l$ pairs and then
assigning to each pair a value from $\{1,\ldots,d\}$ (of course, this process will generate some sequences several times). Since the number of ways one can pair the elements of $\{1,\ldots,2\ell\}$ is given by
$$(2\l-1)!!=(2\l-1)(2\l-3)\cdots 3\cdot 1\le 2^\l \l!/2 \le 2^\l (\l/2)^{\l} = \l^\l\;,$$
we get that the number of sequences is bounded from above by $d^\ell\cdot\l^\l$.
\end{proof}
To prove the existence of a graph as in Lemma~\ref{lemma:construction} we use the so-called probabilistic ``deletion method''.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\ref{lemma:construction}]
Denote by $G'$ the random subgraph of the $d$-cube where each edge is independently retained with probability $p=3k/d$.
Let the random variable $X$ count the number of edges of $G'$. Then
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cons1}
\E[X]=p\cdot d2^{d-1} = 3k \cdot 2^{d-1} \;.
\end{equation}
Set $L=d/9k^2$ and let the random variable $Y$ count the number of cycles of length at most $L$ in $G'$. By Claim~\ref{claim:cycles},
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cons2}
\E[Y] \le \sum_{\l=2}^{L/2} p^{2\l} 2^d(d\l)^\l =
2^d\sum_{\l=2}^{L/2} (p^2 d\l)^\l =
2^d \sum_{\l=2}^{L/2} (\l/L)^{\l} \le
2^d \sum_{\l=2}^{L/2} (1/2)^{\l} \le 2^{d-1} \;.
\end{equation}
Let the random variable $Z$ count the total number of ``excess'' edges in $G'$, that is,
$$Z=\sum_{v \,:\,\deg(v)>3k} (\deg(v)-3k)\;.$$
For each vertex $v$, the random variable $\deg(v)$ follows the binomial distribution $B(d,3k/d)$, so $\E[\deg(v)]=3k$.
Note that $\sum_{v} \s{\deg(v)-3k} = \sum_v(3k-\deg(v)) + 2Z$, which means $\E[Z] = \frac12\sum_{v} \E\s{\deg(v)-3k}$.
By J\'{e}nsen's inequality,
$$(\E\s{\deg(v)-3k})^2 \le \E[(\deg(v)-3k)^2] = \Var[\deg(v)] \le 3k \;,$$
implying that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cons3}
\E[Z] = \frac12 \sum_v \E\s{\deg(v)-3k} \le \sqrt{3k}\cdot 2^{d-1} \;.
\end{equation}
Combining~(\ref{eq:cons1}),(\ref{eq:cons2}), and (\ref{eq:cons3}) we get
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Expectation}
\E[X-Y-Z] \ge (3k - 1 - \sqrt{3k}) \cdot 2^{d-1} \ge k \cdot 2^{d-1} \;,
\end{equation}
where the last inequality can be easily checked to hold for any $k\ge 2$.
Let $Q$ be obtained from $G'$ by removing an arbitrary edge from each cycle of length at most $d/9k^2$, as well as removing, for each vertex $v$ with $\deg(v)>3k$, arbitrary $\deg(v)-3k$ adjacent edges.
Clearly, $Q$ satisfies the last two requirements in the statement. Moreover, we have from~(\ref{eq:Expectation}) that the expected average degree of $Q$ is at least $k$.
The existence of a subgraph of the $d$-cube as required immediately follows.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Expansion in the hypercube}
In this subsection we prove that large subgraphs of the $d$-cube are not good edge expanders.
Recall that a graph $G=(V,E)$ is said to have edge expansion $\a$ if every subset $S\sub V$ with $\s{S}\le\s{V}/2$ satisfies $\s{\partial(S)} \ge \a\s{S}$ (the edge boundary $\partial(S)$ is the set of edges with exactly one vertex in $S$). Our goal in this subsection is to prove the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:cubeExp}
Any (not necessarily induced) subgraph of the $d$-cube with $t$ vertices and average degree $r$ has edge expansion at most $2r\log d/\log (t/2)$.
\end{lemma}
We first need the following easy claim, in which the \emph{distance} between two vertices $u,v$ in a graph $G$,
denoted $\d_G(u,v)$, is the length of a shortest path connecting $u$ and $v$.
\begin{claim}\label{claim:ball}
For every graph $G$ of maximum degree $\D>1$, and every $t$-vertex subset $S\sub V(G)$, the average distance $\sum_{\{u,v\}\in\binom{S}{2}} \d_G(u,v)/\binom{t}{2}$ is at least
$\log (t/2)/(2\log\D)$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Let $v\in S$.
We claim that there are at least $t/2$ vertices in $S$ of distance at least $\l=\log(t/2)/\log\D$ from $v$. Indeed, the number of vertices of distance at most $\l-1$ from $v$ is at most $\sum_{i=0}^{\floor{\l-1}} \D^i < \D^{\l} \le t/2$. It follows that the average distance is at least $\l/2$.
\end{proof}
We are now ready to prove the main result of this subsection.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\ref{lemma:cubeExp}]
Let $H=(S,E)$ be a $t$-vertex subgraph of the $d$-cube $Q_d$ of average degree $r$, and let $\a$ denote the edge expansion of $H$. We need to show that $\a \le 2r\log d/\log (t/2)$. Note that we may assume $\alpha>0$ (i.e., that $H$ is connected), as otherwise there is nothing to prove.
For each vertex $v \in S$, write $(v_1,\ldots,v_d)\in\{0,1\}^d$ for the corresponding binary vector.
Notice $\d_{Q_d}(u,v)= \sum_{i=1}^d \s{u_i-v_i}$.
Observe that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:frac}
\frac{\sum_{\{u,v\}\in E} \d_{Q_d}(u,v)}{\sum_{\{u,v\}\in \binom{S}{2}} \d_{Q_d}(u,v)} =
\frac{\sum_{i=1}^d \sum_{\{u,v\}\in E} \s{u_i-v_i}}{\sum_{i=1}^d \sum_{\{u,v\}\in \binom{S}{2}} \s{u_i-v_i}} =:
\frac{\sum_{i=1}^d x_i}{\sum_{i=1}^d y_i} \ge
\min_{i:\,y_i\neq 0} \frac{x_i}{y_i} \;,
\end{equation}
where the inequality holds\footnote{Indeed, denoting the minimum by $m$, we have $x_i\ge m y_i$ for every $i$ (even if $y_i=0$), so $(\sum_{i=1}^d x_i)\ge m(\sum_{i=1}^d y_i)$.} for all non-negative reals $x_1,y_1,\ldots,x_d,y_d$.
Let $i\in[d]$ achieve the minimum in~(\ref{eq:frac}) (which is well defined since $y_i\neq 0$ for some $i$), and set $T=\{v\in S \,:\, v_i=1\}$. Note that since $y_i >0$ we have $0<\s{T}<\s{S}$ and that we can in fact assume that
$0 < \s{T}\le\s{S}/2$ (otherwise we replace $T$ with $S\sm T$).
Noting that in~(\ref{eq:frac}) we have $x_i=\s{\partial{T}}$ and $y_i=\s{T}\s{S\sm T}$, we deduce that
$$
\frac{\sum_{\{u,v\}\in E} \d_{Q_d}(u,v)}{\sum_{\{u,v\}\in \binom{S}{2}} \d_{Q_d}(u,v)} \ge \frac{\s{\partial{T}}}{\s{T}\s{S\sm T}} \ge
\min_{\substack{ S'\sub S\,:\ \\ 0<\s{S'}\le\s{S}/2}} \frac{\s{\partial{S'}}}{\s{S'}\s{S\sm S'}} \ge
\frac{\a}{\s{S}-1} \;.
$$
Therefore,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:avgDist}
\frac{1}{\binom{\s{S}}{2}}\sum_{\{u,v\}\in\binom{S}{2}} \d_{Q_d}(u,v) \le \frac{2}{\a\s{S}}\sum_{\{u,v\}\in E} \d_{Q_d}(u,v) = \frac{2\s{E}}{\a\s{S}} = \frac{r}{\a} \;.
\end{equation}
Applying Claim~\ref{claim:ball} with $G=Q_d$ and the set $S$, the left hand side of~(\ref{eq:avgDist}) is at least
$\log (t/2)/2\log d$.
The desired bound on $\a$ follows.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Putting it all together}
To prove Theorem~\ref{theo:main} we will show that the graphs constructed in Lemma~\ref{lemma:construction} have the property that every subgraph $H$ has a small edge separator. To this end, we start by proving that every subgraph $H$ has a small edge expansion.
In the proof we will consider two cases, depending on the number of vertices of $H$. If $H$ has at most $2^{d^{1/3}}$ vertices, then having
high expansion
implies (see Lemma~\ref{lemma:girthE} below) the existence of a cycle of length $O(d/k^2)$; however, such a short cycle does not exist in the graph. Otherwise, since the maximum degree of the graph is bounded, Lemma~\ref{lemma:cubeExp} implies that $H$ has small edge expansion.
Finally, we boost this ``hereditary'' non-expansion property to construct a small separator in $H$ (see Lemma~\ref{lemma:boost} below).
To execute the above proof strategy we will need the following two lemmas, whose proofs appear in Section~\ref{sec:add}.
Recall that we use $\sep(G)$ to denote the size of the smallest edge separator in $G$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:girthE}
Every connected $n$-vertex graph with edge expansion $\a ~(>0)$ that is not a tree
has girth at most $2(2/\a +1)(\ln(n)+1) + 1$.
In particular, if $\a\le 1$ then the girth is at most $12\ln n/\a$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:boost}
Let $G$ be an $n$-vertex graph whose every $t$-vertex subgraph has expansion at most $f(t)$, for every $t\ge n/3$ and where $f:[n/3,n]\to\R$ is decreasing. Then $\sep(G)\le (2/3)n f(n/3)$.
\end{lemma}
We can finally give a proof for the main theorem.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{theo:main}]
First, suppose that $n$ is a power of $2$, and write $n=2^d$.
Let $G=Q_{d,2k}$ be a subgraph of the $d$-cube as guaranteed by Lemma~\ref{lemma:construction}.
For the rest of the proof set $t_0=d/(6k)^2$.
The assertion of Lemma~\ref{lemma:construction} implies that $G$ has average degree at least $2k$, maximum degree at most $6k$, and girth at least $t_0$.
So to complete the proof (for $n=2^d$) we only need to establish item $(iii)$ of Theorem~\ref{theo:main}.
We will start by proving that every $t$-vertex subgraph of $G$ on at least $t_0$ vertices has edge expansion at most $\frac13(1/\log t)(\log\log t)^2$.
We will then ``boost'' this fact using Lemma~\ref{lemma:boost} and get that every $t$-vertex subgraph as above in fact has an edge separator of size at most $(t/\log t)(\log\log t)^2$, as required.
Note that the statement of the theorem implies that $d \ge 2^{2\cdot 648}$. One consequence of this fact is that $d \ge (\log d)^6$.
We will also use the fact that the theorem's assumption that $k \leq \log d/648$ together with the previous observation implies that $d^{1/3}/(6k)^2 \geq 12$ and that $18k \leq t_0/(3\log t_0)$. Finally, suppose $H'$ is a subgraph of $G$ and that $H'$ is a forest. As $G$ has maximum degree at most $6k$, we have by Fact~\ref{fact:treeSep} and the above relation between $k$ and $t_0$ that
$\sep(H') \le \D(G) \le 6k \le \frac19 t_0/\log t_0$.
Hence, if $H'$ has $t\geq t_0$ vertices then its edge expansion is
at most $(\frac19 t/\log t)/(\frac13 t) = \frac13 (1/\log t)$.
Let then $H$ be a $t$-vertex subgraph of $G$ with $ t \geq t_0$ vertices, and let us prove that the edge expansion of $H$ is at most $\frac13(1/\log t)(\log\log t)^2$. Since we have already established this fact when $H$ is a forest at the end of the previous paragraph, we assume for the rest of this paragraph that $H$ is not a forest. Suppose first that $t < 2^{d^{1/3}}$.
By Lemma~\ref{lemma:girthE}, if the edge expansion of $H$ is at least $1/\log t$ then its girth is at most $12(\log t)^2 < 12d^{2/3} \le d/(6k)^2$.
However, $G$ does not contain a cycle this short.
Therefore, the edge expansion of $H$ is indeed at most $\frac13(1/\log t)(\log\log t)^2$.
Suppose now that $t \ge 2^{d^{1/3}}$.
By Lemma~\ref{lemma:cubeExp} and the fact that the average degree of $H$ is at most $6k$, the edge expansion of $H$ is at most $24k\log d/\log t$. Thus, to prove our claim it suffices to show that $\sqrt{72k\log d} \le \log\log t$.
This indeed follows from the theorem's assumption that $k \le \log d/648$, since it implies that
$$\sqrt{72k\log d} \le (\log d)/3 = \log(d^{1/3}) \le \log\log t \;.$$
Having established that every subgraph of $G$ on at least $t_0$ vertices has small edge expansion, we now wish to show that every such graph
has a small separator. So let $H$ be an arbitrary $t$-vertex subgraph of $G$ with $t \ge t_0$.
We apply Lemma~\ref{lemma:boost} on the graph $H$ with the function $f(x)=\frac13(1/\log x)(\log\log x)^2$, noting that, as required by the lemma, every $t'$-vertex subgraph of $H$ with $t' \ge n/3$ $(\ge t_0)$ has expansion at most $f(t')$,
and $f:[n/3,n]\to\R$ is decreasing (here we use the fact that, as can be easily checked, $f(t)$ is decreasing for $t \ge 256$, and that $n/3 \ge 256$).
We deduce that $\sep(H) \le (2/3)t f(t/3) \le (t/\log t)(\log\log t)^2$,
as required by item $(iii)$ in Theorem~\ref{theo:main}. This completes the proof of the theorem for the case $n=2^d$.
Finally, let us consider the case of an arbitrary $n$, that is, not necessarily a power of $2$. In this case we set $d=\ceil{\log n}$. Since $n>2^d/2$, a random $n$-vertex subgraph of $Q_{d,2k}$ will have, with positive probability, average degree at least $k$. Let $G$ be such a graph.
Then the maximum degree of $G$ is still at most $6k$, its girth is at least $\log n/(6k)^2$, and it is easy to see that every $t$-vertex subgraph $H$ of $G$
with $t\ge \log n/(6k)^2$ satisfies $\sep(H) \le (t/\log t)(\log\log t)^2$. This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{theo:SSE}}\label{sec:proofSSE}
In the first part of the proof we will show that for every $t$-vertex subgraph $H$ of $G$ with $t \ge \frac12\log n/(6k)^2$, and every $1/t\le\mu\le 2/3$, there is a subset $A \sub V(H)$ of size $\mu t/3 \le \s{A} \le \mu t$ satisfying
\begin{equation}\label{eq:SSEclaim}
\phi_H(A) \le \frac{\log (1/\mu)}{\log t}\cdot(4\log\log t)^2 \;.
\end{equation}
In the second part of the proof we will show that if $t\ge \log n/(6k)^2$ (as guaranteed by the statement) and $1/t\le\mu\le 2/3$ then there are in fact $1/4\mu$ mutually disjoint subsets of the same size and edge expansion only slightly larger than in~(\ref{eq:SSEclaim}).
Before we begin, we collect some useful facts.
One can easily verify that the theorem's assumption on $k$ implies that $t\ge\sqrt{\log n}$ $(\ge 2^{16})$,\footnote{$72k^2 \le (\log\log\log n)^2 \le \sqrt{\log n}$; for the last inequality, note the statement of the theorem implies $\log n \ge 2^{2^{2\cdot 648}}$.} and therefore $\D(H) \le \frac12\log\log\log n \le \log\log t$.
Notice we may assume $\mu \ge 1/\sqrt{t}$, as otherwise~(\ref{eq:SSEclaim}) trivially holds by taking $A$ to be any single vertex, in which case $\phi(A) \le \D(H) \le \log\log t \le (\log (1/\mu)/\log t)(4\log\log t)^2$, as needed.
For the rest of the proof we set
$$f(x)=(1/\log x)\cdot(\log\log x)^2 \;.$$
One can check that $f(x)$ is decreasing for $x\ge 256$.
Throughout the proof, unless otherwise mentioned, we write $\phi(\cdot)=\phi_H(\cdot)$ for the edge expansion in $H$, and $\partial(\cdot)=\partial_H(\cdot)$ for the edge boundary in $H$.
In order to obtain a subset $A \subseteq V(H)$ satisfying~(\ref{eq:SSEclaim}) we will iteratively find smaller and smaller subsets, such that in each step the edge expansion (in $H$) of our subset does not increase by much.
Formally, we claim that for any set $S \sub V(H)$ with $\s{S}\ge \sqrt{t}$ $(\ge 256)$ there is a subset $S_1 \sub S$ of size
$\frac13\s{S} \le \s{S_1} \le \frac23\s{S}$
such that $\phi(S_1) \le \phi(S)+2f(\s{S})$. To see this, consider an edge separator in the induced subgraph $H[S]$. Namely, let $S=S'\cup S''$ be a partition of $S$ with $\s{S'},\s{S''} \le \frac23\s{S}$ such that the number of edges between $S'$ and $S''$ in $H[S]$, and thus in $H$, is $\sep(H[S])$.
Consider now the edge boundary of $S'$ and $S''$ in $H$.
We have
$$\s{\partial(S')} + \s{\partial(S'')} = \s{\partial(S)} + 2\sep(H[S]) \;.$$
Moving to edge expansion, observe that this means that
$$\min\{\phi(S'),\,\phi(S'')\} \le \frac{\s{\partial(S')} + \s{\partial(S'')}}{\s{S'}+\s{S''}} =
\frac{\s{\partial(S)} + 2\sep(H[S])}{\s{S}} \le
\phi(S) + 2f(\s{S}) \;,$$
where in the left inequality we used the elementary inequality $(a+b)/(c+d) \ge \min\{a/c,\,b/d\}$,
and in the right inequality we used the fact that $\sep(H[S]) \le \s{S}f(\s{S})$. This
last inequality follows from item~(iii) of Theorem~\ref{theo:main} when $\s{S} \ge \log n/(6k)^2$, while when $\s{S} < \log n/(6k)^2$
it follows from item~(ii) of Theorem~\ref{theo:main}, Fact~\ref{fact:treeSep} and the fact that $f$ is decreasing, as these facts together mean
that $\sep(H[S]) \le \D(H) \le \log\log t \le \sqrt{t} f(t) \le \s{S}f(\s{S})$. Altogether we see that we can take either $S'$ or $S''$ as the set $S_1$.
Applying this claim with $S=S_0=V(H)$ yields a subset $S_1 \sub S_0$ of size $\frac13 \s{S_0} \le \s{S_1} \le \frac23 \s{S_0}$ satisfying
$\phi(S_1) \le \phi(S_0)+2f(\s{S_0}) = 2f(\s{S_0})$, where here we use the fact that $S_0=V(H)$ so $\phi(S_0)=0$.
Having picked $S_i$, for some $i \geq 1$, we can then pick a new set $S_{i+1} \subseteq S_i$ satisfying
$\frac13 \s{S_i} \le \s{S_{i+1}} \le \frac23 \s{S_i}$ and $\phi(S_{i+1}) \le \phi(S_i)+2f(\s{S_i})$.
We stop the process once we obtain a subset $A \sub V(H)$ of size $\s{A} \le \mu t$. Note that this means that $\s{A} \ge \mu t/3$.
Let $V(H)=S_0 \supseteq S_1 \supseteq \cdots \supseteq S_s=A$ denote the subsets we thus obtain. We get from the above observations that
$$\phi(A) \le \sum_{i=0}^{s-1} 2f(\s{S_i}) \le s \cdot 2f(\mu t) \;,$$
where in the second inequality we used the fact that $f(x)$ is decreasing.
Since the number $s$ of iterations is at most $\lceil \log_{3/2}(1/\mu) \rceil \leq 2\log_{3/2}(1/\mu)$, we get
$$\phi(A) \le 2\log_{3/2}(1/\mu) \cdot 2f(\sqrt{t}) \le \frac{\log(1/\mu)}{\log t}\cdot 16(\log\log t)^2 \;,$$
where in the first inequality we used the assumption that $\mu t \ge \sqrt{t}$.
This completes the first part of the proof.
Having found a single non-expanding subset $A$ satisfying~(\ref{eq:SSEclaim}),
we proceed to find at least $1/4\mu$ disjoint subsets of size in $[\mu t/3,\mu t]$
having small expansion, as required by the theorem's statement.
So let $H=(V,E)$ be a $t$-vertex subgraph with $t \ge \log n/(6k)^2$ and suppose $1/t\le \mu \le 2/3$.
Since $\s{V} \ge \frac12\log n/(6k)^2$, we can find a subset $A_1 \sub V$ satisfying $\phi_H(A_1) \le \varphi(\mu,t)$
where $\varphi(\mu,t)$ is the right hand side of (\ref{eq:SSEclaim}).
Now apply the same argument on the induced subgraph $H[V \sm A_1]$ in order to find a subset $A_2 \sub V\sm A_1$
of size in $[\mu t/3,\mu t]$ that satisfies\footnote{A subset $A_2 \sub V \sm A_1$ of size at most $\mu t$ is therefore of size at most $\mu'\s{V \sm A_1}$ with $\mu' \ge \mu$.
Thus, we can find a subset $A_2$ satisfying $\phi_{H[V \sm A_1]} (A_2) \le \varphi(\mu',t) \leq \varphi(\mu,t)$ where we use the
monotonicity of $\varphi(\mu,t)$ with respect to $\mu$.}
$\phi_{H[V \sm A_1]} (A_2) \leq \varphi(\mu,t)$.
Note that we can pick sets $A_i \sub V \sm \bigcup_{j=1}^{i-1} A_j$ at least $1/2\mu$ times (assume henceforth that $1/2\mu$ is an integer), since as long as we pick fewer sets we are left with at least $t/2 \geq \frac12\log n/(6k)^2$ vertices, so we can still pick another set.
We therefore obtain at least $1/2\mu$
mutually disjoint subsets $A_1,\ldots,A_{1/2\mu} \sub V$ of size in $[\mu t/3,\mu t]$ each, satisfying
\begin{equation}\label{eq:final}
\phi_{H[V \sm \bigcup_{j=1}^{i-1} A_j]} (A_i) \le \varphi(\mu,t)
\end{equation}
for every $1\le i\le 1/2\mu$. To finish the proof, we claim that
at least half of the $1/2\mu$ subsets $A_i$ have small expansion in $H$ itself. To see this, note that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:final-1}
\sum_{i=1}^{1/2\mu} \s{\partial_H(A_i)}
\le 2\sum_{i=1}^{1/2\mu} \big\lvert \partial_{H[V \sm \bigcup_{j=1}^{i-1} A_j]} (A_i) \big\rvert = 2\sum_{i=1}^{1/2\mu} \s{A_i}\cdot \phi_{H[V \sm \bigcup_{j=1}^{i-1} A_j]} (A_i) \le t\varphi(\mu,t) \;,
\end{equation}
where in the first inequality we use the fact that each edge is counted (at most) twice,
and in the second inequality we use~(\ref{eq:final}) and the fact that each $A_i$ is of size at most $\mu t$.
Dividing both sides of~(\ref{eq:final-1}) by $\mu t/3$ (which is an upper bound on the size of the sets $A_i$) we get that
$\sum_{i=1}^{1/2\mu} \phi_H(A_i) \leq 3\varphi(\mu,t)/\mu$. Hence, by averaging, at least $1/4\mu$ of the sets
$A_i$ satisfy
$$
\phi_H(A_i) \leq 12\varphi(\mu,t) \le (\log (1/\mu)/\log t)(14\log\log t)^2\;,
$$
thus completing the proof.
\section{Missing Proofs}\label{sec:add}
\subsection{Proof of Lemma~\ref{lemma:girthE}}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\ref{lemma:girthE}]
Let $k$ denote the average degree of our graph $G=(V,E)$. Since $G$ is connected and not a tree we have $k \geq 2$.
As is well known, $G$ must have a subgraph of minimum degree at least $\floor{k/2}+1 \ge 2$.
In particular, this subgraph contains a cycle. Let $e=uv$ be any edge in such a cycle, and
let $G'$ be obtained from $G$ by removing $e$. Note that our choice of $e$ guarantees that $\deg_{G'}(u),\deg_{G'}(v) \geq \floor{k/2}$.
We claim that the edge expansion of $G'$ is at least $\a/2$. Indeed, let $S\sub V$ with $e\in\partial_G(S)$. Then $\s{\partial_G(S)} \ge 2$, as otherwise $S$ forms a connected component of $G'$, contradicting the fact that $e$ is not a cut edge in $G$.
Therefore, removing a single edge can decrease the edge expansion of $G$ by at most a factor of $2$.
For a vertex $x\in V$ and a non-negative integer $r$, write $B_x(r)=\{y\,:\,\d_{G'}(x,y)\le r\}$.
Let $m_x(r)$ denote the number of edges spanned by $B_x(r)$.
Since $G'$ has edge expansion at least $\a/2$, we have $m_x(r+1) \ge (1+\a/2)m_x(r)$ provided $\s{B_x(r)} \le n/2$.
Put $R=(2/\a +1)(\ln(n)+1)$. We claim that $\s{B_v(R)} > n/2$. Indeed, recalling $m_v(1)=\deg_{G'}(v)\ge \floor{k/2}$, we get that if $\s{B_v(R)} \leq n/2$ then
$$m_v(R+1) \ge (1+\a/2)^R\cdot \floor{k/2} \ge e^{\ln(n)+1}\cdot \floor{k/2} \ge nk/2 \;,$$
which is strictly greater than the number of edges of $G'$ -- a contradiction.
Since we also have $\deg_{G'}(u)\ge \floor{k/2}$ we deduce that $B_u(R)\cap B_v(R)\neq \emptyset$. This means that $\d_{G'}(u,v) \le 2R$. Since $u$ and $v$ are adjacent in $G$ but not in $G'$, we conclude that $G$ has a cycle of length at most $2R+1 = 2(2/\a +1)(\ln(n)+1) + 1$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of Lemma~\ref{lemma:boost}}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\ref{lemma:boost}]
We iteratively remove subsets $S_1,\ldots,S_k \sub V(G)$ as follows.
For the $\ith$ step, consider the graph $G_i := G-\bigcup_{j=1}^{i-1} S_j$ and let $S_i \sub V(G_i)$ have size $\s{S_i} \le \s{V(G_i)}/2$ and expansion in $G_i$ at most $f(\s{V(G_i)})$.
We stop removing subsets once the set $S:=\bigcup_{j=1}^k S_j$ is of size at least $n/3$, and thus
$\s{S} \le \sum_{j=1}^{k-1} \s{S_j} + \s{V(G_k)}/2 = (n+\sum_{j=1}^{k-1} \s{S_j})/2 \le 2n/3 \;.$
Now, observe that every edge in the edge boundary $\partial_G(S)$ is a member of some edge boundary $\partial_{G_j}(S_j)$. Hence, the expansion of $S$ in $G$ is
$$\frac{\s{\partial_G(S)}}{\s{S}} \le \frac{\sum_{j=1}^k \s{\partial_{G_j}(S_j)}}{\sum_{j=1}^k \s{S_j}} \le
\max_{1\le j\le k} \frac{\s{\partial_{G_j}(S_j)}}{\s{S_j}} \le \max_{1\le j\le k} f(\s{V(G_j)}) \le f(n/3) \;,$$
where in the second inequality we used the inequality $(\sum_{j=1}^k x_j)/(\sum_{j=1}^k y_j) \le \max_{1 \le j \le k} (x_j/y_j)$ for non-negative reals $x_j,y_j$,\footnote{We note that while the simple argument here suffices to bound the expansion of $\bigcup S_i$, bounding the expansion of each individual $S_i$ -- which is done in the second part of the proof of Theorem~\ref{theo:SSE} -- is trickier.}
and in the last inequality we used the fact that $\s{V(G_j)} \ge \s{V(G_k)} \ge n-\s{S} \ge n/3$ together with the fact that $f(t)$ is decreasing for $t \ge n/3$.
It follows that $\s{\partial_G(S)} \le \s{S}f(n/3) \le (2/3)nf(n/3)$, completing the proof.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of Lemma \ref{lemma:Cheeger}}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\ref{lemma:Cheeger}]
Put $L=dI-A$ where $A$ is the adjacency matrix of $G=(V,E)$.
Note that the $\kth$ eigenvalue of $L$ is $d-\lambda_k$. By the Courant-Fischer well-known min-max theorem, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:MinMax}
d-\lambda_k = \min_{w^1,\ldots,w^k} \, \max_{0\neq x\in\spanV\{w^1,\ldots,w^k\}} R_L(x) \;,
\end{equation}
where the minimum is over all collections of $k$ mutually orthogonal, nonzero vectors in $\R^{\s{V}}$, and $R_L(x)=x^t L x/x^t x$ is the Rayleigh quotient.
Let $S_1,\ldots,S_k \sub V$ be mutually disjoint, non-empty subsets, and denote by $\mathbf{1}_{S_i}$ the characteristic $\{0,1\}$-vector of $S_i$.
As it is easy to see that $x^tLy=\sum_{\{u,v\}\in E} (x_u-x_v)(y_u-y_v)$, we deduce that $\mathbf{1}_{S_i}^t L \mathbf{1}_{S_i}=\s{\partial(S_i)}$, and that for
$i \neq j$ we have $\mathbf{1}_{S_i}^t L \mathbf{1}_{S_j}=-e(S_i,S_j)$ where $e(S_i,S_j)$ is the number of edges between $S_i$ and $S_j$.
Consider now any vector $x \in \spanV\{\mathbf{1}_{S_1},\ldots,\mathbf{1}_{S_k}\}$ and write $x = \sum_{i=1}^k c_i \mathbf{1}_{S_i}$. Then
\begin{align*}
x^t L x &= \sum_{i,j=1}^k c_i c_j \cdot \mathbf{1}_{S_i}^t L \mathbf{1}_{S_j} = \sum_{i=1}^k c_i^2 \s{\partial(S_i)} - \sum_{i\neq j} c_ic_j e(S_i,S_j)
\le \sum_{i=1}^k c_i^2 \s{\partial(S_i)} + \sum_{i\neq j} \frac{c_i^2+c_j^2}{2} e(S_i,S_j)\\
&= \sum_{i=1}^k c_i^2 \s{\partial(S_i)} + \sum_{i=1}^k c_i^2 \sum_{j\neq i} e(S_i,S_j) \le 2\sum_{i=1}^k c_i^2 \s{\partial(S_i)} \;.
\end{align*}
The proof now follows since~(\ref{eq:MinMax}) implies
$$d-\lambda_k \le \max_{0\neq x\in\spanV\{\mathbf{1}_{S_1},\ldots,\mathbf{1}_{S_k}\}} R_L(x) \le \frac{2\sum_{i=1}^k c_i^2 \s{\partial(S_i)}}{\sum_{i=1}^k c_i^2\s{S_i}} \le 2\max_{1\le i\le k} \phi_G(S_i) \;.$$
\end{proof}
\section{Concluding Remarks and Open Problems}\label{sec:conc}
\begin{itemize}
\item As we mentioned in Section \ref{sec:intro}, we can replace the $(\log\log t)^2$ term in~(\ref{eq:expansion}) with $(\log\log t)^{1+o(1)}$.
It would be interesting to know whether the $\log\log t$ factors in~(\ref{eq:expansion}) (and thus also in~(\ref{theo:SSE})) can be removed.
One way to obtain this is to improve Lemma~\ref{lemma:cubeExp}. In this regard, we conjecture the following ``higher-order'' isoperimetric property of the hypercube: Among all subgraphs of the $d$-cube on $2^i$ vertices, for every $i\in\N$ at least $d^{1/3}$ say, the subcubes have the largest normalized\footnote{I.e., edge expansion divided by the subgraph's average degree.} edge expansion. (One can also come up with an analogous isoperimetric conjecture for vertex expanders in the hypercube.)
Since a subcube on $t=2^i$ vertices has normalized edge expansion $1/i=1/\log t$,
proving the above conjecture would mean that the additional $\log d$ factor in Lemma~\ref{lemma:cubeExp} is unnecessary for $t \ge 2^{d^{1/3}}$ (note that without the lower bound on $t$, Lemma~\ref{lemma:cubeExp} is tight as witnessed by $K_{1,d}$).
By the proof of Theorem~\ref{theo:main}, this would mean that the graphs $G_{n,k}$ are such that the $\log\log t$ terms in~(\ref{eq:expansion}) and~(\ref{theo:SSE}) can in fact be replaced by $O(k)$. Note that this is best possible, as witnessed by the subgraph $G_{n,k}$ itself.
We note that this would essentially close the gaps in the applications mentioned in Section~\ref{sec:app}, as $k$ is chosen there to be either constant or grow arbitrarily small with $n$.
For example, this would imply a truly polynomial lower bound on the threshold rank in Corollary~\ref{coro:ABS-R}, thus proving that the eigenspace enumeration approach of~\cite{AroraBaSt10} cannot solve $\UG_q(\d)$ in time $\exp(n^{o(1)})$ for constant $\d,q$.
\item It is not hard to see that if every $t$-vertex subgraph $H$ of a graph $G$ satisfies $\sep(H) \le (t/\log t)(\log\log t)^c$ then $G$ must have at most $O(n(\log\log n)^{c'})$ edges.
(Heuristically speaking, the upper bound on the number of edges admits a recursion of the form $f(n) \le 2f(n/2)+(n/\log n)(\log\log n)^c$).
We note that one can construct a graph $G$ satisfying this requirement using arguments similar to those we used to prove Theorem~\ref{theo:main}, and in this case, the resulting graph would have $\Omega(n(\log\log n)^{c''})$ edges. (To be more precise, $c'=c+1$ and $c''=c-1$.)
This means that the graph we construct in Theorem~\ref{theo:main} has the maximum possible number of edges, up to $\log\log n$ factors.
The situation for vertex separators, as in Theorem \ref{theo:LRT}, is not so clear, so it would be interesting to understand the maximum number of edges of $n$-vertex graphs in a hereditary family with vertex separators of size at most $(n/\log n)(\log\log n)^c$.
Although we construct such a family $\F$ that contains $n$-vertex graphs with $\Omega(n(\log\log n)^{c''})$ edges, we cannot rule out the possibility of improving this to (say) $n\log n$.
\item Let us mention two problems that seem to be related to the types of problems studied here
but that (unfortunately) we cannot resolve. The first is a nice problem of G. Kalai. Suppose $\F$ is a hereditary family of graphs and that every graph in the family has a vertex separator of size $n/f(n)$. Then, how fast should $f(n)$ grow so that $\F$ has only $2^{O(n)}$ non-isomorphic graphs on $n$ vertices? It was shown in~\cite{Kalai,Kalai-2} that $f(n) \geq \log^{2+\epsilon}n$ suffices while $f(n) \leq \log^{1-\epsilon}n$ does not.
Closing the gap between these bounds is still open.
The second problem is related to a graph decomposition result from a work of P\v{a}tra\c{s}cu and Thorup \cite{PatrascuTh07}.
They proved that the edge set of every graph can be decomposed into $b=O(\log n)$ subsets $E_1,\ldots,E_b$ so that for every
$1 \leq i \leq b$ the graph spanned by $E_1,\ldots,E_i$ has ``edge expansion'' $1/\log n$, where the notion of edge expansion used
here is slightly different from the (standard) one we used throughout this paper.
It would be interesting to decide whether the parameters in the construction
of \cite{PatrascuTh07} are optimal.
\end{itemize}
\noindent \textbf{Acknowledgment:} We are grateful to Alex Samorodnitsky for very helpful discussions related to this work.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{introduction}
Suppose that we observe a small subset of entries of a large data matrix. The problem of inferring the many missing entries from this small set of observations is known as the matrix completion problem. This problem has attracted considerable attention in the past five years.
The first works \cite{Candes_Recht,Candes_Tao, Candes_Plan, Gross, Recht} introduce nuclear-norm minimization method. A different approach, called OPTISPACE has been proposed in \cite{Keshavan_Montanari_Oh,Keshavan}. More recently, a method based on max-norm minimization was studied in \cite{Cai_Zhou,Foygel_Serebro}. Other methods include, for example, GROUSE (Grassmannian Rank-One Update Subspace Estimation) \cite{Balzano} and orthogonal rank-one matrix pursuit \cite{Wang}.
A quite popular direction in the matrix completion literature are the thresholding methods which can be divided in two groups: one-step thresholding methods and iterative thresholding methods. Strong theoretical guarantees were obtained for one-step thresholding procedures. For example, Koltchinskii et al in \cite{Koltchinskii_Lounici_Tsybakov} introduce a soft-thresholding method and show that it is minimax optimal up to a logarithmic factor. In \cite{ Klopp_rank} Klopp consider a hard thresholding proceedure. Chatterjee \cite{ Chatterjee_mc} propose an universal singular value thresholding that can be applied to a large number of matrix estimation problems, including matrix completion. Despite strong theoretical guarantees these one-step thresholding methods has two important drawbacks: they show poor behavior in practice and only work under the uniform sampling distribution which is not realistic in many practical situations.
Much better practical performances have been shown by iterative thresholding methods. For example, in \cite{Cai_Candes_Shen}, Cai et al propose a first-order
singular value thresholding
algorithm SVT which approximately
solves the nuclear norm minimization problem. In \cite{Mazumder_Hastie_Tibshirani}, Mazmuder et al introduce \texttt{softImpute} algorithm. \texttt{softImpute} produces a sequence of solutions that converges to a solution of the nuclear norm regularized least-squares problem when the number of iterations goes to infinity. These iterative thresholding algorithms are simple to implement,
scale to relatively large matrices and in practice achieve competitive errors compared to
the state-of-the-art algorithms. More recently Dhanjal et al \cite{Dhanjal} propose an improvement for the \texttt{softImpute} algorithm using randomized SVDs along with a novel updating method. This improvement allows to bypass the bottleneck in the algorithm which consists in the use of the
singular value decomposition of a large matrix at each iteration.
The majority of existing algorithms for matrix completion are batch methods, that is, they operate on the full data matrix. However in some applications such as recommendation systems or localization in sensor networks we observe a sequence of data matrix $M_1,\dots ,M_T$ reviled sequentially where from $M_t$ to $M_{t+1}$ we add new observations. In such situations
the predictive rule should be refined incrementally. One advantage of iterative thresholding algorithms is that they can be adapted to such sequential learning, see for example \cite{Dhanjal}.
In spite of their empirical success, the theoretical guarantees of such iterative thresholding methods are poorly understood. The goal of this paper is to provide strong theoretical guarantees, similar to those obtained for nuclear-norm penalization methods (see, for example \cite{Negahban_Wainwright,Klopp_general}) and one step thresholding methods (see \cite{Koltchinskii_Lounici_Tsybakov,Klopp_rank,Chatterjee_mc}) for a modification of the \texttt{softImpute} algorithm.
\subsection{Contributions and Related Work}
The contributions of the present paper to the theoretical study of the modified \texttt{softImpute} algorithm are multifaceted. In Section \ref{section_upper_bounds} we prove an upper bound on the estimation error of the output $\hat M$ of our algorithm. Let $M_0\in \mathbb{R}^{m_1\times m_2}$ be the unknown matrix of interest. Suppose, for simplicity, that each entry is observed with the same probability $p$, then we prove the following upper bound on the estimation error of $\hat M$
\begin{equation} \label{upper_bound}
\begin{split}
\dfrac{\Vert \hat M-M_0\Vert_{2}^{2}}{m_1m_2}&\lesssim \dfrac{{\rm rank}(M_0)}{p\min(m_1,m_2)}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Here the symbol $\lesssim$ means that the inequality holds up to a multiplicative numerical constant. To the best of our knowledge, the upper bound on the estimation error given by \eqref{upper_bound} is strictly better than all upper bounds available in matrix completion literature.
For instance, for the same setting, Chatterjee in \cite{Chatterjee_mc} obtains the following larger bound
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\dfrac{\Vert \hat M-M_0\Vert_{2}^{2}}{m_1m_2}&\lesssim \sqrt{\dfrac{{\rm rank}(M_0)}{p\min(m_1,m_2)}}.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
On the other hand, \cite{Koltchinskii_Lounici_Tsybakov,Negahban_Wainwright,Klopp_general}, among some other papers, consider a slightly different setting where the matrix completion problem is viewed as a particular case of the trace regression model. In this setting the number of observations $n$ is fixed. The drawback here is that in this model each entry can be observed multiple times which is not the case in a large number of practical situations. We consider a different setting where each entry can be observed at most once (see Section \ref{model_sampling}). However, it is easy to see that these two settings are closely related if we put $n=pm_1m_2$. Comparing to \eqref{upper_bound}, the bounds obtained in \cite{Koltchinskii_Lounici_Tsybakov,Negahban_Wainwright,Klopp_general} have an additional $\log(d_1+d_2)$ factor.
Koltchinskii et al in \cite{Koltchinskii_Lounici_Tsybakov} obtained lower bounds for the estimation error without this additional $\log(d_1+d_2)$ factor. So our result answer the important theoretical question what is the exact minimax rate of convergence for matrix completion problem. As the lower bound in \cite{Koltchinskii_Lounici_Tsybakov} is obtained for a different setting, in Section \ref{lower_bounds} we adapt their proof to our setting, showing that the minimax rate of convergence for matrix completion problem is given by \eqref{upper_bound} and that the estimator produced by our algorithm is minimax optimal. Note that our techniques can be adapted to the setting considered in \cite{Koltchinskii_Lounici_Tsybakov,Negahban_Wainwright,Klopp_general} and lead to an upper bound without the additional $\log(d_1+d_2)$ factor in this setting also.
Another important point is that a large part of matrix completion literature consider uniform sampling at random setting where each entry is observed with the same probability $p$. In many applications, such as recommendation systems, this assumption is not realistic. The theoretical analysis in the present paper is carried out for quite general sampling distributions and show that our iterative thresholding algorithm has good performances in such situations.
Finally our results give theoretical insights for the chose of the parameters in the modified \texttt{softImpute} algorithm.
\subsection{Organisation of the paper}
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Section \ref{model_sampling} we introduce our model and the assumptions on the sampling scheme. For the reader's convenience, we collect notation which we use throughout the paper in Section \ref{notation}. In Section \ref{section_algorithm} we present a modification of the \texttt{softImpute} algorithm for matrix completion. The upper bounds on the estimation error are derived in Section \ref{section_upper_bounds}. Finally the lower bounds are obtained in Section \ref{lower_bounds} and the Appendix contains the proofs.
\section{Preliminaries}\label{Preliminaries}
\subsection{Model and sampling scheme}\label{model_sampling}
Suppose that we observe a relatively small number of entries of a data matrix \begin{equation}\label{model}
X=M_0+E.
\end{equation}
Here $M_0=(m_{ij})\in \mathbb{R}^{m_{1}\times m_{2}}$ is the unknown matrix of interest and $E=(\xi_{ij})\in \mathbb{R}^{m_{1}\times m_{2}}$ is the matrix containing the noise. We assume that the noise variables $\xi_{ij}$ are independent, zero mean and bounded:
\begin{Assumption}\label{noise_bounded}
$\mathbb E(\xi_{ij})=0$, $\mathbb E(\xi_{ij}^{2})=\sigma^{2}$ and there exists a positive constant $b>0$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\underset{i,j}{\max}\left \vert\xi_{ij}\right \vert\leq b.
\end{equation*}
\end{Assumption}
We suppose that each entry of $X$ is observed independently of the other entries. For the entry $(i,j)\in [m_1]\times[m_2]$, we denote the probability to be observed by $\pi_{ij}$. Let $\eta_{ij}$ be the independent Bernoulli variables with parameters $\pi_{ij}$ and $y_{ij}=\eta_{ij}\left (m_{ij}+\xi_{ij}\right )$. Then, $Y=(y_{ij})$ is the matrix containing our observations.
We denote by $\Omega$ the random set of observed indices.
In the simplest situation each coefficient is observed with the same probability, i.e. for every $(i,j)\in [m_1]\times[m_2]$, $\pi_{ij}=p$.
Unfortunately, such an assumption on the sampling distribution is not realistic in many practical applications. In the present paper, we consider general sampling model.
We suppose that each coefficient is observed with a positive probability:
\begin{Assumption}\label{sampling_1} There exists $p>0$ such that for any $(i,j)\in \{1,\dots,m_1\}\times \{1,\dots,m_2\}$
$$\pi_{ij}\geq p.$$
\end{Assumption}
For any $A=(A_{ij})\in \mathbf{R}^{m_1\times m_2}$ we define the weighted by $\pi_{ij}$ Frobenius norm of $A$
\begin{equation*}
\Vert A\Vert _{L_2(\Pi)}^{2}=\sum_{(i,j)}\pi_{ij}A^2_{ij}.
\end{equation*}
Assumption \ref{sampling_1} implies that \begin{equation}\label{ass1}
\Vert A\Vert^{2} _{L_2(\Pi)}\geq p^{-1}\Vert A\Vert^{2} _{2}.
\end{equation}
We denote the column and row marginals by $$\pi_{\cdot j}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{m_1}{\Sigma}}\pi_{ij}\qquad\text{and}\qquad \pi_{i\cdot }=\underset{j=1}{\overset{m_2}{\Sigma}}\pi_{ij}.$$
Suppose that we know an upper bound $L$ on it's maximum:
\begin{equation}\label{upper_bound_marginals}
\underset{i,j}{\max}\left (\pi_{\cdot j},\pi_{i \cdot}\right )\leq L.
\end{equation}
Note that we can easily get an estimation on this upper bound using the empirical frequencies
\begin{equation*}
\hat\pi_{\cdot j}=\dfrac{\sum_{i=1}^{m_1}\eta_{ij}}{\sum_{(i,j)}\eta_{ij}}\qquad\text{and}\qquad\hat\pi_{i\cdot }=\dfrac{\sum_{j=1}^{m_2}\eta_{ij}}{\sum_{(i,j)}\eta_{ij}}.
\end{equation*}
\subsection{Notation}\label{notation}
We provide a brief summary of the notation used throughout this paper. Let $A,B$ be matrices in $\mathbb{R}^{m_{1}\times m_{2}}$.
\begin{itemize}
\item For a matrix $A$, $A_{ij}$ is its $ (i, j)$−th entry.
\item We denote by $S_{\lambda}(W)\equiv UD_{\lambda}V'$ the \textit{soft-thresholding} operator where $D_{\lambda}=\text{diag}\left [(d_1-\lambda)_{+},\dots,(d_r-\lambda)_{+}\right ]$, $UDV'$ is the SVD of $W$, $D=\text{diag}\left [d_1,\dots,d_r\right ]$ and $t_{+}=\max(t,0)$.
\item For any set $I$, $\vert I\vert$ denotes its cardinal and $\bar I$ its complement. Let $a\vee b=\max(a,b)$ and $a\wedge b=\min(a,b)$.
\item For two matrices $A,B\in \mathbb{R}^{m_1\times m_2}$ we define the \textit{scalar product}
$$\langle A,B\rangle =\mathrm{tr}(A^{T}B).$$
\item We denote by $\Vert A\Vert_{2}$ the usual $l_2-$norm. Additionally, we use the following matrix norms: $\Vert A\Vert_{*}$ is the nuclear norm (the sum of singular values), $\Vert A\Vert$ is the operator norm (the largest singular value), $\Vert A\Vert_{\infty}$ is the largest absolute value of the entries:
$$\left\Vert A\right\Vert_{\infty}=\underset{i,j}{\max}\mid A_{ij}\mid.$$
\item $\pi_{ij}$ is the probability to observe the $(i,j)$-th element. For $j=1\dots m_2$, $\pi_{\cdot j}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{m_1}{\Sigma}}\pi_{ij}$ and for $i=1\dots m_1$, $\pi_{i\cdot }=\underset{j=1}{\overset{m_2}{\Sigma}}\pi_{ij}$. We have that
\begin{equation*}
\underset{i,j}{\max}\left (\pi_{\cdot j},\pi_{i \cdot}\right )\leq L.
\end{equation*}
\item Let $M=\max(m_1,m_2)$, $m=\min(m_1,m_2)$ and $d=m_1+m_2$.
\item Let $I\subset \{1,\dots m_1\}\times\{1,\dots m_2\}$ be a subset of indices. Given a matrix $A=(A_{ij})$, we define its restriction on $I$, $A_{I}$, in the following way: $\left (A_{I}\right )_{ij}=A_{ij}$ if $(ij)\in I$ and $\left (A_{I}\right )_{ij}=0$ if not.
\item We denote $\Vert A\Vert _{L_2(\Pi)}^{2}=\sum_{(i,j)}\pi_{ij}A^2_{ij}$ and Assumption \ref{sampling_1} implies
$$\Vert A\Vert^{2} _{L_2(\Pi)}\geq p^{-1}\Vert A\Vert^{2} _{2}.$$
\item Let $\{\epsilon_{ij}\}$ be an i.i.d. Rademacher sequence and $X_{ij}=e_{i}(m_1)e^*_{j}(m_2)$ where $e_{k}(l)$ are the canonical basis vectors in $\mathbb R^l$.
We define
\begin{equation}\label{stoch1}
\Sigma_R=\sum_{(i,j)}\eta_{ij}\epsilon_{ij}X_{ij}\qquad\text{and}\qquad \Sigma=\sum_{(i,j)}\eta_{ij}\xi_{ij}X_{ij}.
\end{equation}
\end{itemize}
\section{The Singular Value Thresholding Algorithm}\label{algorithm}
In this section we introduce an iterative singular value thresholding algorithm and discuss its theoretical properties. We show that it enjoys strong theoretical guarantees and, unlike one-step thresholding procedures, is well adapted for general non-uniform sampling distributions.
\subsection{Algorithm}\label{section_algorithm}
Our algorithm is based on the \texttt{softImpute} algorithm proposed by Mazumder et al in \cite{Mazumder_Hastie_Tibshirani}. \texttt{SoftImpute} algorithm is inspired by SVD-Impute of Troyanskaya et al \cite{Troyanskaya}. It alternates between imputing the missing values from a current SVD, and updating the SVD using the data matrix.
\hrulefill
Algorithm 1
\hrulefill
Require : Matrix $Y$, regularization parameter $\lambda$ and $a$, an upper bound on the sup-norm of $M_0$.
\begin{itemize}
\item[1.] $M^{old}=0$
\item[2.]\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)]Repeat\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] Compute $M^{new}\leftarrow S_{\lambda}\left (Y+(M^{old})_{\bar{\Omega}}\right )$.
\item[(ii)] If $\left \Vert \left (M^{new}-M^{old}\right )_{\bar{\Omega}}\right \Vert<\lambda/3$ and $\left \Vert M^{new}-M^{old}\right \Vert_{\infty}< a$ exit.
\item [(iii)] Put $M^{old}=\left (M^{old}_{ij}\right )$
\begin{equation}\label{truncation}
M^{old}_{ij} = \left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
M^{new}_{ij}& \text{if}\;\;\vert M^{new}_{ij}\vert\leq a \\ \\
a & \text{if}\; \;M^{new}_{ij}> a \\\\
-a &\;\text{if}\;\; M^{new}_{ij}< -a.
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
\end{itemize}
\item[(b)] Assign $\hat M\leftarrow M^{new}$.
\end{itemize}
\item[3.] Output $\hat M$.
\end{itemize}
\hrulefill
\vskip 0.5 cm
This algorithm repeatedly replaces the missing entries with the current guess, update the guess by solving
\begin{equation}\label{minimization_problem}
M^{new}\in \underset{M}{\text{minimize}}\; f_{\lambda}(M)=\frac{1}{2}\Vert Y+(M^{old})_{\bar \Omega}-M\Vert^{2}_{2}+\lambda\Vert M\Vert_{*}
\end{equation}
and truncating $M^{new}$.
Let us denote by $(M_{k})_{k\geq 0}$ the sequence of solutions produced by Algorithm 1. We have the following result :
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma_convergency}
For the successive differences of the sequence $(M_{k})_{k\geq 0}$ we have that
\begin{equation}\label{convergency_2}
\left \Vert M^{k+1}-M^{k}\right \Vert_{2}\rightarrow 0\;\text{as}\;k \rightarrow 0
\end{equation}
which implies\label{convergency_infty}
\begin{equation}
\left \Vert \left (M^{k+1}-M^{k}\right )_{\bar{\Omega}}\right \Vert\rightarrow 0 \quad \text{and}\quad \left \Vert M^{k+1}-M^{k}\right \Vert_{\infty}\rightarrow 0\;\text{as}\;k \rightarrow 0.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\subsection{Upper bound on the estimation error}\label{section_upper_bounds}
In this section we derive an upper bound on the estimation error of $\hat M$ produced by Algorithm 1. This bound is non-asymptotic and implies, in particular, that the proposed estimator is minimax optimal. We start by a general result which is proven in Appendix \ref{proof-thm-general}.
\begin{Theorem}\label{thm_general}
Let Assumptions \ref{noise_bounded} and \ref{sampling_1} be satisfied and $\Vert M_0\Vert_{\infty}\leq a$. Assume that $\lambda\geq 3 \left\Vert \Sigma\right\Vert$. Then, with probability at least $1-8/d$,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\Vert \hat M-M_0\Vert_{L_{2}(\Pi)}^{2}&\leq C\,p^{-1}\left \{{\rm rank}(M_0)\left ( \lambda^{2}+a^{2}\,\left (\mathbb E\left ( \left\Vert \Sigma_R\right\Vert\right )\right )^{2}\right )+{a}^{2}+\log (d)\right \}.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
where $d=m_1+m_2$.
\end{Theorem}
Using Assumption \ref{sampling_1}, Theorem \ref{thm_general} implies the following bound on the estimation error measured in normalized Frobenius norm
\begin{Corollary} Under assumptions of Theorem \ref{thm_general} and with probability at least $1-8/d$,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\dfrac{\Vert \hat M-M_0\Vert_{2}^{2}}{m_1m_2}&\leq \dfrac{C}{p^{2}m_1m_2}\left \{{\rm rank}(M_0)\left ( \lambda^{2}+a^{2}\,\left (\mathbb E\left ( \left\Vert \Sigma_R\right\Vert\right )\right )^{2}\right )+{a}^{2}+\log (d)\right \}.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
\end{Corollary}
In order to get a bound in a closed form we need to obtain a suitable upper bounds on $\mathbb E\left ( \left\Vert \Sigma_R\right\Vert\right )$ and, with probability close to $1$, on $\left\Vert \Sigma\right\Vert$.
\begin{lemma}\label{stochastic}
Suppose that $(\xi_{ij})$ are independent and satisfy Assumption \ref{noise_bounded}. Then, there exists absolute constants $c^{*}, C^{*}>0$ such that, for all $t>0$ with probability at least $1-me^{-t^{2}}$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{Sigma}
\left\Vert \Sigma\right \Vert\leq 3\sigma\sqrt{2L}+c^{*}b\,t
\end{equation}
where $L\leq 1$ is defined in \eqref{upper_bound_marginals}.
Moreover, we have
\begin{equation}\label{expectation_sigma}
\mathbb E \left\Vert \Sigma_{R}\right\Vert\leq C^{*}\left (\sqrt{L}+\sqrt{\log m}\right ).
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
This Lemma is proven in Appendix \ref{proof-stochastic}.
Taking $t=\sqrt{2\log(d)}$ in Lemma \ref{stochastic}, we get that with probability at least $1-1/d$,
\begin{equation*}
\left\Vert \Sigma\right \Vert\leq 3\sigma\sqrt{2L}+c^{*}b\,\sqrt{2\log(d)},
\end{equation*}
then, we can choose
\begin{equation}\label{lambda}
\lambda=3\left (3\sigma\sqrt{2L}+c^{*}b\,\sqrt{2\log(d)}\right ).
\end{equation}
With this choice of $\lambda$ we obtain the following Theorem.
\begin{Theorem}\label{thm3}
Let Assumptions \ref{noise_bounded} and \ref{sampling_1} be satisfied and $\Vert M_0\Vert_{\infty}\leq a$. Then, with probability at least $1-8/d$,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\Vert \hat M-M_0\Vert_{L_{2}(\Pi)}^{2}&\leq C\,p^{-1}\,{\rm rank}(M_0)\left \{\left (a\vee \sigma\right )^{2}L+{a}^{2}\log (m)+b^{2}\log (d)\right \}.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\dfrac{\Vert \hat M-M_0\Vert_{2}^{2}}{m_1m_2}&\leq \dfrac{C\,{\rm rank}(M_0)}{p^{2}m_1m_2}\left \{\left (a\vee \sigma\right )^{2}L+{a}^{2}\log (m)+b^{2}\log (d)\right \}.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
\end{Theorem}
\begin{remark}\label{remark:bound_p}
{\rm Note that $\pi_{ij}\geq p$ yields $L\geq Mp$. Then, the upper bound on the estimation error in the Theorem \ref{thm3} is at least a constant times $\dfrac{{\rm rank}(M_0)}{pm}$. So, in order to get a small estimation error, $p$ should be larger then $\dfrac{{\rm rank}(M_0)}{m}$. We denote by $n=\sum_{ij}\pi_{ij}$ the expected number of observations. Condition $p\geq\dfrac{{\rm rank}(M_0)}{m} $ implies the following condition on $n$
\begin{equation}\label{cond_n}
n\geq C\,{\rm rank}(M_0)\, M.
\end{equation}
When the rank of the matrix $M_0$ is small, this necessary number of observations is close to the number of degree of freedom of the matrix $M_0$, which is $$(m_1+m_2){\rm rank}(M_0)-\left ({\rm rank}(M_0)\right )^{2}.$$
}
\end{remark}
Let us restrict our attention to the non-degenerated case $M_0\not =0$ (we can easily include this case replacing ${\rm rank}(M_0)$ by ${\rm rank}(M_0)\vee 1$). Assuming that the expected number of observations $n$ is not too small, we can get simpler bound on the estimation error. Suppose that $n>c^{*}m\log(d)$. Then, using $$Lm\geq n\geq c^{*}m\log d$$ we get $L\geq c^{*}\log d$ and we can chose $\lambda$ in the following way \begin{equation}\label{new_lambda}
\lambda=18b\sqrt{2L}.
\end{equation}
With this choice of $\lambda$ we get the following bound on the estimation error
\begin{Corollary}
Let Assumptions \ref{noise_bounded} and \ref{sampling_1} be satisfied and $\Vert M_0\Vert_{\infty}\leq a$. Assume that $n\geq c^{*}m\log(d)$ and $M_0\not =0$. Then, with probability at least $1-8/d$,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\dfrac{\Vert \hat M-M_0\Vert_{2}^{2}}{m_1m_2}&\leq \dfrac{C\,{\rm rank}(M_0)\,\left (a\vee b\right )^{2}L}{p^{2}m_1m_2}.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
\end{Corollary}
In order to compare this result with previous results on noisy matrix completion we consider a more restrictive assumption on the sampling distribution. That is, we assume that this distribution is close to the uniform one:
\begin{Assumption}\label{assumption_uniform}
There exists positives constants $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ independent on $m_1$ and $m_2$ and a $0<p<1$ such that for every $(i,j)\in \{1,\dots,m_1\}\times \{1,\dots,m_2\}$ we have
$$\mu_2p\leq \pi_{ij}\leq \mu_1p.$$
\end{Assumption}
Under this assumption Theorem \ref{thm_general} yields
\begin{Corollary}\label{corollary_uniforme}
Let Assumptions \ref{noise_bounded} and \ref{assumption_uniform} be satisfied and $\Vert M_0\Vert_{\infty}\leq a$. Assume that $n\geq m\log(d)$ and $\lambda$ given by \eqref{new_lambda}. Then, with probability at least $1-8/d$,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\dfrac{\Vert \hat M-M_0\Vert_{2}^{2}}{m_1m_2}&\leq \dfrac{C\,{\rm rank}(M_0)\,\left (a\vee b\right )^{2}}{pm}.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
\end{Corollary}
\begin{remark}
{\rm Let us compare the bound given by Corollary \ref{corollary_uniforme} with bounds available in the literature. Our model was previously considered by Chatterjee in \cite{Chatterjee_mc} in the case of uniform sampling distribution, that is $\pi_{ij}=p$ for any $(i,j)\in \{1,\dots,m_1\}\times \{1,\dots,m_2\}$. In \cite{Chatterjee_mc}, Chatterjee introduces a simple estimation procedure, called Universal Singular Value Thresholding which is applied to a number of
questions in low rank matrix estimation,
blockmodels, distance matrix completion, latent space models and etc. For matrix completion problem and under the additional assumption $p\geq n^{-1+\epsilon}$ for some $\epsilon>0$, the bound obtained in \cite{Chatterjee_mc} is the following one
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\dfrac{\Vert \hat M-M_0\Vert_{2}^{2}}{m_1m_2}&\leq C\sqrt{\dfrac{{\rm rank}(M_0)\,\left (a\vee b\right )^{2}}{pm}}.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
The rate of convergence given by Corollary \ref{corollary_uniforme} is faster and, as we will see in Section\ref{lower_bounds}, is minimax optimal. Note that the additional assumption $p\geq n^{-1+\epsilon}$ yields the following condition on the expected number of observations
\begin{equation}
n>m^{\epsilon}M.
\end{equation}
For low rank matrices, this necessary number of observations is larger than the number of observations required by our method and given by \eqref{cond_n}.
In \cite{Negahban_Wainwright,Koltchinskii_Lounici_Tsybakov, Klopp_general} a closely related set up for matrix completion problem using the trace regression model was considered. The main difference between these two settings is that in the case of the trace regression the number of observations is not random and each entry may be observed multiple times. In our setting the number of observations is random and each entry is observed at most once. Comparing with Corollary \ref{corollary_uniforme} and using $n=pm_1m_2$ we see that bounds obtained in \cite{Negahban_Wainwright,Koltchinskii_Lounici_Tsybakov, Klopp_general} contain an additional logarithmic factor $\log (m_1+m_2)$.}
\end{remark}
\section{Minimax Lower bounds}\label{lower_bounds}
In this section, we prove the minimax lower bound showing that the
rates attained by our estimator are optimal. The minimax lower bound in a closely related problem was obtained by Koltchinskii et al in \cite{Koltchinskii_Lounici_Tsybakov}. We adapt their proof to our set up.
We will denote by $\inf_{\hat{M}}$ the infimum over all the estimators.
For any $M_0\in \mathbb R^{m_1\times m_2}$, let $\mathbb P_{M_0}$ denote the probability
distribution of the observations $$(\eta_{11}X_{11},\dots,\eta_{m_1m_2}X_{m_1m_2})$$ satisfying \eqref{model}.
For any integer $0\leq r\le
\min(m_1,m_2)$ and any $a>0$, we consider the class of matrices
\begin{equation}\label{Alb_gs}
\begin{split}
{\cal A}(r,a)
&= \left \{ M \in\,\mathbb R^{m_1\times m_2}:\,
\mathrm{rank}(M)\leq r,\,\Vert M\Vert_{\infty}\leq a, \right \}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
We will prove the lower bound in the case of the uniform sampling distribution, that is, we suppose that each entry is observed with the same probability $p$. As it was noted in Remark \ref{remark:bound_p}, in order to get a small estimation error we need to observe a sufficiently large number of entries, or, equivalently, the probability $p$ should be larger then $r/m$. We prove a lower bound on the estimation risk when this condition is satisfied.
\begin{Theorem}\label{th:lower_bound} Suppose that $m_1,m_2\geq 2$ and $p\geq \frac{r}{m}$. Fix $a>0$ and integer
$1\leq r\leq \min(m_1,m_2)$. Suppose that
the variables $\xi_i$ are i.i.d. Gaussian
${\cal N}(0,\sigma^2)$, $\sigma^2>0$, for $i=1,\dots,n$. Then, there
exist absolute constants $\beta\in(0,1)$ and $c>0$, such that
\begin{equation*}
\inf_{\hat{M}
\sup_{\substack{M_0\in\,{\cal A}( r,a)
}
\mathbb P_{M_0}\left (\dfrac{\Vert \hat M-M_0\Vert_2^{2}}{m_1m_2}> \frac{c\,r\,\left (a\wedge \sigma\right )^{2}}{pm} \right )\ \geq\ \beta.
\end{equation*}
\end{Theorem}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Fire catastrophes always cause big lost to human kind. For example, Dhaka fire on June 2010 caused over 117 people died and over 100 injured. Forest fires in Russia in summer 2010 caused over 10 billion US dollars lost. Therefore, robust early-warning fire alarm systems are always in need to protect people's safety and properties. An fast and accurate fire detection method is the key technology needed in such systems. As a result, fire or flame detection has received great attention by research community for decades~\cite{Toreyin07CVPR}\cite{Ko09FireSVM}. In recent years, fire detection also find applications in event retrieval on fire in digital image or video archives~\cite{PVKBorges10}.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.98\linewidth]{VariousFire6.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Various appearances of fire.}
\label{fig:VariousFire}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{algorithm_m.pdf}
\caption{Framework of proposed fire detection system.}
\end{center}
\label{fig:system_chart}
\end{figure*}
Existing fire detection methods can be classified into two categories: sensor-based methods and vision-based
methods. Sensor-based methods employed information captured by special instruments such as infra-red sensors and smoke sensors, which are expensive and not easy to get~\cite{Luo2007}. Moreover, those sensors typically detect the presence of certain particles generated by fire ionisation or photometry rather than the combustion itself. Therefore, fire-alarm systems based on those sensors usually have time delay and result in high false rates~\cite{Podraj08}. In contrast, vision-based methods used the normal R-G-B images or videos have several advantages~\cite{Healey93cvpr}\cite{Toreyin07CVPR}\cite{Ko09FireSVM}. Firstly, cameras are becoming more functional with steady dropping price. Thus images and videos can provide more detailed visual information for fire detection cheaply. Moreover, surveillance cameras already installed in public places can also be used for fire detection. Secondly, the response time can be faster than traditional sensors, as cameras do not need to wait for the smoke or heat to diffuse. Finally, compared to traditional point sensors, cameras can monitor a broader area, creating a higher possibility of fire detection at early stage~\cite{Ko09FireSVM}. Our system presented in this paper belongs to the latter category, and aims to detect fire in video clips.
Despite of the growing needs and interests in fire detection, there is still not a large number of work on fire detection in the computer vision literature~\cite{PVKBorges10}. Building a robust fire detection system is challenging in following two aspects: (1) fire or flame is flexible in shape and intensity, and it has no fixed structure or appearance. Though color is a relative distinct feature widely used for fire detection, the fire color appeared in images and videos is affected by the camera quality (e.g. resolution, sharpness) and settings (e.g. white balance). The fire also appears widely various in scale. Fig~\ref{fig:VariousFire} shows six fire images with different shape, intensity, color, and scale. Thus, it is hard to build a solid and generic model for fire. And (2) real application requires a fast fire detection method that can work in real-time. Complicated methods or models can not find a position in real applications. Some fire detection methods used filter banks~\cite{Toreyin07CVPR}, frequency transforms~\cite{Liu04ICPR}, and motion tracking techniques, thus need more computational processing time and not suitable for real-time application~\cite{PVKBorges10}.
There are mainly four kinds of limitations in existing fire detection systems: (1) merely based on color, or color plus motion information. Such as \cite{Healey93cvpr} and \cite{Celik07} only used color to detect fire. Limited clues may lead to high false alarm. (2) merely worked for some special situations, such as tunnel fire~\cite{Lee2007}. (3) used many heuristic fixed thresholds, such as \cite{Chen04ICIP}, \cite{Phillips02flame} and \cite{Celik07}, which restricted their applications. And (4) tested on limited data set, such as Cho et al.\cite{cho08} tested their method on six fire video clips, and Ko et al.\cite{Ko09FireSVM} performed their experiments on twelve video clips. Though they showed good results on the small data set, their systems may be impractical for other untested situation. Furthermore, as far as we know, there are no standard fire data sets.
Above mention four limitations lead to the big gap to real-world fire detection applications. The method we proposed in this paper is expected to narrow the gap. We have randomly downloaded 64 fire video clips from public video sharing web sites~\footnote{Project page. The data set and supplementary materials can be downloaded from the anonymous web page: \url{https://sites.google.com/site/firedetection2010/}}. This data set is much larger than those used by other researchers. We carried out a comprehensive empirical study and experiments on this data set. Based on the experiment results, we adopt three most effective fire features, including a local and a global color descriptor in CIE Lab space, and a SURF (Speeded Up Robust Features~\cite{Bay08surf}) texture descriptor. Then a Support Vector Machine (SVM) is employed to find fire regions. Based on our experiment, the RBF(Radial Basis Function) SVM kernel works the best for fire detection. Different with most existing fire detection methods which used only local features on pixel level, we find that our proposed global color feature and local SURF texture feature on regions made a good contribution for fire detection. Finally, a temporal verification is applied to reduce the false alarm. The flowchart of our system is shown in Fig.\ref{fig:system_chart}. Our system did not use any complicated features or tools, thus it is fast and can detect fire in real-time. Compared to Toreyin and Cetin's method proposed in~\cite{Toreyin07CVPR}, ours has higher recall and precision in fire detection on our large testing data set.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows.
Section~\ref{sec:empiricalstudy} discusses the detailed implementation of our system based on empirical study.
Section~\ref{sec:system} introduces the framework of our fire detection system.
Section~\ref{sec:results} presents our experiment results. Comparisons with Toreyin and Cetin's method proposed in~\cite{Toreyin07CVPR} are also given in this section.
Finally Section~\ref{sec:summary} summarizes this paper and draws the conclusion.
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{3.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Precision-recall curves of different features with 3 kinds of SVM kernels.}
\label{fig:PRcurves}
\end{figure*}
\section{Empirical Study and Feature Selection}
\label{sec:empiricalstudy}
Our objective is to propose a robust real-time fire detection method for real-world application. However, as we discussed in section~\ref{sec:intro}, to build a solid and general model for fire is hard. Instead, we aim to implement the system based on a comprehensive empirical study. Since there are little open data set available for fire detection, we firstly collected a bundle of fire videos, and then carried out comprehensive experiments on it to figure out the empirically best feature and classifier kernel for fire detection.
According to our survey, neither theoretical analysis nor empirical comparisons on fire feature selection has been done before.
\subsection{Data set collection}
There are some small data set for fire detection available on internet, such as the data set published by Cetin et. al includes 13 video clips~\cite{VisiFire}. In order to build a larger data set, we downloaded the small public data sets and randomly downloaded fire video clips from public video sharing web sites, such as youtube.com and youku.com. We also captured some fire videos by ourselves to expand the data set.
Finally we have 64 video clips. The average length of each clip is 2 minutes. We tried to cover most of the application scenarios including indoor, urban outdoor, and forest fire with both static and moving background. Potential false alarms cases in the data set include car lights, human wearing fire-color clothes, illumination changing, and so on.
\subsection{Experiment settings}
Color and texture are the most widely used features for general object detection and recognition. Both features can be computed efficiently, hence suitable for real-time systems. Almost all fire detection methods use color as a distinct feature of fire, but explored it in different color space. Such as methods in \cite{Toreyin07CVPR}\cite{Phillips02flame}\cite{PVKBorges10} used RGB color information, and method in \cite{HOrng05} in used HSI color space. There are also other color spaces such as YUV and LAB. However, no trial on theoretical analysis and empirical comparison on color feature selection.
We capture key frames from videos and manually crop out image patches as samples for analysis. We collected 726 fire patches varied in color, shape, and intensity, and 637 non-fire samples involving a variety of objects including human and cars, which are full of visual details, and plain objects such as ceilings, walls, and skies, which are simple in color and texture. We randomly select 4/5 of the patches for training and 1/5 for testing.
We exploit Support Vector Machine (SVM) to do fire classification, since SVM is one of the latest and proved most successful statistical pattern classifier. The LIBSVM~\cite{CC01aLIBSVM} is used in our system. The weights of positive and negative sample are balanced with respect to their number. We search for optimized parameters using 5-fold cross validation with a parameter range of $2^{-8}$ to $2^8$. We test the system with three different SVM kernels: linear, RBF, and $\chi^2$~\cite{Koen10PAMI}.
\subsection{Global color feature}
We experiment with four color spaces including RGB, YUV, HSV, and LAB. The global color histogram of different color space consists of 96 bins, which is the concatenation of three 32-bin histograms for each channel. The precision-recall curves are shown on the left column in Fig.~\ref{fig:PRcurves}. As the result indicates, RGB histogram gives the poorest result, YUV, and HSV are better, and LAB performs the best in each SVM kernel setting. The highest performance is obtained by LAB histogram with RBF kernel.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.85\linewidth]{4.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The left image illustrates keypoint sampling and the right image illustrates dense sampling. Blue dot is the location of sampling point and the diameter of cyan circle represents the size of SURF kernel.}
\label{fig:keypoint}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Local color-texture feature}
Texture is another distinctive feature besides color. Many texture descriptors like SIFT~\cite{Lowe99ICCV}, and HOG~\cite{Dalal05CVPR} have been used widely and successfully on various kinds of object and scene recognition. However, the high computational complexity limits their application in video surveillance and retrieval. To ensure that our system can run in real-time, we adopt the SURF descriptor~\cite{Bay08surf}. It has similar performance compared to SIFT but much faster to compute. Moreover, SURF computing is parallelizable, so that it can benefit from systems with multi-core CPUs and GPUs.
Actually, both SIFT and SURF operate on gray scale images only. There are several methods to boost color saliency of SIFT descriptor, like Hue-SIFT~\cite{VDW06PAMI} and CSIFT~\cite{Abdel06CVPR}. The former is a concatenation of hue histogram with SIFT descriptor, and the latter computes SIFT descriptor on R, G, and B channels respectively. Other methods and their performance discussed in~\cite{Koen10PAMI} have proved that local color information can improve the robustness and distinctiveness of SIFT descriptor by a good extent. Methods like CSIFT needs to compute 3 times over a single point and generates a descriptor with very high dimension, which slows down the matching process. In our method, we attach a local color histogram, which describes the color statistics within a SURF kernel, to a SURF descriptor.
The SURF descriptors are computed over the keypoints detected by its Fast Hessian Detector, yielding many 64 dimensional vectors. Because the quality and sharpness of video frames are relatively low, the threshold of the detector is set to 100 in order to detect more keypoints. The local color histograms are computed within the scope of each SURF kernel. Its size is 24 bin, with 8 bins for each channel. They are combined to form an 88-dimensional feature vector.
We need to obtain a fixed length vector representing the whole image, thus we used a visual vocabulary, which is also known as ``codebook'', to quantize all local features sampled from the image.
To construct the codebook, we first sample, generate and collect local features from all fire and non-fire training image patches. Then we use k-means clustering algorithm to produce 500 centers after 50 iterations. The centers are the elements in a codebook, since they are the most representative local features appear in our training data. The feature searching, matching and encoding steps are the same as that in our system.
The precision-recall curves of five different local features are shown on the right column in Fig.~\ref{fig:PRcurves}. As can be seen from the figure, including color information can greatly improve the system performance. Overall, LAB histogram + SURF + RBF kernel achieves the best performance.
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{5.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Two examples of candidate fire region proposing. The first row shows a surveillance video example with still background, the background modeling result is shown in (a), and the mask of candidate regions is shown in (c). The second row shows a video with moving background. The candidate fire region mask shown in (e) is found by a multi-level threshold.}
\label{fig:CandidateRegion}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Keypoint sampling VS. dense sampling}
All previous experiments we conduct used keypoint sampling strategy in both codebook construction and classification. Recent researches like \cite{Jurie05ICCV} and \cite{NJT06} indicate that dense sampling gives better results than keypoint sampling in local feature based object classification. We now sample over the whole image using SURF kernels with several predetermined intervals and scales, in both codebook construction and classification stage. The difference between keypoint sampling and dense sampling is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:keypoint}.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\caption{Precision comparisons of two sampling strategies}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c| }
\hline\hline
& dense sampling & keypoint sampling\\ \hline
SURF & \textbf{84.8485} & 76.431 \\ \hline
RGB + SURF & \textbf{86.1953} & 79.1245 \\ \hline
HSV + SURF & 84.1751 & \textbf{ 85.1064} \\ \hline
LAB + SURF & \textbf{92.2559} & 84.8484 \\ \hline
YUV + SURF & \textbf{85.1852} & 80.4713 \\ \hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tbl:T1}
\end{table}
Result of comparison between both sampling strategies is shown in Table.~\ref{tbl:T1} . We find that dense sampling outperforms keypoint sampling in most cases,which is consistent with the conclusion in~\cite{Jurie05ICCV}. In smooth surfaces like walls and ceilings, Fast Hessian detector may find few keypoints, which is an impact on classification results. In contrast, dense sampling can gather sufficient information of an image, hence it is more robust.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\caption{ Accuracy comparison of SURF and SURF-128 }
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c| }
\hline\hline
& 64-dimension & 128-dimension\\ \hline
SURF & 84.8485 & \textbf{85.5218} \\ \hline
RGB + SURF & \textbf{86.1953} & 85.5218 \\ \hline
HSV + SURF & 84.1751 & \textbf{86.8687} \\ \hline
LAB + SURF & 92.2559 & \textbf{92.5925} \\ \hline
YUV + SURF & 85.1852 & \textbf{86.532} \\ \hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tbl:T2}
\end{table}
\subsection{SURF VS. SURF-128}
SURF-128 is an extended SURF descriptor that has 128 dimensions. It calculates the sums of positive and negative Laplacian separately, and the resulting signs in the descriptor distinguish positive gradient change from negative one. In our problem, it may be able to distinguish bright flame from dark background. Although SURF-128 is generally more distinctive than standard 64-dimensional SURF, it will significantly slow down the matching step. We compare SURF-128 with standard SURF to find out whether it deserves the extra cost. As shown in Table~\ref{tbl:T2}, on average, SURF-128 is only slightly better. In the worst case, SURF-128 is worse than standard SURF. Therefore, we abandon SURF-128 for our real-time fire detection.
\section{System Implementation}\label{sec:system}
As shown in Fig.\ref{fig:system_chart}, our fire detection system consists of three cascaded parts: (1) candidate fire regions proposing by a background model, (2) fire region classifying with color-texture features and a dictionary of visual words, and (3) temporal verifying. We will discuss each part in detail in following three sections respectively.
\subsection{Candidate fire region proposing}
Most of fire detection systems detect fire regions or pixels directly. Based on observations and statistic experiments, we find that fire regions are relatively bright, i.e. their pixel intensities are above some certain value. We can use this feature to find fire region candidates and fasten the further fire detection process. According to our survey, only Toreyin et al.\cite{Toreyin07CVPR} tried to eliminate the non-fire background. However, they used a fix heuristic threshold, which may fail when the background is bright or when there are fire reflections on white wall. To deal with such challenging circumstances, we adopt a multi-level threshold based on empirical study. The system can adjust the threshold automatically according to the background intensity statistics. Higher background intensity leads to lower threshold, and vice versa.
For a surveillance video clip, which is usually captured by a fixed camera, the background will be relatively static. We applied background substraction to further reduce the fire region candidates. Two examples are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:CandidateRegion}. The three images on the first row illustrate a fire example taken by a surveillance camera. The first image shows the result of background modeling, and the right most white mask shows the proposed candidate fire regions. Two images in the second row illustrate an example fire video with moving background. We can not model the background easily, so we use the multi-level threshold to find the fire region candidates, as shown in the image on bottom right.
\subsection{Feature extraction and region classification}
At the initialization stage of classification, we use the pre-generated codebook to build a K-D tree, which allows fast feature indexing and searching. For each incoming blob, we densely sample LAB+SURF descriptors from its region with interval of 9 pixels and SURF kernels of $9\times9$ scale. This step produces $N$ descriptors.
For each descriptor $d_j$ ,$j = 1, 2, ..., N$, we query its distance $D(d_j, v_i)$ to $m$ nearest neighbors ${v_i|i = 1, 2, ..., m}$ from the K-D tree. In order to prevent drawbacks of single matching, $d_j$ can be matched with all m nearest neighbors. Theoretically, the larger m is set, the better classification result will get, and the higher computational cost is needed. According to our experiments, $m=10$ can achieve the best cost/performance ratio. The weight of matching $d_j$ with $v_i$ is calculated as following:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:weight}
w_{ij} = \frac{K_\sigma(D(d_j,v_i))}{\sum^{m}_{k=1}K_\sigma(D(d_j,v_k))}, i\in[1, m]
\end{equation}
Where $K_\sigma(x)$ is a Gaussian kernel function defined as:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Gkernel}
K_\sigma(x) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi\sigma}}exp(-\frac{1}{2}\frac{x^2}{\sigma^2})
\end{equation}
While using this matching method, we assume that the distance between $d_j$ to $v_i$ satisfies Gaussian distribution due to the effect of clustering. This kernel converts smaller distance into higher probability.
We use a 500-bin histogram $h$ to encode all local features in a fire candidate blob. The values of each bin is calculated as following:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:bin500}
h_i = \sum_{j=1}^{N}w_{ij}, i\in[1, 500]
\end{equation}
After normalization, each bin represents the probability of occurrence of the correspondent element in the codebook and the histogram.
Finally, we compute the 96-bin normalized global LAB histogram for the fire candidate blob. The concatenation of both histograms is the final representation of the blob, and is used as the input to the SVM classifier.
\subsection{Temporal verification}
Objects like street lamps and car lights have great similarity with fire in appearance, and they are hard to be excluded based on a single frame. Thus, blobs classified as fire in the previous step should be further verified using statistic of temporal variation.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.98\linewidth]{7.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The first row and the second row are two different frame of the same video respectively. From left to right: illustration of perimeter, area and spatial distribution.}
\label{fig:7}
\end{figure}
Fire mainly exhibit shape variation but not color or texture. When a new blob emerges, we use three simple parameters: perimeter, area, and spatial distribution to estimate the stableness of the region over consecutive 25 frames, without having to figure out its exact shape representation like Fourier descriptors used in~\cite{Liu04ICPR}. Perimeter and area are very intuitive, and $\mu_p, \mu_a, \sigma_p, \sigma_a$ denote their mean and standard deviation respectively. To calculate spatial distribution, we divide the bounding rectangle of a blob into 4 equal sub rectangles, and calculate the number of pixels within each sub rectangle that are labeled as ``$1$'' in binary mask, namely $d_1, d_2, d_3, d_4$. The standard deviation of spatial distribution is defined as follow:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:sigma}
\sigma_d = \sigma_{d_1} + \sigma_{d_2} + \sigma_{d_3} + \sigma_{d_4}
\end{equation}
We define that a blob is stable if the parameters satisfy the following condition:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:cond1}
\sigma_p < t_1\mu_p ~~~~ and ~~~~ \sigma_a < t_1\mu_a ~~~~ and ~~~~ \sigma_d < t_1\mu_a
\end{equation}
And a blob is unstable if the following condition holds:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:cond2}
\sigma_p > t_2\mu_p ~~~~or~~~~ \sigma_a < t_2\mu_a ~~~~or~~~~ \sigma_d > t_2\mu_a
\end{equation}
Where $t_1$ and $t_2$ are thresholds based on environmental settings. Indoor surveillance can use lower values. In outdoor scenarios, where fire may be greatly influenced by air flow, the thresholds are higher. False alarm rate can be further pruned by these two conditions, i.e. Satisfying Equation(\ref{eq:cond1}) and (\ref{eq:cond2}) should not be proposed as fire. For example, if we use motion tracking and finds that a newly emerged blob vanishes from its original location after several frames. We can assert that it is not fire because fire does not move by itself. There may be other prior knowledge which we can take advantage of, but they are application specific and out of scope of this paper.
\section{Results and Discussion}\label{sec:results}
We use our newly collected dataset to benchmark the performance of our method, and we also test Toreyin et al.'s method~\cite{Toreyin07CVPR} for comparison. Since both methods make a decision at an interval of several frames, we do not use a frame-by-frame evaluation. We manually split the videos into individual sections of 200 frames, and label them as either ``contains fire'' or ``does not contain fire''. As a result, we have 744 sections as testing units and we are able to benchmark using precision and recall rate. The result is shown in Table.~\ref{tbl:resultcompare1}.
Overall, our method has similar precision rate comparing to Toreyin's method. However, we significantly outperform Toreyin's method in recall rate. We should be aware that miss in fire detection is much more critical than false alarm. Therefore, our method is more preferable for real-life applications.
We also compared our method and Toreyin's method for typical instances picked out from the data set, as shown in Table.~\ref{tbl:resultcompare2}. The typical scenarios are described briefly in the right column as video content description. We can see our result is much better than Toreyin's method. However, when inspecting the result, we find some typical failure cases. Both our method and Toreyin's fail to detect the fire on initial combustion, because the size of the flame is very small, both methods are not sensitive enough for it. For night traffic videos, both methods issue some false alarms on car lights, since the car light is in bright yellow tint and moving in video, which is similar to the characteristics of fire .
Due to the na\"{\i}ve thresholding in pixel color, Toreyin's method always fail to recognize fire with bright intensity, which is the main reason of its low recall rate. Our method, however, overcomes this problem and gains great advantage. Toreyin's method also issues false alarms on human skin and yellow shirts. In contrast, our method withstands the challenge.
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Overall benchmark performance.}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
& Our method & Toreyin et al.~\cite{Toreyin07CVPR} \\ \hline
True positive & 361 & 311 \\ \hline
True negative & 305 & 308 \\ \hline
False positive & 27 & 24 \\ \hline
False negative & 81 & 131 \\ \hline
Precision rate & 93.04\% & 92.83\% \\ \hline
Recall rate & 81.67\% & 70.36\% \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tbl:resultcompare1}
\end{table}
\newcommand{\tabincell}[2]{\begin{tabular}{@{}#1@{}}#2\end{tabular}}
\begin{table*}
\centering
\caption{Detection results for typical instances from the data set.}
\begin{tabular}{ |c|m{1.2cm}<{\centering}|m{1.2cm}<{\centering}|m{1.2cm}<{\centering}|m{1.2cm}<{\centering}|m{3.5cm}<{\centering}|}
\hline
\ & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Our method} & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{ Toreyin et al.~\cite{Toreyin07CVPR} } & \\ \hline
Input & \small{False positive} & \small{False negative} & \small{False positive} & \small{False negative} & \small{Video Content Description} \\ \hline
Video 1\tabincell{c} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 6 & \small{A Christmas tree is burning in a bright room} \\ \hline
Video 2 & 4 & 0 & 9 & 1 & \small{Flash lamp and dazzling flame in a warehouse} \\ \hline
Video 3 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 9 & \small{A man doing fire experiment in a dark place} \\ \hline
Video 4 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 5 & \small{White flame burning in a back yard} \\ \hline
Video 5 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & \small{A man wearing an orange shirt is walking around} \\ \hline
Video 6 & 0 & 0 & 4 & 0 & \small{Bank surveillance video of human face} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tbl:resultcompare2}
\end{table*}
\section{Summary} \label{sec:summary}
In this paper, we present a robust real-time fire detection method based on empirical study. To carry out the empirical experiments, we collected so far the largest open data set for fire detection in video. Experiments show that, overall, LAB histogram plus SURF texture descriptor, plus the RBF SVM kernel, lead to the best performance of an 82\% recall with 93\% precision on the data set, which greatly improved the performance by state-of-the-arts methods.
For future works, we can study more detailed fire characteristics to effectively detect the fire on initial combustion and exclude the fire-like objects such as car light in night video.
\bibliographystyle{spmpsci}
|
\section{Introduction}
Equilibrium problems play an important role in nonlinear analysis especially because they provide a unified framework for treating optimization problems, fixed points, saddle points as well as many important problems in physics and mathematical economics, such as location problems or Nash equilibria in game theory. The foundation of (scalar) equilibrium theory has been laid down by Ky Fan \cite{Fan1}, his minimax inequality still being considered one of the most notable results in this field.
The classical scalar equilibrium problem \cite{Fan1}, described by a bifunction
$\varphi :K\times K \longrightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$, consists in finding $x_0\in K$ such
that
\begin{equation*}
\varphi(x_0,y)\ge 0,\,\forall y\in K.
\end{equation*}
We recall the famous existence result of Ky Fan.
\begin{theorem}
\label{tKF} Let $K$ be a nonempty, convex and compact subset of the Hausdorff topological vector space $X$ and let $\varphi
:K \times K \longrightarrow{\mathbb{R}}$ be a bifunction satisfying
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $\forall y\in K$, the function $x\longrightarrow \varphi(x,y)$ is
upper semicontinuous on $K,$
\item[(ii)] $\forall x\in K,$ the function $y\to\varphi(x,y)$ is quasiconvex on
K,$
\item[(iii)] $\forall x\in K,\, \varphi(x, x)\ge 0.$
Then, there exists an element $x_0\in K$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\varphi(x_0,y)\ge 0,\,\forall y\in K.
\end{equation*}
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
Starting with the pioneering work of Giannessi \cite{G1}, several extensions of the scalar equilibrium problem to the vector case have been considered. These vector equilibrium problems, much like their scalar counterpart, offer a unified framework for treating vector optimization, vector variational inequalities or cone saddle point problems, to name just a few \cite{A,AKY,AKY1,AOS,Go1,GRTZ}.
Let $X$ and $Z$ be locally convex Hausdorff topological vector spaces, let $K\subseteq X$ be a nonempty set and let $C\subseteq Z$ be a convex and pointed cone.
Assume that the interior of the cone $C$, denoted by $\inte C$, is nonempty and consider the mapping $f:K\times K\To Z.$ The vector equilibrium problem, introduced in \cite{AOS}, consist in finding $x_0\in K$, such that
\begin{equation}\label{p1}
f(x_0,y)\not\in-\inte C,\,\forall y\in K.
\end{equation}
Recall that this problem is called weak vector equilibrium problem \cite{G,G1}.
The following equilibrium problem, called strong vector equilibrium problem \cite{G,G1}, is also a valid extension of the scalar equilibrium problem to vector valued case. In the formulation of the strong vector equilibrium problem we do not assume the nonemptyness of the interior of the cone $C.$
The strong vector equilibrium problem consists in finding $x_0\in K$, such that
\begin{equation}\label{p2}
f(x_0,y)\not\in- C\setminus\{0\},\,\forall y\in K.
\end{equation}
It can easily be observed, that for $Z=\R$ and $C=\R_+=[0,\infty),$ the previous problems reduce to the classical scalar equilibrium problem.
Note that, if $\inte C\neq\emptyset$ and $x_0\in K$ is a solution of (\ref{p2}), then $x_0$ is also a solution of (\ref{p1}).
In this paper, we obtain some existence results of the solution for the vector equilibrium problem (\ref{p1}), respectively (\ref{p2}). The conditions that we consider are imposed on a special type of dense subset of $K$, that we call self-segment-dense \cite{LaVi1}. The notion of a self-segment-dense set has been successfully used in the context of scalar and set-valued equilibrium problems and generalized set-valued monotone operators in \cite{LaVi, LaVi1}. Moreover, we found very useful applications of this notion in economics (a Debreu-Gale-Nikaido-type theorem) and game theory (existence of Nash equilibria).
The paper is organized as follows. In next section, we introduce some preliminary notions and the necessary apparatus that we need in order to obtain our results. In section 3 and section 4 we state our results concerning on weak, respectively strong vector equilibrium problems. Our conditions, which ensure the solution existence of the above mentioned vector equilibrium problems, are considerably weakening the existing conditions from the literature. More precisely, we assume some continuity, respectively convexity properties of the vector bifunction $f$ involved in problem (\ref{p1}), respectively(\ref{p2}), not on the whole set $K$, but rather on a self-segment-dense subset of it. Also the diagonal property $f(x,x)\not\in-\inte C,$ respectively $f(x,x)\notin-C\setminus\{0\}$ is assumed on a self-segment-dense set $D\subseteq K$ only. We pay a special attention to the case when $K$ is not necessarily compact but closed, in particular, when $K$ is a closed subset of a reflexive Banach space. We show that these results fail, if we replace the self-segment-denseness of $D$ by its denseness. Finally, we apply our results to vector optimization and vector variational inequalities.
\section{Preliminaries}
Let $X$ be a real Hausdorff, locally convex topological vector space. For a non-empty set $D\subseteq X$, we denote by $\inte D$ its interior, by $\cl D$ its closure and by $\mbox{span} D$ the subspace of $X$ generated by $D$. We say that $P\subseteq D$ is dense in $D$ iff $D\subseteq \cl P$, and that $P\subseteq X$ is closed with respect to $D$ iff $\cl P \cap D=P\cap D.$ Recall that a set $C\subseteq X$ is a cone, iff $tk\in C$ for all $c\in C$ and $t\ge 0.$ The cone $C$ is convex if $C+C=C,$ and pointed if $C\cap (-C)=\{0\}.$ Note that a cone $C$ induce a partial ordering on $Z$, that is $z_1\le z_2\Leftrightarrow z_2-z_1\in C.$ In the sequel when we use $\inte C,$ we tacitly assume that the cone $C$ has nonempty interior. Following the same logical approach, one can introduce the strict inequality $z_1< z_2\Leftrightarrow z_2-z_1\in \inte C,$ or $z_1< z_2\Leftrightarrow z_2-z_1\in C\setminus\{0\}.$ These relations lead to saying, that $z_1\not< z_2\Leftrightarrow z_2-z_1\not\in-\inte C$, or $z_1\not< z_2\Leftrightarrow z_2-z_1\not\in-C\setminus\{0\}.$ It is an easy exercise to show that $C+C\setminus\{0\}=C\setminus\{0\},$ respectively $\inte C+C= \inte C.$
Let $Z$ be another Hausdorff, locally convex topological vector space, let $K\subseteq X$ be a nonempty set and let $C\subseteq Z$ be a convex and pointed cone.
A map $f:K\To Z$ is said to be C-upper semicontinuous
at $x\in K$ iff for any neighborhood $V$ of $f(x)$ there exists a neighborhood $U$ of $x$ such that $f(u)\in V-C$ for all $u\in U\cap K$. Obviously, if $f$ is continuous at $x\in K,$ then it is also C-upper semicontinuous at $x\in K$.
Assume that $C$ has nonempty interior. According to \cite{Ta} $f$ is C-upper semicontinuous at $x\in K,$ if and only if, for any $k\in\inte C$, there exists a neighborhood $U$ of $x$ such that
$f(u) \in f(x) + k -\inte C$ for all $u \in U\cap K.$
Similarly, even if $\inte C=\emptyset$, one can introduce the so called strongly C-upper semicontinuity of $f$ as follows: $f$ is strongly C-upper semicontinuous at $x\in K,$ if and only if, for any $k\in C\setminus\{0\}$, there exists a neighborhood $U$ of $x$ such that
$f(u) \in f(x) + k - C\setminus\{0\}$ for all $u \in U\cap K.$ The map $f:K\To Z$ is said to be C-lower semicontinuous, respectively strongly C-lower semicontinuous at $x\in K$ iff the map $-f$ is C-upper semicontinuous, respectively strongly C-upper semicontinuous at $x\in K.$
\begin{definition}
The function $f : K\to Z$ is called $C$-convex on $K$, iff for all $x_1,x_2,\ldots, x_n\in K$, $n\in \N$ and $\lambda_i\ge 0,\, i\in\{1,2,\ldots,n\},$ with
$\sum_{i=1}^n \lambda_i=1,$ such that $\sum_{i=1}^n \lambda_i x_i\in K,$ one
has
$$f\left(\sum_{i=1}^n \l_ix_i\right) \le \sum_{i=1}^n \l_i f(x_i).$$
$f$ is said to be $C$-concave on $K$, iff $-f$ is $C$-convex on $K$.
\end{definition}
Note that in these definitions we do not assume that $K$ is convex. We will use the following notations for the open, respectively
closed, line segments in $X$ with the endpoints $x$ and $y$
\begin{eqnarray*}
]x,y[ &:=&\big\{z\in X:z=x+t(y-x),\,t\in ]0,1[\big\}, \\
\lbrack x,y] &:=&\big\{z\in X:z=x+t(y-x),\,t\in \lbrack 0,1]\big\}.
\end{eqnarray*}
The line segments $]x,y],$ respectively $[x,y[$ are defined similarly.
In \cite{DTL}, Definition 3.4, The Luc has introduced the notion of a so-called \emph{segment-dense} set. Let $V\subseteq X$ be a convex set. One
says that the set $U\subseteq V$ is segment-dense in $V$ if for each $x\in V$ there can be found $y\in U$ such that $x$ is a cluster point of the set
[x,y]\cap U.$
In what follows we present a denseness notion (cf. \cite{LaVi,LaVi1}) which is slightly different from the concept of The Luc presented above, but which is better suited for our needs.
\begin{definition}
\label{dd} Consider the sets $U\subseteq V\subseteq X$ and assume that $V$
is convex.
We say that $U$ is self segment-dense in $V$ if $U$ is dense in $V$ and
\begin{equation*}
\forall x,y\in U,\mbox{ the set }\lbrack x,y]\cap U\mbox{ is dense in
\lbrack x,y].
\end{equation*}
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}\textrm{ Obviously in one dimension the concepts of a segment-dense set respectively a self
segment-dense set are equivalent to the concept of a dense set. }
\textrm{\ }
\end{remark}
In what follows we provide an essential example of a self segment-dense set.
\begin{example}
\textrm{(\cite{LaVi1}, Example 2.1)\label{EEE} Let $V$ be the two
dimensional Euclidean space ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ and define $U$ to be the set
\begin{equation*}
U :=\{(p,q) \in{\mathbb{R}}^2 : p\in \mathbb{Q},\, q\in\mathbb{Q}\},
\end{equation*}
where $\mathbb{Q}$ denotes the set of all rational numbers. Then, it is
clear that $U$ is dense in ${\mathbb{R}}^2.$ On the other hand $U$ is not
segment-dense in ${\mathbb{R}}^2,$ since for $x=(0, \sqrt{2})\in {\mathbb{R}
^2 $ and for every $y=(p,q)\in U$, one has $[x, y] \cap U = \{y\}.$ }
\textrm{It can easily be observed that $U$ is self segment-dense in $
\mathbb{R}}^2$, since for every $x,y\in U$ $x=(p,q),\,y=(r,s)$ we have
[x,y]\cap U=\{(p+t(r-p),q+t(s-q)): t\in[0,1]\cap\mathbb{Q}\},$ which is
obviously dense in $[x,y].$ }
\end{example}
To further circumscribe the notion of a self segment-dense set we provide an example
of a subset that is dense but not self segment-dense.
\begin{example}\label{ex1}
\textrm{Let $X$ be an infinite dimensional real Hilbert space, it is known that the unit sphere
$$\left\{ x\in X:\left\Vert x\right\Vert =1\right\},$$
is dense with respect to the weak topology in the unit ball $\left\{ x\in X:\left\Vert x\right\Vert \leq1 \right\}$, but
it is obviously not self segment-dense since any segment with endpoints on the sphere does not intersect the sphere in any other points.}
\end{example}
\begin{remark}
\textrm{Note that every dense convex subset of a Banach space is self
segment-dense. In particular dense subspaces and dense affine subsets are
self segment-dense. }
\end{remark}
In subsequent section, the notion of a KKM map and the well-known intersection Lemma due to Ky Fan
\cite{Fan} will be needed.
\begin{definition}
(Knaster-Kuratowski-Mazurkiewicz) Let $X$ be a Hausdorff topological vector
space and let $M\subseteq X.$ The application $G:M\rightrightarrows X$ is
called a KKM application if for every finite number of elements
x_1,x_2,\dots,x_n\in M$ one has $$\co\{x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_n\}\subseteq
\displaystyle\bigcup_{i=1}^n G(x_i).$$
\end{definition}
\begin{lemma}
Let $X$ be a Hausdorff topological vector space, $M\subseteq X$ and
G:M\rightrightarrows X$ be a KKM application. If $G(x)$ is closed for every
x\in M$, and there exists $x_{0}\in M,$ such that $G(x_{0})$ is compact,
then
\begin{equation*}
\bigcap_{x\in M}G(x)\neq \emptyset .
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
The proof of the results obtained in the next sections are based on the following lemma from \cite{LaVi1}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{l31} Let $X$ be a Hausdorff locally convex topological vector space, let $V\subseteq X$ be a convex set and let $U\subseteq V$ a self-segment-dense set in $V.$ Then for all finite subset $$\{u_1,u_2,\ldots,u_n\}\subseteq U\mbox{ one has }$$
$$\cl(\co\{u_1,u_2,\ldots,u_n\}\cap U)=\c
\{u_1,u_2,\ldots,u_n\}.$$
\end{lemma}
Let us emphasize that this result does not remain valid in case we replace the self-segment-denseness of $U$ in $V$, by its denseness in $V,$ as the next example shows.
\begin{example} Let $V$ be the closed unit ball of an infinite dimensional Banach space $X$, and let $x,y\in V, \, x\neq y.$ Moreover, consider $u,v\in ]x,y[,$ $u=x+t_1(y-x),$ $v=x+t_2(y-x),$ with $t_1,t_2\in]0,1[,\,t_1<t_2.$ Then obviously $U=V\setminus [u,v]$ is dense in $V$, but not self-segment-dense, since for $x,y\in U$ the set $[x,y]\cap U=[x,u[\,\cup\, ]v,y]$ is not dense in $[x,y].$ This also shows, that $\cl(\co\{x,y\}\cap U)\neq\co\{x,y\}.$
\end{example}
\section{Self Segment-Dense Sets and the Weak Vector Equilibrium Problem}
In this section, we obtain some sufficient conditions that ensure the existence of a solution for the weak vector equilibrium problem (\ref{p1}). The conditions, that we consider, are imposed not on the whole domain of the vector bifunction $f$, but rather on a self-segment-dense subset of it. We also show, that the self-segment-dense property of this set is essential in obtaining our results, and cannot be replaced by the usually denseness property. Lemma \ref{l31} plays an important role in the proofs of our results. We treat both the cases when the set $K$, the domain of the vector bifunction $f$, is compact, respectively closed. We pay a special attention to the case when the $K$ is a closed subset of reflexive Banach space $X.$
The main result of this section is the following.
\begin{theorem}
\label{t1} Let $X$ and $Z$ be Hausdorff, locally convex topological vector spaces, let $C\subseteq Z$ be a convex, pointed cone with nonempty interior and
let $K$ be a nonempty, convex and compact subset of $X$. Let $D\subseteq K$ be a
self segment-dense set and consider the mapping $f :K \times K \longrightarrow{Z}$ satisfying
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $\forall y\in D,$ the mapping $x\longrightarrow f(x,y)$ is
C-upper semicontinuous on $K,$
\item[(ii)] $\forall x\in K,$ the mapping $y\longrightarrow f(x, y)$ is C-upper
semicontinuous on $K\setminus D$,
\item[(iii)] $\forall x\in D,$ the mapping $y\longrightarrow f(x,y)$ is C-convex on
D,$
\item[(iv)] $\forall x\in D,\, f(x, x)\not\in-\inte C.$
\end{itemize}
Then, there exists an element $x_0\in K$ such that
\begin{equation*}
f(x_0,y)\not\in -\inte{C},\,\forall y\in K.
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} We give two different proofs.
\textbf{I.} Assume the contrary, that is, for every $x\in K$ there exists $y\in K$ such that $f(x,y)\in-\inte C.$ Then, for every $y\in K$ consider $V_y=\{x\in K: f(x,y)\in-\inte C\}.$ It is obvious that $K\subseteq \cup_{y\in K} V_y.$ We show that $(V_y)_{y\in D}$ is an open cover of $K.$ First of all observe that for all $y\in D,$ one has $V_y=K\setminus G(y)$, where $G(y)$ is the set $\{x\in K:f(x,y)\not\in-\inte C\}.$ We show that $G(y)$ is closed for all $y\in D.$ Indeed, for fixed $y_0\in D$ consider the net $(x_\a)\subseteq G(y_0)$ and let $\lim x_\a=x_0.$ Assume that $x_0\not\in G(y_0).$ Then $f(x_0,y_0)\in-\inte C$.
According to (i) the function $x\longrightarrow f(x,y_0)$ is
C-upper semicontinuous at $x_0$, hence for every $k\in\inte C$ there exists $U,$ a neighborhood of $x_0,$ such that $f(x,y_0)\in f(x_0,y_0)+k-\inte C$ for all $x\in U.$ But then for $k=-f(x_0,y_0)\in\inte C$ one obtains that there exits $\a_0$ such that $f(x_\a,y_0)\in -\inte C,$ for $\a\ge\a_0,$ which contradicts the fact that $(x_\a)\subseteq G(y_0)$.
Consequently, $V_y$ is open for every $y\in D.$
Assume now that there exists $x_0\in K$ such that $x_0\not\in \cup_{y\in D} V_y.$ Then $f(x_0,y)\not\in-\inte C$, for all $y\in D.$ We show that $f(x_0,y)\not\in-\inte C$, for all $y\in K.$ Indeed, for $y_0\in K\setminus D,$ by the denseness of $D$ in $K,$ we have that for every neighborhood $U$ of $y_0$ there exists a $u_0\in U\cap D.$ At this point, the assumption $(ii)$, the upper semicontinuity of $f(x_0, y)$ on $K\setminus D$, assures that for all $k\in\inte C$ there exists a neighborhood $U$ of $y_0$ such that $ f(x_0,u)\in f(x_0,y_0)+k-\inte C.$ Assume that $f(x_0,y_0)\in -\inte C.$ Then let $k=-f(x_0,y_0)\in\inte C.$ Thus, we have that there exists a neighborhood $U$ of $y_0,$ such that $ f(x_0,u)\in -\inte C.$ But, by choosing $u_0\in U\cap D$ we get that $f(x_0,u_0)\in -\inte C,$ contradiction. Hence, $f(x_0,y)\not\in-\inte C$, for all $y\in K$, which contradicts our assumption, that for every $x\in K$ there exists $y\in K,$ such that $f(x,y)\in-\inte C.$
Consequently, $(V_y)_{y\in D}$ is an open cover of the compact set $K$, in conclusion it contains a finite subcover. In other words, there exists $y_1,y_2,...,y_n\in D$ such that $K\subseteq \cup_{i=1}^n V_{y_i}.$ Consider $\big(p_i\big)_{i=\overline{1,n}}$ a continuous partition of unity associated to the open cover $\big(V_{y_i}\big)_{i=\overline{1,n}}$. Then $p_i:K\To[0,1]$ is continuous and $\mbox{supp}(p_i)=\cl\{x\in K: p_i(x)\neq 0\}\subseteq V_{y_i}$ for all $i\in\{1,2,...,n\}$, moreover $\sum_{i=1}^n p_i(x)=1,$ for all $x\in K.$
Consider the mapping $\varphi:\co\{y_1,y_2,...,y_n\}\To\co\{y_1,y_2,...,y_n\},$
$$\varphi(x)=\sum_{i=1}^n p_i(x)y_i.$$
Obviously $\varphi$ is continuous, and $\co\{y_1,y_2,...,y_n\}$ is a compact and convex subset of the finite dimensional space $\mbox{span}\{y_1,y_2,...,y_n\}.$ Hence, by the Brouwer fixed point theorem, there exists $x_0\in \co\{y_1,y_2,...,y_n\}$ such that $\varphi(x_0)=x_0.$
Let $J=\{i\in\{1,2,...,n\}:p_i(x_0)>0\}.$ Obviously $J$ is nonempty, since $\sum_{i\in J} p_i(x_0)=1,$ and $$\varphi(x_0)=\sum_{i=1}^n p_i(x_0)y_i=\sum_{i\in J}p_i(x_0)y_i=x_0.$$
The latter equality shows, that $x_0\in\co\{y_i:i\in J\}.$ On the other hand, from $p_i(x_0)>0$ for all $i\in J$ we obtain that $x_0\in\cap_{i\in J}V_{y_i}.$ Since $\cap_{i\in J}V_{y_i}$ is open, we obtain that there exists $U$ an open and convex neighbourhood of $x_0$ such that $U\subseteq \cap_{i\in J}V_{y_i}.$ Here we find very useful the conclusion of Lemma \ref{l31}. Indeed, since $\co\{y_i:i\in J\}\cap U\neq\emptyset$, according to Lemma \ref{l31}, we have that there exists $y_0\in \co\{y_i:i\in J\}\cap U\cap D.$
Hence, we have $y_0=\sum_{i\in J}\l_i y_i\in \co\{y_i:i\in J\}\cap U\cap D$, where $\l_i\ge0$ for all $i\in J$ and $\sum_{i\in J}\l_i=1$. By (iv), in the hypothesis of the theorem, one gets $f(y_0,y_0)\not\in-\inte C.$ On the other hand, by using (iii) we get $$f(y_0,y_0) =f(y_0,\sum_{i\in J}\l_i y_i)\le\sum_{i\in J}\l_i f(y_0,y_i),$$ which shows that $\sum_{i\in J}\l_i f(y_0,y_i)-f(y_0,y_0)\in C.$ But, $y_0\in U$, thus $f(y_0,y_i)\in-\inte C,$ for all $i\in J.$ Hence $\sum_{i\in J}\l_i f(y_0,y_i)\in -\inte C,$ which leads to $$-f(y_0,y_0)\in C-\sum_{i\in J}\l_i f(y_0,y_i)\subseteq\inte C,$$ contradiction.
\qed
\textbf{II.} The second proof is based on Ky Fan's Lemma. We consider the set-valued map $$G:D\toto K,\,\, G(y)=\{x\in K:f(x,y)\not\in-\inte C\}.$$ We have shown in the first part of the proof, that $G(y)$ is closed for all $y\in D.$
Since $K$ is compact, we have that $G(y)\subseteq K,$ is compact for all $y\in D.$
We show next, that $G$ is a KKM mapping. We claim that for all $y_1,y_2,...,y_n\in D$ one has $\co\{y_1,y_2,...,y_n\}\cap D\subseteq \bigcup_{i=1}^n G(y_i).$ Indeed, assume that there exist $y_1,y_2,...,y_n\in D$ and $y\in \co\{y_1,y_2,...,y_n\}\cap D,$ such that $y\not\in \bigcup_{i=1}^n G(y_i).$ Hence, there exist $\l_1,\l_2,\ldots,\l_n\ge 0,\,\sum_{i=1}^n\l_i=1$ such that $\sum_{i=1}^n\l_i y_i\in D$ and $$\sum_{i=1}^n\l_i y_i\not\in\bigcup_{i=1}^n G(y_i).$$
This is equivalent with $f(\sum_{i=1}^n\l_i y_i,y_i)\in-\inte C,\,\mbox{for all } i\in\{1,2,\ldots,n\},$ and hence, by the convexity of $-\inte C$ we have that
$$\sum_{i=1}^n \l_if\left(\sum_{i=1}^n\l_i y_i,y_i\right)\in-\inte C.$$
From assumption $(iii)$, we have that $$\sum_{i=1}^n \l_i f\left(\sum_{i=1}^n\l_i y_i,y_i\right)- f\left(\sum_{i=1}^n\l_i y_i, \sum_{i=1}^n\l_i y_i\right )\in C,$$ or equivalently, $$f\left(\sum_{i=1}^n\l_i y_i, \sum_{i=1}^n\l_i y_i\right )\in\sum_{i=1}^n \l_i f\left(\sum_{i=1}^n\l_i y_i,y_i\right)- C\subseteq -\inte C,$$ which contradicts (iv).
Consequently, $$\co\{y_1,y_2,\ldots,y_n\}\cap D\subseteq\bigcup_{i=1}^n G(y_i),$$ holds true, and leads to
$$\cl(\co\{y_1,y_2,\ldots,y_n\}\cap D)\subseteq\cl\left(\bigcup_{i=1}^n G(y_i)\right).$$
Furthermore, since $G(y_i)$ is closed for all $i\in\{1,2,\ldots,n\}$ we have
$$\cl\left(\bigcup_{i=1}^n G(y_i)\right)=\bigcup_{i=1}^n G(y_i).$$
On the other hand, according to Lemma \ref{l31} we have $$\cl(\co\{y_1,y_2,\ldots,y_n\}\cap D)=\co\{y_1,y_2,\ldots,y_n\},$$ hence
$$\co\{y_1,y_2,\ldots,y_n\}\subseteq\bigcup_{i=1}^n G(y_i).$$ In conclusion $G$ is a KKM map.
Thus, according to Ky Fan's Lemma, $\bigcap_{y\in D}G(y)\neq\emptyset.$ In other words, there exists $x_0\in K,$ such that $f(x_0,y)\not\in-\inte C$ for all $y\in D.$
Finally, if $y_0\in K\setminus D,$ by the denseness of $D$ in $K,$ we obtain that for every neighborhood $U$ of $y_0,$ there exists a $u_0\in U\cap D.$ At this point, the assumption (ii), the C-upper semicontinuity of $f(x_0, y)$ on $K\setminus D$, assures that for all $k\in\inte C$ there exists a neighborhood $U$ of $y_0$ such that $ f(x_0,u)\in f(x_0,y_0)+k-\inte C.$ Assume that $f(x_0,y_0)\in -\inte C.$ Then, let $k=-f(x_0,y_0)\in\inte C.$ Thus, we have that there exists a neighborhood $U$ of $y_0,$ such that $ f(x_0,u)\in -\inte C.$ But, by choosing $u_0\in U\cap D$ we get that $f(x_0,u_0)\in -\inte C,$ contradiction.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
The compactness of the set $K$ in the hypothesis of the previous theorem is rather a strong condition. The compactness condition can be removed by assuming only the closedness of $K$ but also a so-called coercivity condition. This can be done in the virtue of Fan's Lemma, which do not require the compactness of the set $G(y)$ for every $y\in K,$ but in only one point. Therefore, the following result holds.
\end{remark}
\begin{theorem}
\label{t11} Let $X$ and $Z$ be Hausdorff, locally convex topological vector spaces, let $C\subseteq Z$ be a convex, pointed cone with nonempty interior, and let $K$ be a nonempty, convex and closed subset of $X$. Let $D\subseteq K$ be a
self segment-dense set, and consider the mapping $f :K \times K \longrightarrow{Z}$ satisfying
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $\forall y\in D,$ the mapping $x\longrightarrow f(x,y)$ is
C-upper semicontinuous on $K,$
\item[(ii)] $\forall x\in K,$ the mapping $y\longrightarrow f(x, y)$ is C-upper
semicontinuous on $K\setminus D$,
\item[(iii)] $\forall x\in D,$ the mapping $y\longrightarrow f(x,y)$ is C-convex on
D,$
\item[(iv)] $\forall x\in D,\, f(x, x)\not\in-\inte C,$
\item[(v)] $\exists K_0\subseteq X$ compact and $y_0\in D,$ such that $f(x,y_0)\in-\inte C,$ for all $x\in K\setminus K_0.$
\end{itemize}
Then, there exists an element $x_0\in K$ such that
\begin{equation*}
f(x_0,y)\not\in -\inte{C},\,\forall y\in K.
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} Consider the set-valued map $$G:D\toto K,\,\, G(y)=\{x\in K:f(x,y)\not\in-\inte C\}.$$ According to the proof of Theorem \ref{t1} $G$ is a KKM map, and $G(y)$ is closed for all $y\in D.$ We show that $G(y_0)$ is compact. For this is enough to show that $G(y_0)\subseteq K_0.$ Assume the contrary, that is $g(y_0)\not\subseteq K_0.$ Then, there exits $z\in G(y_0)\setminus K_0.$ This implies that $z\in K\setminus K_0,$ and according to (v) $f(z,y_0)\in-\inte C,$ which contradicts the fact that $z\in G(y_0).$
Hence, $G(y_0)$ is a closed subset of the compact set $K_0$ which shows that $G(y_0)$ is compact. The rest of the proof is similar to the proof of Theorem \ref{t1}, therefore we omit it.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark} Condition (v) usually is hard to be verified. However, it is well known that, in a reflexive Banach space $X$, the closed ball, with radius $r>0$, $\overline{B}_r:=\{x\in X:\|x\|\le r\},$ is weakly compact. Therefore, if we endow the reflexive Banach space $X$ with the weak topology, we can take $K_0=\overline{B}_r\cap K$, hence, condition (v) in Theorem \ref{t11} becomes :
$$\exists r>0\mbox{ and }y_0\in D,\mbox{ such that, for all }x\in K\mbox{ satisfying }\|x\|>r,$$
one has that
$$f(x,y_0)\in-\inte C.$$
Furthermore, in this setting, condition (v) in the hypothesis of Theorem \ref{t11} can be weakened by assuming that there exists $r>0$ such that, for all $x\in K$ satisfying
$\|x\|>r$, there exists some $y_0\in K$ with $\|y_0\|<\|x\|,$ and for which the condition
$$f(x,y_0)\in-\inte C$$
holds.
\end{remark}
More precisely, we have the following result.
\begin{theorem}
\label{t12} Let $X$ be a reflexive Banach space and let $Z$ be a Hausdorff, locally convex topological vector space. Let $C\subseteq Z$ be a convex, pointed cone with nonempty interior, and let $K$ be a nonempty, convex and closed subset of $X$. Let $D\subseteq K$ be a
self segment-dense set in the weak topology of $X$, and consider the mapping $f :K \times K \longrightarrow{Z}$ satisfying
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $\forall y\in D,$ the mapping $x\longrightarrow f(x,y)$ is
C-upper semicontinuous on $K,$ in the weak topology of $X$,
\item[(ii)] $\forall x\in K,$ the mapping $y\longrightarrow f(x, y)$ is C-upper
semicontinuous on $K\setminus D$, in the weak topology of $X$,
\item[(iii)] $\forall x\in K,$ the mapping $y\longrightarrow f(x,y)$ is C-convex on $K,$
\item[(iv)] $\forall x\in K,\, f(x, x)=0,$
\item[(v)] $\exists r>0$ such that, for all $x\in K$, $\|x\|>r$, there exists $y_0\in K$ with $\|y_0\|<\|x\|,$ such that
$f(x,y_0)\in-\inte C\cup\{0\}.$
\end{itemize}
Then, there exists an element $x_0\in K$ such that
\begin{equation*}
f(x_0,y)\not\in -\inte{C},\,\forall y\in K.
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} Let $r>0$ such that (v) holds, and let $r_1>r.$ Consider $K_0=K\cap \overline{B}_{r_1}.$ Obviously, $K_0$ is weakly compact, hence, according to Theorem \ref{t1} there exists $x_0\in K_0$ such that $f(x_0,y)\not\in-\inte C,\,\forall y\in K_0.$ We show, that $f(x_0,y)\not\in-\inte C,\,\forall y\in K.$
First we show, that there exists $z_0\in K_0,\,\|z_0\|<r_1$ such that $f(x_0,z_0)=0.$ Indeed, if $\|x_0\|<r_1$ then let $z_0=x_0$ and the conclusion follows from (iv). Assume now, that $\|x_0\|=r_1>r.$ Then, according to (v), we have that there exists $z_0\in K,\,\|z_0\|<\|x_0\|=r_1$ such that $f(x_0,z_0)\in-\inte C\cup\{0\}.$ On the other hand $z_0\in K_0,$ hence $f(x_0,z_0)\not\in-\inte C,$ which leads to $f(x_0,z_0)=0.$
Let $y\in K.$ Then, there exists $\l\in[0,1]$ such that $\l z_0 +(1-\l)y\in K_0,$ consequently $f(x_0,\l z_0 +(1-\l)y)\not\in-\inte C.$ From (iii) we have
$$\l f(x_0,z_0)+(1-\l)f(x_0,y)-f(x_0,\l z_0 +(1-\l)y)\in C$$
or, equivalently
$$(1-\l)f(x_0,y)-f(x_0,\l z_0 +(1-\l)y)\in C.$$
Assume that $f(x_0,y)\in-\inte C.$ Then, $-f(x_0,\l z_0 +(1-\l)y)\in -(1-\l)f(x_0,y)+ C\subseteq \inte C,$ in other words
$$f(x_0,\l z_0 +(1-\l)y)\in-\inte C,$$
contradiction.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark} If one compares the hypotheses of Theorem \ref{t12} and Theorem \ref{t1}, or Theorem \ref{t11}, observes that the conditions (iii) and (iv) have considerably been changed. This is due the fact that condition (v) in Theorem \ref{t12} with the assumptions (iii) and (iv) of Theorem \ref{t1} or Theorem \ref{t11} does not assure the existence of a solution for the weak vector equilibrium problem, when $K$ is closed but not compact.
Our purpose is to overcome this situation by replacing (v) with a condition that assures the existence of a solution under the original assumptions (iii) and (iv). In fact, we show that, if $\forall x\in K,\, y\longrightarrow f(x, y)$ is C-convex on $D,$ respectively $\forall x\in D,\,f(x,x)\not\in-\inte C,$ instead of (iii), respectively (iv) in the previous theorem, then we can replace (v) with:
$\exists r>0,$ such that, for all $x\in K$ satisfying $ \|x\|\le r,$ there exists $y_0\in D$ with $\|y_0\|<r,$ such that $f(x,y_0)\in-\inte C\cup\{0\}.$
\end{remark}
The following result holds.
\begin{theorem}
\label{t13} Let $X$ be a reflexive Banach space and let $Z$ be a Hausdorff, locally convex topological vector space. Let $C\subseteq Z$ be a convex, pointed cone with nonempty interior, and let $K$ be a nonempty, convex and closed subset of $X$. Let $D\subseteq K$ be a
self segment-dense set in the weak topology of $X$, and consider the mapping $f :K \times K \longrightarrow{Z}$ satisfying
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $\forall y\in D,$ the mapping $x\longrightarrow f(x,y)$ is
C-upper semicontinuous on $K,$ in the weak topology of $X$,
\item[(ii)] $\forall x\in K,$ the mapping $y\longrightarrow f(x, y)$ is C-upper
semicontinuous on $K\setminus D$, in the weak topology of $X$,
\item[(iii)] $\forall x\in K,$ the mapping $y\longrightarrow f(x,y)$ is C-convex on $D,$
\item[(iv)] $\forall x\in D,\, f(x, x)\not\in-\inte C,$
\item[(v)] $\exists r>0$ such that, for all $x\in K$, $\|x\|\le r$, there exists $y_0\in D$ with $\|y_0\|<r,$ such that
$f(x,y_0)\in-\inte C\cup\{0\}.$
\end{itemize}
Then, there exists an element $x_0\in K$ such that
\begin{equation*}
f(x_0,y)\not\in -\inte{C},\,\forall y\in K.
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} Let $r>0$ such that (v) holds, and consider $K_0=K\cap \overline{B}_{r}.$ Obviously, $K_0$ is weakly compact, hence, according to Theorem \ref{t1} there exists $x_0\in K_0$ such that $f(x_0,y)\not\in-\inte C,\,\forall y\in K_0.$ We show, that $f(x_0,y)\not\in-\inte C,\,\forall y\in K.$
According to (v) there exists $z_0\in D$ with $\|z_0\|<r,$ such that $f(x,z_0)\in-\inte C\cup\{0\}.$ On the other hand, $z_0\in K_0,$ hence $f(x_0,z_0)\not\in-\inte C.$ Consequently $f(x_0,z_0)=0.$
Let $y\in D\setminus K_0.$ Then, in virtue of self-segment-denseness of $D$ in $K$, there exists $\l\in[0,1]$ such that $\l z_0 +(1-\l)y\in D\cap K_0,$ consequently $f(x_0,\l z_0 +(1-\l)y)\not\in-\inte C.$ From (iii) we have
$$\l f(x_0,z_0)+(1-\l)f(x_0,y)-f(x_0,\l z_0 +(1-\l)y)\in C$$
or, equivalently
$$(1-\l)f(x_0,y)-f(x_0,\l z_0 +(1-\l)y)\in C.$$
Assume that $f(x_0,y)\in-\inte C.$ Then, $-f(x_0,\l z_0 +(1-\l)y)\in -(1-\l)f(x_0,y)+ C\subseteq \inte C,$ or, in other words
$$f(x_0,\l z_0 +(1-\l)y)\in-\inte C,$$
contradiction.
Hence, $f(x_0,y)\not\in-\inte C,$ for all $y\in D.$
Finally, if $y\in K\setminus D$ by the denseness of $D$ in $K$ for every neighborhood $U$ of $y$ there exists a $u_0\in U\cap D.$ At this point, the assumption $(ii)$, the C-upper semicontinuity of $y\To f(x_0, y)$ on $K\setminus D$, assures that for all $k\in\inte C$ there exists a neighborhood $U$ of $y$ such that $ f(x_0,u)\in f(x_0,y)+k-\inte C.$ Assume that $f(x_0,y)\in -\inte C.$ Then let $k=-f(x_0,y)\in\inte C.$ Thus we have that exists a neighborhood $U$ of $y$ such that $ f(x_0,u)\in -\inte C.$ But, by choosing $u_0\in U\cap D$ we get that $f(x_0,u_0)\in -\inte C,$ contradiction.
\end{proof}
In what follows, we show that the assumption that $D$ is self-segment-dense, in the hypotheses
of the previous theorems, is essential and it cannot be replaced by the denseness of $D.$ Indeed, let us consider the Hilbert space of square-summable sequences $l_2$, and let $K=\{x\in l_2:\|x\|\le 1\}$ be its closed unit ball, while $D=\{x\in l_2:\|x\|= 1\}$ is the unit sphere. It is well known that $l_2,$ endowed with the weak topology, is a Hausdorff, locally convex topological vector space, and by Banach-Alaoglu Theorem, $K$ is compact in this topology. Furthermore, we have seen in Example \ref{ex1} that $D$ is dense, but not self segment-dense in $K.$
In this setting we define the vector-valued map
$$f:K\times K\to\R^2,\, f(x,y):=(\<x,y\>-1,\<x,y\>-1),$$
which has the following properties:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] for all $y\in K,\, x\longrightarrow f(x,y)$ is continuous on $K,$
\item[(b)] for all $x\in K,\, y\longrightarrow f(x,y)$ is continuous on $K,$
\item[(c)] for all $x\in K,\, y\longrightarrow f(x,y)$ is affine, hence convex and also concave on $K,$
\item[(d)] $f(x,x)=(0,0)$ for all $x\in D.$
\end{itemize}
Further, consider the nonnegative orthant of $\R^2$, that is $\R^2_+=\{(x_1,x_2)\in\R^2:x_1\ge 0,\,x_2\ge 0\},$ which is obviously a convex and pointed cone.
We see that $f$ satisfies all the assumptions of Theorem \ref{t1}, except the assumption that $D$ is self segment-dense (here $D$ is only dense) and consequently the conclusion of the above mentioned theorem fails, since for $y=0\in K$ and for all $x\in K$, one has
$$f(x,y)=(-1,-1)\in -\inte \R^2_+.$$
\section{Self Segment-Dense Sets and the Strong Vector Equilibrium Problem}
Solution existence for the strong vector equilibrium problem (\ref{p2}), can be provided under some similar conditions as have been obtained in the previous section for the weak vector equilibrium problem. However, note that the strong C-upper semicontinuity of a map, differs significantly from the C-upper semicontinuity property, as is shown in Remark \ref{difference} . Therefore, despite of similar statements to those presented in previous section, the results of this section can be considered original and new.
For the sake of completeness we give some full proofs.
\begin{theorem}
\label{t2} Let $X$ and $Z$ be Hausdorff, locally convex topological vector spaces, let $C\subseteq Z$ be a convex, pointed cone and
let $K$ be a nonempty, convex and compact subset of $X$. Let $D\subseteq K$ be a
self segment-dense set and consider the mapping $f :K \times K \longrightarrow{Z}$ satisfying
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $\forall y\in D,$ the mapping $x\longrightarrow f(x,y)$ is
strongly C-upper semicontinuous on $K,$
\item[(ii)] $\forall x\in K,$ the mapping $y\longrightarrow f(x, y)$ is strongly C-upper
semicontinuous on $K\setminus D$,
\item[(iii)] $\forall x\in D,$ the mapping $y\longrightarrow f(x,y)$ is C-convex on
D,$
\item[(iv)] $\forall x\in D,\, f(x, x)\not\in- C\setminus\{0\}.$
\end{itemize}
Then, there exists an element $x_0\in K$ such that
\begin{equation*}
f(x_0,y)\not\in -C\setminus\{0\},\,\forall y\in K.
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} Assume the contrary, that is, for every $x\in K$ there exists $y\in K$ such that $f(x,y)\in-C\setminus\{0\}.$ Then, for every $y\in K$ consider $V_y=\{x\in K: f(x,y)\in-C\setminus\{0\}\}.$ Obviously $K\subseteq \cup_{y\in K} V_y.$ We show that $(V_y)_{y\in D}$ is an open cover of $K.$ First of all observe that for all $y\in D,$ one has $V_y=K\setminus G(y)$, where $G(y)$ is the set $\{x\in K:f(x,y)\not\in-C\setminus\{0\}\}.$ We show that $G(y)$ is closed for all $y\in D.$ Indeed, for fixed $y_0\in D$ consider the net $(x_\a)\subseteq G(y_0)$ and let $\lim x_\a=x_0.$ Assume that $x_0\not\in G(y_0).$ Then $f(x_0,y_0)\in-C\setminus\{0\}$.
According to (i) the function $x\longrightarrow f(x,y_0)$ is strongly C-upper semicontinuous at $x_0$, hence for any $k\in C\setminus\{0\}$, there exists a neighborhood $U$ of $x_0$ such that $f(u,y_0) \in f(x_0,y_0) + k - C\setminus\{0\}$ for all $u \in U.$ But then for $k=-f(x_0,y_0)\in C\setminus\{0\}$ one obtains that there exits $\a_0$ such that $f(x_\a,y_0)\in - C\setminus\{0\},$ for $\a\ge\a_0,$ which contradicts the fact that $(x_\a)\subseteq G(y_0)$.
Consequently, $V_y$ is open for every $y\in D.$
Assume now that there exists $x_0\in K$ such that $x_0\not\in \cup_{y\in D} V_y.$ Then $f(x_0,y)\not\in-C\setminus\{0\}$, for all $y\in D.$ We show that $f(x_0,y)\not\in-C\setminus\{0\}$, for all $y\in K.$ Indeed, for $y_0\in K\setminus D,$ by the denseness of $D$ in $K,$ we have that for every neighborhood $U$ of $y_0$ there exists a $u_0\in U\cap D.$ At this point, the assumption $(ii)$, the strongly C-upper semicontinuity of $f(x_0, y)$ on $K\setminus D$, assures that for all $k\in C\setminus\{0\}$ there exists a neighborhood $U$ of $y_0$ such that $ f(x_0,u)\in f(x_0,y_0)+k-C\setminus\{0\}.$ Assume that $f(x_0,y_0)\in -C\setminus\{0\}.$ Then let $k=-f(x_0,y_0)\in C\setminus\{0\}.$ Thus we have that exists a neighborhood $U$ of $y_0$ such that $ f(x_0,U)\subseteq -C\setminus\{0\}.$ But, by choosing $u_0\in U\cap D$ we get that $f(x_0,u_0)\in -C\setminus\{0\},$ contradiction. Hence, $f(x_0,y)\not\in-C\setminus\{0\}$, for all $y\in K$, which contradicts our assumption, that for every $x\in K$ there exists $y\in K$ such that $f(x,y)\in-C\setminus\{0\}.$
Consequently, $(V_y)_{y\in D}$ is an open cover of the compact set $K$, in conclusion it contains a finite subcover. In other words, there exists $y_1,y_2,...,y_n\in D$ such that $K\subseteq \cup_{i=1}^n V_{y_i}.$ Consider $\big(p_i\big)_{i=\overline{1,n}}$ a continuous partition of unity associated to the open cover $\big(V_{y_i}\big)_{i=\overline{1,n}}$. Then $p_i:K\To[0,1]$ is continuous and $\mbox{supp}(p_i)=\cl\{x\in K: p_i(x)\neq 0\}\subseteq V_{y_i}$ for all $i\in\{1,2,...,n\}$, moreover $\sum_{i=1}^n p_i(x)=1,$ for all $x\in K.$
Consider the mapping $\varphi:\co\{y_1,y_2,...,y_n\}\To\co\{y_1,y_2,...,y_n\}$
$$\varphi(x)=\sum_{i=1}^n p_i(x)y_i.$$
Obviously $\varphi$ is continuous, and $\co\{y_1,y_2,...,y_n\}$ is a compact and convex subset of the finite dimensional space $\mbox{span}\{y_1,y_2,...,y_n\}.$ Hence, by the Brouwer fixed point theorem, there exists $x_0\in \co\{y_1,y_2,...,y_n\}$ such that $\varphi(x_0)=x_0.$
Let $J=\{i\in\{1,2,...,n\}:p_i(x_0)>0\}.$ Obviously $J$ is nonempty, since $\sum_{i\in J} p_i(x_0)=1,$ and $$\varphi(x_0)=\sum_{i=1}^n p_i(x_0)y_i=\sum_{i\in J}p_i(x_0)y_i=x_0.$$
The latter equality shows, that $x_0\in\co\{y_i:i\in J\}.$ On the other hand, from $p_i(x_0)>0$ for all $i\in J$ we obtain that $x_0\in\cap_{i\in J}V_{y_i}.$ Since $\cap_{i\in J}V_{y_i}$ is open, we obtain that there exists $U$ an open and convex neighbourhood of $x_0$ such that $U\subseteq \cap_{i\in J}V_{y_i}.$ Since $\co\{y_i:i\in J\}\cap U\neq\emptyset$, from Lemma \ref{l31}, we have that there exists $y_0\in \co\{y_i:i\in J\}\cap U\cap D.$
Hence, we have $y_0=\sum_{i\in J}\l_i y_i\in \co\{y_i:i\in J\}\cap U\cap D$ for some $\l_i\ge0$ for all $i\in J$ and $\sum_{i\in J}\l_i=1$, and by (iv) in the hypothesis of the theorem one gets $f(y_0,y_0)\not\in-C\setminus\{0\}.$ On the other hand, by using (iii) we get $$f(y_0,y_0) =f(y_0,\sum_{i\in J}\l_i y_i)\le\sum_{i\in J}\l_i f(y_0,y_i),$$ which shows that $\sum_{i\in J}\l_i f(y_0,y_i)-f(y_0,y_0)\in C.$ But, $y_0\in U$, thus $f(y_0,y_i)\in-C\setminus\{0\}$ for all $i\in J.$ Hence $\sum_{i\in J}\l_i f(y_0,y_i)\in -C\setminus\{0\},$ which leads to $$-f(y_0,y_0)\in C-\sum_{i\in J}\l_i f(y_0,y_i)\subseteq C\setminus\{0\},$$ contradiction.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark} Obviously, one can give a proof of the previous theorem based on Ky Fan's Lemma, analogously to the proof of Theorem \ref{t1}. Therefore, the rigid assumption of compactness of the set $K$ in the hypothesis of the previous theorem can be replaced by its closedness and a coercivity condition. This can be done in the virtue of Fan's Lemma, which do not require the compactness of $G(y)$ for every $y\in K$ but in only one point. In conclusion, the following result holds.
\end{remark}
\begin{theorem}
\label{t21} Let $X$ and $Z$ be Hausdorff, locally convex topological vector spaces, let $C\subseteq Z$ be a convex, pointed cone and
let $K$ be a nonempty, convex and closed subset of $X$. Let $D\subseteq K$ be a
self segment-dense set and consider the mapping $f :K \times K \longrightarrow{Z}$ satisfying
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $\forall y\in D,$ the mapping $x\longrightarrow f(x,y)$ is strongly
C-upper semicontinuous on $K,$
\item[(ii)] $\forall x\in K,$ the mapping $y\longrightarrow f(x, y)$ is strongly C-upper
semicontinuous on $K\setminus D$,
\item[(iii)] $\forall x\in D,$ the mapping $y\longrightarrow f(x,y)$ is C-convex on
D,$
\item[(iv)] $\forall x\in D,\, f(x, x)\not\in- C\setminus\{0\},$
\item[(v)] $\exists K_0\subseteq X$ and $y_0\in D,$ such that $f(x,y_0)\in-C\setminus\{0\},$ for all $x\in K\setminus K_0.$
\end{itemize}
Then, there exists an element $x_0\in K$ such that
\begin{equation*}
f(x_0,y)\not\in -C\setminus\{0\},\,\forall y\in K.
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} The proof is similar to the proof of Theorem \ref{t11} therefore we omit it.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark} If $X$ is a reflexive Banach space, endowed with the weak topology, $\overline{B}_r:=\{x\in X:\|x\|\le r\}\subseteq X,$ is a closed ball with radius $r>0$, then one can take $K_0=K\cap \overline{B}_r$. Therefore, condition (v) in Theorem \ref{t21} becomes:
$$\exists r>0\mbox{ and }y_0\in D,\mbox{ such that, for all }x\in K\mbox{ satisfying }\|x\|>r,$$
one has that
$$f(x,y_0)\in-C\setminus\{0\}.$$
Furthermore, in this setting, condition (v) in the hypothesis of Theorem \ref{t21} can be weakened by assuming that there exists $r>0$ such that, for all $x\in K$ satisfying
$\|x\|>r$, there exists some $y_0\in K$ with $\|y_0\|<\|x\|,$ and for which the condition
$$f(x,y_0)\in-C\setminus\{0\}$$
holds.
\end{remark}
More precisely, we have the following result.
\begin{theorem}
\label{t22} Let $X$ be a reflexive Banach space and let $Z$ be a Hausdorff, locally convex topological vector space, let $C\subseteq Z$ be a convex, pointed cone and let $K$ be a nonempty, convex and closed subset of $X$. Let $D\subseteq K$ be a
self segment-dense set in the weak topology of $X$, and consider the mapping $f :K \times K \longrightarrow{Z}$ satisfying
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $\forall y\in D,$ the mapping $x\longrightarrow f(x,y)$ is strongly
C-upper semicontinuous on $K,$ in the weak topology of $X$,
\item[(ii)] $\forall x\in K,$ the mapping $y\longrightarrow f(x, y)$ is strongly C-upper
semicontinuous on $K\setminus D$, in the weak topology of $X$,
\item[(iii)] $\forall x\in K,$ the mapping $y\longrightarrow f(x,y)$ is C-convex on $K,$
\item[(iv)] $\forall x\in K,\, f(x, x)=0,$
\item[(v)] $\exists r>0$ such that, for all $x\in K$, $\|x\|>r$, there exists $y_0\in K$ with $\|y_0\|<\|x\|,$ such that
$f(x,y_0)\in- C.$
\end{itemize}
Then, there exists an element $x_0\in K$ such that
\begin{equation*}
f(x_0,y)\not\in -C\setminus\{0\},\,\forall y\in K.
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} Let $r>0$ such that (v) holds, and let $r_1>r.$ Consider $K_0=K\cap \overline{B}_{r_1}.$ Obviously, $K_0$ is weakly compact, hence, according to Theorem \ref{t2} there exists $x_0\in K_0$ such that $f(x_0,y)\not\in-C\setminus\{0\},\,\forall y\in K_0.$ We claim that $f(x_0,y)\not\in-C\setminus\{0\},\,\forall y\in K.$
We show, as in the proof of Theorem \ref{t12}, that there exists $z_0\in K_0,\,\|z_0\|<r_1$ such that $f(x_0,z_0)=0.$ For $y\in K$ as in the proof of Theorem \ref{t12} we show that there exists $\l\in[0,1]$ such that $\l z_0 +(1-\l)y\in K_0,$ $f(x_0,\l z_0 +(1-\l)y)\not\in-C\setminus\{0\},$ and
$$(1-\l)f(x_0,y)-f(x_0,\l z_0 +(1-\l)y)\in C.$$
Assume that $f(x_0,y)\in-C\setminus\{0\}.$ Then, $-f(x_0,\l z_0 +(1-\l)y)\in -(1-\l)f(x_0,y)+ C\subseteq C\setminus\{0\},$ in other words
$$f(x_0,\l z_0 +(1-\l)y)\in-C\setminus\{0\},$$
contradiction.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark} One can observe, that that the conditions (iii) and (iv) in the hypothesis of Theorem \ref{t22} considerably differ from the assumptions used in the hypothesis of Theorem \ref{t2}. This is due the fact that condition (v) in Theorem \ref{t22} with the assumptions (iii) and (iv) of Theorem \ref{t2} does not assure the existence of a solution for the strong vector equilibrium problem, when $K$ is closed but not compact.
Next, we obtain the existence of a solution for strong vector equilibrium problem under the original assumptions (iii) and (iv) by replacing (v) with a more suitable condition. In fact, we show that, if $\forall x\in K,\, y\longrightarrow f(x, y)$ is C-convex on $D,$ respectively $\forall x\in D,\,f(x,x)\not\in-C\setminus\{0\}$ instead of (iii), respectively (iv) in the previous theorem, then we can replace (v) with:
$\exists r>0,$ such that, for all $x\in K$ satisfying $ \|x\|\le r,$ there exists $y_0\in D$ with $\|y_0\|<r,$ such that $f(x,y_0)\in-C.$
\end{remark}
The following result holds.
\begin{theorem}
\label{t23} Let $X$ be a reflexive Banach space and let $Z$ be a Hausdorff, locally convex topological vector space, let $C\subseteq Z$ be a convex, pointed cone and let $K$ be a nonempty, convex and closed subset of $X$. Let $D\subseteq K$ be a
self segment-dense set in the weak topology of $X$, and consider the mapping $f :K \times K \longrightarrow{Z}$ satisfying
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $\forall y\in D,$ the mapping $x\longrightarrow f(x,y)$ is strongly
C-upper semicontinuous on $K,$ in the weak topology of $X$,
\item[(ii)] $\forall x\in K,$ the mapping $y\longrightarrow f(x, y)$ is strongly C-upper
semicontinuous on $K\setminus D$, in the weak topology of $X$,
\item[(iii)] $\forall x\in K,$ the mapping $y\longrightarrow f(x,y)$ is C-convex on $D,$
\item[(iv)] $\forall x\in D,\, f(x, x)\not\in-C\setminus\{0\},$
\item[(v)] $\exists r>0$ such that, for all $x\in K$, $\|x\|\le r$, there exists $y_0\in D$ with $\|y_0\|<r,$ such that
$f(x,y_0)\in-C.$
\end{itemize}
Then, there exists an element $x_0\in K$ such that
\begin{equation*}
f(x_0,y)\not\in -C\setminus\{0\},\,\forall y\in K.
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} For the sake of completeness we give a full proof. Let $r>0$ such that (v) holds, and consider $K_0=K\cap \overline{B}_{r}.$ Obviously, $K_0$ is weakly compact, hence, according to Theorem \ref{t2} there exists $x_0\in K_0$ such that $f(x_0,y)\not\in-C\setminus\{0\},\,\forall y\in K_0.$ We show, that $f(x_0,y)\not\in-C\setminus\{0\}\,\forall y\in K.$
According to (v) there exists $z_0\in D$ with $\|z_0\|<r,$ such that $f(x,z_0)\in-C.$ On the other hand, $z_0\in K_0,$ hence $f(x_0,z_0)\not\in-C\setminus\{0\}.$ Consequently $f(x_0,z_0)=0.$
Let $y\in D\setminus K_0.$ Then, in virtue of self-segment-denseness of $D$ in $K$, there exists $\l\in[0,1]$ such that $\l z_0 +(1-\l)y\in D\cap K_0,$ consequently $f(x_0,\l z_0 +(1-\l)y)\not\in-C\setminus\{0\}.$ From (iii) we have
$$\l f(x_0,z_0)+(1-\l)f(x_0,y)-f(x_0,\l z_0 +(1-\l)y)\in C$$
or, equivalently
$$(1-\l)f(x_0,y)-f(x_0,\l z_0 +(1-\l)y)\in C.$$
Assume that $f(x_0,y)\in-C\setminus\{0\}.$ Then, $-f(x_0,\l z_0 +(1-\l)y)\in -(1-\l)f(x_0,y)+ C\subseteq C\setminus\{0\},$ in other words
$$f(x_0,\l z_0 +(1-\l)y)\in-C\setminus\{0\},$$
contradiction.
Hence, $f(x_0,y)\not\in-C\setminus\{0\},$ for all $y\in D.$
Finally, if $y\in K\setminus D$ by the denseness of $D$ in $K$ for every neighborhood $U$ of $y$ there exists a $u_0\in U\cap D.$ At this point, the assumption $(ii)$, the proper C-upper semicontinuity of $y\To f(x_0, y)$ on $K\setminus D$, assures that for all $k\in C\setminus\{0\}$ there exists a neighborhood $U$ of $y$ such that $ f(x_0,u)\in f(x_0,y)+k-C\setminus\{0\}.$ Assume that $f(x_0,y)\in -C\setminus\{0\}.$ Then let $k=-f(x_0,y)\in C\setminus\{0\}.$ Thus we have that exists a neighborhood $U$ of $y$ such that $ f(x_0,u)\in -C\setminus\{0\}.$ But, by choosing $u_0\in U\cap D$ we get that $f(x_0,u_0)\in -C\setminus\{0\},$ contradiction.
\end{proof}
In what follows, we show that the assumption that $D$ is self-segment-dense, in the hypotheses
of the previous theorems, is essential and it cannot be replaced by the denseness of $D.$ Indeed, let us consider the Hilbert space of square-summable sequences $l_2$, and let $K=\{x\in l_2:\|x\|\le 1\}$ be its unit ball, while $D=\{x\in l_2:\|x\|= 1\}$ is the unit sphere. It is well known that $l_2,$ endowed with the weak topology, is a Hausdorff locally convex topological vector space, and by Banach-Alaoglu Theorem, $K$ is compact in this topology. Furthermore, we have seen in Example \ref{ex1} that $D$ is dense, but not self segment-dense in $K.$
In this setting we define the vector-valued map
$$f:K\times K\To\R^2,\, f(x,y):=(\<x,y\>-1,0).$$ Further, consider the $C=\R_+\times \{0\}=\{(x,0): x\in\R,\,x\ge 0\},$ which is obviously a convex pointed cone.
It can easily be verified that all the assumptions of Theorem \ref{t2} are satified, except the assumption that $D$ is self segment-dense (here $D$ is only dense) and also that the conclusions of the above mentioned theorem fails, since for $y=0\in K$ and for all $x\in K$, one has
$$f(x,y)=(-1,0)\in -C\setminus\{(0,0)\}.$$
\section{Applications}
In this section, we apply the results obtained to vector optimization problems and vector variational inequalities.
\subsection{Vector Optimization}
Let $X$ and $Z$ be Hausdorff, locally convex topological vector spaces, let $C\subseteq Z$ be a convex, pointed cone and
let $K$ be a nonempty subset of $X$.
Let $F:K\To Z$ be a vector function. Recall that $x_0\in K$ is called a weakly efficient point, respectively efficient point of $F$ \cite{GGR,CM}, iff $F(y)-F(x_0)\not\in-\inte C$ for all $y\in K,$ respectively $F(y)-F(x_0)\not\in- C\setminus\{0\}$ for all $y\in K.$
Based on the results obtained in the previous sections, we can state some results regarding the existence of a weakly efficient point, respectively efficient point of a vector function $F$. Consider the mapping $f:K\times K\To Z,\, f(x,y)=F(y)-F(x).$ It is obvious that $x_0\in K$ is a weak efficient point, respectively efficient point of $F$, if and only if, $x_0$ is a solution of the weak vector equilibrium problem $f(x_0,y)\not\in -\inte C,\,\forall y\in K,$ respectively $x_0$ is a solution of the strong vector equilibrium problem $f(x_0,y)\not\in-C\setminus\{0\},\,\forall y\in K.$
Assume now that $K$ is a nonempty, convex and compact subset of $X$. Let $D\subseteq K$ be a
self segment-dense set.
It can easily be verified that in this case, the assumptions (i) in the hypothesis of Theorem \ref{t1} becomes
$F$ is C-lower semicontinuous on $K.$ Then, since $K$ is compact, one can conclude that there exists a weak efficient point of $F,$ see \cite{DTL1}. Note that the condition (iv) in the hypothesis of Theorem \ref{t1} is automatically satisfied. Moreover, it is obvious that the condition (iii) in the hypothesis of Theorem \ref{t1}, which becomes that $F$ is C-convex on $D,$ is superfluous. Nevertheless, this is not the case when $K$ is not a compact set, but a closed subset of a reflexive Banach space $X.$
In conclusion, according to the Theorem \ref{t13}, in reflexive Banach spaces the following result holds.
\begin{theorem} Let $X$ be a reflexive Banach space and let $Z$ be a Hausdorff, locally convex topological vector space, let $C\subseteq Z$ be a convex, pointed cone with nonempty interior and let $K$ be a nonempty, convex and closed subset of $X$. Let $D\subseteq K$ be a
self segment-dense set in the weak topology of $X$, and consider the mapping $F :K \longrightarrow{Z}$ satisfying
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $F$ is C-lower semicontinuous on $K,$
\item[(ii)] $F$ is C-upper semicontinuous on $K\setminus D,$
\item[(iii)] $F$ is C-convex on $D,$
\item[(iv)] $\exists r>0$ such that, for all $x\in K$, $\|x\|\le r$, there exists $y_0\in D$ with $\|y_0\|<r,$ such that
$F(y_0)-F(x)\in-\inte C\cup \{0\}.$
\end{itemize}
Then, there exists a weak efficient point of $F.$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} The conclusion follows from Theorem \ref{t13} applied to the mapping $f:K\times K\To Z,\, f(x,y)=F(y)-F(x).$
\end{proof}
We show next that assumption (iii) in the hypothesis of the previous theorem, is essential.
\begin{example} Let $f:[0,\infty)\To \R,\, f(x)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll} 0,\mbox{ if } x\le 1\\-x+1,\mbox{ if }x>1.
\end{array}\right.$ Consider the convex cone $C=[0,\infty).$ Let $D$ be the set of non-negative rational numbers. Then obviously, (i) and (ii) are satisfied automatically and (iv) is satisfied with $r=1.$ It is also obvious that $f$ is not convex on $D$. Hence, (iii) fails, and also the conclusion of the previous theorem, since $f$ has no minima.
\end{example}
Similarly, Theorem \ref{t23}, applied to the bifunction $f:K\times K\To Z,\, f(x,y)=F(y)-F(x),$ assures the existence of an efficient point in reflexive Banach spaces. More precisely, the following result holds.
\begin{theorem} Let $X$ be a reflexive Banach space and let $Z$ be a Hausdorff, locally convex topological vector space, let $C\subseteq Z$ be a convex, pointed cone with nonempty interior and let $K$ be a nonempty, convex and closed subset of $X$. Let $D\subseteq K$ be a
self segment-dense set in the weak topology of $X$, and consider the mapping $F :K \longrightarrow{Z}$ satisfying
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $F$ is strongly C-lower semicontinuous on $K,$
\item[(ii)] $F$ is strongly C-upper semicontinuous on $K\setminus D,$
\item[(iii)] $F$ is C-convex on $D,$
\item[(iv)] $\exists r>0$ such that, for all $x\in K$, $\|x\|\le r$, there exists $y_0\in D$ with $\|y_0\|<r,$ such that
$F(y_0)-F(x)\in -C$.
\end{itemize}
Then, there exists an efficient point of $F.$
\end{theorem}
\subsection{Minty Type Vector Variational Inequalities}
In this section we give some new existence results for weak, respectively strong vector variational
inequalities of Minty type.
Let $X$ and $Z$ be Hausdorff, locally convex topological vector spaces, let $C\subseteq Z$ be a convex, pointed cone and
let $K$ be a nonempty subset of $X$. Let us denote $L(X,Z)$ the set of all linear and continuous operators
from $X$ to $Z$. Let $F:X\To L(X,Z).$ For $x^*\in L(X,Z)$ and $x\in X$, we denote by $\<x^*,x\>$ the vector $x^*(x)\in Z.$ The weak vector variational inequality of Minty type reads
find $x_0\in K$ such that $\<F(y),y-x_0\>\not\in-\inte C,$ for all $y\in K$.
\\
Analogously, the strong vector variational inequality of Minty type reads
find $x_0\in K$ such that $\<F(y),y-x_0\>\not\in- C\setminus\{0\},$ for all $y\in K$.
Note that if we take $f:K\times K\To Z,\,f(x,y)=\<F(y),y-x_0\>$ the weak, respectively strong vector variational inequality problem of Minty type becomes the appropriate vector equilibrium problem. In conclusion the following results hold.
\begin{theorem} Let $X$ and $Z$ be Hausdorff, locally convex topological vector spaces, let $C\subseteq Z$ be a convex, pointed cone with nonempty interior and let $K$ be a nonempty, convex and compact subset of $X$. Let $D\subseteq K$ be a
self segment-dense set and consider the mapping $F:K\To L(X,Z)$ satisfying
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $\forall x\in K$ the map $y\longrightarrow \<F(y),y-x\>$ is C-upper semicontinuous on $K\setminus D$,
\item[(ii)] $\forall x\in D,$ the mapping $y\longrightarrow \<F(y),y-x\>$ is C-convex on
D,$
\end{itemize}
Then, there exists an element $x_0\in K$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\<F(y),y-x_0\>\not\in -\inte C,\,\forall y\in K.
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} The conclusion follows by Theorem \ref{t1} applied to the mapping $f:K\times K\To Z,\,f(x,y)=\<F(y),y-x_0\>$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{difference} Note that the condition (i) of Theorem \ref{t1}, that is, $x\longrightarrow \<F(y),y-x\>$ is C-upper semicontinuous on $K$ for every $y\in D$ is automatically satisfied. However this is not the case for strongly C-upper semicontinuity. Indeed, let $X=Z=\R^2$ and
$$F:X\to L(X,Z),\, F(u,v)=\left( \begin{array}{cc}
u & 0 \\
0 & v \\
\end{array}
\right).$$
Then $\<F(u,v),(u,v)-(x,y)\>=(u(u-x),v(v-y)).$ Let $C$ be the non-negative orthant of $\R^2$, i.e. $C=\R^2_+.$
Let $K=[-1,1]\times[-1,1]$ and $D=\mathbb{Q}^2\cap K,$ where $\mathbb{Q}$ is the set of rational numbers. According to Example \ref{EEE}, $D$ is self-segment-dense in $K.$ We show that for $(u,v)=(-1,-1)\in D$ the map $(x,y)\longrightarrow (u(u-x),v(v-y))$ is not strongly C-upper semicontinuous at $(x,y)=(0,1).$ Indeed, assume the contrary, that is, for all $(k,h)\in C\setminus \{(0,0)\}$ there exits $U$ a neighbourhood of $(0,1)$, such that for all $(s,t)\in U$ one has $(s+1,t+1)\in (1,2)+(k,h)-\R^2_+\{(0,0)\}.$ Obviously one can take $U=(-\e,\e)\times(1-\e,1+\e)$ for some $\e>0.$ Let $(k,h)=(0,1).$ Then, one must have $(s,t)\in (0,2)-\R^2_+\setminus\{(0,0)\}$ for all $(s,t)\in U$, which leads to contradiction if one takes $s>0.$
\end{remark}
In conclusion, as an application of Theorem \ref{t2}, for strong vector variational inequalities the following result holds.
\begin{theorem} Let $X$ and $Z$ be Hausdorff, locally convex topological vector spaces, let $C\subseteq Z$ be a convex, pointed cone and
let $K$ be a nonempty, convex and compact subset of $X$. Let $D\subseteq K$ be a
self segment-dense set and consider the mapping $F:K\To L(X,Z)$ satisfying
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $\forall y\in D$ the mapping $x\longrightarrow \<F(y),y-x\>$ is
strongly C-upper semicontinuous on $K,$
\item[(ii)] $\forall x\in K,\, y\longrightarrow \<F(y),y-x\>$ is strongly C-upper
semicontinuous on $K\setminus D$,
\item[(iii)] $\forall x\in D,$ the mapping $y\longrightarrow \<F(y),y-x\>$ is C-convex on
D$
\end{itemize}
Then, there exists an element $x_0\in K$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\<F(y),y-x_0\>\not\in -C\setminus\{0\},\,\forall y\in K.
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark} One can use Theorem \ref{t13}, respective Theorem \ref{t23} to obtain some sufficient conditions that ensure the solution existence of weak vector variational inequalities of Minty type, respectively strong vector variational inequalities of Minty type, in reflexive Banach spaces.
\end{remark}
{\bf Acknowledgements} This work was supported by a grant of the Romanian Ministry of Education, CNCS - UEFISCDI, project number PN-II-RU-PD-2012-3 -0166.
|
\section*{Introduction}
The Silicon Carbide (SiC), a wide band gap semiconductor, is a promising material for high-voltage and high-frequency nanoelectronic devices \cite{zopler2005,choyke2004}.
Very good operational quality of SiC results from high values of breakdown voltage ($\approx10^6$ V/cm), high charge carrier mobility, high temperature stability and high thermal conductivity \cite{bechstedt1995}.
Additionally, this material has very good mechanical properties and resistance to radiation damage.
Unfortunately, the electronic properties of epitaxial layers strongly depend on the material quality.
The presence of intrinsic defects and impurities which arise during crystal growth process substantially limit applications of SiC.
Dislocations are the main crystal defects in SiC. They deteriorate the performance of high electric field devices such as Shottky and $p$-$n$ diodes \cite{neudeck2000,singh2006}. Two typical components of dislocations with the direction along $[0\,0\,0\,1]$ are the screw and edge dislocations with Burgers vectors $[0\,0\,0\,1]$ and $\frac{1}{3}[\bar{2}\,1\,1\,0]$, respectively. The standard density of dislocations observed in the good quality 4H-SiC epilayers reaches $10^{3}$ cm$^{-2}$ \cite{chen2008}. The electrical characteristics of 4H-SiC photodiodes reveal that the screw and edge dislocations reduce the breakdown voltage by $3.5\%$ and $2\%$, respectively, and increase the leakage currents compared to systems without crystal defects \cite{berechman2010}. Dislocations also influence transport properties of 4H-SiC by increasing recombination activity \cite{maximenko2004} and reducing the diffusion length in the material \cite{maximenko2010}.
Various mechanisms are responsible for modifications of electronic structure in the presence of dislocations.
In the dislocation core, the broken bonds give rise to acceptor levels within the band gap and make this region electrically active \cite{shockley1953,pearson1954}.
Dislocations also act as trapping centres and sources for point defects \cite{schroter1995}.
In the vicinity of the core, the strain field may induce additional states located near the conduction band edge \cite{celli1962}.
In epitaxial SiC, several gap levels have been detected using the deep-level transient spectroscopy (DLTS) and their connection with the intrinsic defects have been analysed \cite{danno2007,sasaki2011}.
The structural properties of dislocations have been previously studied theoretically in very few materials using both empirical potentials \cite{duesbery1991} and {\it ab initio} methods based on the density functional theory (DFT) \cite{bigger1992,arias1994,blase2000,cai2001}.
The DFT provides tools that allow one to study changes in electronic structure induced by dislocations \cite{kontsevoi2001}.
Such computations revealed that the dislocation core in GaN induces deep-gap states \cite{lee2000,lymperakis2004}, which strongly influence the electronic and optical properties of this semiconductor \cite{you2007}.
The point defects such as vacancies and oxygen dopants can be easily trapped at the core of the edge dislocations providing additional mid-gap states \cite{lee2000,elsner1998}.
The influence of partial dislocations on the structural and electronic properties have been investigated in the pure SiC \cite{blumenau2003} and crystals doped with impurity atoms \cite{bernardini2005}.
However, to our best knowledge, electronic properties of the full-edge dislocation has not been studied with {\it ab initio} methods yet.
In this work we study the changes in the crystal structure and electronic properties of 4H-SiC induced by the edge dislocation.
We analyse in detail the local lattice distortion by means of the radial distribution function (RDF) -- the density of atoms in the spherical shell around given atom averaged over whole structure \cite{chandler1987,hansen2013,kittel1986}.
The calculations disclose significant redistribution of charges and electrostatic potential in the region of the dislocation core.
The electronic states located in the insulating gap, arising from the dislocation core atoms, show a very weak dispersion in the perfect correlation with the distribution of charges in the distorted region.
Estimated minimal electrostatic barriers for ideal and distorted systems throw a new light on the decrease of the breakdown voltage in the defected 4H-SiC crystal.
\section*{Methods}
All calculations have been executed with the Vienna Ab-Initio Simulation Package (VASP) \cite{kresse1996a,kresse1996b} using the full-potential projector-augmented wave method \cite{blochl1994,kresse1999} within the generalised-gradient approximation (GGA) \cite{perdew1992,perdew1993,perdew1996}.
The following valence base configurations have been included: Si $3s^23p^2$ and C $2s^22p^2$. The integration over the {\bf k}-point space has been performed over the $2\times2\times2$ Monkhorst-Pack mesh \cite{monkhorst1976} and the energy cut-off for the plane waves expansion was equal to 500 eV.
The structures of ideal and defected crystals have been fully optimised (with respect to lattice parameters, stresses, and internal degrees of freedom) in the supercells consisting of 8$\times$6$\times$1 primitive unit cells, containing 384 and 346 atoms, which correspond to 25\AA$\times$19\AA$\times$10\AA{} and 22\AA$\times$19\AA$\times$10\AA{} crystal volumes, respectively.
We have used the conjugate gradient technique with the energy convergence criteria set at $10^{-8}$ eV and $10^{-5}$ eV for the electronic and ionic iterations, respectively.
\section*{Results}
\subsection*{Crystal structure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{fig1.png}
\end{center}
\caption[]{\label{fig:structure}Off-bottom (upper panel) and top (lower panel) view of the optimised crystal structure of 4H-SiC with two full-core edge dislocations. Both dislocation edges (I and II) have been distinguished by colour.}
\end{figure}
The pure 4H-SiC crystal structure has been reproduced correctly with the lattice constants $a=3.095$ \AA{} and $c=10.132$ \AA, which are very close to experimental values that amount to 3.073 \AA{} and 10.053 \AA, respectively.
To fulfil the periodic boundary conditions we consider two full-core edge dislocations with opposite Burgers vectors $\frac{1}{3}[\bar{2}\,1\,1\,0]$ and $\frac{1}{3}[2\,\bar{1}\,\bar{1}\,0]$, inserted into the system using Visual Editor of Crystal Defects (VECDs) \cite{vecds}.
It involves removal of 38 selected atoms (19 SiC molecules) changing the total number of them, which has been taken into account in all comparisons to the ideal structure.
Nevertheless, the relaxed crystal volume noticeably increases (by about 1\%) due to the local destruction of hexagonal close-packed structure.
However, since the supercell is big enough, the elongation of the average near neighbour bond is below 0.5\% in comparison to its length in the ideal system.
The creation energy per unit length of a single edge dislocation has been calculated as a function of distance between their cores using the following formula \cite{lymperakis2004}:
\[e=(E-E'_0)/2c,\] where $E$ is the energy of the system with a pair of dislocations (346 atoms), $E'_0$ is the ground state energy of the undisturbed system normalised to the same number of formula units. For relative distance between cores equal to 6.73 \AA{} we have obtained $e=2.17$ eV/\AA{} per supercell. Additionally, it has been found that $e$ increases for larger distances due to attractive force between two dislocations of opposite sign \cite{hirth1982}. The Peierls energy barrier between two states of dislocation core at adjacent lattice nodes along the common glide plane is very low. Therefore, to prevent the annihilation of defects during optimisation process we have trapped both dislocations by pinning their cores at different glide planes.
The optimised 4H-SiC structure with two edge dislocations is presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:structure}. The positions of dislocation lines have been marked by atoms distinguished by different colour.
Carrying out crystal structure relaxation, without any symmetry constrains, we have found that it tends to self-recover -- reconstructing as much as possible of pure 4H-SiC coordinations and so gathering most of the disorder to one of the dislocation cores (I in Fig.~\ref{fig:structure}).
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\columnwidth]{fig2.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption[]{\label{fig:rdf}RDF of the first-(left panel) and the second-coordination shell (right panel) for the edge dislocation dipole in 4H-SiC (points), fitted with the two-component Gaussian (solid lines).
The dashed lines denote positions of the coordination shells for the ideal 4H-SiC system.}
\end{figure}
To analyse the influence of the dislocation on its nearest neighbourhood, the RDF for the dislocation dipole has been calculated and analysed.
In Fig.\ \ref{fig:rdf} one can immediately notice that the introduction of the edge dislocation disturbs hexagonal close-packed structure which results in slight increase of the near neighbour and next near neighbour distances visible as shift from pure 4H-SiC positions (dashed lines).
We discovered that each coordination shell can be fitted with a two-component function (two Gaussian lines with parameters collected in Table~\ref{tab:rdf}): the central part with small width and the rest reproducing broad tails behaviour.
In particular this is clearly visible for the second coordination shell (right panel in Fig.~\ref{fig:rdf}).
\begin{table}
\caption{\label{tab:rdf}The parameters of Gaussian functions (positions and FWHM) and calculated peak areas of two-component fit of RDF presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:rdf}. u and d parts corresponds to the undistorted and distorted regions, respectively.}
\begin{indented}
\item[]\begin{tabular}{@{}l c c c c}
\br
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{near neighbour} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{next near neighbour} \cr
\cline{2-5}
& u & d & u & d \\\ns
\mr
position & 1.911 & 1.896 & 3.115 & 3.121 \\
area & 0.321 & 0.387 & 0.154 & 0.560 \\
FWHM & 0.034 & 0.101 & 0.024 & 0.185 \\
\br
\end{tabular}
\end{indented}
\end{table}
We have found that the components with a narrow and broad full width at half maximum (FWHM) correspond to the undistorted part of the crystal and disordered dislocation core, respectively.
For bigger supercells with smaller densities of dislocations the latter component will remain mostly unchanged while the former one will increase and converge towards a delta function.
\subsection*{Band structure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.75\columnwidth]{fig3.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption[]{\label{fig:bands}The electronic density of states (eDOS) calculated for pure 4H-SiC (filled contours) compared with results obtained for the distorted system (thin colour lines). Fermi energy level has been marked with dashed line.}
\end{figure}
Next, we analyse the influence of edge dislocations on the band structure of the 4H-SiC.
The general observation is that the positions of the main bands in the electron density of states (eDOS) remain mostly unchanged (see Fig.~\ref{fig:bands}).
The characteristic peaks in the valence and conduction bands of the ideal structure become broadened and smeared out in the system with dislocations.
The strongest changes are found inside the energy gap of the pure 4H-SiC crystal\footnote[1]{The theoretical gap $E_g=2.3$ eV is smaller than the measured value (3.2 eV) due to well-known gap underestimation problem in the LDA/GGA approaches.}, where additional localised states appear.
One can find sharp deep states delivered by atoms with broken nearest neighbours bonds and broadened shallow bands close to the top of the valence band and the bottom of the conduction band.
The presence of shallow bands effectively reduces the magnitude of the insulating gap.
The states located in the range $\sim0.2-0.6$ eV below the conduction band have also been found in the SiC systems with the stacking faults \cite{miao2001,iwata2001} and Shockley partial dislocations \cite{blumenau2003}. The latter induce also the occupied states about 0.4 eV above the valence band. All deep states are very narrow which indicates their weak dispersion in the Brillouin zone and localised character.
It is possible to trace the distribution of individual states in the whole spectrum, as well as to identify atoms which give their contribution to the eDOS in a particular energy range.
We have found that the deep states originate from the atoms in the distorted region of the dislocation core.
The detailed analysis has led to the conclusion that also partial eDOS projected to the $spd$ states has been modified. For the conduction band, where in the perfect 4H-SiC $d$ states dominate, as well as for the localised states inside the gap, the main contribution for distorted system stems from $p$ states.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{fig4.png}
\end{center}
\caption[]{\label{fig:charges}(a) Off-bottom view of charge distribution in distorted system. The slice plane crosses through both edge dislocations cores.
(b) Top view of electrostatic potential derived from charge distribution averaged along $c$ direction.
(c) The electrostatic potential along $c$-axis direction in P1 (dislocation core), P2 (between atoms in the ordered region), and P3 (atomic chain) places marked in panel (b).}
\end{figure}
\subsection*{Electric charge distribution}
The charge density is a well-defined, primary quantity in the DFT. Fig.~\ref{fig:charges}a presents the charge redistribution around edge dislocations.
In particular, one can see the elongated structures with a very low charge density (outlined with dotted line in Fig.~\ref{fig:charges}a) in the slice plane crossing both dislocation cores.
On the other hand, the neighbouring atoms visible in Fig.~\ref{fig:charges}a have increased density of carriers connected with broken interatomic bonds.
The effect is more pronounced for the dislocation I, marked with the thick solid line in the figure.
The electrostatic potential derived from the charge distribution and averaged over $c$ direction is presented in the top view projection (Fig.~\ref{fig:charges}b).
The decreased charge density regions exhibit lowered energy barriers which allow for easier flow of the carriers.
Again, the effect is much stronger for the dislocation I with the bigger disorder around its edge.
Additionally, in panel (c) the electrostatic potential along the $c$ direction in three different locations of distorted system has been shown. Its periodicity reflects ABCB stacking in the 4H-SiC structure. In accordance with the intuition, electric charges encounter the highest barriers along the atomic chain (curve P3 in Fig.~\ref{fig:charges}c) and the lowest through the dislocation core (curve P1).
To quantify the influence of dislocations on the energy barriers for the electron transport along $c$-axis, we have analysed the local electrostatic potential in the crystal.
We have taken into account that the path over minimal barriers can wander not necessarily along a straight line parallel to the $c$ direction.
Therefore, for each pair of positions: $r_0=(x,y,z_0)$ and $r_1=(x,y,z_1)$ -- where $z_0$ is at the bottom of the periodic unit while $z_1$ is at its top (see Fig.~\ref{fig:charges}a) -- we have derived a minimal energy path and the barrier height for this path from $r_0$ to $r_1$.
The calculation used the basin-filling segmentation algorithm \cite{pal1993} with bisection search for minimal limiting energy level.
The results indicate substantial lowering of the barrier in the vicinity of the dislocation cores denoted by P1 in Fig.~\ref{fig:charges}b.
The calculated difference between the minimal barrier height in the non-distorted area and in the vicinity of the dislocation core is 0.8~V.
This value is much lower than the differences in barrier heights presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:charges}c due to the nonlinear character of the minimal barrier path.
The calculated energy barriers are obtained with zero voltage bias and as such are not sufficient to determine quantitatively the charge transport properties of the material but are an important step towards full understanding of charge carriers' behaviour.
On the basis of the presented results, the following mechanism of the insulating properties weakening and the breakdown voltage decreasing in the 4H-SiC monocrystal may be proposed. Very low energy barriers along glide planes cannot oppose the formation of dislocations around point defects and local lattice stresses as well as their migration through the crystal. In a dislocation core, part of interatomic bonds are broken causing the creation of deep states inside the semiconductor gap. Additionally, crystal distortions modify the atomic potential enforcing the shallow states formation and consequently narrowing the forbidden gap. Finally, the elongated regions of the reduced charge density with flat electrostatic potential are formed along a dislocation core. The lack of barriers inside so created tunnels, in connection with additional states in the energy gap, may enhance a carrier flow through the distorted areas, significantly influencing decrease in the breakdown voltage. This scenario provides the plausible explanation of the current-voltage characteristics of the 4H-SiC avalanche photodiodes, which show a pronounced decrease of the breakdown voltage and increase of leakage currents due to a single edge dislocation \cite{berechman2010}. Our analysis of the mid-gap levels also enables a better understanding of a pronounced impact of dislocations on the carrier lifetime \cite{maximenko2004} and diffusion length \cite{maximenko2010}, and can be helpful in interpreting the DLTS measurements \cite{danno2007,sasaki2011}.
Moreover, similarly to other strongly defected systems \cite{wdowik2013}, the changes in the electronic structure may be related to observable effects in the lattice dynamical and optical properties of SiC \cite{talwar2015}.
\section*{Conclusions}
Summarising, in this work we have successfully modelled a pair of edge dislocations using {\it ab initio} methods.
We have confirmed experimental findings concerning small but well-visible lattice constants elongation, energy gap narrowing, and electrostatic barriers reduction.
Furthermore, with atomic-scale resolution, we have explained foregoing processes.
We have shown that (i) the crystal structure is strongly disturbed in the small vicinity of the dislocation core, (ii) additional energy levels occurring in the energy gap belong to the atoms with broken bonds occupying the core neighbourhood, (iii) existence of spatial tunnels, with atoms delivering localised states to the band structure on its sides, significantly decreases electrostatic barriers and should be considered as one of the primary factors responsible for experimentally observed reduction of breakdown voltage.
\ack
This work was partially supported by the SICMAT Project financed under the European Founds for Regional Development (Contract No. UDA-POIG.01.03.01-14-155/09).
\section*{References}
|
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We thank A. Canaguier-Durand, A. Cuche, J.A. Hutchison, T.W. Ebbesen and S. Reynaud for fruitful discussions and support. This work was funded in part by the ERC (grant 227577) and the ANR (Equipex ``Union'').
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sect:introduction}
Video object tracking is a fundamental problem in the academic research of image/video processing and computer vision, involving two key issues: (i) extracting objects of interest from backgrounds and (ii) establishing correspondences of objects over video frames. Trajectory parsing and analysis for multiple targets is a further task upon target tracking, and plays a critical role in the recently-arising intelligence applications, such as robotics~\cite{SMC-Robot} and video surveillance systems~\cite{SurveillanceSystem,TIP-Surveillance,TIP-SeqParticle}. It is also an important support for higher level video retrieval and event analysis~\cite{LinEvent,LHIDataset}. The object of this work is to study a unified approach for trajectory analysis under the Bayesian framework. As Fig.~\ref{fig:front_fig} illustrates, the input of our algorithm is a short sequence of observed frames rather than a single frame, in which we localize the multiple moving targets and track them with their identities preserved; the global trajectories of targets for the whole video can be parsed through the inference.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{FrontFig.pdf}
\caption{Illustration of the trajectory analysis. (a) shows a batch of successive video frames as the input of our method. (b) shows a few results of multiple target tracking, where the numbers around the tracking ellipses imply the identities of targets. (c) visualizes the global trajectories of the video in a 3D perspective.} \label{fig:front_fig}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Related Work}
In the literature, video object tracking has been intensively studied and many effective methods have been proposed. For single-target tracking, various object appearance models and motion models are well exploited to estimate target state (location, velocity, etc.)~\cite{TrackingSurvey,SMC-Kalman,LinTrackingAR,LearnAssociate2009,TIP-SeqParticle}. Recently, a class of techniques called ``tracking by detection'' has been shown to provide promising results~\cite{MILTrack,AdaptiveTracking,SMC-DecisionTrack,SMC-PartTracking,TIP-AdaptiveTracking}. For multi-object tracking (i.e. trajectory analysis), which our method addresses, we shall identify multiple moving targets by associating correspondences between observations and objects as well as estimating the state of each target~\cite{TrackingSTContext,TrajectoryParsing}.
In general, we roughly categorize the work of trajectory analysis into two types: sequential inference based, and deferred inference based, in terms of the number of input frames for inference.
(I) Sequential inference based methods use the information of the currently observed frame to predict the states of moving targets and assign their target identities. The classical examples are particle filtering~\cite{MCMCParticleFiltering,TIP-SeqParticle,SMC-Kalman} and optical flow~\cite{OpticalFlow}. Recently, Avidan~\cite{EnsembleTrack} proposed a learning-based tracker using the online Adaboost algorithm, which maintains a discriminative detector to track targets in the current frame. Babenko et al.~\cite{MILTrack} significantly improved the tracking performance using Multiple Instance Learning (MIL). Despite great success, these approaches may yield identity lossing (or switching) and trajectory fragmentation in terms of mutual-interaction, occlusion and spurious motion, because they make online decisions while discarding global information.
(II) Deferred inference based methods, also referred as global data association based tracking, are to identify each observation with either a track ID or a false alarm in a short period of time, e.g. $15$ frames. The observations, namely, moving blobs, can be obtained by using methods such as background subtraction. The first attempts on data association optimization are Multiple Hypothesis Tracker~\cite{MHT,SMC-Kalman,SMC-PartTracking}, and Joint Probabilistic Data Association Filters~\cite{JPDAF}, which search the hypothesis (the associations of observations and targets) by assuming one-to-one mapping, i.e. one observation to one target. Once this assumption is relaxed, e.g. a target consisting of a set of observations, the search space of optimization grows exponentially with the number of frames and targets. To overcome this problem, many deterministic optimal algorithms have been employed, such as Extended Dynamic Programming~\cite{TrackDP,SMC-DynamicProg,TIP-SeqParticle}, Quadratic Boolean Programming~\cite{TrackQBP}, and Hierarchical Hungarian algorithm~\cite{TrackHieHung}. However, it is still impractical to apply these methods for intelligence surveillance systems, due to the following aspects~\cite{TIP-Surveillance,TIP-MultipleTrack,SurveillanceSystem}. First, some approaches of trajectory analysis need good initializations, e.g., manually annotating targets or assuming no conglutination at the beginning frame. Second, due to the ambiguity caused by the similar appearances of coupled targets, it is difficult to stably maintain the correct identities of targets with long term tracking. In the example in Fig.~\ref{fig:challenge} (a), the track IDs of targets are switched in the crowd scene~\cite{SMC-Kalman}. Third, the affinity model of a moving target, i.e. object representation, is not discriminative with respect to complex surrounding clutter, illumination and object scale changes, which often leads to false tracking or the splitting of one target into several pieces~\cite{SMC-PartTracking,TIP-MultipleTrack}, as the examples shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:challenge} (b) and (c).
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth]{TrajectoryChallenge.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{A few typical challenges in trajectory analysis. (a) Due to the mutual interaction in the crowd scene, the track IDs of targets are switched. (b) The tracker is distracted by the background clutter. (c) The tracked target is split into several ones, due to illumination and object scale changes.} \label{fig:challenge}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Method Overview}
According to the literature review, the proposed approach belongs to deferred inference based methods. The goal of our approach is to parse trajectories of moving targets under the Bayesian framework, in which searching for the optimal trajectory solution is formulated as a problem of maximizing a posterior probability (MAP). We briefly introduce our method in the following three aspects: a composite feature for matching affinity of moving targets, a spatio-temporal graph for representing the task of trajectory analysis, and an iterative stochastic algorithm for global inference.
(I) In surveillance videos, particularly for some outdoor scenes, it is a critical issue to robustly recover correspondences over frames against illumination changes, drastic motion, etc. A consensus from a recent image feature research~\cite{TuytelaarsFeatureSurvey} is that a good image feature for tracking demands two properties: (i) the discrimination, i.e. distinctive matching over frames, and (ii) the robustness, i.e. geometric-invariance, and tolerance of non-rigid motion, etc. In fact, these two properties sometimes conflict with each other. For example, one may increase the region size (scale) of a local feature and/or the dimensionality of the descriptor, but a larger feature is usually less robust in tracking with photometric and geometric changes. In this paper, we propose a composite image feature to represent moving targets. We employ two types of well-known image features, SURF~\cite{SURF} and MSER~\cite{MSER}, in the composite features. Each composite feature is composed of a feature region generated by MSER detector within a set of SURF feature points. This scheme is similar with the Bundled Feature~\cite{BundledFeature} proposed by Sun et al.~\cite{BundledFeature} for web image search, but we define a different matching metric to adapt object tracking.
(II) Given the extracted composite features from the observed frames, we can build up a spatial graph and a temporal graph to pose the problem of trajectory analysis as a joint task of spatial graph partitioning and temporal graph matching. In the spatial graph, each graph vertex is a detected composite feature and each graph edge is defined by the appearance and motion consistency of the two adjacent vertices. In the temporal graph, each graph vertex implies one underlying target consisting of a connected cluster of composite features, and the graph edges denote the matching correspondences between targets in consecutive frames. With these graph representations, the task of graph partitioning corresponds with extracting and segmenting targets from background; the graph matching task is equivalent to establishing the correspondences of targets over frames. We can further formulate these tasks by maximizing posterior probability under the Bayesian framework. In addition, two types of scene contexts are integrated as the informative prior, including: (i) target size prediction using scene geometric information, inspired by the previous work ~\cite{SurveillanceSystem,TrackingSTContext}, and (ii) target motion prior model by the path statistics. These types of prior knowledge are very informative to make the model robust and efficient. For example, with two people walking close together with similar appearances, our model tends to segment them into two individual targets according to the prior term of target size prediction.
(III) It is a non-trivial optimization procedure to search for the maximum of the posterior probability with our formulation. There are many ambiguities caused by conglutinations, occlusions, and similar appearances of targets and background clutters in some crowded surveillance scenes. The searching order or rule for an optimal solution is thus quite difficult to design. In the perspective of energy minimization, there exists quite a few local minimums, e.g., track ID switching, in the search for energy minimums. Therefore, unlike the deterministic or heuristic searching in the previous work of trajectory inference~\cite{TrackDP,TrackingSurvey}, we design a stochastic sampling algorithm using the Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) mechanism~\cite{Metropolis} to explore the solution space. In literature, some work~\cite{MCMCDataAssociation} shows great results on solving spatio-temporal data association by an MCMC-based algorithm. In our method, we adopt an MCMC-based cluster sampling method, namely Swendsen-Wang Cut~\cite{SWCBarbu}, for optimal solution exploration. The algorithm iterates between two types of MCMC dynamics for the spatial graph partitioning and temporal graph matching respectively.
Compared with some recently proposed approaches~\cite{TrajectoryParsing,MCMCDataAssociation} which also adopt stochastic inference for trajectory analysis, the major advantages of the proposed method are as follows. (1) We adopt two types of MCMC dynamics to iteratively solve the video object segmentation and tracking, which are mutually conditional and closely coupled. This algorithm is able to explore the global optimal solution and eliminate the need for good initializations. (2) The proposed composite feature provides a flexible and robust representation against scene clutters and object geometric deformations in tracking. (3) We apply our method to various challenging surveillance videos from several public datasets and show that it outperforms other approaches.
This paper is organized as follows. We first introduce the
problem representation and formulation in Section~\ref{sect:representation} and Section~\ref{sect:formuation}. Then Section~\ref{sect:inference} presents the algorithm for trajectory inference, and Section~\ref{sect:implementation} describes the implementation details and the system flow. A set of experiments and comparisons are proposed in Section~\ref{sect:experiments}, and the paper is concluded with discussions in Section~\ref{sect:discussion}.
\section{Problem Representation}
\label{sect:representation}
Given an input video, we set the observed window spanned over $\tau$ frames for each computation of trajectory analysis. The observed window is moving with a step-size of $\eta$ frames. Using a state-of-the-art background modeling algorithm~\cite{BackgroundModel}, the image lattice $\Lambda_t, t= 1, \ldots, \tau$ of each frame is initially partitioned into foreground and background domains $\Lambda_t=\Lambda^B_t \cup \Lambda^F_t$. The trajectory analysis takes the foreground domain as the input, although the background subtraction is not perfect, i.e. occurring false alarm regions. We then propose a novel image feature, namely the composite feature, extracted from the foreground domain, based on which a spatial graph and a temporal graph are constructed. Each vertex in the spatial graph is a composite feature and each vertex in the temporal graph represents a segmented moving target. In the following, we start by introducing the composite features, then define the problem of trajectory analysis via graph representation, and present the probabilistic formulation.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth]{SIFTMSER.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The composite feature bundling SURF points and MSER regions. The moving target tracked by a black bounding box in (a) can be represented by the composite features in (b), where the blue ellipses indicate the MSER regions and the red crosses indicate the SURF points. Note we discard the MSER regions having heavy overlap or without SURF points included.} \label{fig:comp_feature}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Composite Features}
\label{sect:comp_features}
For representing moving objects, we propose a composite image feature that bundles a region with several key points for improving both discrimination and robustness. The proposed composite feature involves two popular features: the point feature SURF~\cite{SURF} and the region feature MSER~\cite{MSER}. The SURF keypoint exploits scale-space extrema by determination of Hessian matrix and employs integral image for rapid computation. The MSER feature is defined by an extremal property of its intensity function in the ellipse region and on its outer boundary. Both of these two features are robust against viewing angle, scale, and illumination changes. Some extracted SURF points and MSER regions are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:comp_feature} (b).
Given a foreground image domain $\Lambda^F_t$, we first detect the point and region features, denoted by $ S = \{ s_i \}$ and $ R = \{ r_j \}$ respectively. We allow overlaps among the region features, and discard those with large size, i.e. those containing others or spanning half the size of the foreground domain. A composite feature $Z_j$ is then defined as
\begin{equation}
Z_j \!\!=\!\! \{ r_j , S_j \!\!=\!\! \{ s_i : s_i \propto r_j, s_i \in S \} \}, r_j \in R, S_j \subset S,
\end{equation}
where $s_i \propto r_j$ indicates that the point feature $s_i$ exists inside the region feature $r_j$. The composite feature including no SURF points will be removed automatically. In practice, the number of SURF points in each composite feature is $5 \sim 10$. A moving target represented by the composite features is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:comp_feature}.
The measuring energy $E(Z_a, Z_b)$ of two composite features $Z_a$ and $Z_b$ includes two terms: {\em independence similarity } and {\em configuration consistency}.
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:feature_measure}
E (Z_a, Z_b) = E_{I} + \lambda_g E_{G},
\end{equation}
where $\lambda_g$ is a weighted parameter for the two terms.
(I) The independence similarity $ E_{I} $ is based on the matching distance of two region features. The energy of this term is defined as,
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:ind_similarity}
E_{I} (Z_a, Z_b) = \| h(r_a) - h(r_b) \| ^2 ,
\end{equation}
where $h(\cdot)$ is the descriptor for SURF feature.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\linewidth]{MatchingCompFeatures.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{An example of the measuring configuration consistency of two composite features. We denote the MSER region by the ellipse, the SURF points by the red cross, and the centroid of the feature by the black spot. For the left composite feature, its relative order for the configuration is: $\{ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 \}$, and for the right one, its relative order is $\{ 1, 5, 3, 4, 2 \}$. Thus, the configuration consistency of these two composite features is: $ \frac {1 + 0 + 1 + 1 + 0} {5} = 0.6$.} \label{fig:match_comp_feature}
\end{figure}
(II) The configuration consistency $ E_{G} $ performs a weak
geometric verification between two composite features. Let $\{ s_i \leftrightarrow s_j, s_i \in S_a, s_j \in S_b \}$ denotes the set of matched feature pairs of two composite features $Z_a$ and $Z_b$. This set can be quickly calculated by matching SURF points in a greedy manner: searching the best match for each point in region of the corresponding composite feature. We define their configuration consistency based on the relative order with point matching. Given the centroid of region feature, the relative order of inside points can be determined according to their spatial distance to the centroid. As Fig.~\ref{fig:match_comp_feature} illustrates, we number the points in the left based on the spatial distance to the centroid, i.e. {1,2,3,4,5}; the numbers of points in the right is propagated from the left points based on the matching correspondence. And the consistency can be computed as,
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:conf_similarity}
E_{G} (Z_a, Z_b) = \frac {\sum_{s_i \leftrightarrow s_j} {\1} ( \mathcal{O} (s_i) = \mathcal{O} (s_j) )} {|\{ s_i \leftrightarrow s_j \}|} ,
\end{equation}
where $ \mathcal{O}$ denotes the relative order of the points, ${\1} (\cdot)$ is the indicator function, and $|\{ s_i \leftrightarrow s_j \}|$ is the number of matched point pairs. The unmatched point pairs are not taken into account in the definition because the appearance dissimilarity has been penalized by the first term $E_{I}$ in Eqn.~\ref{eqn:ind_similarity}. Specifically, the cost by $E_{I}$ would be relatively large with respect to the $E_G$, if the numbers of points are discrepant (e.g., 5 v.s. 10). Moreover, to make this consistency penalty smooth and gentle, we can additionally apply the {\em sigmoid} function on the relative order computation.
We observe that, unlike a single type of features, a composite feature provides a flexible and stable representation that captures the distinctive image primitives as well as the geometric structure.
\subsection{Trajectory Analysis via Graph Representation}
Given the observed window, i.e. a period of frames $\I_{[0, \tau]}$, we extract the composite features $\{ Z_{t,i}, t = 0, \ldots, \tau \}$ on the foreground areas $\Lambda^F_{[0, \tau]}$. Then we obtain a set of spatial graphs $\G^S_{[0, \tau]}$, where each composite feature is treated as the graph vertex $ v_{t,i} = Z_{t,i}, t = 0, \ldots \tau $.
The goal of trajectory analysis is to segment moving targets and recover their correspondences in each frame. With the graph representation, this problem is posed as a joint task of graph partitioning and matching.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.55\linewidth]{STGraphRepresentation.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The graph representations for trajectory analysis. (a) shows the input video sequence $I_{[t,t+\tau]}$. (b) shows the foreground mask for frame $I_t$. (c) illustrates the spatial attribute graph of the currently observed frame $I_t$, where each graph vertex denotes a composite feature of the foreground domain and has four bonds connecting to neighboring vertices. The graph edges imply the motion and appearance consistency between two adjacent vertices. The edges between the foreground and background domains are turned off automatically. (d) illustrates the temporal attribute graph with the vertices being the connected clusters of spatial graph vertices. Each temporal graph vertex indicates an underlying target. The edges in the temporal graph represent the matching correspondences over frames. Note that the vertices in the bottom row in (d) indicate the unmatched regions and have no temporal connections.} \label{fig:stgraph}
\end{figure}
\textbf{I. Spatial graph partitioning} is to segment targets over a
time span $\tau$. As illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:stgraph} (b), we
represent the partition of the observed frames as $\Pi_{[0,\tau]}$,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:partition}
\Pi_{[0,\tau]}=\{\pi_t; t=0,1,2,\ldots,\tau\} \nonumber \\
\pi_t=\{U_{t,i};i=0,1,2,\ldots,K_t\},
\end{eqnarray}
where $K_t$ is the target number at time $t$, and $U_{t,0}$ indicates the
false alarm regions, i.e. not target regions but proposed as the foreground. Each moving target $U_{t,i}$ at time $t$ is described
by a bounding box,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:target_represent}
U_{t,i}=\{x_{t,i},y_{t,i},w_{t,i},h_{t,i}\}, i=1,2,\ldots,K_t
\end{equation}
where $(x_{t,i},y_{t,i})$ denotes the target center and $(w_{t,i},h_{t,i})$ denotes the width and height. The initial foreground domain $\Lambda^F_t$ consists of the target image domains $\Lambda^F_{t,i}$ and false alarm domains $\Lambda^F_{t,0}$,
\begin{equation}
\Lambda^F_{t} = \bigcup_{i=1}^{K_t} \Lambda^F_{t,i} \bigcup \Lambda^F_{t,0}.
\end{equation}
We solve the foreground partitioning $\Pi_t$ with a spatial graph representation (as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:stgraph} (c)), defined over the foreground image lattice with nearest $4$ neighbor connections, $G_t^S=(V_t^S, E_t^S)$, where $V_t^S$ is the set of graph vertices and $E_t^S$ is the set of link edges connecting neighboring graph vertices. Each spatial graph vertex $v_{t,i}^S = (Z_{t,i}, l_{t,i}) \in V_t^S$ includes one composite feature $Z_{t,i}$ and the corresponding label $l_{t,i}=[0,K_t]$, indicating the vertex belongs to certain target or false alarm. Therefore, each target $U_{t,i}$ at time $t$ corresponds to a set of connected graph vertices $V^S_{t,i} \subset V^S_t$. We solve the task of graph partitioning by turning off edges, i.e., generating disjoint subgraphs, which will be introduced in Section~\ref{sect:spatial_sampling}.
\textbf{II. Temporal graph matching} is recovering the
correspondences of targets over time span $\tau$. We represent a set of matching matrices by $\Phi_{[0,\tau]}$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\Phi_{[0,\tau]} &=& \{\phi_t;t=1,2,\ldots,\tau-1\}
\\\nonumber \phi_t(U_{t,i}) &=& U_{t+1,i} \bigcup \{\emptyset\},
\end{eqnarray}
where each matrix $\phi_t$ describes a mapping relation from the $t$-th frame
to the $(t+1)$-th frame. A target matching to $\emptyset$ indicates that it is occluded or moving out at the current frame (i.e. being ``killed''), while a target with no matches in previous frames indicates that it is newly appearing (i.e. being ``born'').
As illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:stgraph} (d), a temporal graph
$G^T=(V^T,E^T)$ is defined for moving targets. Each temporal graph vertex
$v_{t,i}^T = (U_{t,i}, l_{t,i}) \in V^T$ includes a moving target $U_{t,i}$
and its matching label $l_{t,i}$ at time $t$. Each edge indicates the
matching relation of two vertices between adjacent frames, as $e_{t,i}
=\{<v_a, v_b>: \; v_a, v_b \in V^T, \; <v_a, v_b> \in E_t^S \}$. Since we have performed partitioning on the spatial graph, we can reasonably assume one-to-one mapping between temporal nodes. Note that unmatched nodes are allowed to stand alone, caused by false alarm regions from the background subtraction. In Fig.~\ref{fig:stgraph}(d), the blobs with different colors represent the temporal graph nodes and the dotted ones indicate the unmatched regions.
Therefore, for the problem of trajectory completion, we define the following solution representation $W$ from the observed $I_{[0,\tau]}$ as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:configuration}
W_{[0,\tau]}=\{K_{[0,\tau]},\Pi_{[0,\tau]},\Phi_{[0,\tau]}\},
\end{eqnarray}
where $K_{[0,\tau]}$ denotes the foreground target number in time span
$\tau$, $\Pi_{[0,\tau]}$ denotes the partition result for each frame, and $\Phi_{[0,\tau]}$ denotes the
matching correspondences of moving targets between adjacent frames in the
form of matrix mapping from one target to another.
Equivalently, the solution configuration of trajectory completion can
also be represented by $N$ motion trajectories, also called ``cables'' in~\cite{WangTrajectory},
\begin{eqnarray}
W_{[0,\tau]}=\{N,C_i;i=0,1,\ldots N\},
\end{eqnarray}
where $C_0$ represents the false alarm regions, and other cable
represents the trajectory of a foreground moving target, respectively. This representation
makes it simple to define the motion models.
\begin{eqnarray}
\!\!\!\!\!\!C_i\!\!\! &=& \!\!\!(t_{i,b},\!t_{i,d},\! \{U_{t,i}; t\in [
t_{i,b},t_{i,d}]\}); i \!=\! 1,\ldots,N, \\
\!\!\!\!\!\!C_0\!\!\! &=& \!\{U_{t,0};t=0,1,\ldots,\tau\},
\end{eqnarray}
where $t_{i,b}$ and $t_{i,d}$ denotes the birth time and death time of the trajectory $C_i$, respectively.
Therefore, in the probabilistic formulation in Section~\ref{sect:formuation}, we shall be able to switch between the two notations above.
\section{Probabilistic Formulation}
\label{sect:formuation}
Based on the definition of solution $W$, we can formulate the inference problem in a Bayesian framework, and the optimal solution $W^{*}$ can be solved by maximizing a posterior probability,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:posterior}
W_{[0,\tau]}^* \!\! &=& \!\! \arg \max_W p(W_{[0,\tau]}|I_{[0,\tau]}) \\
&=&\!\!\!\! \arg \max_W p(I_{[0,\tau]}|W_{[0,\tau]};\beta)
p(W_{[0,\tau]}| \theta)\nonumber ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\beta$ and $\theta$ are the parameters for the likelihood and prior models respectively.
\subsection{Prior model}\label{subsect:prior}
We define prior model $p(W_{[0,\tau]}| \theta)$ on scene contexts, which provide informative guidance for graph partitioning and matching, as
\begin{equation}
p(W_{[0,\tau]}|\theta)\!\!\! = \!\!\!p(\Pi_{[0,\tau]}) \cdot p(\Phi_{[0,\tau]}).
\end{equation}
Note that each probability term is assumed to be independent, since they can be calculated irrelatively.
\textbf{I. Partition prior $p(\Pi_{[0,\tau]})$ \;\;\;} We assume
each frame is separately segmented and define the prior as,
\begin{eqnarray}
p(\Pi_{[0,\tau]})\!\!=\!\!\prod_{t=0}^\tau
p(\pi_t)\!\!=\!\!\prod_{t=0}^\tau\prod_{i=0}^{K_t}p(U_{t,i}).
\end{eqnarray}
Instead of using the Potts model as a partition prior in previous work~\cite{LinGraphMatching}, we predict the target location and size according to the scene surface property and information of camera calibration.
According to the research of using geometric context~\cite{TrackingSTContext}, the object size in the image plane is correlated with the physical size (in the real world) according to the scene geometric information, i.e. the camera parameters and the ground plane. The scene geometry can be roughly estimated in an interactive manner in a surveillance system according to a recent work~\cite{SurveillanceSystem}. We can then employ the informative prior of target size in the image plane, if the tracked targets belong to a specific object category. In other words, the prior distribution of target size is conditional on the target location in the image. In this work, considering the requirement of real-time processing, it is not practical to integrate the target recognition in the trajectory analysis, and we thus make the assumption that the semantic label of targets is specified in a certain scene. In fact, this assumption is reasonable, e.g., the indoor surveillance systems usually aim at about people while the outdoor systems usually track vehicles.
Fig.~\ref{fig:locationSize} (a) illustrates the location-size prediction with scene geometry. Let $B$ and $C$ denote the top and the bottom of car, $A$ the intersection of the car and the horizon line in the image plane, and $D$ the vertical vanishing point. Besides, let $h_p$ denote the
car height and $h_c$ the camera height. The expected size of
an observed vehicle on the ground plane can be predicted by simply following the cross ratio theorem,
\begin{equation}\label{equ:locationSize1}
\frac{BC}{BA} / \frac{DC}{DA} = \frac{h_p}{h_c-h_p}.
\end{equation}
Therefore we can obtain the target size distribution with respect to the target location $f_c(h,w|x,y)$. Suppose the location of target $U_{t,i}$ is $(x_{t,i}, y_{t,i})$ and the partition prior can be thus written as
\begin{eqnarray}
p(U_{t,i}) &\propto& f_c(h,w | x = x_{t,i}, y = y_{t,i}).
\end{eqnarray}
An example of predicting sizes of vehicles in the surveillance scene is presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:locationSize} (b), where we sample vehicle sizes from $f_c(h,w|x,y)$.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.55\linewidth]{LocationSize.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Location-size constraint.
(a) The target size in the surveillance image can be directly estimated according to the homography between the image plane and the ground plane; (b) We show an example of predicting vehicle sizes in the image as the prior information.
}\label{fig:locationSize}
\end{figure}
\textbf{II. Matching prior on trajectory $p(\Phi_{[0, \tau]} )$ \;\;\;} For simplicity, we use the cable representation to define this prior model, which includes two terms: (i) the birth, death,
length (lifespan) of the cable, and (ii) trajectory shape of the cable. Thus, we have the matching prior factorized to obtain the following probability terms,
\begin{eqnarray}
p(\Phi_{[0, \tau]})\!&=&\!\prod_{i=0}^N p(C_i),\\
\!p(C_i )\! &=& \! p(t_{i,b},t_{i,d} )
p(\Gamma_i, \mathcal{R}),
\end{eqnarray}
where $C_i$ represents the $i$-th target trajectory. The first term $ p(t_{i,b},t_{i,d} )$ gives the prior distribution of birth/death on the global trajectory as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:pathmodel} (a). $\Gamma_i$ denotes the trajectory shape, i.e. the curve of the trajectory. The second term $p(\Gamma_i, \mathcal{R})$ is a global motion prior based on a path model
$\mathcal{R}$, which consists of a set of reference trajectories $\{ \Gamma \}$, as shown in Fig.\ref{fig:pathmodel} (b). We can learn these reference trajectories by clustering in a supervised way according to the method reported by Wang et al~\cite{WangTrajectory}. Then the motion prior is in the form of a mixture model plus a robust statistic, as
\begin{eqnarray}
p(\Gamma_i, \mathcal{R}) \propto \exp \{ { - \min_{\Gamma_j \in \mathcal{R}} \Delta (\Gamma_i,\Gamma_j) + \epsilon } \},
\end{eqnarray}
where the function $\Delta(\cdot)$ denotes the geometrical distance~\cite{Procrustes} between the shapes of two trajectories, and $\epsilon$ is a tuning parameter for robustness.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{Pathmodel.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{A statistical path model for defining the matching prior on trajectory. (a) shows the statistical birth and death positions of moving targets in the scene; (b) shows the reference trajectories in the scene.
}\label{fig:pathmodel}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Likelihood Model}\label{subsect:likelihood}
The likelihood model $p(I_{[0,\tau]}|W_{[0,\tau]};\beta)$ includes the two following aspects: (i) the region appearances fitting with the background model, and (ii) the appearance consistency of the trajectories.
\begin{eqnarray}
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!p(I_{[0,\tau]}|W_{[0,\tau]};\beta)\!\!\!\! &=& \!\!\!\! \prod_{t=0}^\tau
p(\Lambda^F_t | \pi_t, \mathcal{B})
\\\nonumber
&&\cdot\prod_{i=1}^N p(\Lambda(C_i) | C_i),
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Lambda^F_t$ denotes the image domain of the foreground and $\mathcal{B}$ the background model proposed by ~\cite{BackgroundModel}. $\Lambda(C_i)$ indicates the image domain covered by trajectory $C_i$, i.e. the moving target $U_i$ over $t$ frames. The appearance consistency of the trajectories $p(\Lambda(C_i) | C_i)$ is equivalent to the matching similarity between targets over frames, as
\begin{equation}
p(\Lambda(C_i)| C_i) = \prod_{t = t_{i,b}}^{t_{i,d}-1}
p(\Lambda^F_{t+1,i} | \Lambda^F_{t,i}),
\end{equation}
where $\Lambda^F_{t+1,i}$ and $\Lambda^F_{t,i}$ denote the image domains of adjacent targets. The target matching can be further calculated by measuring the composite features of the targets,
\begin{equation}
p(\Lambda^F_{t+1,i} | \Lambda^F_{t,i}) \propto \exp \frac { {- \sum_{Z_i \in U_{t,i},\; Z_j \in U_{t+1, i}} E( Z_i, Z_j )}} {| U_{t, i} |},
\end{equation}
where $ E( v_i, v_j )$ is the distance metrics between two composite features, as defined in Eqn.\ref{eqn:feature_measure}. $| U_{t, i} |$ denotes the total number of extracted features in the target.
\section{Inference Algorithm}
\label{sect:inference}
Given the spatial and temporal graph representations, the problem of trajectory recovery is posed as two coupled tasks of spatial graph partitioning $\Pi_{[0,\tau]}$ and temporal graph matching $\Phi_{[0,\tau]}$. In this section, we discuss a stochastic sampling algorithm to jointly solve the two tasks.
The reasons of using stochastic scheme rather than other deterministic optimization methods, e.g. Belief Propagation, or Graph-cuts, are as follow. (1) It is difficult to design fast searching rules due to the unpredictable variance and ambiguity of tracked targets. (2) The probabilistic formulation is a non-convex representation. (3) We usually cannot obtain the reliable initialization for trajectory analysis.
The proposed stochastic inference algorithm, designed under the Metropolis-Hasting mechanism~\cite{Metropolis}, is able to efficiently seek the optimal solution $W_{[0, \tau]}$ from the posterior probability $p(W_{[0, \tau]} | \I_{[0, \tau]})$ as defined in Eqn.~\ref{eq:posterior},
\begin{equation}
W_{[0, \tau]}^* \sim p(W_{[0, \tau]} | \I_{[0, \tau]}).
\end{equation}
We simulate a ergodic and aperiodic Markov Chain in which the algorithm visits a sequence of states in the joint space of $\{\Pi_{[0,\tau]}, \Phi_{[0,\tau]}\}$ over the time span $\tau$. Specifically, the sampling process iterates between two types of Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) dynamics and infers the graph partitioning $\Pi_{[0,\tau]}$ and graph matching $\Phi_{[0,\tau]}$ respectively. There are two components working in the iterative manner as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item Fixing the current state of graph matching $\Phi_{[0,\tau]}$, we perform cluster sampling to explore the new solutions of graph partition $\Pi_{[0,\tau]}$.
\item Fixing the current state of graph partition $\Pi_{[0,\tau]}$, we update the graph matching state $\Phi_{[0,\tau]}$ by changing the matching relations of objects in the trajectories.
\end{itemize}
In both two components, each sampling is achieved by realizing a reversible jump (i.e. operator) between any two successive states to explore new solutions, for either graph partitioning or graph matching. The acceptance of a new state is decided based on a Metropolis-Hastings~\cite{Metropolis} decision to guarantee the convergence of the inference algorithm. In general, given two successive states $A$ and $B$ for either partitioning or matching, the acceptance rate is defined as:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:acceptance}
\alpha( A \to B) = \min\left(1, \frac{Q(B \to A) p( B )}{Q(A \to B)
p(A)}\right),
\end{equation}
where $p(A)$ and $p(B)$ are the posterior probability of $W_{[0, \tau]}$ defined in Eqn.~\ref{eq:posterior}. $Q(B \to A)$ is the proposal probability to drive the state transition from $B$ to $A$ and conversely, $Q(A \to B)$ is the proposal probability from state $A$ to $B$.
How to design the proposal probability for driving the solution state transition is a non-trivial task that was addressed by a branch of works in literature~\cite{SWCBarbu,MCMCDataAssociation,LinGraphMatching}. Recently, a MCMC-based cluster sampling algorithm, namely ``Swendsen-Wang Cut''(SWC), is proposed for image segmentation , which is able to simplify the calculation of the ratio of proposal probability $\frac{Q(B \to A)}{Q(A \to B)}$ in graphical models. We refer to ~\cite{SWCBarbu} for the theoretical background.
In the following, we will discuss, respectively, the cluster sampling algorithm for graph partitioning and graph matching.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{SpatialStates.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Three typical solution states in spatial graph. At each stage of sampling for spatial graph partitioning, a connected cluster, $CC$, is generated by turning edges off and then to be re-labeled for new solution states.
}\label{fig:spatial_states}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{TemporalStates.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Illustration of the inference in the temporal graph. (a) The connected cluster is generated by probabilistically turning off the edge connection. (b)-(e) show the solution state transition by different reversible jumps.
}\label{fig:temporal_states}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Sampling for Spatial Graph Partitioning}\label{sect:spatial_sampling}
Given a spatial graph $G^S_t$ extracted in the observed frame $\I_t, t\in [0, \tau]$, we utilize the SWC sampling for the graph partition inference. The algorithm achieves a reversible jump between two states in the solution space including the following two steps.
{\bf Step 1.} We generate a connected cluster by probabilistically turning off the edge links in the graph.
In the spatial graph $G_t^S = (V_t^S, E_t^S)$, suppose that $V_t^S$ is the set of graph vertices specifying the composite features and $E_t^S$ is the set of edges connecting neighboring graph vertices, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:stgraph} (c). For notation simplicity, we omit the time stamp $t$ and the superscript $S$ in the algorithm description. For any edge $e \in E^S$, we introduce an auxiliary random variable $\mu_e = \{ \text{on} | \text{off} \}$, i.e. the connecting variable, which indicates whether the edge is turned on or off. The edge turn-on probability $q_e$ is defined according to the similarity of the two connected vertices,
\begin{equation}
q_e = p (\mu_e = on | v_a, v_b),
\end{equation}
where $v_a$ and $v_b$ are two graph vertices connected by the edge $e$. We collect some discriminative appearance and motion features (like the color, orientation gradient, and optical flow), which form a compact histogram $F$, i.e. each histogram bin indicates a specific feature dimension. For the image domain of the vertex, we describe colors by Luv metrics and pool over into $32$ bins; the orientation gradients are quantized with $48$ bins, and the optical flows with $9$ bins. For an edge $e = <v_a, v_b>$, the turn-on probability $q_e$ of two adjacent vertices can be thus defined with their appearance and motion consistency, as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:qe}
q_e \!\!\!&=&\!\!\! q(u_e= on |F(v_a),F(v_b)) \propto\\\nonumber
&& \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\exp \left(- \frac {\mathbf{K}(F(v_a) \| F(v_b)) + \mathbf{K}(F(v_b) \| F(v_a))} {T_e}\right),
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathbf{K}( \cdot )$ is the Kullback-Leibler divergence between any two
histograms and $T_e$ is a constant temperature factor.
Hence each edge is turned off with probability $1-q_e$ (as
shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:spatial_states}). It is worth mentioning that the turn-on probabilities of edges are calculated during the graph extraction before the sampling iteration.
For an arbitrary edge $e$, we then sample the connecting variable $\mu_e$ following the Bernoulli probability,
\begin{equation}
\mu_e \sim Bernoulli(q_e).
\end{equation}
Thus, graph vertices connected together by ``on'' edges form a connected cluster (denoted by $CC$ for simplicity), in which all vertices will share the same label in partitioning. Usually vertices in a $CC$ have similar appearance and thus most likely belong to
the same object. Fig.~\ref{fig:spatial_states} illustrates a $CC$ generated from different partition states. Note the edge between different objects (different colored nodes) are turned off deterministically. Compared to other graph partition algorithm (e.g., Graph-cuts~\cite{Graphcuts}) that turns off the edges by analytically finding the maximum flow over edges, the sampling method enables us to search for more possible solutions of graph partition.
Therefore, the ratio of proposal probability $\frac{Q(B \to A)}{Q(A \to B)}$ in Eqn.~\ref{eq:acceptance} can be re-factorized as generating and labeling the connected cluster, as,
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac {Q(B \to A)} {Q(A \to B)} \!\!&=&\!\! \frac{q(CC^{B} | B) q(L(CC^{B})) }{q(CC^{A} | A) q (L(CC^{A}))},\\
\frac{q(CC^{B} | B)}{q(CC^{A} | A)} \!\!&=&\!\! \frac{ \sum_{e \in {\rm \mathbb{C}_B}} (1 - q_e)}{\sum_{e \in {\rm \mathbb{C}_A}}
(1 - q_e)},
\end{eqnarray}
where $CC^{A}$ and $CC^{B}$ denote the connected cluster generated on state $A$ and $B$, respectively. $\mathbb{C}_A$ denotes the set of edges that are turned off on state $A$, and similarly $\mathbb{C}_B$ is the turned-off edge set on $B$. Then we discuss the labeling of connected component in the next step.
{\bf Step 2.} We explore for a new solution of graph partitioning by labeling the generated $CC$. In practice, a few (e.g. $2 \sim 5$) $CC$s will be generated and we select one of them randomly.
Assume that the current partition state is $\Pi = \{ U_0, U_2, \ldots, U_K \}$ where $U_0$ denotes the background regions and $U_i, i \in [1, K]$ a segmented object. Note that the $CC$ may include the vertices from multiple targets. Then we can assign the $CC$ a label from $0$ to $K$ to update the partition state by three types of reversible jumps.
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Split-and-merge \;\;} The $CC$ is extracted from one object and merged into another one. The jump between the state (a) and (b) is an example as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:spatial_states}. This jump is self-reversible.
\item \textbf{Split \;\;} The selected $CC$ is assigned a new label, that is, a new object is created. In Fig.~\ref{fig:spatial_states}, from state (a) or (b)
to state (c) is a ``birth'' jump.
\item \textbf{Merge \;\;} The whole object is selected as a $CC$ and merged into
another object, as from state (c) to state (a) or (b) in Fig.~\ref{fig:spatial_states}. The split jump and merge jump are mutual reversible.
\end{itemize}
These jumps can be defined in the same form as,
\begin{eqnarray}
\{ L(v) = i, v \in CC, i \in [1, K]\} \nonumber\\ \rightleftarrows \{ L(v) = i', v \in CC, i' \in [1, K]\},
\end{eqnarray}
where $L(v_j)$ indicates the label of vertex $v$.
\begin{algorithm}[ht!]\label{alg:sketch}
\caption{The sketch of trajectory analysis}
\KwIn{A period of observed frames $[0,\tau]$, and $[\tau-3, \tau]$ frames are newly input.}
\KwOut{The trajectory analysis solution $ W_{[0, \tau]} $.}
1. Construct graphs on new frames.\\
~~~~(1) Calculate an initial foreground map by the background subtraction.\\
~~~~(2) Extract the composite features by SURF and MSER detectors.\\
~~~~(3) Construct the initial spatial graphs on each frame with each composite feature being a vertex.\\
~~~~(4) Construct the initial temporal graph.\\
2. Perform the sampling algorithm with the new frames $[\tau-3, \tau]$.\\
~~~~(1) For each frame $t \in [\tau-3, \tau]$, loop for $80$ sampling iterations.\\
~~~~~~~~(i) Perform sampling for spatial graph partitioning on frame $t$.\\
~~~~~~~~(ii) Accept the new partition state according to the acceptance rate in Eqn.~\ref{eq:acceptance}.\\
~~~~(2) Sample the temporal graph matching with frames $[\tau-4, \tau]$ in $100$ iterations.\\
~~~~~~~~(i) Perform sampling for temporal graph matching.\\
~~~~~~~~(ii) Accept the new matching state according to the acceptance rate in Eqn.~\ref{eq:acceptance}.\\
3. Perform the sampling algorithm within the global observed period $[0, \tau]$.\\
~~Loop for $100$ Rounds\\
~~~~(1) Randomly select $3 \sim 5$ frames in $[0, \tau]$, and for each frame $t$ loop for $40$ sampling iterations. \\
~~~~~~~~(i) Perform sampling for spatial graph partitioning on frame $t$.\\
~~~~~~~~(ii) Accept the new partition state according to the acceptance rate in Eqn.~\ref{eq:acceptance}.\\
~~~~(2) Sample the temporal graph matching with frames $[0, \tau]$ in $100$ iterations.\\
~~~~~~~~(i) Perform sampling for temporal graph matching.\\
~~~~~~~~(ii) Accept the new matching state according to the acceptance rate in Eqn.~\ref{eq:acceptance}.\\
4. Output the final solution of trajectory analysis $W_{[0, \tau]}$.
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{Sampling for Temporal Graph Matching}\label{sect:temporal_sampling}
Graph matching sampling in the temporal graph is similar with sampling in the spatial graph. Note that the temporal sampling may cause state changing in the spatial graph, since each segmented object in the spatial graph is a node in the temporal graph, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:stgraph} (d).
Similarly, we first need to construct the temporal graph $G^T=(V^T,E^T)$ within the observed period $[0, \tau]$, and calculate the turn-on probabilities of edges $e^T \in E^T$ between arbitrary neighboring vertices. Recall that each vertex $v^T \in V^T$ indicates a moving target represented by a bounding box as shown in Eqn.~\ref{eq:target_represent}. We can thus use some simple appearance features on the image domains of vertices to define the turn-on probability, just similar with the definition in the spatial graph shown in Eqn.~\ref{eq:qe}.
In the inference for graph matching, we first randomly select one trajectory $C_i$ at the current solution state, which is a bit different compared with the inference in the spatial graph. And we generate a sub-trajectory as the connected cluster $CC$ by probabilistically turning off the edge connections, as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:temporal_states} (a). The $4$ types of reversible jumps are then performed to update the solution state. Fig.~\ref{fig:temporal_states} illustrates the transition of solution states.
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Birth \;\;} Assigning a new color for the selected $CC$, that is, to create a new cable (trajectory), as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:temporal_states} (d).
\item \textbf{Merge \;\;} The selected $CC$ is merged into another cable, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:temporal_states} (e). In practice, we merge the $CC$ with neighboring cables.
\item \textbf{Death \;\;} Setting the selected $CC$ as background (false alarm), as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:temporal_states} (c).
\item \textbf{Swap \;\;} This is an important operator in temporal sampling. Given a selected $CC$, we swap it with another sub-cable in the same time span. Fig. ~\ref{fig:temporal_states} (b) is the succedent state of the current state in Fig. ~\ref{fig:temporal_states} (a) caused by the this operator.
\end{itemize}
Assume that $N$ trajectories are traced in the observed period on the current state and each vertex $v$ in the trajectory represents a moving target. The birth, death, and swap jumps can be defined in the same form as,
\begin{eqnarray}
\{ L(v) = i , v \in CC, i \in [0, N]\} \nonumber \\ \rightleftarrows \{ L(v) = i', v \in CC, i' \in [0, N]\},
\end{eqnarray}
where $L(v)$ represents the label of $v$. The implementation for the swap jump is a bit different, since we need to select another sub-cable, as
\begin{eqnarray}
\{ L(v) \leftrightarrow L(v'), v \in CC, v' \in CC' \} \nonumber \\ \rightleftarrows \{ L(v') \leftrightarrow L(v), v' \in CC', v \in CC \},
\end{eqnarray}
where $L(v) \leftrightarrow L(v')$ represents to swap labels of the two vertices.
We summarize the sketch of the proposed method in Algorithm~\ref{alg:sketch}, and introduce the detailed implementation in Section~\ref{sect:implementation}.
\subsection{Discussion of Convergence}
The joint space of $\{\Pi_{[0,\tau]}, \Phi_{[0,\tau]}\}$ over the time span $\tau$ is so large that it is prohibitive to search it exhaustively. For example, consider a case that there are $K$ spatial graph vertexes and $N$ trajectories (moving targets) in average. The solution space has in the order of $O((KN)^K)$. In statistics, we can simplify the maximum searching for joint probability by using the conditional probability, if the prior is assumed to be weak. This inspires us to design the algorithm to iteratively sample the conditional probabilities, $p( \Pi_{[0,\tau]} | \Phi_{[0,\tau]} )$ and $p(\Phi_{[0,\tau]} | \Pi_{[0,\tau]})$, respectively, with the two MCMC dynamics. The joint solution space is then separated into two relatively simple spaces.
For either solution space of spatial graph partitioning or temporal graph matching, the Markov chain is ergodic via performing the reversible jumps, based on the Metropolis-Hasting mechanism~\cite{Metropolis}. As the space is finite, all states can be visited following the observation that there is a non-zero probability for any node to be chosen into the connected component and assigned a label by activating the jumps. Then the Markov chain can move from a state to any other state with non-zero probability in finite steps.
In our method, we have to limit the number of sampling steps for efficiency consideration, as described in Algorithm~\ref{alg:sketch}. Then the global convergence is no longer guaranteed and the algorithm might obtain a local minimum. Nevertheless, we find the experimental results satisfactory due to the following reasons. First, the integration of informative prior models, e.g., $p(\Pi_{[0,\tau]})$, effectively accelerates the inference by fast rejecting false positive proposals. Second, the cluster sampling is much more efficient than traditional simpling methods. The process of generating the connected cluster is the key to efficiency improvement, in which the discriminative appearance and motion features are collected for generating effective proposals. Moreover, the cluster sampling enlarges the space that the stochastic process can possibly visit, and avoids often getting stuck in local minimums. An empirical study of inference convergence will be introduced in Section~\ref{sect:experiments}.
\section{Implementation}
\label{sect:implementation}
In this section, we apply our method to a video surveillance system which also involves a background modeling module~\cite{BackgroundModel}, and carry out the experiments with comparisons to the state-of-the-art approaches.
We start by introducing the parameter settings in our experiments. We set the value of the observed time span $\tau = 15$ frames, and we set the observed
window moving forward with a step-size of $\eta = 4$ frames. The other related parameters for our approach are introduced as follows.
For the composite feature definition (in Section~\ref{sect:representation}), the histogram of local orientations $h(\cdot)$ consists of $72$ quantized bins and each bin indicates a small range of orientation angles, i.e. $5$ degrees. The weighted parameter $\lambda_g$ for measuring similarity of composite features is empirically set as $\lambda_g = 0.25$.
For the introduced prior models (in Section~\ref{sect:formuation}), we train them in an initial stage for each specific surveillance scene. The partition prior $p(\Pi_{[0, \tau]})$, i.e. the location-size prediction for tracked targets, is obtained by estimating the extrinsic camera parameters using an interactive calibration toolkit~\cite{SurveillanceSystem}, where we need to label a few parallel lines and tracked targets to calculate the vanishing points. Note that we make an assumption that the camera is fixed with only one degree of freedom, namely its height $h_c$. For the matching prior on trajectory $p(\Phi_{[0, \tau]} )$, we set the tuning parameter for robustness $\epsilon = 0.135$. The geometrical distance of two trajectories $\Delta$ is normalized into $[0,1]$. It is worth mentioning that we are allowed to disable these prior models by setting them uniform, although they are very effective in applications.
Given a period of observed frames $[0, \tau]$, we extract composite features on the newly arriving frames, i.e. $4$ frames for each sliding window, where we construct the spatial graphs and a temporal graph. Note that the initial temporal graph consists of composite features also, since temporarily no moving target is segmented in the new frames. In the following, the sampling procedure includes two stages: sampling in the new frames $[\tau-3, \tau]$ and sampling in the whole observed period $[0, \tau]$.
(I) In the first stage, spatial graph partitioning is performed and the number of sampling iterations at each frame is bounded at $80$; vertices (composite features) are grouped to indicate potential moving targets due to their consistent appearances and motions. And then we sample the temporal graph matching with frames $[\tau-4, \tau]$, where the $(\tau-4)$-th frame should be taken into account, since we need to extract correspondences between the previous frames and the new frames. We set iteration number of the temporal matching sampling as $100$.
(II) In the second stage, the spatial graph partitioning and temporal graph matching are performed iteratively in a loop. The loop is set as $100$ rounds, and each round includes two sampling iterations. (1) First, a small number (i.e. $3 \sim 5 $) of frames in $[0, \tau]$ are first randomly selected for graph partition sampling, and the number of sampling iterations at each frame is bounded at $40$. (2) Then we perform matching sampling in the observed period $[0, \tau]$ for $100$ iterations.
\section{Experiments}
\label{sect:experiments}
We use three public video databases, TRECVID08~\cite{TRECVID}, PETS~\cite{PETS}, and LHI~\cite{LHIDataset}, to evaluate our method and compare with other state-of-the-arts approaches. These databases are very challenging for the multi-target tracking task, including scenarios with severe occlusions, scale changes or complex background structure. A number of video clips from these databases are selected for testing, i.e., $10$ videos from LHI, $8$ from PETS and $8$ from TRECVID. We manually annotate the bounding boxes of targets in the videos as the ground-truth. In our method, the types (semantic labels) of tracking targets are provided, which serve as the prior information. The videos selected from the TRECVID and PETS are all indoor scenes and the moving targets are all pedestrians; the videos in LHI are captured from outdoor traffic surveillance, and we thus track the moving vehicles as the targets. Table~\ref{tab:databases} summarizes the number of frames as well as the number of targets in the testing videos.
All the testing videos are with the frame rate of $15$ fps and the frame size of $352 \times 288$ pixels. The experiments are carried out on a high-performance workstation with Core Duo $3.0$ GHZ CPU and $8$ GB memory. The computational efficiency for all steps (as described in Algorithm~\ref{alg:sketch}) in our system is summarized as follows. On average, the step of constructing graphs on new frames costs $80 \sim 100$ ms; it costs $300 \sim 450$ ms to perform sampling on new frames, including spatial graph partitioning and temporal graph matching; sampling within the global observed period costs around $600 \sim 800$ms. Recall that the algorithm processes $4$ newly arriving frames at a time, i.e., the observed window is moving with a step-size of $4$ frames. Thus, our system is capable of processing $3 \sim 5$ frames per second on average. In practice, we can enhance the efficiency by reducing the numbers of sampling iterations.
\begin{table}[!ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
Database & No. of Frames & No. of Targets \\
\hline
TRECVID & $8972$ & $389$ \\
\hline
PETS & $7409$ & $194$ \\
\hline
LHI & $15213$ & $436$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Testing sequences from public video databases}
\label{tab:databases}
\end{table}
A few representative results of trajectory analysis are proposed in Fig.~\ref{fig:tracking_result}. Most of the video clips are very challenging due to the crowded objects, scale changes, severe occlusions and low resolution.
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{TrecvidPetsLhi.pdf}
\caption{Several representative tracking results on the public datasets. }\label{fig:tracking_result}
\end{figure*}
In order to quantitatively evaluate the performance, we introduce several object-level benchmark metrics, including {\bf Recall}, {\bf Precision}, {\bf FA/Frm}, and {\bf SwitchIDS}, as shown in Table~\ref{tab:metrics}, which are also adopted in~\cite{LearnAssociate2009,AdaptiveTracking}. In the literature, some other performance measures have been proposed such as Multiple Object Tracking Precision and Accuracy (MOTA)~\cite{TrackHieHung,MCMCHuman}. These measures are less evident as they try to integrate multiple factors into one scalar valued measure, despite giving an overall picture of the performance. We write a program to match the results with the ground-truth based on these metrics automatically.
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline
{\bf Metric} & {\bf Definition}\\
\hline
Recall & Frame-based correctly matched targets / total ground-truth targets\\
\hline
Precision & Frame-based correctly matched targets / total output targets\\
\hline
FA/Frm & Frame-based number of false alarms per frame\\
\hline
SwitchIDS & The Number of times that the track IDs of two targets switch\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Evaluation Metrics}
\label{tab:metrics}
\end{table*}
We compare our method with the recently proposed approaches for similar scenarios~\cite{TrackHieHung,TrackQBP,MCMCHuman}.
\begin{table}[!ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
{\bf Methods} & {\bf Recall} & {\bf Precision} & {\bf FA/Frm} & {\bf SwitchIDS} \\
\hline
Zhao et al.~\cite{MCMCHuman} & $76.2\%$ & $ 72.7\% $ & $ 1.31 $ & $12$ \\
\hline
Huang et al.~\cite{TrackHieHung} & $ 69.1\% $ & $ 63.1\% $ & $ 1.82 $ & $13$\\
\hline
Leibe et al.~\cite{TrackQBP} & $ 78.9\% $ & $ 69.4 \%$ & $ 2.01$ & $9$\\
\hline
{\bf The proposed} & $83.3\%$ & $ 79.4\% $ & $ 0.72 $ & $7$ \\
\hline
{\bf without priors} & $81.3\%$ & $ 78.2\% $ & $ 1.10 $ & $8$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Results on videos from the TRECVID database}
\label{tab:result_tracvid}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[!ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
{\bf Methods} & {\bf Recall} & {\bf Precision} & {\bf FA/Frm} & {\bf SwitchIDS} \\
\hline
Zhao et al.~\cite{MCMCHuman} & $82.4\%$ & $ 79.7\% $ & $ 0.92 $ & $18$ \\
\hline
Huang et al.~\cite{TrackHieHung} & $ 71.1\% $ & $ 68.5\% $ & $ 1.98 $ & $14$\\
\hline
Leibe et al.~\cite{TrackQBP} & $ 79.1\% $ & $ 73.1 \%$ & $ 1.38$ & $16$\\
\hline
{\bf The proposed} & $87.7\%$ & $ 82.9\% $ & $ 0.82 $ & $8$ \\
\hline
{\bf without priors} & $86.2\%$ & $ 79.8\% $ & $ 1.21 $ & $9$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Results on videos from the PETS database}
\label{tab:result_PETS}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[!ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
{\bf Methods} & {\bf Recall} & {\bf Precision} & {\bf FA/Frm} & {\bf SwitchIDS} \\
\hline
Huang et al.~\cite{TrackHieHung} & $ 73.2\% $ & $ 72.6\% $ & $ 1.27 $ & $14$\\
\hline
Leibe et al.~\cite{TrackQBP} & $ 79.7\% $ & $ 73.4 \%$ & $ 1.51$ & $10$\\
\hline
{\bf The proposed} & $91.3\%$ & $ 86.1\% $ & $ 0.84 $ & $7$ \\
\hline
{\bf without priors} & $90.8\%$ & $ 82.1\% $ & $ 1.07 $ & $9$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Results on videos from the LHI database}
\label{tab:result_LHI}
\end{table}
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.75\linewidth]{TracingRate.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The curves of Average Tracing Rate (ATR) for our trajectory analysis result and comparisons. The horizontal axis of ATR represents the coverage rate of the traced trajectory compared to the ground-truth; the vertical axis represents the proportion of trajectory length. In this evaluation, we compare our method with two other MCMC-based approaches: MCMC Data Association (MCMCDA)~\cite{MCMCDataAssociation} and Trajectory Parsing~\cite{TrajectoryParsing}. The curves on the left are tested on the PETS dataset, and the curves on the right are tested on the LHI dataset.}\label{fig:tracing_rate}
\end{figure*}
Table~\ref{tab:result_tracvid}, Table~\ref{tab:result_PETS}, and Table~\ref{tab:result_LHI} show the quantitative results of our results with the results proposed by Zhao et al.~\cite{MCMCHuman}, and Huang et al.~\cite{TrackHieHung}. The method by Zhao et al.~\cite{MCMCHuman} tracks pedestrians with a model-based approach to interpret the image observations by multiple partially occluded human hypotheses, and thus we only apply this method on the TRECVID and PETS databases for human tracking. The results show that our method achieves the best performance, greater Recall, greater Precision, fewer FA/Frm, and fewer SwitchIDs. To illustrate the benefits of using informative priors in trajectory analysis, we also report the system performances in the setting of disabling the prior components. The analysis of these experiments are presented as follows.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Using deferred frames for global inference, i.e. an observed window, is very helpful, which provides us with more information to handle occlusions and mutual interactions.
\item The prior components, e.g. the location-size prediction, gives very important cues for segmenting conglutinated targets; they effectively reduce the false alarms.
\item The matching prior on trajectory, birth, death, lifespan of the cable, and shape of the cable, are strong constraints particularly for tracking vehicles in the traffic surveillance scene, since the motions of vehicles are usually regular in a certain scene.
\item In the PETS dataset, many pedestrians have very similar appearances (e.g. in black coats) or motions (e.g. walking together), despite which the iterative sampling algorithm is shown to effectively reduce the number of SwitchIDs.
\end{enumerate}
In addition, we propose a novel benchmark metric to evaluate the trajectory-level performance, namely Average Tracing Rate (ATR), which is defined as the ratio of the traced trajectory length with respect to the ground-truth. The horizontal axis of ATR represents the coverage rate of the traced trajectory compared to the ground-truth of the testing videos; the vertical axis represents the proportion of trajectory length. The ATR for a result of trajectory analysis is in the form of a spot-curve for a discretized level of evaluation. This metric is very intuitive and straightforward to visualize the consistency of the tracking trajectories. In Fig.~\ref{fig:tracing_rate}, we propose the ATR curves of our method on the three datasets. In this evaluation, we compare with two other MCMC-based stochastic approaches for trajectory analysis, MCMC Data Association (MCMC) by Yu et al.~\cite{MCMCDataAssociation} and Trajectory Parsing by Liu et al. ~\cite{TrajectoryParsing}.
To further analyze the algorithm convergence, we present an empirical study on visualizing the output energy in inference. Here the output energy, $-\log(p(W_{[0,\tau]} | I_{[0,\tau]}))$, is the logarithm of posterior probability within an observed period $[0, \tau]$. In Fig.~\ref{fig:convergence} (a), for an arbitrary period, we compare with Gibbs sampling for the trajectory analysis. For comparison, we replace the cluster sampling method at each step by the traditional Gibbs sampler~\cite{Gibbs} in the algorithm. We observe that the cluster sampling converges significantly faster. Moreover, we investigate the output energies with respect to the two important parameters in our system, the observed period length $\tau$ and the forward step-size $\eta$. This experiment is also carried out within a period of observed frames. We first fix $\eta=4$ and discretely increase $\tau$ by $5$ scales: $\tau = 15, 20, 25, 30, 35$. That is, we increase the length of period and deal with more video frames in inference. Then we increase $\eta = 4, 6, 8, 10, 12$ with fixed $\tau=15$, to gradually reduce the overlap with the previous inference. The empirical results are reported in Fig.~\ref{fig:convergence} (b), where the horizontal axis represents the scale for either parameter.
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{Convergence.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Empirical study of algorithm convergence. (a) visualizes the energies (the vertical axis) of every $10$ iterations (the horizontal axis), i.e. $-\log(p(W_{[0,\tau]} | I_{[0,\tau]}))$, within an observed period $[0, \tau]$. The red curve and green curve in (a), respectively, represent the energies for our algorithm and the traditional Gibbs sampler. (b) shows the output converged energies with different parameters, the observed period length $\tau$ and the forward step-size $\eta$. The blue curve represents the converged energies with fixed $\eta = 4$ and increased $\tau$: $\tau = 15, 20, 25, 30, 35$. The red curve represents with fixed $\tau = 15$ and increased $\eta$: $\eta = 4, 6, 8, 10, 12$. }\label{fig:convergence}
\end{figure*}
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sect:discussion}
The objective of this paper is to track multiple video targets and recover their trajectories, against occlusion, interruption, and background
clutter. Compared with the previous methods in literature, the main contributions of this paper are as follows. First, we propose a novel unified framework of trajectory analysis to together solve spatial graph partitioning and temporal graph matching. Second, a robust composite feature bundling the MSER feature and SURF feature is presented for the affinity model of moving targets, against scale transition and non-rigid motion. Third, we design a stochastic sampling algorithm to iteratively solve the spatial graph partition and temporal graph matching. This algorithm is designed under the Metropolis-Hastings method without the need for good initializations.
We have applied our method in an intelligence video system and found satisfactory performance. In experiments, our method is tested on several challenging videos from the public video databases of visual surveillance, including TRECVID, PETS, and LHI, and it outperforms the state-of-the-art methods.
In future work, it is important to integrate object recognition~\cite{LinPR} into the trajectory analysis, which will lead to a more general solution for video surveillance applications. In addition, we plan to study the parallel implement for the MCMC-based inference to further improve the computation efficiency.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Many bright X--ray sources are strongly variable. It is now largely accepted that much of this variability results from the thermal--viscous disk instability \citep[see][for a review]{Lasota01}. The instability -- originally discovered for dwarf novae, which are accreting white dwarf systems -- results from the presence of ionization zones of hydrogen in the accretion disk (helium in some some ultracompact systems). The disk is forced to alternate between quiescence, when the disk is cool and faint and hydrogen predominantly neutral, and outbursts in which the disk is hot and hydrogen ionized. If the accretor is a neutron star or black hole, the X--rays produced by central accretion keep the disk in the hot state and only allow a return to quiescence on a viscous timescale.
Although some of the properties of this model remain to be worked out, in particular the duration of the quiescent phase, its predictions for outburst behaviour are robust enough to allow quantitative tests \citep{Coriat12}. We show here that there is a simple connection between the accretor mass, the peak luminosity at outburst and the decay time of the outburst, if this is well--defined by observations. If central irradiation is able to keep the whole disk in the hot state the outburst indeed has a fast--rise, exponential decay (FRED) shape \citep{KingRitter98,Dubus01}.
The connection we consider is particularly useful for uncovering the properties of varying X--ray sources which are too distant, or whose distance is too uncertain, to study easily in other ways. Here we apply it the the X--ray populations of elliptical galaxies, and to the strongly--varying X--ray source HLX--1, whose nature remains uncertain.
\section{Observable properties of disk instabilities}
\label{sec:obsdim}
Two observable properties characterize the disk instability picture for X--ray transients. First, the maximum accretion rate (at the start of the outburst) is that of a (quasi)steady X-ray irradiated disk accreting at constant rate of $\sim 3\dot{M}_{\rm crit}^{+}(R_d)$, where $\dot{M}_{\rm crit}^{+}(R_d)$ is the value of the minimum critical accretion for a hot, irradiated disk at its outer radius $R_d$ \citep[see e.g. Fig. 31 in][]{Lasota01}.
This fixes the critical accretion rate $\dot M_{\rm max}$ through the relation \citep{Lasota08}
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot M_{\rm max}\approx 3 \dot{M}_{\rm crit}^{+} &=&7.2 \times 10^{17}
~{\mathcal C}_{-3}^{-0.36}
~\alpha_{0.2}^{ 0.04+ 0.01\log{\mathcal C}_{-3}}\nonumber \\
&&R_{d,11}^{2.39-0.10\log{\mathcal C}_{-3}}
~m^{-0.64+ 0.08\log{\mathcal C}_{-3}}\,\rm g\,s^{-1}\nonumber \\
\label{temp1}
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\mathcal C}=10^{-3}{\mathcal C}_{-3}$ is a constant characterizing the outer-disk irradiation by the point-like source centered at they accretor \citep{Dubus99}, $m$ is the accretor mass in solar units, $\alpha < s1$ the standard viscosity parameter, and $R_{d}=R_{d,11}10^{11}$cm is the disk outer radius.
Taking ${\mathcal C}_{-3}=~1$ \citep{Dubus01} and ignoring the very weak dependence on $\alpha$, one gets
\begin{equation}
\dot{M}_{\rm max} \approx 7.0 \times 10^{17}~R_{d,11}^{2.39}~m^{-0.64}\,\rm g\,s^{-1}.
\label{temp}
\end{equation}
FRED--type X--ray transients typically have disk radii $\sim 10^{11}$cm, corresponding to orbital periods of $\sim 10$ hr.
The second observable property is the decay time for the X--rays: in soft X--ray transients (unlike dwarf novae), disk irradiation by the central X--rays traps the disk in the hot, high state, and only allows a decay of $\dot M$ on the hot--state viscous timescale \citep{KingRitter98,Dubus01}.
This is
\begin{equation}
t \simeq \frac{R^2}{3\nu}
\label{t}
\end{equation}
Here the Shakura--Sunyaev viscosity is $\nu = \alpha c_s^2/\Omega$, where $c_s \propto T_c^{1/2}$ is the sound speed, $T_c$ the disk midplane temperature, and
$\Omega = (GM/R^3)^{1/2}$.
This gives
\begin{equation}
t \simeq \frac{(GMR)^{1/2}}{3\alpha c_s^2}.
\label{tvisc1}
\end{equation}
Taking the critical midplane temperature $T_{\rm c}^{+}\approx16300\,\rm K$ corresponding to $\dot{M}_{\rm crit}^{+}$ \citep{Lasota08}\footnote{For irradiated disks, the value of $T_c$ depends
only weakly on viscosity and irradiation and is independent of mass and radius.} one obtains
for the decay timescale
\begin{equation}
t\approx 43 \ m^{1/2} R_{d,11}^{1/2} \alpha_{0.2}^{-1} \,\rm days,
\label{tvisc}
\end{equation}
where $\alpha_{0.2}=\alpha/0.2$. In the thermal-viscous disk instability model (hereafter TVDIM) the critical temperatures
depend only on the ionization state of the disk matter and are thus practically independent of radius, viscosity parameter etc. \citep{Lasota01,Lasota08}.
By definition, the viscous decay time depends on the parameter $\alpha$. From observations of dwarf nova outbursts one deduces that
$\alpha \approx 0.2$ \citep[see][]{Smak99,KP12}. Comparison of models with observations of X-ray transients suggests the same value of $\alpha$ for these
systems too \citep[][see also Sec. \ref{sec:subedd}]{Dubus01,KPL07}.
Eliminating $R$ between (\ref{temp}) and (\ref{tvisc}) gives the
peak accretion rate through the disk at the start of the outburst as
\begin{equation}
\dot{M}=4.9 \times 10^{17}\ m^{-3.03} \left(t_{40}\alpha_{0.2}\right)^{4.78} \rm g\,s^{-1},
\label{mdot}
\end{equation}
with $t = 40\, t_{40}\,{\rm d}$. Assuming an efficiency of $\eta$ of 10\%, the corresponding luminosity is
\begin{equation}
L=4.4 \times 10^{37}\ \eta_{0.1} m^{-3.03} \left(t_{40}\alpha_{0.2}\right)^{4.78} \rm erg\,s^{-1}
\label{luminosity1}.
\end{equation}
\section{Sub--Eddington Outbursts}
\label{sec:subedd}
The observed behaviour of outbursting systems differs significantly depending on whether they have sub-- or super--Eddington accretion rates. The Eddington accretion rate is
\begin{equation}
\dot M_E = 1.3\times 10^{18}\eta_{0.1}^{-1}m~{\rm g\, s^{-1}}
\label{mdotedd}
\end{equation}
where $\eta = 0.1\eta_{0.1}$ is the accretion efficiency
we find the Eddington accretion ratio
\begin{equation}
\dot m = 0.34 \eta_{0.1}(\alpha_{0.2}t_{40})^{4.78}m^{-4.03}.
\label{eddratio}
\end{equation}
This equation shows that the start of the outburst is sub--Eddington only if the outburst decay time is relatively short or the accretor (black hole) mass is high, i.e. the observed decay timescale is
\begin{equation}
t \la 50\, \eta_{0.1}^{-0.21}\alpha_{0.2}^{-1}m^{0.84}~{\rm d},
\label{subedd}
\end{equation}
in good agreement with the decay timescale of the detailed outburst models of \citet{Dubus01} and, more importantly, with the compilation of X--ray transients outburst durations by \citet{YanYu14}. This suggests that the standard value of $\eta_{0.1}\simeq1$, and the value $\alpha_{0.2}\simeq1$ deduced from observations of dwarf novae, give the correct order of magnitude for the decay timescale in this type of system (from $\approx 3$ days to $\approx 300$ days, Fig. 5 in \citealt{YanYu14}). This equation also implies that black hole transients have longer decay timescales than neutron star transients, all else being equal. Indeed, \citet{YanYu14} find outbursts last on average $\approx 2.5\times$ longer in black hole transients than in neutron star transients.
For sub--Eddington outbursts Eq.~(\ref{luminosity1}) provides a straightforward relation between luminosity and outburst decay time. For a decay timescale $t$ of 0.5 years (see Sec. \ref{sec:appsub}), the expected luminosity is
\begin{equation}
L = 6.2 \times 10^{40}\eta_{0.1}(\alpha_{0.2}t_{0.5\,\rm yr})^{4.78}m^{-3.03}~{\rm erg\, s^{-1}}
\label{lt}
\end{equation}
Equivalently, this gives a relationship between distance $D$, bolometric flux $F$ and outburst decay time $t$,
\begin{equation}
D_{\rm Mpc} \simeq 23\, m^{-1.5}\left(\frac{\eta_{0.1}}{ F_{12}}\right)^{1/2}(\alpha_{0.2}t_{0.5\,\rm yr})^{2.4}
\label{flux}
\end{equation}
where $D = D_{\rm Mpc}\,{\rm Mpc}$ and $F = 10^{-12}F_{12}\,{\rm erg\, s^{-1}\,cm^{-2}}$.
\section{Super--Eddington Outbursts}
\label{sec:superedd}
If the condition (\ref{subedd}) does not hold, the initial outburst accretion rate is super--Eddington.
This has two consequences. First, because the accretion luminosity is at the radiation pressure maximum for a range of radii the bolometric luminosity is larger than the Eddington limit by a factor $\sim 1 + \ln\,\dot m$ \citep{SS73,Poutanen07}. Second, the outburst luminosity is likely to be beamed, and we adopt here the form deduced by \citet{King09}.
When $\dot{m}\ga 8$, an observer situated in the beam of this outbursting system (ULX) infers an apparent (spherical) X--ray luminosity
\begin{equation}
L_{\rm sph} =\frac{1}{b}L_E[1+\ln(1 +\dot m)]
\end{equation}
with the beaming factor $b$
\begin{equation}
b \simeq \frac{73}{\dot m^2},
\label{beam}
\end{equation}
i.e.
\begin{equation}
L_{\rm sph}= 2.2\times 10^{36}\dot m^2m[1+\ln(1 +\dot m)]~{\rm erg\,s^{-1}}
\label{lsph}
\end{equation}
\citep{King09}. Since the apparent luminosity scales approximately as $\dot m^2$, and $dL/dt=(dL/d\dot M)(d\dot M/dt)$, the observed decay time is now
\begin{equation}
t = \frac{R^2}{6\nu} \label{tbeam}
\end{equation}
leading to the modified form of (\ref{eddratio}) as
\begin{equation}
\dot m = 1.3\times 10^4 \eta_{0.1}(\alpha_{0.2}t_{0.5\,\rm yr})^{4.78}m^{-4.03}.
\label{eddratio2}
\end{equation}
The X--ray light curve is now determined purely by beaming, through Eq. (\ref{lsph}).
The outburst appears to decay twice as fast, as the beaming reduces simultaneously with the accretion rate. Equations (\ref{lsph}, \ref{eddratio2}) determine the accretor's mass $m$
and the Eddington ratio $\dot m$ for any given case.
\section{Application to Observed Sub--Eddington Systems}
\label{sec:appsub}
We first use equations (\ref{lt}, \ref{flux}) for extragalactic binary systems. We see that these are unlikely to be detectable if the outburst decay is short ($\la $ years), particularly if the accretor is a stellar--mass black hole ($m \ga 3$). This independently supports the conclusion of \citet{PiroBildsten02} that the X--ray populations of elliptical galaxies probably consist largely of soft X--ray transients undergoing outbursts so long that that the ensemble shows little observed variation.
They reached this conclusion since if the X--ray population were genuinely persistent, the observed accretion rates would long ago have exhausted the masses of the (necessarily low--mass) donor stars and extinguished the X--rays. If instead these systems are in reality transient, it follows that they must have very short duty cycles $d$. The total population must be larger by the factor $1/d \gg 1$, but almost all these systems are in quiescence at any given epoch. The required long outbursts tell us that the systems must have large disks, and so are wide, implying evolved donor stars. For such long periods the outburst morphology is too complex for the simple equations of Section 3 to hold. Accordingly we cannot use eqn (\ref{lt}) to argue from the fact that
the known sources often have modest luminosities that they must in general have black hole accretors ($m \ga 3$).
Equations (\ref{lt}, \ref{flux}) also show that at extragalactic distances, sub--Eddington transients with black hole masses above the normal stellar range (i.e. intermediate--mass or supermassive)
must either be very faint, or have extremely long decay times. In other words such systems cannot correspond to observed rapidly--decaying transients unless these are within the Galaxy.
This argument is relevant for the source HLX--1 \citep{Farrell09}. This shows a sequence of quasi--regular outbursts lasting $ < 180$ days. For the four outbursts between 2009 and 2012 the recurrence time was $\sim 370$ days, but the 2013 outburst started about 1 month `late' \citep{Godet13a,Godet14}. Multiwavelength observations of HLX--1 during 2009--2013 reveal outburst properties similar in most respects to those of low--mass X--ray binaries \citep[LMXBs: e.g.][]{RMcC06}. HLX--1 is positionally coincident with
the outer regions of the edge--on spiral galaxy ESO 243--49 \citep{Farrell09} at a redshift of 0.0224.\footnote{A narrow $H_\alpha$--line observed with the same redshift \citep{Wiersema10,Soria13} suggests that the positional coincidence corresponds to real membership.} At the distance ($D = 95$~Mpc) of this galaxy its unabsorbed 0.2--10~keV luminosity $L_{\rm max} = 1.3\times 10^{42}$~erg\,s$^{-1}$ at maximum requires a black hole mass
$m> 10^4$, for the source to be sub-Eddington radiator.
But from Eq. (\ref{lt}) this requires a decay time of order decades or centuries, in complete contrast to the observed $\lesssim$ 180 days. This supports the conclusion of \citet{Lasota11}, who found that a disk instability model could not explain the light curve of HLX--1 if the system was assumed to contain an intermediate-mass black hole (IMBH) and be at the 95 Mpc.
According to Eq. (\ref{eddratio}), an X-ray transient with outburst duration of $\sim 180$ days is sub-Eddington if the black-hole mass $m \ga 4.5$. This in turn corresponds to a distance $< 2.3$ Mpc.
For $D \sim 1$ Mpc, say, we have $m\simeq 8$ and $R\sim 2.2\times 10^{11}$\, cm and maximum outburst luminosities $L_{\rm max} \sim 1.1 \times 10^{38}{\rm\, erg\, s}^{-1}$. Such a system would have a period $\ga 1$ day, so probably has an evolved donor star.
Many low--mass X--ray binaries (LMXBs) like this are known, and almost all are transient.
For HLX--1 to be a standard bright transient of this type the required distance
$D \sim 1$\, Mpc places it outside the Milky Way but still well within the Local Group. The system must reside in a nearby dwarf galaxy. These are known to harbor transient LMXBs \citep{Maccarone05}. There are probably far more dwarf galaxies in the Local Group than so far discovered \citep[see e.g.][]{Koposov08}. Because the escape velocities from them are far smaller than the typical natal kick velocities of LMXBs
these can either escape them altogether or have orbits which put them well outside any visible host for most of their lives \citep{DehnenKing06}. These considerations mean that HLX--1 could turn out to be hosted by a previously unrecognized Local Group dwarf galaxy, but might also have no apparent host. Were its association with ESO 243--49 to be challenged, HLX--1 could well be such a system.
In summary, at least one of the three statements
\noindent
(a) HLX--1 is at 95 Mpc
\noindent
(b) its outbursts are driven by the thermal--viscous disc instability
\noindent
(c) it is sub--Eddington
\noindent
cannot be correct.
Adopting (a), we must drop at least one of (b) or (c). If this is (b) we must consider models where
the outbursts of HLX--1 differ fundamentally from those of all other soft X-ray transients.
This appears inherently unlikely, and worse, there is little room for plausible alternatives. In sub--Eddington stellar--mass binaries the only other outburst model seriously considered (e.g. for Be X--ray binaries) invokes periodic mass transfer from a companion on an eccentric orbit, filling its tidal lobe at pericenter. For HLX--1 the (assumed sub--Eddington) accretor must be an IMBH.
\citet{Lasota11} considered a model like this, but found that
to account for the observed outburst timescales it required a stellar orbit perilously close to becoming unbound
\citep{Godet14}, and very non-standard accretion disk structures \citep{Webb14}. Accordingly we retain (b) and consider instead the effect of dropping (c).
\section{Application to Super--Eddington Systems}
\label{sec:appsup}
The view that most if not all ULXs are super--Eddington systems has been greatly encouraged by recent observations giving accretor masses in the stellar range. This requires that the observed apparent X--ray luminosities exceed Eddington.
Most spectacular is the case of M82 X--2, which was discovered to be an accretion--powered X-ray pulsar with an apparent X-ray luminosity of $\sim 100 L_{\rm Edd}$ \citep{{Bachetti2012}}. Another ULX, the X-ray source P13 in the galaxy NGC 7793, was shown to have a $\la 15 \rm\, M_{\odot}$ black hole \citep{P13}.
Finally, the observed properties of the source NGC 5907 ULX1 seem to be incompatible with the presence of an IMBH \citep{Walton14}. All these three ULX show flux variations by factors $\sim 100$, but the observational coverage is too sparse to determine the nature of the variability.
Nevertheless one needs to consider the origin of transient behavior for these systems also. The solid observational evidence for super--Eddington systems makes it sensible to apply the disk instability model to such objects. Here we will show that the well-observed outbursts of HLX-1 can be explained by the TVDIM if it is a super-Eddington system.
Observers within the radiation beam of super--Eddington transients see them as ULXs. A solution like this is possible for HLX--1 \citep{KingLasota14} if we disregard the outburst behaviour. King \& Lasota suggested that the precession of the radiation beam might produce a similar light curve, and assumed a black hole mass $m \simeq 10$, determining an Eddington factor $\dot m \simeq 110$.
But we see that combining (\ref{lsph}, \ref{eddratio2}) allows a self--consistent solution in which the X--ray light curve {\it is} given by disk instabilities instead of precession. This disk instability solution gives a lower accretor mass $m \simeq 3$ and a slightly higher Eddington factor $\dot m \simeq 170$. It requires a mean binary mass transfer rate $\sim 10^{-5}{\rm M_{\odot}}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$, which is typical for systems undergoing thermal--timescale mass transfer, like SS433 \citep{KTB00}. The companion star must be fairly cool to allow the the ionization instability. We note that the quasi--periodic recurrence of the outbursts would naturally appear if the outbursts are similar (as observed) and the disk is refilled at a roughly constant rate.
A system like this would have a period $\sim$ 50\,days.
If HLX--1 is subject to the thermal--viscous instability, only a stellar mass can account for the observed outburst timescales. These timescales are characteristic of such systems and no others.
\section{Conclusion}
We have shown that there is a simple relation between the accretor mass, and the peak outburst luminosity and decay timescale of X--ray outbursts. We used this to show that the observable X--ray population of elliptical galaxies probably consists largely of very long--lasting transients. We showed that the strongly--marked variations of the X--ray source HLX--1 cannot result from a disk instability if is the accretor is an intermediate--mass black hole.
Acceptable solutions for the disk instability picture are possible in two other ways. First, if the X--ray source is within the Local Group it may be bright sub--Eddington X-ray transient containing a stellar mass black hole. Alternatively if the source is in the galaxy ESO 243--49 it may be a strongly beamed stellar--mass system resembling SS433 undergoing outbursts driven by disk instabilities. We suggest that at least some of the variability of other, recently identified super--Eddington ULXs may result from the same process.
\bigskip
\bigskip
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We are very grateful to the anonymous referee for the very helpful criticism of the first version of this paper.
We thank Chris Done, John Cannizzo and Chris Nixon for helpful conversations.
JPL acknowledges support from the French Space Agency CNES and Polish NCN grant UMO-2013/08/A/ST9/00795.
Theoretical astrophysics in Leicester is supported by an STFC Consolidated Grant.
GD also acknowledges support from CNES.
|
\section{Introduction}
The study of branched coverings of the sphere are, by virtue of Thurston's theorem, an important area of study in the field of holomorphic dynamics. Thurston's Theorem gives a combinatorial criterion for checking when a postcritically finite branched covering is \emph{equivalent} to a rational map on the Riemann sphere. This condition requires the checking of collections of curves (known as multicurves) in the complement of the postcritical set to see if they form an \emph{obstruction}. However, in general it is very hard to know what these obstructions may look like. In the quadratic (or more generally, bicritical) case, it was shown through work of Rees, Shishikura and Tan \cite{Tan:quadmat} that any obstruction contained a \emph{Levy cycle}, and Tan \cite{Tan:Newton} showed that any obstruction in the family of cubic Newton maps also must contain a Levy cycle. However, Shishikura and Tan \cite{ShishTan} showed that there existed obstructions for more general cubic branched coverings which were not Levy cycles. This note is a continuation of this programme and is concerned with the family of cubic branched coverings with two fixed critical points.
\subsection{Statement of the Main Theorem}
Our main theorem is the following.
\begin{mthm}\label{mthm}
Let $F$ be a cubic postcritically finite orientation-preserving branched covering of a topological sphere $\Sigma$ with two fixed critical points. Then if $\Gamma$ is an irreducible obstruction for $F$, then $\Gamma$ contains a Levy cycle.
\end{mthm}
\begin{rem}
It is actually sufficient to prove the theorem in the case that the the fixed critical points are simple (i.e. have local degree $2$). If both critical points have local degree $3$ then $F$ is equivalent to the map $z \mapsto z^3$. If precisely one of the fixed critical points has local degree $3$ then $F$ is a topological polynomial and then all possible obstructions are (degenerate) Levy cycles \cite{BFH}.
\end{rem}
\subsection{Thurston's Theorem}
Let $F \colon \Sigma \to \Sigma$ be an orientation-preserving branched self-covering of a topological $2$-sphere. We denote by $\Omega_F$ the critical set of $F$ and define
\[
P_F = \bigcup_{n > 0} F^{n}(\Omega_F)
\]
to be the postcritical set of $F$. We say that $F$ is postcritically finite if $|P_F| < \infty$. We call $F \colon \Sigma \to \Sigma$ a \emph{Thurston map} if it is a postcritically finite orientation-preserving branched self-covering of a topological $2$-sphere.
\begin{defn}\label{d:Thurst}
Let $F \colon \Sigma \to \Sigma$ and $\widehat{F} \colon \widehat{\Sigma} \to \widehat{\Sigma}$ be Thurston maps. An \emph{equivalence} is given by a pair of orientation-preserving homeomorphisms $(\Phi,\Psi)$ from $\Sigma$ to $\widehat{\Sigma}$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item{$\Phi |_{P_{F}} = \Psi |_{P_{F}}$}
\item{The following diagram commutes:
\[
\xymatrix{ (\Sigma,P_F) \ar[r]^{\Psi} \ar[d]_{F} & (\widehat{\Sigma},P_{\widehat{F}}) \ar[d]^{\widehat{F}}
\\
(\Sigma,P_F) \ar[r]_{\Phi} & (\widehat{\Sigma},P_{\widehat{F}}) }
\]}
\item{$\Phi$ and $\Psi$ are isotopic via a family of homeomorphisms $t \mapsto \Phi_{t}$ which is constant on $P_F$.}
\end{itemize}
\end{defn}
If there exists an equivalence as above, we say that $F$ and $\widehat{F}$ are equivalent. Note that in particular, a postcritically finite rational map $R \colon \widehat{\C} \to \widehat{\C} $ is a Thurston map. Hence it is natural to ask when a general Thurston map is equivalent to a rational map.
Let $\Gamma = \{ \gamma_1, \ldots,\gamma_n\}$ be a multicurve; that is, each $\gamma_{i} \in \Gamma$ is simple, closed, non-peripheral, disjoint and non-homotopic to all the other $\gamma_j$ relative to $P_F$. We say that $\Gamma$ is $F$-\emph{stable} if for all $\gamma_{i} \in \Gamma$, all the non-peripheral components of $F^{-1}(\gamma_{i})$ are homotopic in $\Sigma \setminus P_{F}$ to elements of $\Gamma$. In this case, we define $F_{\Gamma} = (f_{ij})_{n \times n}$ to be the non-negative matrix defined as follows. Let $\gamma_{i,j,\alpha}$ be the components of $F^{-1}(\gamma_{j})$ which are homotopic to $\gamma_{i}$ in $\Sigma \setminus P_{F}$. Now define
\[
F_{\Gamma}(\gamma_{j}) = \sum_{i,\alpha} \frac{1}{\deg F |_{\gamma_{i,j,\alpha}} \colon \gamma_{i,j,\alpha} \to \gamma_{j}} \gamma_{i}
\]
\noindent where $\deg$ denotes the degree of the map. By standard results on non-negative matrices (see \cite{Gantmacher}), this matrix $(f_{ij})$ will have a leading non-negative eigenvalue $\lambda$. We write $\lambda(\Gamma)$ for the leading eigenvalue associated to the multicurve $\Gamma$.
The importance of the above is due to the following rigidity theorem.
\begin{thm}[Thurston]\mbox{}
\begin{enumerate}
\item{A postcritically finite branched covering $F \colon \Sigma \to \Sigma$ of degree $d \geq 2$ with hyperbolic orbifold is equivalent to a rational map $R \colon \widehat{\C} \to \widehat{\C} $ if and only if there are no $F$-stable multicurves with $\lambda(\Gamma) \geq 1$.}
\item{Any Thurston equivalence of rational maps $F$ and $\widehat{F}$ with hyperbolic orbifolds is represented by a M\"{o}bius conjugacy.}
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
An $F$-stable multicurve with $\lambda(\Gamma) \geq 1$ is called a Thurston obstruction. The condition that $F$ has a hyperbolic orbifold is a purely combinatorial one; this condition can be checked by inspecting the dynamics on the postcritical set of $F$. We remark that since since the maps in this note have two fixed critical points, the respective orbifolds are guaranteed to be hyperbolic. For further details, see \cite{DouadyHubbard:Thurston}.
\begin{defn}
A multicurve $\Gamma = \{ \gamma_{1}, \ldots , \gamma_{n} \}$ is a Levy cycle if for each $i =1,\ldots,n$, the curve $\gamma_{i-1}$ (or $\gamma_{n}$ if $i = 1$) is homotopic to some component $\gamma_{i}'$ of $F^{-1}(\gamma_{i})$ (rel $P_{F}$) and the map $F \colon \gamma_{i}' \to \gamma_{i}$ is a homeomorphism. We say $\Gamma$ is a degenerate Levy cycle if the connected components of $S^2 \setminus \bigcup_{i=1}^n \gamma_i$ are $D_1, \ldots ,D_n, C$, where each $D_i$ is a disk and moreover for each $i$ the preimage $F^{-1}(D_{i+1})$ contains a component $D_{i+1}'$ which is isotopic to $D_i$ relative to $P_F$ and is such that $F \colon D_{i+1}' \to D_{i+1}$ is a homeomorphism. A degenerate Levy cycle is called a removable Levy cycle if in addition, for all $k \geq 1$ and all $i$, the components of $F^{-k}(D_i)$ are disks.
\end{defn}
It is clear that a Levy cycle $L$ is a Thurston obstruction, since $\lambda(L) = 1$.
\subsection{Background on branched coverings}
The usual definition of Thurston obstruction requires us to search for $F$-stable multicurves. However, we will search for \emph{irreducible} obstructions. We will see (Proposition~\ref{p:irred}) that this is equivalent to finding obstructions in the usual sense. The advantage of restricting attention to irreducible obstructions is that they are simpler than Thurston obstructions, since they can be considered as the fundamental part of the obstruction.
\begin{defn}
A multicurve is said to be irreducible if its associated matrix $F_\Gamma$ is irreducible. A multicurve $\Gamma$ is an irreducible obstruction if the matrix $F_\Gamma$ is irreducible and if $\lambda(\Gamma) \geq 1$.
\end{defn}
Recall that an $n \times n$ matrix $A_{ij}$ is irreducible if for all $(i,j)$, there exists $k >0$ such that the element $(A^k)_{ij}>0$. In terms of a multicurve $\Gamma = \{ \gamma_1, \ldots, \gamma_n \}$, this means that for each pair $(i,j) \in \{1,\ldots,n\}^2$, there exists an integer $k>0$ and a component $\gamma'$ of $F^{-k}(\gamma_j)$ which is isotopic to $\gamma_i$, and that for each $1 \leq \ell \leq k$, the curve $F^{\ell} (\gamma')$ is isotopic to a curve in $\Gamma$. The following result (see \cite{ShishTan}) ties together the notions of a Thurston obstruction and an irreducible obstruction.
\begin{prop}\label{p:irred}
If $F$ has a hyperbolic orbifold, then $F$ is not equivalent to a rational map if and only if $F$ has an irreducible obstruction.
\end{prop}
We remark that a Levy cycle is an example of an irreducible obstruction. The following two propositions from \cite{ShishTan} will be helpful in our analysis of irreducible obstructions.
\begin{prop}\label{p:isotopiccontain}
Let $\Gamma$ be an irreducible obstruction for a branched covering $F$. Then
\begin{enumerate}
\item Each connected component of $S^2 \setminus F^{-1}(\Gamma)$ is exactly a connected component of $F^{-1}(A)$, where $A$ is some connected component of $S^2 \setminus \Gamma$.
\item Any connected component of $S^2 \setminus F^{-1}(\Gamma)$ is isotopically contained in a connected component of $S^2 \setminus \Gamma$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{prop}\label{p:critvals}
$\Gamma$ is a removable Levy cycle for $F$ if and only if $\Gamma$ is an irreducible obstruction for $F$ and there exists a disk component $D$ of $S^2 \setminus \Gamma$ such that for all $n$, the components of $F^{-1}(D)$ are disks.
\end{prop}
\section{Proof of the Main Theorem}
We now analyse the irreducible obstructions for cubic branched coverings with two fixed critical points. We will see that, if $\Gamma$ is not a removable Levy cycle, then there are two possible cases, a ``Newton-like case'' and a ``quadratic-like case''. These are summarised in the following proposition.
\begin{prop}\label{p:notremov}
Let $\Gamma$ be an irreducible obstruction for a cubic branched covering with two fixed critical points, and suppose that $\Gamma$ is not a removable Levy cycle. Then precisely one of the following two cases occurs.
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Newton-like case}. The disk $D$ contains a fixed critical point.
\item \emph{Quadratic-like case}. The disk $D$ contains precisely two critical values, neither of which is a fixed critical point.
\end{itemize}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
By Proposition~\ref{p:critvals} there must be a disk component of $F^{-1}(D)$ which has a non-disk component. It follows easily from the Riemann-Hurwitz formula that $D$ must contain (at least) two critical values of $F$. If one of these critical values is also a fixed critical point, we are in the Newton-like case. Otherwise, the disk $D$ must contain precisely two critical values (the two critical values which are not also fixed critical points), which means we are in the quadratic-like case.
\end{proof}
We deal with both of the cases from Proposition~\ref{p:notremov} in turn, showing that in each case any irreducible obstruction will be a Levy cycle. The following is a simple application of the Riemann-Hurwitz formula.
\begin{lem}\label{l:RH}
Suppose $F$ is a cubic branched covering and $D$ is a disk such that $F^{-1}(D)$ contains a non-disk component. Then
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(a)] If $D$ contains precisely two critical values then $F^{-1}(D)$ consists of an annulus $A$ and a disk $D'$. Furthermore, the boundary curves of $A$ and the curve $\partial D'$ both map by degree $1$ onto $\partial D$. Both critical points are contained in $A$.
\item[(b)] If $D$ contains precisely three critical values then $F^{-1}(D)$ consists of an annulus. One boundary curve of this annulus maps by degree $2$ onto $\partial D$ and the other boundary curve maps by degree $1$.
\item[(c)] If $D$ contains precisely four critical values then $F^{-1}(D)$ is a disk with two holes. Each boundary curve of this preimage maps by degree $1$ onto $\partial D$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\begin{rem}
Note that in the first case above, it is possible that if $D$ contains only two critical values, the set $F^{-1}(D)$ could consist of just one disk, which maps by degree $3$ to $D$ (for example, this case is realised if $D$ is one of the hemispheres in a mating). In the other two cases, the number of critical values in $D$ guarantees the existence of a non-disk component in the preimage.
\end{rem}
\subsection{Newton-like case}
This case is very similar to that considered by Tan \cite{Tan:Newton}, who considered the matings in the family of cubic Newton maps. There it was shown that all obstructions were Levy cycles. However, our result is more general, as the family of cubic Newton maps consists of rational maps with three fixed critical points.
The main result for the Newton-like case is the following.
\begin{thm}\label{t:Newton}
Let $F$ be a cubic branched covering with two fixed critical points, and let $\Gamma$ be an irreducible obstruction of $F$ such that $S^2 \setminus \Gamma$ contains a disk component $D$ has a pre-image which is a non-disk component. If furthermore $D$ contains a fixed critical point, then $\Gamma \supseteq \{ \partial D \}$. Furthermore, $\{ \partial D \}$ is a Levy cycle and so $\Gamma$ contains a Levy cycle.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
We write $\gamma = \partial D$. Since $F^{-1}(D)$ contains a non-disk component, it must contain at least two critical values, and by assumption one of these critical values is a fixed critical point $c$. Since $c$ is fixed, there exists a component of $F^{-1}(D)$ which contains $c$, and by Proposition~\ref{p:isotopiccontain} it must therefore be isotopically contained in $D$. Hence there exists a curve in $\partial U$ which is isotopic to $\gamma$. We now consider the three separate cases from Lemma~\ref{l:RH} in turn.
\begin{itemize}
\item If $D$ contains precisely two critical values, then by Lemma~\ref{l:RH} part (a), one of the preimages of $D$ is an annulus $A$ such that one of the boundary curves $\gamma'$ is isotopic to $\gamma$, and this annulus must contain $c$. Since $\gamma$ has three preimages, we see that $\gamma'$ maps homeomorphically onto $\gamma$, and so $\{ \gamma \}$ is a Levy cycle (see Figure~\ref{f:newton}).
\begin{figure}[ht]
\input{newton.pdf_t}
\caption{When the disk contains two critical values, one of which is fixed, then there exists an annular component $A$ in $F^{-1}(D)$ which is isotopically contained in $D$. In this case $\gamma$ is isotopic to $\gamma'$ and $\gamma''$ is peripheral.}
\label{f:newton}
\end{figure}
\item If $D$ contain precisely three critical values then by Lemma~\ref{l:RH} part (b), the preimage $U$ of $D$ is an annulus which is isotopically contained in $D$ (again, the picture is similar to that in Figure~\ref{f:newton}). One of the boundary curves $\gamma'$ of the annulus maps by degree $1$ to $\gamma$, and the other $\gamma''$ maps by degree $2$. If $\gamma''$ is isotopic to $\gamma$, then $\gamma'$ is peripheral, since $U$ is isotopically contained in $D$. However, this means that $\Gamma' = \{ \gamma \}$ is an irreducible submulticurve of $\Gamma$, with $\lambda(\Gamma') = 1/2$. It follows that $\Gamma$ is not an irreducible obstruction, which is a contradiction. Hence it must be the case that $\gamma'$ is the curve which is isotopic to $\gamma$, and so $\{ \gamma \}$ is a Levy cycle.
\item If $D$ contains precisely four critical values then by Lemma~\ref{l:RH} part (c), the preimage $U$ is a disk with two holes and which contains $c$. Furthermore, each boundary curve of $U$ is a preimage of $\gamma$. Since one of these is isotopic to $\gamma$, we see that $\{ \gamma \}$ is a Levy cycle in this case.
\end{itemize}
Hence in each case the multicurve $\{ \gamma \}$ is a Levy cycle.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
The key case (particularly in the study of matings) in the previous lemma is when the disk contains precisely two critical values. In the other two cases, the curve $\gamma$ turns out to be a removable Levy cycle, since the disk $D' = S^2 \setminus (D \cup \gamma)$ contains at most one critical value, and so all the preimages $F^{-n}(D')$ are disks which map homeomorphically under $F^{n}$ onto $D'$. In the other two cases, it can be shown that the obstruction obtained is a removable Levy cycle.
\end{rem}
\subsection{Quadratic-like case}
This case is similar to the proof that an irreducible obstruction to a quadratic (or bicritical) branched cover is a Levy cycle \cite{Tan:quadmat}. However, there is an extra difficulty in the cubic case. In the quadratic case, the existence of a Levy cycle is ensured by observing that every curve in an irreducible obstruction (which is not a removable Levy cycle) has precisely two preimages. This means the pre-images map by degree $1$, and so any periodic cycle in the obstruction must be a Levy cycle. In the following, we will show that in the cubic case, all curves in an irreducible obstruction have precisely three pre-images, and so a similar argument above shows that the obstruction must contain a Levy cycle.
By assumption, the quadratic-like case occurs when there is a disk component $D$ containing two critical values of $F$ which are not critical points of $F$. By Lemma~\ref{l:RH}, the preimage of this disk is an annulus (which contains two critical points) and a disk. The annulus has two complementary regions. One of these, $U_1$, maps homeomorphically onto $S^2 \setminus D$, whilst the other, $U_2$, which contains both fixed critical points, maps as a degree $2$ branched covering to $S^2 \setminus D$, see Figure~\ref{f:quadlike}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\input{quadlike.pdf_t}
\caption{The disk $D$ and its pre-images: the annulus $A$ and the disk $D'$. The region $U_1$ maps homeomorphically onto $S^2 \setminus D$ whereas the region $U_2$, which contains both fixed critical points, maps by a degree $2$ covering to $S^2 \setminus D$.}
\label{f:quadlike}
\end{figure}
\begin{lem}\label{l:sep}
Let $\Gamma$ be an irreducible obstruction of $F$ such that $S^2 \setminus \Gamma$ has a disk component $D$ containing precisely two critical values, neither of which is a fixed critical point of $F$, and that $F^{-1}(D)$ contains a non-disk component. Then $\Gamma$ does not contain any curves which separate the two fixed critical points.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We will call the critical values which are not the fixed critical points \emph{free} critical values. Since the two free critical values are contained in a disk component $D$ of $S^2 \setminus \Gamma$, no curve in $\Gamma$ can separate them. Define
\[
\widetilde{\Gamma} = \{ \gamma \in \Gamma \, \mid \, \gamma \text{ separates the two fixed critical points of } F \}.
\]
and suppose $\gamma \in \Gamma \setminus \widetilde{\Gamma}$. There are two possible cases, see Figure~\ref{f:newtonproof}.
\begin{itemize}
\item{Each component of $S^2 \setminus \gamma$ contains two critical values. Furthermore, one component must contain both fixed critical points.}
\item{One component of $S^2 \setminus \gamma$ contains no critical values.}
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\input{newtonproof.pdf_t}
\caption{The two possible cases for the curve $\gamma$ in Lemma~\ref{l:sep}. One the left, each component of $S^2 \setminus \gamma$ contains two critical values. On the right, one component of $S^2 \setminus \gamma$ contains no critical values.}
\label{f:newtonproof}
\end{figure}
In the first case, denote the component of $S^2 \setminus \gamma$ containing the two fixed critical points by $B$. By an application of Lemma~\ref{l:RH}, we see that $F^{-1}(B)$ consists of an annulus $A$ and a disk $B'$. The disk is a subset of the region $U_1$ and the annulus is contained in the region $U_2$; furthermore, the annulus contains both of the fixed critical points of $F$. The components of $F^{-1}(\gamma)$ are the curve $\partial B'$ and the two curves of $\partial A$ (see Figure~\ref{f:newtonproof1}). It follows that none of the components of $F^{-1}(\gamma)$ separate the two fixed critical points -- in other words, none of the preimage curves is in $\widetilde{\Gamma}$.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\input{newtonproof1.pdf_t}
\caption{The first case in Lemma~\ref{l:sep}. The curve $\gamma$ and its preimages are unbroken lines, and the curve $\partial D$ and some of its preimages are broken lines. Note that none of the preimages of $\gamma$ separate the two fixed critical points.}
\label{f:newtonproof1}
\end{figure}
In the second case, denote the component of $S^2 \setminus \gamma$ by $C$. Since $C$ contains no critical values, the set $F^{-1}(C)$ contains three disks, none of which contains any critical points. It follows that none of the preimages of $\gamma$ can separate the two fixed critical points (see Figure~\ref{f:newtonproof2}), and so no curve in $F^{-1}(\gamma)$ can belong to $\widetilde{\Gamma}$.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\input{newtonproof2.pdf_t}
\caption{The second case in Lemma~\ref{l:sep}. Again, the curve $\gamma$ and its preimages are unbroken lines, and the curve $\partial D$ and some of its preimages are broken lines. As with the first case, none of the preimages of $\gamma$ separate the two fixed critical points.}
\label{f:newtonproof2}
\end{figure}
It follows that any irreducible obstruction containing a curve in $\Gamma \setminus \widetilde{\Gamma}$ cannot also contain a curve in $\widetilde{\Gamma}$. Since by assumption the curve $\partial D$ belongs to our irreducible obstruction and clearly $\partial D \in \Gamma \setminus \widetilde{\Gamma}$, we see that our irreducible obstruction cannot contain any curves which separate the two fixed critical points.
\end{proof}
As a corollary to this lemma, we have the following theorem.
\begin{thm}\label{t:quadlike}
Let $\Gamma$ be an irreducible obstruction of $F$ such that $S^2 \setminus \Gamma$ has a disk component $D$ containing precisely two critical values, neither of which is a fixed critical point of $F$, and that $F^{-1}(D)$ contains a non-disk component. Then every curve in $\Gamma$ will have precisely three preimages. Moreover, $\Gamma$ must contain a Levy cycle.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma~\ref{l:sep}, no curve in the irreducible obstruction $\Gamma$ can separate the two critical points. It follows that if $\gamma \in \Gamma$, then (using Lemma~\ref{l:RH} part (a)) the set $F^{-1}(\gamma)$ will consist of three components (indeed, this can be seen by inspecting the cases in Lemma~\ref{l:sep}), and so each preimage will map homeomorphically onto $\gamma$. Since $\Gamma$ contains only finitely many curves, any periodic cycle (under $F^{-1}$) in $\Gamma$ must be a Levy cycle $L$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of the Main Theorem}
The proof of Main Theorem~\ref{mthm} is now immediate.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Main Theorem~\ref{mthm}]
Let $\Gamma$ be an irreducible obstruction and suppose $\Gamma$ is not a removable Levy cycle. By Proposition~\ref{p:notremov}, we must therefore be in the Newton-like case or the quadratic-like case. If we are in the Newton-like case, Theorem~\ref{t:Newton} asserts that $\Gamma$ must be a Levy cycle containing just one curve. On the other hand, if we are in the quadratic-like case, then it follows that Theorem~\ref{t:quadlike} that $\Gamma$ must be a Levy cycle.
\end{proof}
\bibliographystyle{amsalpha}
|
\section{Introduction}
The differential geometry of Riemannian surfaces has been extensively developed and it is almost impossible to find a reference containing all results on this topic (see for example \cite{AT}, \cite{dC}, \cite{SST} and many other resources). However, the geometry of Finsler surfaces, except for local computations, has not have been developed at the same rate (see \cite{BCS}, \cite{ST}).
In the present paper we study the global geometry of an abstract surface of revolution homeomorphic to $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2$ endowed with a Finsler metric of Randers type. Finslerian Clairaut relation is our main tool. This is a first generalisation of this type of the geometry of a Riemannian surface of revolution, a well understood topic.
\bigskip
We review some basic notions of Finsler geometry.
In 1931, E. Zermelo studied the following problem (see \cite{C}):
{\it Suppose a ship sails the sea and a wind comes up. How must the captain steer the ship in order to reach a given destination in the shortest time?
}
The problem was solved by Zermelo himself for the Euclidean flat plane and by D. Bao, C. Robles and Z. Shen (\cite{BRS}) in the case when the sea is a Riemannian manifold $(M,h)$ under the assumption that the wind $W$ is a time-independent mild breeze, i.e. $h(W,W)<1$. In the case when $W$ is a time-independent wind, they have found out that the path minimizing travel-time are exactly the geodesics of a Randers metric
\begin{equation*}
F(x,y)=\alpha(x,y)+\beta(x,y)=\frac{\sqrt{\lambda\cdot |y|^2+W_0^2}}{\lambda}-\frac{W_0}{\lambda},
\end{equation*}
where $W=W^i\frac{\partial}{\partial x^i}$ is the wind velocity, $|y|^2=h(y,y)$, $\lambda=1-|W|^2$ and
$W_0=h(W,y)$.
The Randers metric $F$ is said {\it to solve the Zermelo's navigation problem} in the case of a mild breeze. The condition $h(W,W)<1$ ensures that $F$ is a positive-definite Finsler metric.
Moreover, it can be shown that a Randers space is of constant flag curvature if and only if the underlying Riemannian manifold $(M,h)$ is of constant sectional curvature and the wind $W$ is a Killing vector field of $h$ (see \cite{BRS}, \cite{BCS}).
The Zermelo's navigation approach was extended in \cite{YS} to Kropina metrics as well. Finally, we recall that the geometry of the sphere regarded as Randers surface of revolution with Killing wind was studied in detail (\cite{R}), but the more general case of a Randers surface of rotation, of whose Riemannian sectional curvature is not constant, is studied in the present paper for the first time.
Our paper is two aimed. We intend to study the geometry of a Randers type metric on a surface of revolution by generalising the Clairaut relation to the Finslerian setting, as well as to illustrate the Zermelo's navigation process for a better understanding of it.
More precisely, we perturb the induced canonical Riemannian metric $h$ of a surface of revolution by the rotational vector field $W$ obtaining in this way a Randers type metric on $M$ through the Zermelo's navigation process. We study some of the local and global geometrical properties of the geodesics on the surface of revolution $M$ endowed with this Randers metric.
Here are our main results.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:global Finsler geodesics}
Let $(M,F=\alpha+\beta)$ be
the rotational Randers metric constructed from the navigation data $(h,W)$, where $(M,h)$ is a Riemannian surface of revolution whose warp function is bounded $m(r)<\frac{1}{\mu}$, $\mu>0$, and $W=\mu\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}$ is the breeze on $M$ blowing along parallels, then the unit speed Finslerian geodesics $\mathcal{P}:(-\epsilon,\epsilon)\to M$ are given by
\begin{equation}\label{global Finsler geodesics}
\mathcal{P}(s)=(r(s),\theta(s)+{\mu}s),
\end{equation}
where $\gamma(s)=(r(s),\theta(s))$ is a $h$-unit speed geodesic.
\end{theorem}
Unlike Riemannian manifolds, Finsler manifolds cannot always be isometrically embedded in a sufficiently higher dimensional Minkowski space (\cite{Sh}). However, this is possible in the present case.
\begin{theorem}\label{embedding}
The rotational Randers space $(M,F=\alpha+\beta)$ can be isometrically embedded into the Minkowski space $(\mathcal{U}_\mu,\tilde{F})$ if and only if the Riemannian surface of revolution $(M,h)$ can be isometrically embedded in $(\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^3,\delta)$.
\end{theorem}
The geometry of a Riemannian surface of revolution is completely governed by the Clairaut relation (see \cite{SST}), but the correspondent of this relation in Finsler geometry is unknown. We give here a generalisation of the Riemannian Clairaut relation to the case of a Randers rotational surface of revolution.
\begin{theorem}\label{Finslerian Clairaut relation}
Let $\gamma(s)=(r(s),\theta(s))$ be an $h$-geodesic of Clairaut constant $\nu$, that makes an angle $\phi(s)$ with the profile curve passing through $\gamma(s)$,
and let $\mathcal P(s)$ be the corresponding $F$-geodesic on the Randers rotational surface of revolution $(M,F)$. Then the following relations hold good.
\begin{equation}\label{Clairaut Fins}
\sqrt{ 1+2\mu \nu+\mu^2m^2}\cos(\psi-\phi)=1+\mu\nu,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{Clairaut Fins 1}
m\sin\psi=\frac{\nu+\mu m^2}{\sqrt{ 1+2\mu \nu+\mu^2m^2}},
\end{equation}
where $\psi$ is the angle between $\dot{\mathcal P}(s)$ and the profile curve passing through $\mathcal P(s)$.
\end{theorem}
Obviously, these two forms of the Clairaut relation are equivalent and they reduce to the classical Clairaut relation when $F$ is Riemannian.
The geometry of geodesics of $(M,F)$ can now be easily obtained using these relations (see Section \ref{sec: geodesics behaviour}). We mention here a result about the set of poles of a Randers rotational metric (see Section \ref{sec: geodesics behaviour} for definitions).
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:poles}
For any point $q\neq p$, let $\gamma$ be
a geodesic from $q$, which is not tangent to the twisted meridian through $q$. Then $\gamma$
cannot be a ray,
that is the vertex $p$ is the unique pole of $(M,F)$.
\end{theorem}
The cut locus of a point $q$ in a Riemannian or Finsler manifold is, roughly speaking,
the set of all other points for which there are multiple minimizing geodesics connecting
them from $q$. In Section \ref{sec: von Mangoldt} we define the notion of Finsler von Mangoldt surface of revolution and determine the structure of the cut locus of a point in a rotational Randers von Mangoldt surface of revolution (see \cite{SST}, \cite{T} for the Riemannian case and \cite{SaT} for the general Finsler case).
\begin{theorem}\label{thm: Randers cut locus}
Let $(M,F=\alpha+\beta)$ be a rotational Randers von Mangoldt surface of revolution. Then, for any point $q\neq p$, the Finslerian cut locus $\mathcal{C}^{(F)}_q$ of $q$ is the Jordan arc
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{C}^{(F)}_q=\{\varphi(s,\tau_q(s)):s\in {[c,\infty)}\},
\end{equation*}
where $\varphi(c,\tau_q(c))$ is the first conjugate point of $q$ along the twisted meridian $\varphi(s,\tau_q(s))$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{acknowledgement}
We express our gratitude to M. Tanaka for pointing out some errors in the initial version of the paper.
\end{acknowledgement}
\section{A rotational surface of revolution}
\subsection{The geometry of a Riemannian surface of revolution}
A {\it Riemannian (abstract) surface of revolution} is a complete Riemannian manifold $(M,h)$ homeomorphic to $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2$ that admits a point $p\in M$ such that the Gaussian curvature $G$ of $h$ is constant on each geodesic circle $\{x\in M : d_h(p,x)=\rho\}\subset M$, for any radius $\rho>0$. The point $p$ is called {\it the vertex} of the surface of revolution $(M,h)$.
\begin{remark}
It can be seen that $(M,h)$ is a surface of revolution if and only if for any two points $x$, $y\in M$, such that $d_h(p,x)=d_h(p,y)$, there exists a Riemannian isometry $\varphi:M\to M$ such that $\varphi(x)=y$. One can consider this property as the definition of a Riemannian (abstract) surface of revolution.
\end{remark}
It is known (see \cite{T}, \cite{SST}) that the surface or revolution $(M,h)$
can be endowed with the warped Riemannian metric
\begin{equation}\label{Riemann metric on surf of revol}
ds^2=dr^2+m^2(r)d\theta^2,
\end{equation}
where $(r,\theta)\in [0,\infty)\times (0,2\pi]$ are the $h$-geodesic polar coordinates around $p$ on $M$, and $m:[0,\infty)\to [0,\infty)$, is a smooth odd function such that $m(0)=0$, $m'(0)=1$.
\begin{remark}
The above definition is a natural generalisation of the classical
Riemannian surface of revolution $M$ isometrically embedded in $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^3$ (see \cite{dC}, \cite{SST}).
Indeed, for a positive function $f:[0,\infty)\to [0,\infty)$ one defines {\it a classical surface of revolution}
\begin{equation}\label{the surf of revol M}
M:=\{(f(u)\cos v, f(u)\sin v, u)\in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^3; \text{ }u\in [0,\infty),0<v\leq 2\pi\}
\end{equation}
by revolving
the
profile curve $x=f(z)$ around the $z$ axis. Clearly, $M$ is a surface homeomorphic to $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2$.
Abstract surfaces of revolution include surfaces that cannot be isometrically embedded in the Euclidean space $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^3$ and surfaces whose profile curve cannot be written as $x=f(z)$.
\end{remark}
Returning to the general case, recall that the equations of an $h$-unit speed geodesic $\gamma(s):=(r(s),\theta(s))$ of $(M,h)$ are
\begin{equation}\label{eq 4}
\begin{cases}
\frac{d^2r}{ds^2}-mm'\left(\frac{d\theta}{ds}\right)^2=0\\
\frac{d^2\theta}{ds^2}+2\frac{m'}{m}\frac{dr}{ds}\frac{d\theta}{ds}=0
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
with the unit speed parametrization condition
\begin{equation}\label{eq 1}
\left(\frac{dr}{ds}\right)^2+m^2\left(\frac{d\theta}{ds}\right)^2 =1.
\end{equation}
It follows that every profile curve, or {\it meridian}, is an $h$-geodesic,
and that a parallel
$\{r=r_0\}$ is geodesic if and only if $m'(r_0)=0$.
A point $p\in M$ is called {\it a pole} if any two $h$-geodesics from $p$ do not meet again. In other words, the cut locus of $p$ is empty.
A unit speed geodesic of $(M,h)$ is called {\it a ray} if $d_h(\gamma(0),\gamma(s))=s$, for all $s\geq 0$.
We observe that (\ref{eq 4}) implies
\begin{equation}\label{h-prime integral}
\frac{d\theta(s)}{ds}m^2(r(s)) = \nu=\text{ const},
\end{equation}
that is the quantity $\frac{d\theta}{ds}m^2$ is conserved along the $h$-geodesics.
\begin{figure}[h]\label{fig 2}
\begin{center}
\setlength{\unitlength}{1.2cm}
\begin{picture}(6,5)
\put(3.5,0){\vector(0,1){5}}
\put(3.5,-0.3){$p$}
\qbezier(1.8,4)(2.5,3.5)(2.5,3)
\qbezier(2.5,3)(2.5,1)(2.6,0.5)
\qbezier(2.6,0.5)(2.8,0)(3.5,0)
\qbezier(4.4,0.5)(4.2,0)(3.5,0)
\qbezier(5.2,4)(4.5,3.5)(4.5,3)
\qbezier(4.5,3)(4.5,1)(4.4,0.5)
\qbezier(2.55,1)(2.7,0.8)(3.5,0.8)
\qbezier(3.5,0.8)(4.3,0.8)(4.45,1)
\qbezier(2.55,1)(2.7,1.2)(3.5,1.2)
\qbezier(3.5,1.2)(4.3,1.2)(4.45,1)
\qbezier(2.55,2.5)(2.7,2.3)(3.5,2.3)
\qbezier(3.5,2.3)(4.3,2.3)(4.45,2.5)
\qbezier(2.55,2.5)(2.7,2.7)(3.5,2.7)
\qbezier(3.5,2.7)(4.3,2.7)(4.45,2.5)
\qbezier(3.5,0)(4.1,0.5)(4.3,4)
\put(3.9,0.8){\vector(1,4){0.5}}
\put(3.9,0.8){\vector(3,1){2.5}}
\qbezier(2.9,0.5)(4.1,0.45)(4.2,1.7)
\qbezier(4.09,1.5)(4.4,1.5)(4.35,1.3)
\qbezier(4.5,1.45)(4.7,1.3)(4.7,1.05)
\put(4.25,1.5){$\phi$}
\put(5,1.5){$\frac{\pi}{2}-\phi$}
\put(4.5,2.7){$\frac{\partial}{\partial r}$}
\put(6.3,1.2){$\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}$}
\put(6,3){$\dot{\gamma}$}
\put(2.65,0.5){$\gamma$}
\qbezier(3.3,4.1)(3.5,4)(3.7,4.1)
\put(3.7,4.1){\vector(1,1){0.1}}
\put(3.9,0.84){\vector(1,1){2}}
\put(5,4.5){\vector(-1,-1){0.5}}
\put(3,5){$z-axis$}
\put(5.1,4.5){$meridian$}
\put(2,2.5){\vector(1,0){0.5}}
\put(2,2.5){\vector(1,-3){0.5}}
\put(0.7,2.4){$parallel$}
\end{picture}
\end{center}
\caption{The angle $\phi$ between $\dot{\gamma}$ and a meridian for a classical surface of revolution.}
\end{figure}
\begin{theorem}{\rm (Clairaut Relation)}\label{thm: h-Clairaut rel}
If $\gamma(s)=(r(s),\theta(s))$ is a geodesic on the surface of revolution $(M,h)$, then the angle $\phi(s)$ between $\dot{\gamma}$ and the profile curve passing through a point $\gamma(s)$ satisfy
$m(r(s))\sin\phi(s)=\nu.$
\end{theorem}
The constant $\nu$ is called the {\it Clairaut constant} and it plays an important role in the study of $h$- geodesics of $M$. Indeed, one can easily see that the Clairaut constant $\nu$ vanishes if and only if $\gamma$ is tangent to a meridian. Moreover, if the Clairaut constant $\nu$ is non-vanishing, then $\gamma$ does not pass through the vertex of $M$.
\begin{lemma}{\rm (\cite{SST})}\label{paralells h-length}
We denote by $\mathcal L_h(r)$ the $h$-length of a parallel found at distance $r$ from the vertex $p$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $\liminf_{r\to \infty}\mathcal L_h(r)=0$ then for any point $q\neq p$, the sub-ray
$\mu_q|_{[d(p,q),\infty)}$ of the meridian $\mu_q$ from $p$ through $q$ is the unique ray emanating from $q$.
\item If $\int_1^{\infty}\mathcal L_h^{-2}(r)=\infty$ then for any point $q\neq p$, a geodesic $\gamma$ from $q$, which is not tangent to the meridian through $q$, cannot be a ray, that is the vertex $p$ is the unique pole of $(M,h)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
We recall here a remarkable class of Riemannian surfaces of revolution. A Riemannian surface of revolution with vertex $p$ is called {\it von Mangoldt surface} if, for any two points $x,y\in M$ such that $d_h(p,x)\geq d_h(p,y)$ we have $G(x)\leq G(y)$, where $G$ is the Gauss curvature of $h$ (see \cite{T}, \cite{SST}). The cut locus structure of such a surface is determined in detail.
\begin{theorem}{\rm (\cite{T}, \cite{SST})}
If $(M,h)$ is a von Mangoldt surface with vertex $p$, then for any $q\in M$, $q\neq p$, the $h$-cut locus $\mathcal C_q^{(h)}$ of $q$ coincides to the sub-arc $\tau_q[t_0,\infty)$, where $\tau_q$ is the opposite meridian of the meridian $\mu_q$ from $p$ through $q$, and $\tau_q(t_0)$ is the first conjugate point of $q$ along $\tau_q$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
The von Mangoldt surfaces are important in modern differential geometry not only for their computable cut locus, but also for Toponogov comparison theorems that use a von Mangoldt surface as model (\cite{KT}).
\end{remark}
\subsection{A Rotational Randers metric}
Let $m:[0,\infty)\to [0,\infty)$, be a smooth odd function such that $m(0)=0$, $m'(0)=1$, and we consider the Riemannian surface of revolution $(M,h)$ as above. Furthermore, we assume that $m$ is
bounded, i.e. there exists a constant $\mu>0$ such that $m(r)<\frac{1}{\mu}$ for all $r\geq 0$.
We construct a rotational Randers metric on $M$ by putting
$W:={\mu}\cdot\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}$
that is, in the $h$-orthogonal coordinates system $(\frac{\partial}{\partial r},\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta})$ of $T_xM$ we have
$W=(W^1,W^2)=(0,{\mu})$.
It follows
$h(W,W)=h\left({\mu}\cdot\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta},{\mu}\cdot\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}\right)={\mu^2}\cdot h\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta},\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}\right)=\left({\mu}m\right)^2<1.$
The navigation data $(h,W)$ gives new data
$a_{ij}=\frac{\lambda\cdot h_{ij}+W_iW_j}{\lambda^2}$, $b_i=-\frac{W_i}{\lambda}$
where $W_i=h_{ij}W^j$, $\lambda=1-h(W,W)=1-\mu^2m^2>0$.
We observe that
$(W_1,W_2)=(0,\mu m^2).$
A simple computation shows that
\begin{equation}\label{eq 3.1}
(a_{ij})=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\frac{1}{1-{\mu}^2m^2} & 0\\
0 & \frac{m^2}{\left(1-{\mu}^2m^2\right)^2}
\end{array}\right)
\text{, }
b_i=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0 \\
-\frac{\mu m^2}{1-{\mu}^2m^2}
\end{array}\right),\qquad i,j=1,2.
\end{equation}
It is straightforward to see that
$\alpha(b,b)=a^{ij}b_ib_j=h(W,W)=h_{ij}W^iW^j<1.$
We obtain
\begin{proposition}
If $(M,h)$ is a surface of revolution whose profile curve is the bounded function $x=m(r)<\frac{1}{\mu}$ and $W$ is the breeze on $M$ blowing along parallels, then the Randers metric $(M,F=\alpha+\beta)$ obtained by the Zermelo's navigation process on $M$ is a Finsler metric
on $M$, where $\alpha=\sqrt{a_{ij}(x)y^iy^j}$, $\beta=b_i(x)y^i$ are defined in (\ref{eq 3.1}).
\end{proposition}
We will call this Finsler metric the {\it rotational Randers metric on the surface of revolution $M$}. We point out that the assumption $m$ bounded is essential for the positive definiteness of $F$.
This assumption combined with the Clairaut relation for $h$-geodesics
implies
$|\nu|=|m(r(s))|\cdot|\sin\phi(s)|\leq |m(r(s))|<\frac{1}{\mu}$, and therefore the Clairaut constant of the $h$-geodesics on $(M,h)$ must satisfy
$|\nu|<\frac{1}{\mu}.$
An {\it isometry} of a Finsler manifold $(M,F)$ is a mapping
$\phi:M\to M$ that is diffeomorphism such that for any $x\in M$ and $X\in T_xM$, we have
$F(\phi(x),\phi_{*,x}(X))=F(x,X).$
Equivalently, if we denote by $d_F$ the induced distance function of $F$ on $M$, then the isometry group of $(M,F)$ coincides with the isometry group of the quasi-metric space $(M,d_F)$, that is we have
$d_F(\phi(x), \phi(y))=d_F(x,y)$,
for any points $x,y\in M$ (\cite{D}).
The isometry group of $(M,F)$ is a Lie group of transformations on $M$.
A smooth vector field $X$ on $M$ is called an $F$-{\it Killing vector field} if every local one-parameter transformation group $\phi_t$ of $M$ generated by $X$ consists of local isometries of $(M,F)$.
\begin{proposition}
\begin{enumerate}
\item The vector field $W={\mu}\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}$ is a Killing vector field on the surface of revolution $M$ for the Riemannian structures $h$ and $a$, as well as for the Randers metric $F=\alpha+\beta$.
\item The compact Lie group $SO(2)$ acts by isometries on $(M,F)$, $(M,h)$ and $(M,a)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
1.
Remark that the tangent map of the flow $\varphi$ of $W$ is actually the identity map of $T_xM$, for any $x=(r,\theta)\in M$, that is
$\varphi_{*,x}:T_xM\to T_{\varphi_s(x)}M,\quad \varphi_{*,x}(X)=X|_{\varphi_s(x)}. $
Then the details follows direct from the definitions.
2. Remark that if we write the surface of revolution \eqref{the surf of revol M} as
$
\Phi:M\to \mathbb C\times \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}},
\quad (r,\theta)\mapsto (m(r)e^{i\theta},r),
$
then we can define the action
$$
\xi:SO(2)\times M\to M,\quad (\alpha,p)\mapsto (m(r)e^{i(\theta+\alpha)},r),
$$
for any $p=(m(r)e^{i\theta},r)\in M$. We show that this action is by isometries, that is
$
\xi_\alpha: M\to M,\quad \xi_\alpha(p)=\xi(\alpha,p)
$
is an isometry for each of the three metrical structures on $M$, for any $\alpha\in \ensuremath{\mathbb{S}}^1=SO(2)$.
Locally, on $M$, we can see that $\xi_\alpha: M\to M$ actually is
$$
\xi_\alpha(p)=\xi_\alpha(\Phi(r,\theta))=\xi_\alpha(m(r)e^{i\theta},r)=(m(r)e^{i(\theta+\alpha)},r)=
\Phi(r,\theta+\alpha),
$$
that is, on $M$, we have $\xi_\alpha:(r,\theta)\mapsto (r,\theta+\alpha)$ and hence the tangent mapping
$
(\xi_\alpha)_{*,(r,\theta)}:T_{(r,\theta)}M\to T_{(r,\theta+\alpha)} M
$
is the identity map. Therefore, taking into account that functions $h_{ij}$, $a_{ij}$, $b_i$ are all depending on $u$ only, that is are all rotational invariant, the mapping $\xi_\alpha$ must be an isometry for the three metrical structures on $M$.$\hfill \Box$
\end{proof}
We can prove now one important result.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:global Finsler geodesics}]
Recall that Zermelo navigation gives
\begin{equation}
h(\dot{\gamma}(s),\dot{\gamma}(s))=1 \textrm{ if and only if }
F(\dot{\mathcal P}(s),\dot{\mathcal P}(s))=1.
\end{equation}
Then the conclusion follows from \cite{R}, or can be verified directly.$\hfill \Box$
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
The pair $(M,F)$ is a forward complete Finsler surface of Randers type.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
If $\gamma(s)=(r(s),\theta(s))$ is an $h$-geodesic that can be extended to infinity by taking $s\to \infty$, then the corresponding Finslerian geodesic $\mathcal P(s)=(r(s),\theta(s)+\mu s)$ can also be extended to infinity. Therefore, the completeness of the Riemannian metric $h$ implies the completeness of $F$.$\hfill \Box$
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop: meeting on a parallel}
Let $q\in M$ be a point different from the vertex $p$ and assume $q=(r_0,0)$. Consider the parallel $\{r=r_0\}$ through $q$, $\gamma:[0,2\pi]\to M$, on $M$ and denote by $\gamma^+$ and $\gamma^-$ the same parallel traced in the direction of $W$ and $-W$, respectively.
Then there exists a point $\hat{q}$, different from $q$, on $\gamma|_{[0,2\pi]}$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal L _F(\gamma^+|_{q\hat{q}})=\mathcal L _F(\gamma^-|_{q\hat{q}})=\pi \mu m(r_0),
\end{equation*}
where $\gamma^+|_{q\hat{q}}$ and $\gamma^-|_{q\hat{q}}$ denote the arcs of $\gamma^+$ and $\gamma^-$ from $q$ to $\hat{q}$, respectively.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Since $\gamma$ is a parallel, we have $\dot{\gamma}=(0,1)$, $\dot{\gamma^+}=W=(0,\mu)$, $\dot{\gamma^-}=-W=(0,-\mu)$.
For any $s_1,s_2\in [0,2\pi)$ the $F$-length of the sub-arcs $\gamma^+|_{[0,s_1]}$ and
$\gamma^-|_{[0,s_2]}$, respectively, are
\begin{equation}\label{length +}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{L}_F({\gamma^+}|_{[0,s_1]})&=
\int_0^{s_1}F(\dot{\gamma}^+)ds
=\int_0^{s_1}\left[\sqrt{a_{22}(\gamma^+(s))(\dot{\gamma}^+(s))^2}+b_2(\gamma^+(s))
\dot{\gamma}^+(s)\right] ds\\
&=\int_0^{s_1}\left[\frac{m(r_0)}{1-\mu^2 m^2(r_0)}\cdot\mu-
\frac{\mu m^2(r_0)}{1-\mu^2m^2(r_0)}\cdot\mu\right]ds
=\frac{\mu m(r_0)}{1+\mu m(r_0)}s_1
\end{split}
\end{equation}
and similarly
\begin{equation}\label{length -}
\mathcal{L}_F({\gamma^-}|_{[0,s_2]})=\frac{\mu m(r_0)}{1-\mu m(r_0)}s_2.
\end{equation}
Putting now conditions that two travellers on the parallel $\{r=r_0\}$ starting from $q$ tracing $\gamma^+$ and $\gamma^-$, respectively, meet on the way at the point $\hat{q}=\gamma^+(s_1)=\gamma^-(s_2)$, and that they travel equal lengths, we get
the linear system
\begin{equation*}
\begin{cases}
s_1+s_2=2\pi\\
\frac{s_1}{1+\mu m(r_0)}=\frac{s_2}{1-\mu m(r_0)}
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
with the solution $(s_1,s_2)=(\pi(1+\mu m(r_0)),\pi(1-\mu m(r_0)) )$
and hence the conclusion follows.
$\hfill \Box$
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{thm: 2 parallels length}
For each $r_0\in\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}$ such that $m'(r_0)=0$, there exists two closed unit speed $F$-geodesics $\mathcal{P}^+$ and $\mathcal{P}^-$ on $M$, that trace the parallel $\{r=r_0\}$ in the direction of $W$ and $-W$, of length
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal L _F^+(r_0)=\frac{\pi m(r_0)}{1+\mu\cdot m(r_0)} \ \textrm{ and } \ \mathcal L _F^-(r_0)=\frac{\pi m(r_0)}{1-\mu\cdot m(r_0)},
\end{equation*}
respectively.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
It follows immediately from formulas \eqref{length +} and \eqref{length -} by putting $s_1=2\pi$ and $s_2=2\pi$, respectively.
$\hfill \Box$
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
\begin{enumerate}
\item The $h$-length of
the parallel $\{r=r_0\}$
is $\mathcal L _h(r_0)=2\pi m(r_0)$.
\item
Remark that $\mathcal{L}^+_F(r_0)<\mathcal{L}_h(r_0)<\mathcal{L}^-_F(r_0)$.
This is constant with fundamental property of the solution of Zermelo navigation problem, namely that the $F$-geodesics deviated in the rotation direction are always shorter than $h$-geodesics.
Nevertheless, in the case of Randers rotational surface or revolution, this is true for any parallel, regardless it is geodesic or not.
\item The number of closed $F$-geodesics on $M$ is double the number of closed $h$-geodesics.
\end{enumerate}
\end{remark}
\begin{corollary}\label{cor: F-parallels}
If the function $m$ has $n$ discrete critical points, then there exists at least $2n$ closed F-geodesics on $M$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{lemma}\label{F_von_lem1}
For any point $q\in M$ the $h$-distance and $F$-distance from $p$ to $q$ coincide, i.e. $d_F(p,q)=d_h(p,q)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}
\begin{picture}(7,7)
\qbezier(0.7,6)(1,6)(1,2)
\qbezier(1,2)(1,0)(3.5,0)
\qbezier(6.3,6)(6,6)(6,2)
\qbezier(6,2)(6,0)(3.5,0)
\qbezier(0.9,4)(1,4.3)(3.5,4.3)
\qbezier(0.9,4)(1,3.7)(3.5,3.7)
\qbezier(6.1,4)(6,4.3)(3.5,4.3)
\qbezier(6.1,4)(6,3.7)(3.5,3.7)
\qbezier(2,6)(2,0)(3.5,0)
\qbezier(5,6)(5,0)(3.5,0)
\qbezier(3.5,0)(3.5,3)(5,3.75)
\qbezier(5,3.75)(5.6,4)(6.2,6)
\put(2.12,3){\vector(0,1){0.1}}
\put(4.9,3){\vector(0,1){0.1}}
\put(3.5,3.7){\vector(1,0){0.1}}
\put(3.85,2.5){\vector(1,1){0.1}}
\put(1.7,3.3){$\tilde{q}$}
\put(5.2,3.3){$q$}
\put(3.5,-0.3){$p$}
\put(3.5,2){$\mathcal{P}$}
\put(1.7,5){$\gamma$}
\put(5.1,5){$\mu_q$}
\end{picture}
\end{center}
\caption{The $h$ and $F$-distances from the vertex for a classical surface of revolution.}\label{fig: F_von_1}
\end{figure}
\begin{proof}
If $q=p$ the result is trivial. Let us consider $q\neq p$ to belong to a parallel $\{r=r_0\}$, that is $q$ has coordinates $(r_0,\theta_0)$, and let us consider the $h$-unit speed meridian $\mu_q$: $\{\theta=\theta_0\}$ from $p$ through $q$. Obviously $d_h(p,q)=r_0$. On the other hand, the unit speed $F$-geodesic $\mathcal{P}:[0,L]\to M$ from $p$ to $q$ can be constructed in the following way. Let us denote by $\tilde{q}$ the point on the parallel $\{r=r_0\}$ through $q$ such that $\tilde{q}=\varphi(-L,q)$ where $\varphi$ is the flow of the wind $W$, and by $\gamma$ the $h$-unit speed meridian from $p$ to $\tilde{q}$, that is $\gamma(s)=\varphi(-s,\mathcal{P}(s))$. The existence of such a point $\tilde q$ is guaranteed by the intermediate value theorem. Obviously $d_h(p,\tilde{q})=r_0=L$ since both $h$-geodesic $\gamma$ and $F$-geodesic $\mathcal{P}$ use the same unit length parameters (see Figure \ref{fig: F_von_1}).
$\hfill \Box$
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
We observe that the $h$-circles $\{x\in M : d_h(p,x)=\rho\}$ coincide with the $F$-circles $\{x\in M : d_F(p,x)=\rho\}$, for any $\rho>0$, i.e. the $h$-parallels coincide with the $F$-parallels.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
More generally, we can define a generic abstract Finsler surface of
revolution, not necessarily of Randers type.
A complete Finsler manifold $(M,F)$ homeomorphic to $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2$ that admits a point $p\in M$ such that for any two points $x$, $y\in M$, such that $d_F(p,x)=d_F(p,y)$, there exists a Finsler isometry $\varphi:M\to M$ such that $\varphi(x)=y$ is called an {\it abstract Finsler surface of
revolution}.
The rotational Randers metric constructed above is a special case of abstract Finsler surface of
revolution.
Nevertheless, it worth mentioning that the flag curvature $K$ of $F=\alpha+\beta$ is constant on each geodesic circle $\{x\in M : d_F(p,x)=\rho\}\subset M$, for any radius $\rho>0$ (see Lemma \ref{F_von_lem2}). The point $p$ is called {\it the vertex} of the surface of revolution $(M,F=\alpha+\beta)$ and in this case it coincides with the vertex of $(M,h)$.
We restrict ourselves in the present paper to this special metric leaving the general case of an abstract Finsler surface of
revolution for a forthcoming research.
\end{remark}
\subsection{The isometric embedding}\label{Isom Embed}
\quad We consider now the problem if $(M,F)$ can be isometrically embedded in a Minkowski space.
Let us begin by constructing a rotational Minkowski metric of Randers type $\tilde{F}=\tilde{\alpha}+\tilde{\beta}$ in $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^3$ obtained from the Zermelo navigation data $(\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^3;\delta,\widetilde{W})$, where
$\delta=(\delta_{ij})$ is the canonical Euclidean metric of $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^3$ and $\widetilde{W}=(-\mu y,\mu x,0)$ is the rotation around the $z$ axis, where $\mu>0$ is a positive constant.
First thing to notice is that
$|\widetilde{W}|_\delta=\mu^2(x^2+y^2)$
and hence $|\widetilde{W}|_\delta<1$ if and only if $x^2+y^2<\frac{1}{\mu^2}$. Therefore,
in order to obtain a positive definite Minkowski metric
$\tilde{F}=\tilde{\alpha}+\tilde{\beta}$ we will restrict ourselves to the cylinder
\begin{equation}\label{CylinderMin}
\mathcal{U}_\mu:=\left\{(x,y,z)\in\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^3:x^2+y^2<\frac{1}{\mu^2}\right\}.
\end{equation}
We obtain immediately
\begin{proposition}
The pair $(\mathcal{U}_\mu,\tilde{F}=\tilde{\alpha}+\tilde{\beta})$ is a positive definite Minkowski space of Randers type obtained as a solution of Zermelo navigation problem in $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^3$ with navigation data $(\delta,\widetilde{W})$, where $\mathcal{U}_\mu$ is given by \eqref{CylinderMin} where $(x,y,z,Y^1,Y^2,Y^3)$ are coordinate in $T\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^3$.
\end{proposition}
Indeed, remark that $\tilde{F}$ is obtained through the Zermelo navigation process from navigation data $(\delta, \widetilde{W})$ in $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^3$. Obviously the sectional curvature of $\delta$ is zero and $\widetilde{W}$ is Killing with respect to $\delta$, this from Theorem 3.1. in \cite{BRS} it follows that $\tilde{F}$ must be of zero flag curvature, that is Minkowski.
A simple computation shows that in this case
the Riemannian metric $(\tilde{a}_{ij})$ and function $(\tilde{b}_i)$ obtained through Zermelo navigation process from $\delta$ and $\widetilde{W}$ are
\begin{equation}\label{tilde a}
(\tilde{a}_{ij})=\frac{1}{\tilde{\lambda}^2}\left(
\begin{matrix}
1-\mu^2x^2 & -\mu^2xy & 0 \\
-\mu^2xy & 1-\mu^2y^2 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \tilde{\lambda}
\end{matrix}
\right),(\tilde{b}_i)=-\frac{1}{\tilde{\lambda}}\widetilde{W},
\end{equation}
where $\tilde{\lambda}=1-\mu^2(x^2+y^2)$.
\begin{lemma}\label{a-space isom embedd}
\quad The mapping $\phi:M\to\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^3,(r,\theta)\mapsto(m(r)\cos \theta,m(r)\sin \theta,r)$ is an isometric embedding of $(M,a)$ in $(\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^3,\tilde{a})$, where $a=(a_{ij})$ is given in \eqref{eq 3.1} and $\tilde{a}=(\tilde{a}_{ij})$ in \eqref{tilde a}.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Taking into account that
$(dx,dy,dz) =( m'\cos \theta dr - m\sin \theta d\theta ,
m'\sin \theta dr + m\cos \theta d\theta,
dr)$
a straightforward computation shows that
\begin{equation*}
\tilde{a}=\tilde{a}_{11}(dx)^2+\tilde{a}_{22}(dy)^2+\tilde{a}_{33}(dz)^2+2\tilde{a}_{12}dxdy =a_{11}(dr)^2+a_{22}(d\theta)^2=a.
\end{equation*}
$\hfill \Box$
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{tilde b}
The linear 1-form $\beta$ is mapped to
$\tilde{\beta}$, that is
$\phi_*(\beta)=\tilde{\beta}$, where $\beta=b_2(r)\cdot y^2$ and $\tilde{\beta}=\tilde{b}_1Y^1+\tilde{b}_2Y^2$, $(b_i)_{i=1,2}$ is given in \eqref{eq 3.1} and $(\tilde{b}_j)_{j=1,2,3}$ in \eqref{tilde a}.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Using notations
$y=y^1\cdot\frac{\partial}{\partial r}+y^2\cdot\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}=(y^i)_{i=1,2}\in TM$ and
$Y=Y^1\cdot\frac{\partial}{\partial x}+Y^2\cdot\frac{\partial}{\partial y}+Y^3\cdot\frac{\partial}{\partial z}=(Y^j)_{j=1,2,3}\in T\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^3\simeq\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^3.
$
Then,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{cases}
y^1\cdot m'\cos \theta - y^2\cdot m\sin \theta = Y^1 \\
y^1\cdot m'\sin \theta + y^2\cdot m\cos \theta = Y^2
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
and solving this linear system for $y^1,y^2$ we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\begin{cases}
y^1=\frac{1}{m'}(\cos \theta \cdot Y^1+\sin \theta \cdot Y^2) \\
y^2=\frac{1}{m}(-\sin \theta \cdot Y^1+\cos \theta \cdot Y^2).
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
We compute now
\begin{equation*}
\phi_*(b_2y^2)=\phi_*\left(\frac{-\mu m^2}{1-\mu^2m^2}\cdot y^2\right)
=\frac{\mu y}{\tilde{\lambda}}\cdot Y^1-\frac{\mu x}{\tilde{\lambda}}\cdot Y^2=\tilde{b}_1Y^1+\tilde{b}_2Y^2.
\end{equation*}
$\hfill \Box$
\end{proof}
We obtain
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{embedding}]
Let us assume that there exists an Riemannian isometric embedding $\phi:(M,h)\to (\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^3,\delta)$, for instance we consider the mapping $\phi$ defined in Lemma \ref{a-space isom embedd} (it can be easily checked that this is a Riemannian isometric embedding). From Lemmas \ref{a-space isom embedd} and \ref{tilde b} follows
that this $\phi$
is an isometric embedding of
the rotational Randers space $(M,F)$ into the Minkowski space $(\mathcal{U}_\mu,\tilde{F})$.
Conversely, assume that there exists a Finslerian isometric embedding $\phi$ of
the rotational Randers space $(M,F)$ into the Minkowski space $(\mathcal{U}_\mu,\tilde{F})$. A straightforward computation shows that the mapping $\phi$ defined in Lemma \ref{a-space isom embedd} satisfies this requirement. Then, by same computations as above one can easily check that this $\phi$ is actually a Riemannian isometric embedding of $(M,h)$ into
$(\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^3,\delta)$.
$\hfill \Box$
\end{proof}
More general results concerning isometrically embeddings for Randers type metrics with Zermelo navigation data $(h,W)$, where $h$ is an isometrically embedded Riemannian metric in $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^3$ and $W$ is a Killing vector field, will be reported elsewhere.
\section{Geodesics of a Randers rotational surface of revolution}
\subsection{The Clairaut relation}\label{Sec3}
We are interested in finding a similar relation with the Clairaut relation for the geodesics of $(M,F)$. One can easily see that there are many directions to approach this problem. Simply study how is the $h$-Clairaut constant $\nu$ controlling the behavior of Finslerian geodesics, search for a substitute of the Clairaut constant in the Finslerian case, or can replace $\sin\phi=\cos(\frac{\pi}{2}- \phi)$ with the Finslerian inner product $g$.
We will consider here the simplest case.
Remark first that $\theta$ is cyclic coordinate for the Finslerian Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}_F=F^2=(\alpha+\beta)^2$ as well, that is $\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}_F}{\partial \theta}=0$. From the general theory of calculus of variations it follows that $\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}$ is an infinitesimal symmetry and that the Finslerian momentum
$p_2:=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}_F}{\partial y^2}$
is a first integral for $\mathcal{L}_F$.
A simple computation shows that
the $\alpha$-length of the tangent vector $\dot{\mathcal{P}}$ of an $F$-geodesic $\mathcal{P} (s)$ is given by
$\alpha^2(\mathcal{P},\dot{\mathcal{P}})=\left(\frac{1+\mu \nu}{1-\mu^2m^2(r(s))}\right)^2.
$
Then we get
\begin{theorem}\label{thm: Finsler mom conserv}
The conservation law for the Finslerian momentum $p_2$ is given by
$p_2(s)=\frac{\nu}{1+\mu\nu}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
One can see that
\begin{equation*}
p_2=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial F^2}{\partial y^2}=F\cdot\frac{\partial F}{\partial y^2}=F\frac{\partial(\alpha+\beta)}{\partial y^2}=F\cdot\left[\frac{a_{22}y^2}{\sqrt{a_{11}(y^1)^2+a_{22}(y^2)^2}}+b_2\right],
\end{equation*}
where we take into account $\frac{\partial\alpha^2}{\partial y^2}=2\alpha_{22}y^2$.
We will evaluate now $p_2$ on the $F$-geodesic $\mathcal{P}(s)$ :
\begin{equation*}
p_2(s)
=\left[\frac{a_{22}(r(s))\dot{\mathcal{P}}^2}{\alpha(\mathcal{P},\dot{\mathcal{P}})}+b_2(r(s))\right]=\frac{\nu}{1+\mu\nu},
\end{equation*}
by making use of $a_{22}(r(s))\dot{\mathcal{P}}^2=\frac{\nu+\mu m^2}{\lambda^2}$.$\hfill \Box$
\end{proof}
We have seen that the basis of Clairaut relation for $h$-geodesic is that the inner product $h\left(\dot{\gamma},\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}\right)=\nu$ is constant.
For the Finslerian case, we get
\begin{proposition}\label{innerPropF}
The Finslerian inner product of $\dot{\mathcal{P}}$ and $\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}$
is constant.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We remark first that
\begin{equation}\label{innerF}
\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial F^2}{\partial y^2}(y^1,y^2)=g_y(y,\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}), \text{ where } y=y^1\frac{\partial}{\partial r}+y^2\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}\in T_{(r,\theta)}M.
\end{equation}
Indeed, by taking into account $0$-homogeneity of $g$ we have:
\begin{equation*}
\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial F^2}{\partial y^2}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial}{\partial y^2}\left[g_{ij}(y)y^iy^j\right]=g_{21}(y)y^1+g_{22}(y)y^2.
\end{equation*}
On the other hand,
$g_y(y,\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta})=g_y((y^1,y^2),(0,1))=g_{12}(y)y^1+g_{21}(y)y^2
$
and hence formula \eqref{innerF} follows.
Now, by evaluating \eqref{innerF} along $F$-geodesics $\mathcal{P}(s)$ and taking into account Theorem \ref{thm: Finsler mom conserv} we obtain
$g_{\dot{\mathcal{P}}}(\dot{\mathcal{P}},\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta})=\frac{\nu}{1+\mu\nu}$.
$\hfill \Box$
\end{proof}
Formally, we can define the Finslerian cosine function $\cos_F$ by
\begin{equation*}
g_y(y,W)=|y|_{g_y}\cdot|W|_{g_y}\cdot\cos_F(y,W)=\sqrt{g_y(W,W)}\cdot\cos_F(y,W).
\end{equation*}
Hence, from Proposition \ref{innerPropF}, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
g_{\dot{\mathcal{P}}}(\dot{\mathcal{P}},\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta})=\sqrt{g_{\dot{\mathcal{P}}}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta},\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}\right)}\cdot\cos_F\left(\dot{\mathcal{P}},\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}\right)=\sqrt{g_{22}(\mathcal{P},\dot{\mathcal{P}})}\cdot \cos_F\left(\dot{\mathcal{P}},\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}\right)
\end{equation*}
and therefore we have
\begin{corollary}
\begin{equation*}
\sqrt{g_{22}(\mathcal{P},\dot{\mathcal{P}})}\cdot \cos_F\left(\dot{\mathcal{P}},\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}\right)=\frac{\nu}{1+\mu\nu}.
\end{equation*}
\end{corollary}
This formula is the Finslerian version of the Clairaut relation given in Theorem \ref{thm: h-Clairaut rel}.
\begin{remark}
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] One can now compute $g_{22}$ for the Randers metric $F=\alpha+\beta$ and substitute on the Corollary above, but we don't need to do this here.
\item[(2)] A comparison of Finslerian $\cos_F$ and usual $\cos$ should be interesting . We will leave this study for another paper.
\end{itemize}
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
We observe again that Clairaut relation is equivalent to saying that for the geodesics variation with the variation vector field tangent to parallel direction, the constant vector field $V=\frac{\nu}{1+\mu\nu}\cdot\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}$ is a Jacobi vector field along the base geodesic.
\end{remark}
We denote the angles of the $h$-geodesic $\gamma$ and the $F$-geodesic $\mathcal P$ with a meridian by $\phi$ and $\psi$, respectively.
\begin{figure}[h
\begin{center} \setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}
\begin{picture}(10,4.5)
\put(4,1){\vector(1,0){5}}
\put(5,0){\vector(0,1){5}}
\put(4,1){\vector(1,0){3.1}}
\put(5,1){\vector(2,1){2.8}}
\put(5,1){\vector(1,2){0.7}}
\qbezier(7,1)(7.025,1.05)(7.05,1.1)
\qbezier(7.1,1.2)(7.125,1.25)(7.15,1.3)
\qbezier(7.2,1.4)(7.225,1.45)(7.25,1.5)
\qbezier(7.3,1.6)(7.325,1.65)(7.35,1.7)
\qbezier(7.4,1.8)(7.425,1.85)(7.45,1.9)
\qbezier(7.5,2)(7.525,2.05)(7.55,2.1)
\qbezier(7.6,2.2)(7.625,2.25)(7.65,2.3)
\multiput(5,2.4)(0.2,0){13} {\line(1,0){0.1}}
\qbezier(5,1.8)(5.2,1.9)(5.4,1.8)
\qbezier(5,2)(5.6,2.3)(6.5,1.8)
\put(5,1.4){$\phi$}
\put(5.9,2.1){$\psi$}
\put(4.5,4.5){$\frac{\partial}{\partial r}$}
\put(6.5,0.5){${W}={\mu \cdot\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}}$}
\put(9,0.4){$\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}$}
\put(5.7,2.7){$\dot{\gamma}$}
\put(7.8,2.6){$\dot{\mathcal{P}}$}
\end{picture}
\end{center}
\caption{The angle $\psi$ between $\dot{\mathcal P}$ and a meridian.}
\end{figure}
Then by straightforward computation we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{LHS}
h(\dot\gamma,\dot{\mathcal P})=1+\mu\nu=\textrm{constant}.
\end{equation}
On the other hand, by using the definition of the scalar product, it follows
\begin{equation}\label{RHS}
h(\dot\gamma,\dot{\mathcal P})=|\dot\gamma|\cdot |\dot{\mathcal P}|\cdot \cos(\psi-\phi)=
|\dot{\mathcal P}|\cdot \cos(\psi-\phi)=\sqrt{ 1+2\mu \nu+\mu^2m^2}\cos(\psi-\phi),
\end{equation}
where we remark that
\begin{equation}\label{RHS1}
\begin{split}
|\dot{\mathcal P}(s)|& =\sqrt{h(\dot{\gamma}(s)+W,\dot{\gamma}(s)+W)}=
\sqrt{h(\dot{\gamma}(s),\dot{\gamma}(s))+2h(W,\dot\gamma)+h(W,W)}\\
& = \sqrt{
1+2\mu h(\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta},\dot\gamma)+\mu^2h(\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta},\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta})} =
\sqrt{
1+2\mu \frac{d\theta}{ds}|\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}|^2+\mu^2|\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}|^2
}\\
& = \sqrt{ 1+2\mu \frac{d\theta}{ds} m^2+\mu^2m^2}= \sqrt{ 1+2\mu \nu+\mu^2m^2}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{Finslerian Clairaut relation}]
1. It follows immediately from
relations \eqref{LHS} and \eqref{RHS}.
2.
Another version of Finslerian Clairaut relation is also possible.
We compute as before
\begin{equation}\label{second form 1}
h(\dot{\mathcal P}(s),\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta})=h(\dot{\gamma}(s)+W,\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta})=
h(\dot{\gamma}(s),\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta})+h(W(s),\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta})
=\Bigl(\frac{d\theta}{ds}+\mu\Bigr)m^2
.
\end{equation}
On the other hand, from the inner product definition we have
\begin{equation}\label{inner_prod 1}
h(\dot{\mathcal P}(s),\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta})=|\dot{\mathcal P}(s)|\cdot |\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}|\cdot \cos(\frac{\pi}{2}-\psi),
\end{equation}
where $|\cdot|=\sqrt{h(\cdot,\cdot)}$.
Using now \eqref{second form 1} and \eqref{RHS1}, relation \eqref{inner_prod 1} implies the relation.
$\hfill \Box$
\end{proof}
\subsection{Geodesics behaviour on a Randers surface of revolution}\label{sec: geodesics behaviour}
We are going to characterise the behaviour of the Randers geodesics by making use of the Riemannian Clairaut relation for $h$ or/and one of the Finslerian versions.
Let $(M,F)$ be a forward complete non-compact Finsler surface. A point $p\in M$ is called {\it a pole} if any two geodesics from $p$ do not meet again. In other words, the cut locus of $p$ is empty.
A unit speed geodesic of $(M,F)$ is called {\it a forward ray} if $d_F(\gamma(0),\gamma(s))=s$, for all $s\geq 0$. In other words a forward ray is a globally forward minimizing $F$-geodesic.
\begin{proposition}\label{twisted rays}
If $\gamma(s)=(r(s),\theta(s))$ is an $h$-ray, then the twisted ray $\mathcal P(s):=(r(s),\theta(s)+\mu s)$ is a forward ray.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Since $\gamma$ is $h$-ray it follows $\mathcal P(s)$ is $F$-unit speed geodesic and taking into account that
$h(\dot{\gamma}(s),\dot{\gamma}(s))=
F(\dot{\mathcal P}(s),\dot{\mathcal P}(s))=1$ it follows $\mathcal P(s)$ is $F$ forward ray. $\hfill \Box$
\end{proof}
It follows
\begin{proposition}
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $\gamma(s)=(r(s),\theta_0)$ is a meridian, then the twisted meridian $\mathcal P(s)=(r(s),\theta_0+\mu s)$ is a forward ray.
\item A twisted meridian can not be tangent to a parallel nor to a meridian.
\item The twisted meridians are not h-geodesics.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
1. It follows immediately from Proposition \ref{twisted rays}.
2. Since $\mathcal P(s)$ is a twisted meridian, the corresponding $h$-geodesic $\gamma$ must be a meridian, that is, $\phi=0$ and $\nu=0$ along $\gamma$.
Then the Clairaut relations \eqref{Clairaut Fins} and \eqref{Clairaut Fins 1} for our Finsler metric read
\begin{equation}\label{Clair for TM}
\cos\psi=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\mu^2m^2}},
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{Clair 1 for TM}
\sin\psi=\frac{\mu m}{\sqrt{1+\mu^2m^2}},
\end{equation}
respectively.
If the twisted meridian $\mathcal P(s)$ is tangent to a parallel
in a point $(r(s_1),\theta(s_1))$ it means $\psi(s_1)=\frac{\pi}{2}$, and Finslerian Clairaut relation \eqref{Clair for TM} gives
$
\cos(\frac{\pi}{2})=0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\mu^2m^2(r(s_1))}}
$
that is not possible.
Likely, if $\mathcal P(s)$ is tangent to a meridian in $(r(s_1),\theta(s_1))$ it means
$\psi(s_1)=0$ and Finslerian Clairaut relation \eqref{Clair 1 for TM} gives
$
\sin 0=0=\frac{\mu m}{\sqrt{1+\mu^2m^2}},
$
that is not possible either.
3. Let us assume that $\gamma(s)=(r(s),\theta_0)$ is a meridian on $M$, that is, $\gamma$ is a $h$-geodesic with Clairaut constant
$\nu=0$. If the twisted meridian $\mathcal P(s)=(r(s),\theta_0+\mu s)$ would also be an $h$-geodesic, then it should satisfy the Riemannian Clairaut relation $m(r(s))\sin \psi(s)=$constant.
However, Finslerian Clairaut relation for the twisted meridian $\mathcal P(s)$ given in \eqref{Clair 1 for TM} implies
$$
m(r(s))\sin \psi(s)=\frac{\mu m^2}{\sqrt{1+\mu^2m^2}},
$$
and this cannot be constant except for $m=$ constant, but this is not possible due to our definition of $M$.
$\hfill \Box$
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Relations \eqref{Clair for TM} and \eqref{Clair 1 for TM}
give the following Finslerian Clairaut relation for twisted meridians
\begin{equation}
m(r(s))|\cot\psi(s)|=\frac{1}{\mu}.
\end{equation}
\end{remark}
If $\gamma:\{r=r_0\}$ is a parallel on $M$ such that $m'(r_0)=0$, then $\mathcal P(s)=(r_0,\theta(s)+\mu s)$ is the same parallel $\gamma$ as set of points (as non-parametrized curve). We get
\begin{proposition}
Parallels $\mathcal P(s)=(r_0,\theta(s)+\mu s)$ on $M$, such that $m'(r_0)=0$, are geodesics of $(M,F)$.
\end{proposition}
We also have
\begin{proposition}
Meridians can not be F-geodesics.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Assume that the $F$-geodesic $\mathcal P$ is a meridian, that is we can write $\mathcal P(s)=(r(s),\theta_0)$, and taking into account that this is also an $F$-geodesic it follows that it must exist an $h$-geodesic $\gamma(s)=(r(s),\tilde \theta(s))$ such that $\mathcal P(s)=(r(s),\theta_0)
=(r(s),\tilde \theta(s)+\mu s)$. This means that the pre-image $h$-geodesic is
$\gamma(s)=(r(s),\tilde \theta(s)=\theta_0-\mu s)$, and thus $\frac{d\tilde \theta(s)}{ds}=-\mu$.
But $\gamma(s)$ being an unit speed $h$-geodesic means
\begin{equation}\label{eq h_1}
\left(\frac{dr}{ds}\right)^2 =1-\mu^2m^2(r(s))
\end{equation
and
\begin{align}
& \frac{d^2r}{ds^2}-mm'\mu^2=0\\% \label{eq 3}\\
& 2\mu \frac{m'}{m}\frac{dr}{ds}=0
\end{align}
Since $\frac{dr}{ds}$ cannot vanish due to \eqref{eq h_1} and positive definiteness of $F$, the second equation above shows that this is possible only in the case $m'(r(s))=0$, that is, $m$ is constant along a meridian, but this is not possible. $\hfill \Box$
\end{proof}
We will find the explicit equation of a segment of a geodesic of $(M,F)$, i.e. $\mathcal{P}^2(\mathcal{P}^1)$.
We recall that for the unit speed $h$-geodesic $\gamma(s)=(r(s),\theta(s))$ we have
$\left(\frac{dr}{ds}\right)^2=\frac{m^2-\nu^2}{m^2}$.
It results
$\frac{ds}{dr}=m \cdot\sqrt{\frac{1}{m^2-\nu^2}}$
and therefore from \eqref{eq 1} we have
$\frac{d\theta}{dr}=\frac{\nu}{m}\cdot\sqrt{\frac{1}{m^2-\nu^2}}$.
Using these, we can write
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\frac{d\mathcal{P}^2}{d \mathcal{P}^1} &= \frac{d\theta}{dr}+\mu\cdot\frac{ds}{dr} \\
&= \frac{\nu}{m}\cdot\sqrt{\frac{1}{m^2-\nu^2}}+\mu\cdot m \cdot\sqrt{\frac{1}{m^2-\nu^2}} \\
& = \left(\frac{\nu}{m}+\mu\cdot m\right)\sqrt{\frac{1}{m^2-\nu^2}},
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
hence, we get
\begin{equation}\label{P2(u)}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{P}^1=r,\
\mathcal{P}^2&=\int \left(\frac{\nu}{m}+\mu\cdot m\right)\sqrt{\frac{1}{m^2-\nu^2}} dr+C_1\\
&=\theta(r)+\mu\int \cdot\frac{m}{\sqrt{m^2-\nu^2}} dr+C_1,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $C_1$ is the integration constant.
If we denote
\begin{equation}\label{xi,eta}
\xi(r,\nu):=\frac{\nu}{m}\sqrt{\frac{1}{m^2-\nu^2}} \text{, }
\eta(r,\nu):=\frac{m}{\sqrt{m^2-\nu^2}}
\end{equation}
for $m(r)>|\nu|$, then we get
\begin{proposition}
Let
$\gamma:[a,b)\to M$, $\gamma(s)=(r(s),\theta(s))$ be a unit-speed Riemannian $h$-geodesic whose Clairaut's constant $\nu$ is nonzero. If $r'(s)$ is nonzero on $[a,b)$ then the geodesic $\mathcal{P}$ parametrized by $u$ satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{m}
\mathcal{P}^2(b)-\mathcal{P}^2(a) \equiv \epsilon
\int_{r(a)}^{r(b)}\left(
\xi(r,\nu)+\mu\eta(r,\nu)\right)dr\quad \mod 2\pi,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{n}
b-a=\epsilon\int_{r(a)}^{r(b)}\eta(r,\nu)dr,
\end{equation}
where $\xi$ and $\eta$ are the functions defined in \eqref{xi,eta}, and $\epsilon$ denoted the sign of $r'(s),s\in[a,b)$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
It easy to see that \eqref{m} follows from \eqref{P2(u)} and in the fact that
$b-a=\int_a^bds=\int_{r(a)}^{r(b)}\frac{dr}{r'(s)}=\epsilon\int_{r(a)}^{r(b)}\eta(r,\nu)dr$.
$\hfill \Box$
\end{proof}
Remark that by combining \eqref{m} and \eqref{n} we get
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{P}^2(b)-\mathcal{P}^2(a)=\theta(b)-\theta(a)+\mu(b-a),
\end{equation*}
a formula is accord with Theorem \ref{thm:global Finsler geodesics}.
Similar with the Riemannian case we have
\begin{proposition}
Let $\mathcal{P}:I\to M$ be a Finslerian unit speed geodesic. If $\mathcal{P}=(r(s),\theta(s)+\mu s)$ is not a parallel then the zero points of $r'$ are discrete. Furthermore, if $r'=0$ for some $s_0\in I$ then $m'(r(s_0))$ is nonzero.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $\mathcal{P}=(r(s),\theta(s)+\mu s)$ be a Finslerian unit speed geodesic that is not a parallel.
\begin{itemize}
\item If $\mathcal{P}$ is a meridian. Then conclusion is obvious.
\item If $\mathcal{P}$ is not a meridian, i.e. $\mathcal{P}$ do not pass through the vertex of $M$ and $r'(s_0)=0$, then $\mathcal{P}$ is tangent to the parallel $r=r(s_0)$ but $\mathcal{P}$ is not a parallel, and therefore $m'(r(s_0))\neq 0$. Since $\mathcal{P}^1(s)=r(s)$ from the equations of the $h$-geodesics it follows
$r''(s_0)\neq 0.$
\end{itemize}
That is, $s_0$ is a critical non-degenerate point for the function $r$
and therefore its critical points are discrete.$\hfill \Box$
\end{proof}
Another interesting property of geodesics on a surface of revolution is the following:
\begin{proposition}\label{prop asym}
A geodesic $\mathcal P$ of $(M,F)$ can not be asymptotic to a parallel which is not geodesic.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Recall that the same property holds for Riemannian geodesics $\gamma$ of the surface of revolution $(M,h)$ (see for example \cite{AT}).
We assume that the $F$-geodesic $\mathcal P$ is asymptotic to a parallel $\{r=r_0\}$ which is not a geodesic, that is $m'(r_0)\neq 0$. This means that $\{r=r_0\}$ is not geodesic for the Riemannian metric $h$, nor for the Randers metric $F$. Since $\mathcal P$ is an $F$-geodesic it follows that it exists a unit speed $h$-geodesic $\gamma(s)=(r(s),\theta(s))$ such that
$\mathcal P(s)=(r(s),\theta(s)+\mu s)$.
On the other hand, this formula shows that $\mathcal P$ asymptotic to $\{r=r_0\}$ means that $\gamma(s)$ must be asymptotic to $\{r=r_0\}$. But this is not possible because the Riemannian geodesic $\gamma(s)$ can not be asymptotic to a parallel which is not a geodesic.$\hfill \Box$
\end{proof}
We have shown that the parallels and meridians can be geodesics for $F$ and $h$ in the same time. What about the rest of the geodesics? In particular we would like to know if $F$ is a Riemannian projectively equivalent surface. We will show that this is not the case.
Straightforward computations show
\begin{proposition}
\begin{enumerate}
\item The Riemannian metrics $a$ and $h$ are not projectively equivalent.
\item The Riemannian metric $a$ and the Randers metric $(M,F)$ are not projectively equivalent.
\item The parallels and meridians of $M$ are geodesics for $(M,a)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
In other words, an $h$-geodesic that is not a parallel nor a meridian is not a geodesic of the Randers metric $F$. This shows that actually the geodesics of these two structures are different. Obviously the twisted meridians are $F$-geodesics, but they can not be $h$-geodesics, provided $m(r)$ is not constant, that is not possible in the present case.
\begin{example}[A Randers paraboloid-like surface of revolution]
We start by constructing a rotational Randers metric on the surface of revolution with profile curve
\begin{equation}
m:[0,\infty)\to \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}},\qquad m(r)=\frac{r}{\sqrt{\mu^2r^2+1}}
\end{equation}
where $\mu$ is a positive constant. This function is bounded $m(r)<\frac{1}{\mu}$ and when revolved around $z$ axis it gives a smooth surface of revolution, homeomorphic to $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2$, that we call {\it paraboloid-like}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}\setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.3\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{para1.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.3\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{para2.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.3\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{para3.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.3\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{para4.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{A Randers paraboloid-like surface of revolution for $\mu=1$. The paraboloid-like with a meridian (a); the paraboloid-like with a meridian (the straight line in the middle) and the same meridian twisted by a wind with $\mu=1$ (b); the paraboloid-like seen from the side with one meridian (the straight line in the middle) and four twisted meridians at $\frac{\pi}{4}$ from each other (c); same picture seen from the North pole (d).}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
If we consider the Riemannian surface of revolution $(M,h)$, then
from general theory one can easily see that meridians are $h$-geodesics and there are no
parallel geodesics on $M$.
An $h$-geodesic of $(M,h)$ that is not a meridian, when traced in the direction of increasing parallels radii, intersect infinitely many times all the meridians. Moreover, an $h$-geodesic of $(M,h)$ that is not a meridian, intersects itself an infinite number of times. The proofs are similar to the general case (see for example \cite{AT}).
\begin{proposition}
Let $(M,F)$ be a Randers paraboloid-like surface of revolution.
\begin{enumerate}
\item There is no parallel geodesic.
\item The twisted meridians are $F$-geodesics that intersect infinitely many times all meridians of $M$.
\item A geodesic that is not a twisted meridian intersects itself an infinite number of times.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The first and second statements are obvious from the previous discussions.
The third statement follows from the fact that an $h$-geodesic $\gamma$ of $M$ that is not a meridian intersects itself an infinite number of times.
$\hfill \Box$
\end{proof}
\end{example}
\section{Rays, poles and cut locus of a Randers rotational surface of revolution}
\subsection{Rays and poles}
We will consider in the following a rotational Randers surface of revolution $(M,F)$ which is forward complete, non-compact and homeomorphic to $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2$. Let $p$ be the vertex of $M$.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop: parallel length lim}
If $\liminf_{r\to 0}\mathcal L_F(r)=0$ then for any point $q\neq p$, the sub-ray
$\mathcal P_q|_{[d(p,q),\infty)}$ of the twisted meridian $\mathcal P_q$ from $p$ through $q$ is the unique $F$ forward ray emanating from $q$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
First of all, taking into account that the $h$-length of the parallel is $\mathcal L_h(r)=2\pi m(r)$,
by comparing with Corollary \ref{thm: 2 parallels length}
we observe that $\liminf_{r\to 0}\mathcal L_F(r)=0$ is equivalent to $\liminf_{r\to 0}\mathcal L_h(r)=0$, and therefore on $(M,h)$ the only $h$-ray from $q$ is the sub-ray of the meridian from $p$ through $q$. It follows that the sub-ray $\mathcal P_q|_{[d(p,q),\infty)}$ of the twisted meridian $\mathcal P_q$ from $p$ through $q$ is a forward ray of $(M,F)$ emanating from $q$.
We show that this is the unique such ray.
Assume $\gamma$ is an $F$ forward ray which is not tangent to any twisted meridian, that is $\nu\neq 0$. Then the hypothesis and Clairaut relation \eqref{h-prime integral} implies $\gamma$ must be bounded and therefore it cannot be forward ray.$\hfill \Box$
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:poles}]
Since our profile function $m$ is bounded, i.e. $m(r)<\frac{1}{\mu}$, it follows
$
\frac{1}{\mathcal L_h^2(r)}=\frac{1}{4\pi^2}\frac{1}{m^2(r)}\geq
\frac{\mu^2}{4\pi^2}
$
and hence
$$
\int_1^\infty \frac{1}{\mathcal L_h^2(r)}dr=\lim_{\tau\to \infty}\int_1^\tau \frac{1}{4\pi^2}\frac{1}{m^2(r)}dr \geq
\frac{\mu^2}{4\pi^2}\lim_{\tau\to \infty}\int_1^\tau dr=
\frac{\mu^2}{4\pi^2}\lim_{\tau\to \infty}(\tau-1)=\infty.
$$
Therefore we obtain $\int_1^\infty \frac{1}{\mathcal L_h^2(r)}dr=\infty$ and Lemma \ref{paralells h-length} implies that for the Riemannian surface of revolution $(M,h)$ the vertex $p$ is the unique pole. The conclusion follows from Propositions \ref{twisted rays} and \ref{prop: parallel length lim}.$\hfill \Box$
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
In this case, the Busemann function $\bold{b}_\gamma$ of a ray $\gamma$ in $(M,F)$ coincides with the distance from $p$ up to a constant, i.e. $\bold{b}_\gamma(x)=d_F(p,x)+$constant, for $x\in M$, the level sets $\bold{b}_\gamma^{-1}$ are parallels on $M$, and $\bold{b}_\gamma$ is an exhaustion (see \cite{Oh}, \cite{Sa} for details on Busemann functions for Finsler manifolds).
\end{remark}
\subsection{von Mangoldt surfaces}\label{sec: von Mangoldt}
\quad Recall that in the Riemannian case von Mangoldt surfaces are surfaces of revolution with nice properties. We are going to introduce here some Finslerian equivalent of these.
\begin{lemma}\label{F_von_lem2}
The flag curvature $\mathcal{K}$ of the Randers rotational metric $(M,F=\alpha+\beta)$ given by \eqref{eq 3.1} lives on the base manifold $M$. Moreover $\mathcal{K}=G$, where $G$ is the Gauss curvature of $(M,h)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Firstly we recall that any Riemannian surface $(M,h)$ is an Einstein manifold with Ricci scalar $Ric^{(h)}=G(x)$. Two dimensional Einstein spaces are therefore not interesting for Riemannian geometry, but this is not the case for Finslerian case.
\quad Let us recall a result from \cite{BR}. Consider a Randers manifold $(M,F=\alpha+\beta)$ solution of the Zermelo's navigation problem with navigation data $(h,W)$, where $(M,h)$ is a non-flat Riemannian manifold. Then $(M,F)$ is Finsler-Einstein with Ricci scalar $Ric^{(F)}=\mathcal{K}(x)$ if and only if
$(M,h)$ is Einstein with Ricci scalar $Ric^{(h)}=\mathcal{K}(x)$, and
$W$ is Killing vector field for $(M,h)$.
\quad Let us particular this result to the case of the Randers rotational surface described in the present paper. Based on what we observed already it follows that on $(M,F=\alpha+\beta)$ is always Finslerian-Einstein with Ricci scalar $Ric^{(F)}=\mathcal{K}(x)$, where $\mathcal{K}$ is the sectional curvature of $(M,F)$. Indeed, in the 2-dimensional case, if we consider an $g$-orthonormal basis $\{e_1,e_2\}$ of $T_xM$, then
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{K}=R^{\ 1}_{2\ 12}=Ric^{(F)},
\end{equation*}
where $g$ is the Hessian of $F^2$, and $R$ the Riemannian curvature tensor of $F$ the Finsler metric (see for example \cite{BCS}, p.99).
$\hfill \Box$
\end{proof}
\quad We give the following general definition.
\begin{definition}
The Finsler surface of revolution $(M,F)$ is called a {\it Finsler von Mangoldt} surface if, for any two points $x_1,x_2\in M$ such that
\begin{equation*}
d_F(p,x_1)\geq d_F(p,x_2)
\end{equation*}
we have
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{K}(x_1,y_1)\leq \mathcal{K}(x_2,y_2) \quad\text{ for all } y_1\in \widetilde{T_{x_1}M},\quad y_2\in \widetilde{T_{x_2}M},
\end{equation*}
where $\widetilde{T_{x_1}M}=T_{x_1}M\setminus\{0\}$, $\widetilde{T_{x_2}M}=T_{x_2} M\setminus\{0\}$.
\end{definition}
Obviously this is the natural generalisation of the Riemannian von Mangoldt surfaces to the Finslerian setting.
\begin{proposition}
The Randers rotational surface of revolution $(M,F=\alpha+\beta)$ is a Finsler von Mangoldt surface if and only if $(M,h)$ is a Riemannian von Mangoldt surface.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Assume $(M,h)$ is von Mangoldt, that is $G(x)\leq G(y)$ for any points $x,y\in M$ such that $d_h(p,x)\geq d_h(p,y)$. Lemmas \ref{F_von_lem1} and \ref{F_von_lem2} imply $(M,F)$ is Finsler von Mangoldt.
\quad Conversely, if $(M,F)$ is Finsler von Mangoldt, then $(M,h)$ must be von Mangoldt.
$\hfill \Box$
\end{proof}
Now we can easily characterise the cut locus of our Randers rotational surface.
\begin{remark}\label{rem: constructing F-geodesics}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Recall that an $F$-geodesic ray from $p$ is obtained by twisting a meridian on $M$.
More precisely, as explained already in the proof of Lemma \ref{F_von_lem1} we can construct the $F$-ray from $p$ through any point $q\neq p$ as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Take the parallel $\gamma:\{r=r(q)\}$ through $q$.
\item Consider a point $q^-$ on this parallel such that $\varphi(\rho,q^-)=q$, where $\rho:=d_h(p,q)$. Obviously such a point always exists on the universal covering $\tilde{\gamma}:[0,\infty)\to M$ of the parallel $\gamma$ by the intermediate value theorem.
\item Consider the meridian $\mu_{q^-}$ from $p$ through $q^-$.
\end{enumerate}
Then the $F$-geodesic $\mathcal{P}_q:[0,\infty)\to M$, $\mathcal{P}_q(s)=\varphi(s,\mu_{q^-}(s))$ from $p=\mathcal{P}_q(0)=\mu_{q^-}(0)$ through $q$ is obtained by twisting the meridian $\mu_{q^-}$ as shown by Theorem \ref{thm:global Finsler geodesics} (see Figure \ref{F-geod to q}).
\begin{figure}[h
\begin{center} \setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}
\begin{picture}(10,4.5)
\qbezier(1,1)(7.025,1.05)(9.05,1.5)
\qbezier(2,1)(7.5,2.5)(9.05,4.5)
\put(2,0.5){$p$}
\put(6.5,0.6){$q^-=\mu_{q^-}(\rho)$}
\multiput(7,1.2)(0,0.2){9} {\line(0,1){0.1}}
\put(7,3.2){$q$}
\put(9,1.2){$\mu_{q^-}$}
\put(9,4.6){$\mathcal{P}_{q}$}
\put(5,1.1){\vector(1,0){0.1}}
\put(5,1.95){\vector(2,1){0.1}}
\put(7,2.2){\vector(0,1){0.1}}
\end{picture}
\end{center}
\caption{The $F$-geodesic from $p$ through $q$.}\label{F-geod to q}
\end{figure}
\item Remark that we can always extend an $F$-ray $\mathcal P$ from $p$, i.e. a twisted meridian, beyond its initial point obtaining in this way an $F$-geodesic segment by twisting a similarly extended meridian.
For any point $q\neq p$ in $M$ it is customary to denote by $\tau_q:[0,\infty)\to M$ be the unit speed $h$-geodesic emanating from $q=\tau_q(0)$ through $p=\tau_q(\rho)$, where $d_h(q,p)=\rho$.
In this way we can construct Finsler geodesic segments from a point $q\neq p$ to $p$ (see Figure \ref{F-geod from q to p}). Remark that we obtain the geodesic segment
$\mathcal{P}_q^-:{[-\rho,0]}\to M$, $\mathcal{P}_q^-(s)=\varphi(s,\mu^-_{q^-}(s))=\varphi(s,\mu_{q^-}(-s))$
where we denote $\mu^-_{q^-}(s):=\mu_{q^-}(-s)$ the inverse oriented meridian from $p$ to $q$, $\mu^-_{q^-}(-\rho)=q^-$, $\mu^-_{q^-}(0)=p$,
$\rho:=d_h(q,p)=d_F(q,p)$. Let us denote the $F$-geodesic from $q$ through $p$ obtained in this way by $\omega_q:[0,\infty)\to M$, $\omega(s)=\varphi(s,\tau_{q^-}(s))$. We say that $\omega_q$ is obtained by twisting $\tau_{q^-}$ by the flow of $W $ keeping the vertex $p$ fixed.
\begin{figure}[h
\begin{center} \setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}
\begin{picture}(10,4.5)
\qbezier(1,2.5)(7.025,2.35)(9.05,2.5)
\qbezier(2,1)(7.5,2.5)(9.05,4.5)
\put(6,2){$p$}
\put(2.6,2.7){$q^-=\tau_{q^-}(0)$}
\multiput(3,1.3)(0,0.2){6} {\line(0,1){0.1}}
\put(3,0.7){$q$}
\put(9,2){$\tau_{q^-}$}
\put(9,4.6){$\omega_{q}$}
\put(5,2.42){\vector(1,0){0.1}}
\put(5,1.95){\vector(2,1){0.1}}
\put(3,2){\vector(0,-1){0.1}}
\put (4.5,1.4){$\mathcal{P}_q^-|_{[-\rho,0]}$}
\end{picture}
\end{center}
\caption{The $F$-geodesic from $q$ to $p$.}\label{F-geod from q to p}
\end{figure}
\end{enumerate}
\end{remark}
We will use in the following the naming $h$- and $F$-conjugate points for the conjugate points with respect to the Riemannian metric $h$ and the Finslerian metric $F$, respectively. Similarly, we will use $h$- and $F$-cut points for the cut points with respect to the Riemannian and Finslerian metric, respectively.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm: Randers cut locus}]
First of all, observe that from our hypothesis we know that the $h$-cut locus of $q$ is exactly $\tau_q|_{[c,\infty)}$, where $\tau_q(c)$ is the first $h$-conjugate point of $q$ along $\tau_q$ (see Theorem 7.3.1 in \cite{SST}).
We divide our proof in two steps.
At the first step, we will establish the correspondence of $h$-conjugate points of $q$ along $\tau_q$ with the $F$-conjugate points of $q$ along an $F$-geodesic from $q$.
Let $\tilde x=\tau_q(c)$ the first $h$-conjugate point of $q$ along $\tau_q$. Observe that in the case of the Riemannian surface of revolution $(M,h)$, we must have $c>\rho$, because $p$ is the unique pole for $h$. This is equivalent to saying that $\tilde x$ is conjugate to $q$ along $\tau_q$ (see \cite{SST}, \cite{T}).
Recall that $\tilde x=\tau_q(c)$ is the first $h$-conjugate point of $q$ along
$\tau_q$ means that the Jacobi field along $\tau_q$ given by
\begin{equation*}
Y_{q}(s)=\mathcal{M}_{a_1,\rho}(s)
\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}|_{\tau_{q}},\quad s\in [\rho,\infty),
\end{equation*}
where $\mathcal{M}_{a_1,\rho}(s)$ is a smooth function along $\tau_{q}|_{[\rho,\infty)}$ depending on a constant $a_1$ chosen such that $m'$ is positive on $[0,a_1]$ and $\rho$.
Moreover, if consider the vector field $J(s)$, along the twisted meridian $\mathcal R_q:[\rho,\infty)\to M$, $\mathcal R_q(s)=\varphi(s,\tau_q(s))$, defined by
\begin{equation*}
J(s):=\varphi_{\tau_{q},*}(Y_{q}(s)),
\end{equation*}
then one can see that $J$ is actually a Jacobi field along $\mathcal R_q$. Indeed, one can easily verify that the flow $\varphi$ of $W$ maps the solutions of the Jacobi equation for $Y_{q}$ into the solutions of the Jacobi equation for $J(s)$, and therefore we have proved that the first $F$-conjugate point of $q$ is obtained at the intersection of the parallel through the first $h$-conjugate point with $\tau_q$.
At the second step, we will do the same thing for cut points of $q$, i.e. we will establish the correspondence of $h$-cut points of $q$ with the $F$-cut points of $q$. Namely,
we will show that a point $\tilde{y}\in \tau_q|_{[c,\infty)}$ is an $h$-cut point of $q$ if and only if the point $y$, found at the intersection of the parallel through $\tilde{y}$ with the twisted meridian $\{\varphi(s,\tau_q(s)):s\in {[c,\infty)}\}$ is an $F$-cut point of $q$.
Indeed, such a $\tilde{y}$ is an $h$-cut point of $q$ if and only if there exists two $h$-geodesic segments $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ on $M$ from $q$ to $\tilde{y}$ of equal $h$-length. By making use of Theorem 1.1 and an argument similar to Proposition 3, we can see that under the action of the flow $\varphi$ the end point $\tilde{y}$ is clearly mapped into the point $y$ described above and the $h$-maximal geodesic segments $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ are deviated into two $F$-geodesic segments of same $F$-length from $q$ to $y$. This concludes the proof (see Figure \ref{fig: F-cut locus of q}).
\begin{figure}[h
\begin{center} \setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}
\begin{picture}(10,4.5)
\qbezier(1,2.5)(7.025,2.35)(9.05,2.5)
\qbezier(1,4.5)(6.5,2.5)(8.05,1)
\qbezier(2,2.465)(3,3.5)(5.9,2.43)
\multiput(8.5,2.5)(0,0.2){7} {\line(0,1){0.1}}
\put(8.5,3.4){\vector(0,1){0.1}}
\put(6,2){$p$}
\multiput(2,2.5)(0,0.2){8} {\line(0,1){0.1}}
\put(2,4.3){$q^-$}
\put(2,2){$q$}
\put(9,2){$\tau_{q}$}
\put(9,4.6){$\{\varphi(s,\tau_q(s)):s\in {[\rho,\infty)}\}$}
\put(5,2.42){\vector(1,0){0.1}}
\put(8.2,1){$\tau_{q^-}$}
\qbezier(5.9,2.43)(7.5,2.5)(9.05,4.5)
\linethickness{1mm}
\qbezier(7,2.7)(7.5,2.8)(9.05,4.5)
\end{picture}
\end{center}
\caption{The thick line is the $F$-cut locus of $q$.}\label{fig: F-cut locus of q}
\end{figure}
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction}
\lettrine[lines=2]{C}{hemical} Reaction Optimization (CRO) \cite{AYSLam2010} is a simple and powerful metaheuristic optimization method which mimics the interactions of molecules in chemical reactions to search for the global optimum. CRO was designed as an optimization framework and it was initially targeted to solve discrete optimization problems \cite{JXu2011}\cite{AYSLam2010b}\cite{AYSLam2012}. It has been applied to solve many practical problems, e.g. population transition problem in peer-to-peer streaming \cite{AYSLam2010c}, network coding optimization problem \cite{BPan2011}, etc. Lam \textit{et al.} then proposed a variant of CRO in 2011, named Real-Coded Chemical Reaction Optimization (RCCRO) \cite{AYSLam2011}, to solve continuous optimization problems. RCCRO utilizes the Gaussian distribution function as the perturbation function and some real-coded-based mechanisms were designed to implement RCCRO. RCCRO has been shown to be efficient in solving continuous optimization problems \cite{AYSLam2011}\cite{JJQYu2011}.
There are four major operations (i.e., elementary reactions) in CRO: on-wall ineffective collision, decomposition, inter-molecular ineffective collision, and synthesis. In CRO, on-wall ineffective collision and inter-molecular ineffective collision correspond to local search, while decomposition and synthesis correspond to remote search. In the conventional RCCRO \cite{AYSLam2011}, the Gaussian distribution is deployed in the neighborhood search operator in all reactions except synthesis. In these elementary reactions, with the Gaussian distribution, the molecules are perturbed via the Gaussian mutation and the energy state of the molecules are checked to decide whether the reaction shall be accepted or rejected. The Gaussian perturbation in RCCRO is accomplished by adding a zero-mean Gaussian-random number to the existing molecular structures (i.e., solutions) to generate new solutions in the neighborhoods.
For other optimization methods like Evolutionary Programming (EP) and Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO), researchers have also proposed other perturbation functions other than the Gaussian distribution. Mutation operations in EP based on the Cauchy distribution \cite{XYao1996} and the Levy distribution \cite{CLee2004} have been propose. Krohling \textit{et al.} has made contributions in integrating PSO with the exponential \cite{RAKrohling2006}, the Gaussian, and the Cauchy distribution \cite{RAKrohling2009}. However, the impacts of different perturbation distributions on the performance of RCCRO need further study. Such research is necessary for a better understanding of the performance of RCCRO.
In this paper, we propose to apply four different probability distribution functions as the perturbation function for RCCRO, namely, the Gaussian distribution, the Cauchy distribution, the exponential distribution, and a modified Rayleigh distribution. These distributions have drawn much attention from different research communities \cite{CLee2004}\cite{BMandelbrot1982}. These four distributions are tested on a suite of well-known benchmark functions classified into three categories of optimization functions. The simulation results demonstrate that different categories of functions have different preferences on the perturbation distribution function.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section II presents an overview of CRO. In Section III, the four tested distribution functions are described. Section IV provides the simulation results. The paper is concluded in Section V with suggestions for further research.
\section{Chemical Reaction Optimization}
In this section we will first introduce the manipulated agents of CRO, i.e., molecules. Then the definitions of elementary reactions are presented. The section ends with the overall algorithm of RCCRO (or simply referred to CRO hereafter).
\subsection{Molecules}
CRO is a kind of population-based metaheuristics \cite{AYSLam2010}. There is a population of molecules in a container, with an energy buffer attached. Each molecule is characterized by its molecular structure ($\omega$), potential energy (PE), kinetic energy (KE), and some other attributes. $\omega$ stands for a feasible solution of the optimization problem, corresponding to this molecule. PE represents the the objective function value of $\omega$ while KE represents the tolerance of the molecule to hold a worse solution with larger objective function value than the existing one. Other attributes can be used to control the flow of CRO to ensure CRO meet the characteristics of the optimization problem. Users can add, change, or remove the optimal attributes to build different versions of CRO.
\subsection{Elementary Reactions}
In CRO, changes to the molecules are made through different elementary reactions. There are four kinds of elementary reactions, namely, on-wall ineffective collision, decomposition, inter-molecular ineffective collision, and synthesis. The former two reactions belong to the uni-molecular reactions and the latter two are classified as class of inter-molecular reactions. These elementary reactions change the molecular structures of the molecules and accept molecules with new structures according to the conservation of energy. CRO makes use of these changes to explore the solution space and locates the global optimum \cite{AYSLam2010}. We basically follow \cite{AYSLam2011} to define the elementary reactions and they are described briefly as follows:
\subsubsection{On-wall Ineffective Collision}
An on-wall ineffective collision happens when a molecule collides with a wall of the container and then bounces away. This reaction has one molecule as input and returns another modified molecule. This reaction is mainly used for performing local search, thus the changes made on the molecular structure shall be small. We commonly generate a neighborhood structure $\omega^{\prime}$ from $\omega$. If we define the neighbor function as
\begin{equation}
\textit{neighbor}(\omega)=\omega+\epsilon,
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon$ is called the perturbation factor and is generated from a pre-defined probability distribution function, which will be elaborated in Section IV-E. We obtain a new solution $\omega^\prime$ by
\begin{equation}
\omega^{\prime}=\textit{neighbor}(\omega)
\end{equation}
and its new PE is fiven by
\begin{equation}
\textit{PE}_{\omega^{\prime}}=f(\omega^\prime),
\end{equation}
where $f$ is the objective function.
During this procedure, a part of the KE held by the molecule will be transfered to the system energy buffer (\textit{EnBuff}). We have a parameter \textit{LossRate} to control this energy loss process. The new KE of the molecule will be updated according to
\begin{equation}
\textit{KE}_{\omega^{\prime}}=(\textit{PE}_{\omega}-\textit{PE}_{\omega^{\prime}}+\textit{KE}_{\omega})\times t,
\end{equation}
where $t\in[LossRate,1]$ is a randomly generated number.
\subsubsection{Decomposition}
A decomposition happens when a molecule collides with a wall of the container and breaks into two molecules. This reaction is mainly used for jumping out of the local minimums, and thus the changes made on the molecular structures are larger than an on-wall ineffective collision. During this procedure, there is no KE transferred to \textit{EnBuff}, but the energy conservation law shall hold \cite{AYSLam2011}.
\subsubsection{Inter-molecular Ineffective Collision}
An inter-molecular ineffective collision happens when two molecules collide with each other and then separate. The purpose and characteristics of this reaction is similar with an on-wall ineffective collision. In general, we perform two neighbor searches on the two molecular structures $\omega_{1}$ and $\omega_{2}$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\omega_{1}^{\prime}=neighbor(\omega_{1})\text{ and }\omega_{2}^{\prime}=neighbor(\omega_{2}).
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Synthesis}
A synthesis happens when two molecules collide and merge into one. Generally, the change is severe and can help the molecule jump out of local minimums. Its objective is to maintain the population diversity.
In this operator, the new molecule is derived from the two given original molecules and each element of the solution is equally likely to be selected from each of the original molecules at the same position.
\subsection{The Overall Algorithm}
CRO operates in a closed container with an initial population of randomly generated molecules. The algorithm contains three phases: initialization, iterations, and finalization. When CRO starts, the molecules as well as some system parameters, such as \textit{EnBuff}, \textit{CollRate}, \textit{LossRate}, \textit{DecThres}, and \textit{SynThres} \cite{AYSLam2011}\cite{JJQYu2012} are set. In each iteration, the system will first randomly select one reaction type according to some criteria. The system will then use this decision to randomly select one or multiple molecules from the existing ones in the container depending on whether it is a uni-molecular or an inter-molecular reaction and check its/their energy state(s). If the decomposition criterion (for uni-molecular collision) or the synthesis criterion (for inter-molecular collision) described in \cite{AYSLam2010} is satisfied, the corresponding reaction takes place. Otherwise an on-wall ineffective collision or an inter-molecular ineffective collision will take place. At the end of each iteration is the energy check. The newly generated or transformed molecule(s) have their objective functions evaluated and compared with the original molecules. If the new value(s) can satisfy the energy conservation conditions \cite{AYSLam2010}, the new molecules are accepted and put into the container while the original molecules are discarded. Otherwise, the new molecules are discarded and this indicates a failed reaction. After the pre-defined certain number of function evaluations is reached or one of some specific stopping criteria is met, the algorithm proceeds to finalization and outputs the best-so-far global optimum. Since in this problem we focus on studying the performance of CRO with different probability distributions used in the neighborhood search operator and decomposition stated in Section II-B, interested readers can refer to \cite{AYSLam2010} and \cite{AYSLam2011} for detailed description of the algorithm and its pseudocode.
\section{Probability Distribution}
In this paper, we consider four different types of probability distributions, namely, the Gaussian distribution, the Cauchy distribution, the exponential distribution, and the Rayleigh distribution. In this section, we will first introduce the four distributions. Then the integration of CRO with these distributions is presented.
\subsection{Gaussian Distribution}
The Gaussian distribution has a bell-shaped probability density function (PDF) and is also known as the normal distribution or informally the bell curve \cite{GCasella2001}. Its density function is given as:
\begin{equation}
f(x;\mu,\sigma)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi\sigma^{2}}}e^{-\frac{(x-\mu)^{2}}{2\sigma^{2}}},
\end{equation}
where $\mu$ is the expectation and $\sigma^{2}$ is the variance. The plots of the PDF with some different $\mu$ and $\sigma^{2}$ are given in Fig. 1.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig1.pdf}
\caption{PDF of Gaussian Distribution}
\end{figure}
We can control the shape by modifying the value of $\sigma^{2}$. A larger $\sigma^{2}$ will result in a flatter bell.
\subsection{Cauchy Distribution}
The Cauchy distribution shares a similar bell shape with the Gaussian distribution and it has important applications to physics. We can utilize its characteristics to perform detailed local search. Its density function is given as:
\begin{equation}
f(x;x_{0},\gamma)=\frac{1}{\pi}[\frac{\gamma}{(x-x_{0})^{2}+\gamma^{2}}].
\end{equation}
In this PDF, $x_{0}$ is the location parameter, or mean of the distribution. It is similar to $\mu$ in the Gaussian distribution. $\gamma$ is the scale parameter which can specify the half-width at half-maximum (HWHM). The plots of the Cauchy distribution with different $x_{0}$ and $\gamma$ are given in Fig. 2.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig2.pdf}
\caption{PDF of Cauchy Distribution}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Exponential Distribution}
The exponential distribution describes the time between events in a Poisson process. Different from the previous two distributions, the exponential distribution does not have a bell-shape. Its density function is given as:
\begin{equation}
f(x;x_{0},\gamma)=\left\{
\begin{aligned}
& \gamma e^{-\gamma (x-x_{0})}, & x\geq0 \\
& 0, & x<0
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
The parameter $x_{0}$ defines the starting point of the distribution and the parameter $\gamma$ defines the steepness of the PDF curve. The plots of the distribution with different $x_{0}$ and $\gamma$ are given in Fig. 3.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig3.pdf}
\caption{PDF of Exponential Distribution}
\end{figure}
Note that the normal exponential distribution only has a positive side, which does not satisfy our requirement as a perturbation function. Similar to \cite{RAKrohling2006}, we mirror this curve to the negative side of the x-axis to make this distribution a continuous function on the range $(-\infty,\infty)$.
\subsection{Rayleigh Distribution}
The Rayleigh PDF is given below:
\begin{equation}
f(x;\sigma^{2})=\frac{x}{\sigma^{2}}e^{-\frac{x^{2}}{2\sigma^{2}}}, x\geq0.
\end{equation}
As with the Gaussian distribution, the only parameter, $\sigma^{2}$ controls the flatness of the shape. A larger $\sigma^{2}$ results in a flatter PDF. Moreover, the highest point of the curve occurs at $x=\sigma$. The plots of the Rayleigh distribution with different $\sigma^{2}$ are given in Fig. 4.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig4.pdf}
\caption{PDF of Rayleigh Distribution}
\end{figure}
Like the exponential distribution, the Rayleigh distribution is only continuous on $(0,\infty)$. So we introduce a new way to make the distribution function continuous on $(-\infty,\infty)$ and apply it to the perturbation function. The modified PDF is given below:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
f^{\prime}(x;\sigma^{2})=& [\frac{\sigma+x}{\sigma^{2}}e^{-\frac{(\sigma+x)^{2}}{2\sigma^{2}}}\times step(x,-\sigma)+ \\
& \frac{\sigma-x}{\sigma^{2}}e^{-\frac{(\sigma-x)^{2}}{2\sigma^{2}}}\times (1-step(x,\sigma))]/2
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
step(x,\sigma)=\left\{
\begin{aligned}
& 1, & x\geq\sigma \\
& 0, & x<\sigma
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
This modified PDF is composed of two parts: We first shift the original PDF to the left by $\sigma$ units, which makes $x=\sigma$ as the y-axis. Then this new curve is copied and mirrored at the y-axis. The two curves are then summed and averaged. The plots of this modified PDF with different $\sigma^2$ values are given in Fig. 5.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig5.pdf}
\caption{PDF of Modified Rayleigh Distribution}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Integration of Distributions with CRO}
The perturbation function mainly operates in the on-wall ineffective collision, inter-molecular ineffective collision, and decomposition \cite{AYSLam2011}. In the above three elementary reactions, new molecular structures are generated from the original structures. Although in synthesis there is also a new structure generated, the new structure is composed of different parts of the original structures. To generate new molecular structures, one can add a perturbation factor to one random element of the original structure for a small change (on-wall ineffective collision and inter-molecular ineffective collision), or add different perturbation factors to some of the elements for a dramatic change (decomposition) \cite{AYSLam2011}. The perturbation factors are generated from the perturbation function, which can be one of the pre-defined probability distributions discussed before. So different probability distribution functions shall generate perturbation factors with different characteristics, and this will result in different performances of the algorithm.
\section{Simulation Results}
\begin{table*}
\caption{Parameter Settings}
\small
\begin{center}
\begin{threeparttable}
\begin{tabular}{l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l}
\hline
Category & PopSize & StepSize & EnBuff & IniKE & CollRate & LossRate & DecThres & SynThres \\ \hline
I & 10 & 0.1 & $10^6$ & $10^3$ & 0.2 & 0.9 & $1.5\time10^5$ & 0 \\
II & 20 & $1^*$ & $10^5$ & $10^7$ & 0.2 & 0.1 & $1.5\time10^5$ & 10 \\
III & 100 & 0.5 & 0 & $10^3$ & 0.2 & 0.1 & 500 & 10 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{tablenotes}
\item[*] 300 for $f_8$ and 15 for $f_{11}$
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Benchmark Functions}
In order to evaluate the performance of different perturbation distribution functions, we perform simulations on the standard benchmark functions used in \cite{XYao1999}. The benchmark functions are listed in \cite{AYSLam2011} with the dimension sizes, feasible solution spaces and the known global optimums. This set of functions has been widely used or partially used as metaheuristic performance evaluation benchmark functions \cite{AYSLam2011}\cite{XYao1999}\cite{HDong2007}.
This benchmark set can be divided into three categories according to their characteristics. The first group consists of unimodal functions, each of which has only one global optimum. So it is relatively easy to solve. The second group contains high-dimensional multimodal functions. Functions in this group have multiple local optimums and it is more likely for algorithms to get ``stuck" in the local optimums. The last group is a collection of low-dimensional multimodal functions. These functions have lower dimensions and fewer local optimums than the second group.
\subsection{Experiment Environment}
All the simulations are performed on the same computer with Intel Core i5-2400 @ 3.1GHz CPU and 4.00GB RAM. CRO and distribution functions are implemented using C++ and compiled with MingGW g++ compiler under the Windows 7 64bit environment.
\subsection{Parameter Selection}
Different parameter settings can affect the performance of CRO dramatically \cite{AYSLam2011}. A suitable combination of parameters, including \textit{PopSize}, \textit{StepSize}, \textit{EnBuff}, \textit{IniKE}, \textit{CollRate}, \textit{LossRate}, \textit{DecThres}, and \textit{SynThres} \cite{JJQYu2012}, may result in good simulation results. Since the combinations of parameters exist in an eight-dimensional space and are continuous, it is impractical to test all possible combinations. Instead, the parameters are tuned in an ad hoc manner. In our simulations presented in the next subsection, we adopt the three different parameter combinations for the three function categories presented and discussed in \cite{AYSLam2011}. The details of the combinations are listed in Table I and interested readers can refer to \cite{AYSLam2011} and \cite{JJQYu2012} for elaboration of the functionality of each parameter.
\subsection{Comparisons among Different Distributions}
In this paper we presented four different distribution functions as CRO's perturbation function, namely the Gaussian distribution, the Cauchy distribution, the exponential distribution, and a modified Rayleigh distribution. For simplicity, we denote the CRO algorithms with distributions as CRO\_G, CRO\_C, CRO\_E, and CRO\_R, respectively. We evaluate the performance of the four CRO variants with the benchmark functions with the parameter combinations discussed in the previous subsection. We repeat the simulations for each function 100 times and the function evaluation limits for different functions are listed in Table II which are the same as those used in \cite{AYSLam2011}.
\begin{table}
\caption{Function Evaluation Limits}
\small
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l|r|l|r}
\hline
Function & FELimit & Function & FELimit\\ \hline
$f_{1}$ & 150 000 & $f_{13}$ & 150 000 \\
$f_{2}$ & 150 000 & $f_{14}$ & 7 500 \\
$f_{3}$ & 250 000 & $f_{15}$ & 250 000 \\
$f_{4}$ & 150 000 & $f_{16}$ & 1 250 \\
$f_{5}$ & 150 000 & $f_{17}$ & 5 000 \\
$f_{6}$ & 150 000 & $f_{18}$ & 10 000 \\
$f_{7}$ & 150 000 & $f_{19}$ & 4 000 \\
$f_{8}$ & 150 000 & $f_{20}$ & 7 500 \\
$f_{9}$ & 250 000 & $f_{21}$ & 10 000 \\
$f_{10}$ & 150 000 & $f_{22}$ & 10 000 \\
$f_{11}$ & 150 000 & $f_{23}$ & 10 000 \\
$f_{12}$ & 150 000 & &\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
The simulation results for the four algorithms on the 23 benchmark functions are presented in Table III, Table IV, and Table V, and the best results are bolded. Since the three categories of benchmark functions have different characteristics on the solution space, we will discuss them separately.
\begin{table*}
\caption{Simulation Results and Comparisons for Category I}
\small
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l|llll|llll}
\hline
\multirow{2}*{Function} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{CRO\_G} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{CRO\_C} \\ \cline{2-9}
& Mean & Std. Div. & Best & Rank & Mean & Std. Div. & Best & Rank\\ \hline
$f_1$ & \bf{2.8023E-06}&9.5462E-06&1.1729E-06&1&3.6134E-06&1.0076E-05&1.5009E-06&2\\
$f_2$ & \bf{5.2742E-03}&8.6993E-03&3.1498E-03&1&6.5312E-03&1.0253E-02&4.2567E-03&2\\
$f_3$ & \bf{4.0448E-07}&1.7591E-06&1.3886E-07&1&5.9970E-07&2.2993E-06&1.8863E-07&2\\
$f_4$ & 1.5898E+00&4.9408E+01&3.7482E-03&3&\bf{2.1603E-02}&3.2341E-01&3.4985E-03&1\\
$f_5$ & 7.9995E+01&1.3336E+03&1.7200E-02&4&\bf{4.9454E+01}&3.5096E+02&6.5425E-01&1\\
$f_6$ & \bf{0.0000E+00}&0.0000E+00&0.0000E+00&1&\bf{0.0000E+00}&0.0000E+0&0.0000E+00&1\\
$f_7$ & 1.0101E-02&6.0951E-02&2.6305E-03&2&\bf{9.0633E-03}&4.4733E-02&1.9008E-03&1\\
Avg. & & & &1.86& & & &\bf{1.43}\\ \hline
\multirow{2}*{Function} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{CRO\_E} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{CRO\_R} \\ \cline{2-9}
& Mean & Std. Div. & Best & Rank & Mean & Std. Div. & Best & Rank\\ \hline
$f_1$ &2.3209E-05&8.6462E-05&8.9015E-06&4&5.8125E-06&1.8736E-05&2.2348E-06&3\\
$f_2$ &1.6889E-02&2.6210E-02&1.0355E-02&4&7.7805E-03&1.0789E-02&4.7191E-03&3\\
$f_3$ &3.7256E-06&1.4036E-05&1.0769E-06&3&8.7830E-07&3.4124E-06&3.6419E-07&4\\
$f_4$ &4.6047E-02&6.6140E-01&1.0012E-02&2&2.4322E+00&7.1027E+01&4.4672E-03&4\\
$f_5$ &6.2050E+01&3.0865E+02&1.2512E+00&2&7.3270E+01&9.0927E+02&2.2321E+00&3\\
$f_6$ &\bf{0.0000E+00}&0.0000E+00&0.0000E+00&1&\bf{0.0000E+00}&0.0000E+0&0.0000E+00&1\\
$f_7$ &1.3602E-02&7.1639E-02&4.5453E-03&4&1.0531E-02&4.6002E-02&4.1566E-03&3\\
Avg. & & & &2.86& & & &3.00\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}
\caption{Simulation Results and Comparisons for Category II}
\small
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l|llll|llll}
\hline
\multirow{2}*{Function} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{CRO\_G} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{CRO\_C} \\ \cline{2-9}
& Mean & Std. Div. & Best & Rank & Mean & Std. Div. & Best & Rank\\ \hline
$f_{8}$ & -6.6941E+03&7.0479E+03&-8.8963E+03&3&\bf{-1.1584E+04}&2.7988E+03&-1.2451E+04&1\\
$f_{9}$ & 7.3239E-04&5.1246E-03&2.8899E-04&3&9.6594E-04&2.9687E-03&4.8051E-04&4\\
$f_{10}$ & 2.3286E-03&7.6100E-03&1.6035E-03&3&3.0142E-03&1.1784E-02&1.6159E-03&4\\
$f_{11}$ & 6.3738E+00&4.4097E+01&3.9130E-01&3&\bf{6.9692E-02}&5.0228E-01&6.6663E-07&1\\
$f_{12}$ & 8.9318E-02&1.7332E+00&4.7978E-08&3&2.2222E-07&1.6140E-06&6.2396E-08&2\\
$f_{13}$ & 2.5472E-06&3.4365E-05&5.7443E-07&3&3.1977E-06&3.2292E-05&5.6288E-07&4\\
Avg. & & & &3.00& & & &2.67\\ \hline
\multirow{2}*{Function} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{CRO\_E} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{CRO\_R} \\ \cline{2-9}
& Mean & Std. Div. & Best & Rank & Mean & Std. Div. & Best & Rank\\ \hline
$f_{8}$ & -6.6816E+03&6.8112E+03&-8.6168E+03&4&-6.7458E+03&6.7677E+03&-8.1446E+03&2\\
$f_{9}$ & 4.0876E-04&1.5659E-03&1.2755E-04&2&\bf{3.4566E-04}&4.6215E-03&1.3204E-04&1\\
$f_{10}$ & 1.8143E-03&2.7791E-03&1.1840E-03&2&\bf{1.6536E-03}&5.5241E-03&1.1178E-03&1\\
$f_{11}$ & 4.8161E+00&2.6975E+01&6.3374E-01&2&8.7394E+00&5.1116E+01&6.9625E-01&4\\
$f_{12}$ & \bf{1.0936E-07}&9.0059E-07&3.1753E-08&1&2.1104E+00&2.6246E+01&3.1908E-08&4\\
$f_{13}$ & 1.4290E-06&1.3039E-05&3.9950E-07&2&\bf{1.0141E-06}&1.0198E-05&2.2801E-07&1\\
Avg. & & & &\bf{2.17}& & & &\bf{2.17}\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}
\caption{Simulation Results and Comparisons for Category III}
\small
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l|llll|llll}
\hline
\multirow{2}*{Function} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{CRO\_G} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{CRO\_C} \\ \cline{2-9}
& Mean & Std. Div. & Best & Rank & Mean & Std. Div. & Best & Rank\\ \hline
$f_{14}$ & 3.3089E+00&2.8636E+01&9.9800E-01&3&\bf{1.1893E+00}&6.5107E+00&9.9800E-01&1\\
$f_{15}$ & \bf{5.9906E-04}&1.4234E-03&3.5413E-04&1&6.1532E-04&1.3869E-03&3.2870E-04&2\\
$f_{16}$ & \bf{-1.0305E+00}&2.1115E-02&-1.0316E+00&1&-1.0305E+00&2.1463E-02&-1.0316E+00&2\\
$f_{17}$ & 3.9795E-01&9.2041E-04&3.9789E-01&2&\bf{3.9795E-01}&6.8579E-04&3.9789E-01&1\\
$f_{18}$ & \bf{3.0009E+00}&1.7177E-02&3.0000E+00&1&3.0013E+00&1.9859E-02&3.0000E+00&2\\
$f_{19}$ & \bf{-3.8615E+00}&1.1619E-02&-3.8628E+00&1&-3.8612E+00&1.4214E-02&-3.8628E+00&2\\
$f_{20}$ & \bf{-3.3125E+00}&6.7953E-02&-3.3217E+00&1&-3.3107E+00&7.8734E-02&-3.3214E+00&2\\
$f_{21}$ & \bf{-1.0126E+01}&2.3876E-01&-1.0153E+01&1&-1.0117E+01&2.6175E-01&-1.0151E+01&2\\
$f_{22}$ & -1.0308E+01&6.6218E+00&-1.0402E+01&2&\bf{-1.0350E+01}&6.7161E-01&-1.0401E+01&1\\
$f_{23}$ & -1.0076E+01&1.5155E+01&-1.0536E+01&4&-1.0269E+01&1.0470E+01&-1.0536E+01&3\\
Avg. & & & &\bf{1.70}& & & &1.80\\ \hline
\multirow{2}*{Function} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{CRO\_E} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{CRO\_R} \\ \cline{2-9}
& Mean & Std. Div. & Best & Rank & Mean & Std. Div. & Best & Rank\\ \hline
$f_{14}$ & 2.2217E+00&2.0650E+01&9.9800E-01&2&3.7510E+00&3.6642E+01&9.9800E-01&4\\
$f_{15}$ & 6.5008E-04&1.0962E-03&3.6644E-04&4&6.4918E-04&1.4605E-03&3.2389E-04&3\\
$f_{16}$ & -1.0275E+00&1.2423E-01&-1.0316E+00&3&-1.0183E+00&4.3638E-01&-1.0316E+00&4\\
$f_{17}$ & 3.9833E-01&6.0664E-03&3.9789E-01&4&3.9802E-01&1.7142E-03&3.9789E-01&3\\
$f_{18}$ & 3.0043E+00&6.2059E-02&3.0000E+00&4&3.0014E+00&2.0636E-02&3.0000E+00&3\\
$f_{19}$ & -3.8606E+00&2.5016E-02&-3.8627E+00&4&-3.8606E+00&2.1030E-02&-3.8627E+00&3\\
$f_{20}$ & -3.3086E+00&9.0811E-02&-3.3218E+00&3&-3.3073E+00&9.8572E-02&-3.3215E+00&4\\
$f_{21}$ & -9.9484E+00&2.2520E+00&-1.0141E+01&4&-1.0057E+01&5.0092E+00&-1.0153E+01&3\\
$f_{22}$ & -1.0045E+01&7.5628E+00&-1.0383E+01&4&-1.0188E+01&8.9541E+00&-1.0401E+01&3\\
$f_{23}$ & -1.0305E+01&2.3769E+00&-1.0531E+01&2&\bf{-1.0465E+01}&8.0594E-01&-1.0534E+01&1\\
Avg. & & & &3.40& & & &3.10\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
From these tables we can see the Cauchy distribution performs best in Category I as its averaged rank is the highest. Recall that Category I is uni-modal and thus algorithms performing local search are good enough for these functions. Comparing Figs. 1, 2, 3, and 5, the Cauchy distribution has the most of its probabilities around the mean ($x=0$), which helps CRO perform local search more efficiently for uni-modal problems.
For Category II, the exponential distribution and the Rayleigh distribution perform equally but their advantage over the Gaussian and the Cauchy distributions is not very significant. Since the solution space of problems in Category II is high dimensional with a large number of local optimums, it is reasonable that different distributions will give a best performance on different problems. For problems with relatively less local optimums, the Gaussian and the Cauchy distribution can perform better because these problems are similar with problems in Category I. However, for problems with a large number of local optimums, a flatter distribution can probably perform well since it can maintain the population diversity better. So for this category of problems different distributions can perform well on different problems and there is no significant preference.
The Gaussian distribution performs best in Category III but the Cauchy distribution also performs relatively well in this category. A possible reason to this phenomena is that since the difference between Category II and III is that Category III has lower dimensions, which reduce the number of potential local optimums, the exponential and the Rayleigh distributions lose their advantage on maintaining population diversity. However, although the number of local optimums is smaller, it is still easy for the Cauchy distribution to get stuck due to the shape of its PDF. The Gaussian distribution with shallower bell shape can maintain a better population diversity than the Cauchy while performing local search more efficiently than the other two distributions.
The average computational time consumed in a simulation run of these four CRO variants are listed in Table VI for reference. Generally the computational speed of the Gaussian distribution is the fastest, but all computational times are comparable. To summarize, the Cauchy distribution is suitable for solving uni-modal optimization problems. The Gaussian distribution is suitable for solving low-dimensional multi-modal problem. For high-dimensional multi-modal problems, the exponential and the Rayleigh distribution generally perform better, but for different problems there are different preferences.
\begin{table}
\caption{Computational Time (s)}
\small
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l|llll}
\hline
Function & CRO\_G & CRO\_C & CRO\_E & CRO\_R \\ \hline
$f_{1}$ & 0.03281&0.03812&0.04027&0.04674\\
$f_{2}$ & 0.03346&0.03992&0.04295&0.04835\\
$f_{3}$ & 0.14172&0.15247&0.15339&0.16701\\
$f_{4}$ & 0.04294&0.04648&0.04752&0.05661\\
$f_{5}$ & 0.03841&0.04318&0.0421&0.05111\\
$f_{6}$ & 0.26363&0.26166&0.26285&0.26445\\
$f_{7}$ & 0.44546&0.45033&0.45933&0.44639\\
$f_{8}$ & 0.77906&0.76936&0.80069&0.76243\\
$f_{9}$ & 0.61241&0.59982&0.61947&0.61142\\
$f_{10}$ & 0.40227&0.39936&0.40278&0.40402\\
$f_{11}$ & 0.77743&0.79861&0.80926&0.8098\\
$f_{12}$ & 0.35557&0.37177&0.3812&0.38371\\
$f_{13}$ & 0.37318&0.38145&0.38168&0.39597\\
$f_{14}$ & 0.03674&0.03799&0.03733&0.03802\\
$f_{15}$ & 0.0631&0.07312&0.07215&0.08616\\
$f_{16}$ & 0.00058&0.0006&0.00059&0.00066\\
$f_{17}$ & 0.00131&0.00144&0.00141&0.0017\\
$f_{18}$ & 0.00174&0.00212&0.00206&0.0026\\
$f_{19}$ & 0.00211&0.00233&0.00229&0.00245\\
$f_{20}$ & 0.00444&0.00461&0.00441&0.00485\\
$f_{21}$ & 0.00202&0.00234&0.00233&0.00297\\
$f_{22}$ & 0.00221&0.00266&0.00245&0.00312\\
$f_{23}$ & 0.00248&0.00281&0.0028&0.00336\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusion and Future Work}
In this paper, we compare four kinds of distribution functions, namely the Gaussian distribution, the Cauchy distribution, the exponential distribution, and the modified Rayleigh distribution, as the perturbation function for CRO. Since these distributions have different characteristics, they may be suitable to solve different kinds of problems with different solution space characteristics. We integrate these four distribution functions into CRO. The four CRO variants are evaluated with 23 benchmark functions, divided into three categories. The simulation results show that different categories of problems have different preference on the perturbation function. The Cauchy distribution fits Category I functions best and the Gaussian distribution fits Category III functions best, while the exponential and the modified Rayleigh distribution perform similarly for the Category II functions and outperform the other two distributions. Our study gives guidelines to design CRO for different types of optimization problems.
In the future we will conduct a systematic analysis on the impact of different parameters on perturbation function selection. We will also perform an analysis on the convergence speed of the four different distribution functions. Other distribution functions, e.g. the Levy distribution, will also be implemented on CRO to have a more general study of the overall performance.
\section*{Acknowledgement}
This work is supported in part by the Strategic Research Theme of Information Technology of The University of Hong Kong. A.Y.S. Lam is also supported in part by the Croucher Foundation Research Fellowship.
|
\section{Introduction}
The discovery\cite{kamihara1} of superconductivity in LaFeAsO$_{1-x}$F$_x$
with a transition temperature of 26~K in 2008
triggered unprecedented interest and further research in iron-based
superconductors. So far, superconductivity was found in four main
families of iron-based compounds: 1111, 122, 111, and
11.\cite{stewart,oh} These iron-based materials have two phases in the
normal state: one is a paramagnetic metal and the other is an
antiferromagnetic metal. Superconductivity emerges in both the
paramagnetic and antiferromagnetic metal phases via application of
hydrostatic pressure or carrier doping of the parent materials.
Hence, it is expected that understanding the electronic and magnetic structures
of the metallic normal states of these systems is a needed ingredient for
unraveling the origin of the superconductivity of iron-based
materials.
Many experimental and theoretical studies have been done on the normal
states of iron-based superconductors, and a
consensus\cite{andersen,dai} has been reached in these systems that
the Coulomb interaction among the electrons is not strong enough to
induce a Mott insulating phase. However, the Coulomb interaction plays
an important role in determining the electric and magnetic properties.
In the early stages of this research, theoretical insight into the properties of
these materials was gained by calculations based on density functional
theory (DFT) within the local density approximation (LDA) or
generalized gradient approximation (GGA). However, LDA and GGA have
some limitations in describing the normal states of iron-based
superconductors. In a paramagnetic phase, the measured mass of
low-energy quasiparticles is 2-3 times larger than that calculated
within LDA or GGA. In addition, the measured magnitude of the ordered
moment in an antiferromagnetic phase is 2-3 times smaller than that
obtained with LDA or GGA. Furthermore, LDA and GGA studies related to
the specific heat of these materials are not consistent with the
experimental data. The theoretical Sommerfeld
coefficient\cite{singh,shein,hashimoto} of optimally K-doped
BaFe$_2$As$_2$ is about five times smaller than that found in the
experimental data\cite{popovich,kim,storey,kant,rotundu}.
There have been many attempts to describe electronic correlations in
these materials by combining LDA or GGA calculations with a dynamical
mean-field theory (DMFT), quasiparticle self-consistent GW (QSGW), or
the Gutzwiller method.~\cite{yin,tomczak,hansmann,wang} Using these
methods, many of the electric and magnetic properties of correlated
iron-based superconductors can be reproduced. For example, effective
masses and Fermi surfaces (FSs) across all families of iron compounds
are well described in the framework of DFT+DMFT\cite{yin} and
QSGW\cite{tomczak}, as well as ordered moments and the fluctuations of
local moments within DFT+DMFT.~\cite{yin,hansmann} However,
a calculation of the electron-phonon coupling coefficient (which is needed
for heat capacity and superconductivity estimates) within these
approaches is non-trivial. Therefore, we use a simpler method to
calculate electronic and magnetic properties of these materials.
In this work we study the heat capacity of
Ba$_{0.6}$K$_{0.4}$Fe$_2$As$_2$ superconductor (T$_{\rm
c}$=38~K)\cite{rotter} within a semi-empirically modified GGA
potential, following studies\cite{coh} of an FeSe
monolayer. We show that one can choose a small repulsive potential
located on the iron atoms (+A term) so that the calculated specific
heat coefficient is increased from
$\gamma_n$=12~mJ~mol$^{-1}$~K$^{-2}$ in GGA to
$\gamma_n$=38~mJ~mol$^{-1}$~K$^{-2}$ in GGA+A, much closer to recent
experimental findings
($\gamma_n$=40--50~mJ~mol$^{-1}$~K$^{-2}$).\cite{popovich,kant,storey,rotundu}
The increase in $\gamma_n$ relative to GGA comes mostly from the
increased density of states (DOS) at the Fermi level and to a smaller
extent from an enhanced electron-phonon coupling. Since
Ba$_{0.6}$K$_{0.4}$Fe$_2$As$_2$ is near a magnetic phase transition,
we also computed the heat capacity in the striped antiferromagnetic
ground state, present in the parent compound. Just as in the
nonmagnetic calculation, we again find an increased $\gamma_n$ (from 6 to
12~mJ~mol$^{-1}$~K$^{-2}$) when +A term is added. However, unlike in
the nonmagnetic calculation, the increased $\gamma_n$ originates mostly
from increase in the electron-phonon coefficient $\lambda$.
\section{Methods}
Our calculations are based on {\it ab-initio} norm-conserving
pseudopotentials and the Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof\cite{perdew}
functional as implemented in the SIESTA code.\cite{sanchez} Electronic
wavefunctions are expanded with pseudoatomic orbitals (double-$\zeta$
polarization). We treat the potassium doping within the virtual crystal
approximation.
Following Ref.~\onlinecite{coh} we modify the GGA
potential $V_{\rm GGA}({\bf r})$ by adding a repulsive potential on
each iron atom in the calculation,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:correction}
V_{\rm GGA}({\bf r}) + A \sum_{i}{f ( |{\bf r}-{\bf r}_{i}| )}.
\end{equation}
Here $f(r)$ is a positive dimensionless function peaked at the nucleus
of the iron atoms (${\bf r}_i$) and the extent of $f(r)$ is comparable
with the size of $d$ orbitals in the iron atoms. We discuss the choice of
$A$ and $f(r)$ in subsection~\ref{sec:choice}.
The GGA+A approach can be understood as a variant of the constrained
DFT (CDFT) formalism.\cite{dederichs} The CDFT approach adds a general
constraint to the density,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq_2}
\sum_{\sigma}{\int w^{\sigma}_{c}({\bf r}) \rho^{\sigma}({\bf
r})~d{\bf r}} = N_c ,
\end{equation}
where $w_{c}({\bf r})$ acts as a weight function that defines the
constrained property. The Kohn-Sham total energy is minimized under
the constraint from Eq.~\ref{eq_2}, by making the following functional
stationary,
\begin{equation}
W[\rho,V_c] = E[\rho] + V_c \left (\sum_{\sigma}{\int
w^{\sigma}_{c}({\bf r}) \rho^{\sigma}({\bf r})d{\bf r}} - N_c
\right).
\end{equation}
Here $V_c$ is a Lagrange multiplier corresponding to the constraint.
Therefore, in the effective Hamiltonian of the CDFT formalism, there
is an additional potential $V_c w^{\sigma}_{c}({\bf r})$ coming from
the constraint. Since the GGA+A potential (Eq.~\ref{eq:correction})
has the same form as the constraint potential in the CDFT approach,
GGA+A method has the same effect as constraining the number of
electrons around the iron atom.
\subsection{Choice of $A f(r)$ term}
\label{sec:choice}
Now we discuss our choice of the correction term $A f(r)$
appearing in Eq.~\ref{eq:correction}.
Following previous work on the FeSe monolayer\cite{coh} we first
choose $f(r)=e^{-1.0 r^2}$ in atomic units (Bohr radius) with the
extend comparable with the size of the iron atom d-orbital. Second, we
tune $A$ from $0$ up to $A_{\rm c}$ until one of the properties of
Ba$_{0.6}$K$_{0.4}$Fe$_2$As$_2$ agrees better with the experimental
data. We choose to tune the occupied bandwidth of the $M$-point
electron pocket since it is severely overestimated in GGA (it is
$130$~meV in GGA while $\sim$~0--10~meV in the
experiment\cite{evtushinsky,neupane}). We find that using $A_{\rm c} =
1.3$~Ry has the desired effect of tuning the M-point bandwidth
to about 4~meV.
Just as in Ref.~\onlinecite{coh} we find that the choice of $f(r)$ is
not very important for physical properties as long as it is localized
on the iron atom and $A$ is tuned for each choice of $f(r)$. For
example, using $A f(r)= 2.2 e^{-1.7 r^2}$ or $A f(r)=5.5 e^{-3.5 r^2}$
results in nearly indistinguishable band structure of
Ba$_{0.6}$K$_{0.4}$Fe$_2$As$_2$.
Using $A=A_{\rm c}$ improves not only the occupied bandwidth of the
$M$-point electron pocket but other properties of
Ba$_{0.6}$K$_{0.4}$Fe$_2$As$_2$ as well. For example, structural
parameters relevant for superconductivity (arsenic height and
iron-arsenic-iron angle)\cite{zhao,lee,kuroki,mizuguchi} are both
moved in the direction towards experimental value. Going from GGA to
GGA+A the arsenic height is increased from 1.30~\AA\ to 1.44~\AA\
while the iron-arsenic-iron angle is decreased from 112.5$^{\circ}$
to 105.9$^{\circ}$. In addition, antiferromagnetic ground state is
suppressed in GGA+A. See Table~\ref{tab:comparison} for more details.
We confirmed that the tendency for improved structural and magnetic
properties is independent of the choice of $f(r)$.
\begin{table}
\caption{\label{tab:comparison} A comparison of the arsenic height,
iron-arsenic-iron angle, magnetic moment ($\mu_{\rm Fe}$) on iron
atom, and the energy difference ($\Delta E$) per one iron atom
between antiferromagnetic stripe and nonmagnetic ground state in GGA,
GGA+A, and from experiment (Ref.~\onlinecite{rotter}) in
Ba$_{0.6}$K$_{0.4}$Fe$_2$As$_2$.}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{lcccc}
& As height & Fe--As--Fe & $\mu_{\rm Fe}$ & $\Delta E$ \\
& (\AA) & ($^{\circ}$) & ($\mu_{\rm{B}}$) & (eV) \\
\hline
GGA+A & 1.44 & 105.9 & 2.26 & -0.19 \\
GGA & 1.30 & 112.5 & 2.91 & -0.33 \\
Experiment & 1.37 & 109.9 & & \\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\end{table}
Finally, using $A=A_{\rm c}$ the calculated heat capacity of
Ba$_{0.6}$K$_{0.4}$Fe$_2$As$_2$ is more than three times larger as
compared to the GGA value, and in good agreement with the experimental
value. We discuss heat capacity in more detail in Sec.~\ref{sec:heat}.
\section{Electronic structure}
Now we discuss the electronic structure of
Ba$_{0.6}$K$_{0.4}$Fe$_2$As$_2$ in GGA and GGA+A. In all of our
calculations we perform a full structural relaxation for both forces
on atoms and stresses on the cell. We sample the Brillouin zone on a
uniform 32$\times$32$\times$32 k-point mesh.
\begin{figure}
\epsfig{file=Fig_0.eps,width=8cm,clip=}
\caption{The electron density of Ba$_{0.6}$K$_{0.4}$Fe$_2$As$_2$
in the nonmagnetic state on a line between the nearest-neighbor (left)
and next-nearest-neighbor (right) iron atoms within GGA (blue) and
GGA+A (red). Difference between GGA and GGA+A is shown in panel
(b). Densities of both semi-core (3s, 3p) and valence (3d, 4s) states
are included in our pseudopotential calculation.
\label{fig:density}
}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:density} compares the electron density in
Ba$_{0.6}$K$_{0.4}$Fe$_2$As$_2$ in GGA and GGA+A. From panel~b of the
figure it is clear that including the +A term transfers some of the
electronic density from the iron atom to the outer region. The
maximal change in the electronic density is about 7~\% and it occurs
on a charge density peak near the iron atom.
\begin{figure}
\epsfig{file=Fig_1.eps,width=8.5cm,clip=}
\caption{Electronic band structures and Fermi surface of
Ba$_{0.6}$K$_{0.4}$Fe$_2$As$_2$ in the nonmagnetic states both in
GGA+A (panels a and b) and in GGA (c,d). Dominant orbital characters
(defined in the single-iron unit cell) are represented in blue
($d_{xy}$), red ($d_{yz}$), green ($d_{zx}$), black ($d_{z^2}$), and
yellow (both $d_{yz}$ and $d_{zx}$) color. High symmetry points in
the Brillouin are defined in the two-iron unit cell. Reciprocal space
axes $k_1$ and $k_2$ are perpendicular to the tetragonal $c$-axis.
\label{fig:band}
}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:band} compares the band structure and the Fermi
surface in GGA and GGA+A. We compare these results to the experiment
in Sec.~\ref{sec:arpes}.
In the GGA case, as in a previous calculation,\cite{singh} there are
three hole pockets at the zone center ($\Gamma$), and two electron
pockets at the zone corner (M). However, the band structures and the
Fermi surfaces in GGA+A are both quantitatively and qualitatively
different in several respects. First, the occupied bandwidth of the
$M$-point $d_{yz}$ and $d_{zx}$ electron pockets in GGA+A is 4~meV
[Fig.~\ref{fig:band}(a)], while it is 130~meV in GGA. In addition,
the effective mass of these pockets is increased by a factor of 3--4
in GGA+A and the shape of the Fermi pocket in GGA+A is more elongated
towards the $\Gamma$ and $Z$ points.
Second, the area of the hole pockets at $\Gamma$ and $Z$ is changed in
GGA+A. Specifically, in GGA+A the size of the $d_{xy}$ hole pockets at
$\Gamma$ and $Z$ is increased by a factor of 4, so that it is larger
than remaining two pockets. In addition, the $d_{z^2}$ hole pocket is
not present at $Z$ in GGA+A so that now there are only two hole
pockets at the $Z$ point (versus three hole pockets at $Z$ in GGA).
Therefore, a three-dimensional ellipsoidal Fermi surface exists at
$\Gamma$ in GGA+A.
\subsection{Comparison with ARPES}
\label{sec:arpes}
Now we compare modifications in the band structure due to +A term with
the currently available experimental data on
Ba$_{0.6}$K$_{0.4}$Fe$_2$As$_2$ band structure.
First, in angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy (ARPES)
experiment, three hole pockets are observed at the zone center and the
largest pocket is shown to originate from $d_{xy}$
orbital\cite{evtushinsky} as in our GGA+A calculation. Second, large
elongation of M point pocket towards the $\Gamma$ and $Z$ points we
find using +A was experimentally observed in angle-resolved
photoemission spectroscopy from Ref.~\onlinecite{malaeb}. Third, the
presence of three-dimensional FS in Ba$_{0.6}$K$_{0.4}$Fe$_2$As$_2$
was suggested from $c$-axis polarized optical
measurements.\cite{cheng} The optical experiment found that the
$c$-axis data only exhibit a small difference across T$_{c}$. This
indicates the existence of three-dimensional FS with a dispersive band
along the $c$ axis.
\section{Specific heat}
\label{sec:heat}
\begin{figure}
\epsfig{file=Fig_2.eps,width=8.5cm,angle=0,clip=}
\caption{
Ba$_{0.6}$K$_{0.4}$Fe$_2$As$_2$ density of states for both spin
components, per two-iron formula unit in the nonmagnetic (NM),
checkerboard antiferromagnetic, and single-stripe
antiferromagnetic state, both in GGA+A (a,b,c) and GGA (d,e,f).
\label{fig:dos}
}
\end{figure}
In this section we discuss the calculated specific heat of
Ba$_{0.6}$K$_{0.4}$Fe$_2$As$_2$.
The specific heat coefficient $\gamma_n$ is defined as,
\begin{equation}
\gamma_n=(1+\lambda)\gamma_0.
\label{eq:heat}
\end{equation}
Here $\gamma_0$ is the Sommerfeld coefficient proportional to DOS at
the Fermi energy, and $\lambda$ is the electron-phonon coupling
coefficient.
First we discuss the density of states in GGA and GGA+A. In GGA the
DOS at the Fermi energy of nonmagnetic Ba$_{0.6}$K$_{0.4}$Fe$_2$As$_2$
is 4.4~states~eV$^{-1}$~f.u.$^{-1}$ (the energy dependence of DOS is
shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:dos}). Similar value (3.1--5.5~states~eV$^{-1}$~f.u.$^{-1}$) for DOS
was found in previous calculations.\cite{singh,shein}
In our GGA+A calculation, DOS at the peak value near the Fermi level is
11.9~states~eV$^{-1}$~f.u.$^{-1}$,
almost three times larger than in GGA.
Since $\gamma_0$ is proportional to DOS, it is also increased by a
factor of 3 in GGA+A over GGA (see Table~\ref{tab:heat}).
Increase in the DOS after inclusion of +A term originates from the
changes of the band structure at the $M$ point. In the GGA+A, the
bottom of the electron-like band at the $M$ point (and the
corresponding van Hove singularity) is placed almost at the $E_{F}$.
Furthermore, the DOS at the van Hove singularity is enhanced due to
the renormalization of the band width and the formation of a saddle
point at the $M$ point [Fig.~\ref{fig:band}(a)].
After having discussed the $\gamma_0$, we now discuss the contribution
of the electron-phonon coupling coefficient ($\lambda$) to the heat
capacity $\gamma_n$. We calculated the electron-phonon coupling
coefficient $\lambda$ using the Wannier interpolation technique\cite{giustino}
and the Quantum-ESPRESSO package.\cite{giannozzi}
The electron-phonon coupling in the
nonmagnetic GGA+A calculation is 0.37, about two times larger than
0.18 obtained in GGA (see Table~\ref{tab:heat}). However, the heat
capacity ($\gamma_n$) is proportional to $1+\lambda$ so the increase
in $\lambda$ in GGA+A increases $\gamma_n$ by 16~\%,
in addition to the dominant increase from larger DOS.
Taking both terms together ($\gamma_0$ and $1+\lambda$) we find that
within GGA+A method specific heat coefficient $\gamma_n$ equals
38~mJ~mol$^{-1}$~K$^{-2}$, which is much closer to the experimentally
measured values (40--50~mJ~mol$^{-1}$~K$^{-2}$) than the GGA
result (12~mJ~mol$^{-1}$~K$^{-2}$).
\begin{table}
\caption{\label{tab:heat} A comparison of the
Sommerfeld coefficient ($\gamma_0$), electron-phonon coupling
($\lambda$), and enhanced normal-state specific heat coefficient
($\gamma_n$) of Ba$_{0.6}$K$_{0.4}$Fe$_2$As$_2$ in GGA, GGA+A, and
from experiment
(Ref.~\onlinecite{popovich,kant,storey,rotundu}). Coefficients
$\gamma_0$ and $\gamma_n$ are given in mJ~mol$^{-1}$~K$^{-2}$ in a
two-iron atom unit cell and for both spin components.}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{lclc}
& $\gamma_0$ & $\lambda$ & $\gamma_n$ \\
\hline
\multicolumn{4}{l}{Nonmagnetic} \\
\quad \quad GGA+A & 28 & 0.37 & 38 \\
\quad \quad GGA & 10 & 0.18\cite{boeri} & 12 \\
\quad \quad Experiment & & & 40--50 \\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{Checkerboard} \\
\quad \quad GGA+A & 4.1 & 0.80 & 7.3 \\
\quad \quad GGA & 26 & 0.33\cite{boeri} & 34 \\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{Single-stripe} \\
\quad \quad GGA+A & 6.6 & 0.90 & 12 \\
\quad \quad GGA & 5.1 & 0.18\cite{boeri} & 6.0 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\end{table}
\subsection{Antiferromagnetic ground states}
So far we discussed the specific heat in the nonmangetic ground state of
Ba$_{0.6}$K$_{0.4}$Fe$_2$As$_2$, now we consider two antiferromagnetic
ground states: striped and checkerboard. The striped case is especially
important, since this is the experimentally determined ground state of
the parent compound BaFe$_2$As$_2$. We study the alternative ground state
(checkerboard) for a comparison with the striped phase.
The (single-)stripe order consists of ferromagnetically arranged
chains of iron atoms, with antiferromagnetic aligment between
neighboring chains. On the other hand, in the checkerboard
antiferromagnetic order magnetic moments on all neighboring iron atoms
in point in opposite directions.
For easier comparison with the nonmagnetic calculations, in our
magnetic GGA+A calculations we use the same value of $A_c$ and the
same function $f(r)$.
In the striped state, the peak in DOS occuring 50~meV below the Fermi
level in GGA is shifted to $E_{F}-$230~meV when +A is included but
there is no significant change in the DOS at the $E_{F}$
[Figs.~\ref{fig:dos}(c) and (f)]. However, in the checkerboard state
within GGA+A we obtain the DOS at $E_{F}$ equal to
1.7~states~eV$^{-1}$~f.u.$^{-1}$, which is about one sixth of the GGA
result (see Figs.~\ref{fig:dos}(b) and (e)). This suppression in the
checkerboard state is due to the occurrence of a Jahn-Teller
distortion in GGA+A, which is lowering the crystal symmetry from
tetragonal to orthorhombic.
Eventhough within GGA+A DOS at $E_{F}$ is relatively small in the
striped state (2.8~states~eV$^{-1}$~f.u.$^{-1}$) the electron-phonon
coupling is significantly larger than in the nonmagnetic case. We
obtained $\lambda=$~0.90 (see Table~\ref{tab:heat}) in striped state
which is $\sim$60~\% larger than in GGA. As we said earlier, DOS in
striped state is nearly the same in GGA and GGA+A. Therefore, strong
enhancement of $\lambda$ in GGA+A must originate from other sources,
and not simply from increased DOS. However, the origin of this
enhancement is not the focus of this paper, and it will be reported
elsewhere.
\section{Conclusion}
By increasing the potential on iron atoms,
making them slightly more repulsive for electrons
significantly improves the structural, magnetic, and electronic properties
of Ba$_{0.6}$K$_{0.4}$Fe$_2$As$_2$, as calculated within DFT.
The main result of this paper is that with a corrected potential (+A) on iron
atom, the heat capacity of Ba$_{0.6}$K$_{0.4}$Fe$_2$As$_2$ is increased
more than threefold, in good agreement with experimental
data. Applying the same correction to the magnetic states, we find
that electron-phonon coupling is strongly enhanced. This observation
might be crucial in understanding the superconducting properties of
iron-based superconductors.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We thank Professors N. E. Phillips and R. J. Birgeneau for useful discussions.
This work was supported by National Science Foundation Grant
No. DMR10-1006184 (electronic and magnetic structure calculation)
and by the Director, Office of Science, Office of
Basic Energy Sciences, Materials Sciences and Engineering Division,
U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231
(electron-phonon calculation).
Computational resources have been provided by the DOE at Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory's NERSC facility.
\scm{I think that if you have two grants we need to say which part of
the work belongs to which grant. One way to divide this is to say that
structure and DOS were done by one grant and that lambda calculation
was done by another grant. I don't know which one should go to which
grant... Marvin?}
|
\section{Introduction: Serfling's finite sampling exponential bound}
Suppose that $\{ c_1, \ldots , c_N\}$ is a finite population with each $c_i \in {\mathbb R}$.
For $n \le N$, let $Y_1, \ldots , Y_n $ be a sample drawn from $\{c_1, \ldots , c_N\}$ without replacement;
we can regard the finite population $\{ c_1, \ldots , c_N \}$ as an urn containing $N$ balls labeled
with the numbers $c_1, \ldots , c_N$.
Some notation: we let
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& \mu_N = N^{-1} \sum_{i=1}^N c_i \equiv \overline{c}_N , \qquad \sigma_N^2 = N^{-1} \sum_{i=1}^N (c_i - \overline{c}_N)^2,\\
&& a_N \equiv \min_{1 \le i \le N} c_i, \qquad b_N \equiv \max_{1 \le i \le N} c_i, \\
&& f_n \equiv \frac{n-1}{N-1}, \qquad \mbox{and} \qquad f_n^* \equiv \frac{n-1}{N} .
\end{eqnarray*}
It is well-known (see e.g. \cite{Rice-2007}, Theorem B, page 208)
that $\overline{Y}_n = n^{-1} \sum_{i=1}^n Y_i$ satisfies
$E (\overline{Y}_n) = \mu_N$ and
\begin{eqnarray}
Var( \overline{Y}_n ) = \frac{\sigma_N^2}{n} \left (1 - \frac{n-1}{N-1} \right ) = \frac{\sigma_N^2}{n} (1- f_n ) .
\label{FiniteSamplingVarianceOfMean}
\end{eqnarray}
\cite{MR0420967}, Corollary 1.1,
shows that for all $\lambda > 0$
\begin{eqnarray}
P( \sqrt{n} (\overline{Y}_n - \mu_N) \ge \lambda ) \le \exp \left ( - \frac{2 \lambda ^2 }{ (1-f_n^*) (b_N-a_N)^2} \right ) .
\label{SerflingsExpBound}
\end{eqnarray}
This inequality is an inequality of the type proved by \cite{MR0144363} for sampling with replacement
and more generally for sums of independent bounded random variables.
Comparing (\ref{FiniteSamplingVarianceOfMean}) and (\ref{SerflingsExpBound}),
it seems reasonable to ask whether
the factor $f_n^{*}$ in (\ref{SerflingsExpBound})
can be improved to $f_n \equiv (n-1)/(N-1)$? Indeed Serfling ends his paper (on page 47) with the remark:
``(it is) also of interest to obtain (\ref{SerflingsExpBound}) with the usual sampling fraction instead of $f_n^*$''.
Note that when $n=N$, $\overline{Y}_n = \mu_N$, and hence the probability in (\ref{SerflingsExpBound})
is $0$ for all $\lambda>0$, and the conjectured improvement of Serfling's bound agrees with this while
Serfling's bound itself is positive when $n=N$.
Despite related results due to \cite{MR0345259, MR0345260, MR0345261},
it seems that a definitive answer to this question is not
yet known.
A special case of considerable importance is the case when the numbers on the balls in the urn
are all $1$'s and $0$'s: suppose that $c_1 = \cdots = c_D =1$, while $c_{D+1} , \ldots , c_N = 0$.
Then $X\equiv n\overline{Y}_n = \sum_{i=1}^n Y_i$ is well-known to have a
Hypergeometric$(n,D,N)$ distribution
given by
\begin{eqnarray*}
P\left ( \sum_{i=1}^n Y_i = k \right ) = \frac{{D \choose k} {N-D \choose n-k}}{{N \choose n}}, \ \ \
\max \{ 0 , D+n-N \} \le k \le \min\{ n, D \} .
\end{eqnarray*}
In this special case $\mu_N = D/N$, $\sigma_N^2 = \mu_N (1-\mu_N)$, while $b_N=1$ and $a_N=0$.
Thus Serfling's inequality (\ref{SerflingsExpBound}) becomes
\begin{eqnarray*}
P( \sqrt{n} ( \overline{Y}_n - \mu_N ) \ge \lambda ) \le
\exp \left ( - \frac{2 \lambda^2}{1- f_n^*} \right ) \ \ \ \mbox{for all} \ \ \lambda >0 ,
\end{eqnarray*}
and the conjectured improvement is
\begin{eqnarray*}
P( \sqrt{n} ( \overline{Y}_n - \mu_N ) \ge \lambda ) \le
\exp \left ( - \frac{2 \lambda^2}{1- f_n} \right ) \ \ \ \mbox{for all} \ \ \lambda >0 .
\end{eqnarray*}
Despite related results due to
\cite{MR534946}
and \cite{MR2206293}
it seems that a bound of the form in the last display remains unknown.
We should note that an exponential bound of the Bennett type for the
tails of the hypergeometric distribution does follow from results of
\cite{MR681461}
and
\cite{MR1093412}; see also \cite{MR1429082}.
\smallskip
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:EhmThm}
(Ehm, 1991)
If $1 \le n \le D \wedge (N-D)$, then $\sum_{i=1}^n Y_i \stackrel{d}{=} \sum_{i=1}^n X_i$
where $X_i \sim \mbox{Bernoulli} (\pi_i)$, with $\pi_i \in (0,1)$, are independent.
\end{thm}
\smallskip
It follows from Theorem~\ref{thm:EhmThm} that
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& n (D/N) = E \left ( \sum_1^n Y_i \right ) = E \left ( \sum_1^n X_i \right ) = \sum_{i=1}^n \pi_i, \\
&& n \frac{D}{N} \left (1 - \frac{D}{N} \right ) (1 - f_n ) = Var \left ( \sum_1^n Y_i \right )
= Var\left ( \sum_1^n X_i\right ) = \sum_{i=1}^n \pi_i (1-\pi_i) .
\end{eqnarray*}
Furthermore, by applying Theorem~\ref{thm:EhmThm} together with Bennett's inequality
(\cite{Bennett:62}; see also \cite{MR838963}, page 851), we obtain the following
exponential bound for the tail of the hypergeometric distribution:
\smallskip
\begin{cor}
If $1 \le n \le D \wedge (N-D)$, then for all $\lambda>0$
\begin{eqnarray*}
P( \sqrt{n} (\overline{Y}_n - \mu_N ) \ge \lambda)
\le \exp \left ( - \frac{ \lambda^2}{2 \sigma_N^2 (1-f_n)} \psi
\left ( \frac{\lambda}{\sqrt{n} \sigma_N^2 (1-f_n)} \right ) \right)
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\mu_N \equiv D/N$, $\sigma_N^2 \equiv \mu_N (1-\mu_N)$, $1-f_n \equiv 1- (n-1)/(N-1)$
is the finite-sampling correction factor, and $\psi (y) \equiv 2 y^{-2} h(1+y) $ where $h(y) \equiv y(\log y -1) +1$.
\end{cor}
\smallskip
Since $\sigma_N^2 = \mu_N (1- \mu_N) \le 1/4$, the inequality of the corollary yields
a further bound which is quite close to the conjectured Hoeffding type improvement of
Serfling's bound, and which now has the desired finite-sampling correction factor $1-f_n$:
\smallskip
\begin{cor}
\begin{eqnarray*}
P( \sqrt{n} ( \overline{Y}_n - \mu_N ) \ge \lambda)
& \le & \exp \left (- \ \frac{2 \lambda^2}{(1-f_n)} \psi \left ( \frac{\lambda}{\sqrt{n} \sigma_N^2 (1-f_n)} \right ) \right ) \\
& \le & \exp \left (- \ \frac{2 \lambda^2}{(1-f_n)} \psi \left ( \frac{1}{\sigma_N^2 (1-f_n)} \right ) \right ) .
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{cor}
By considerations related to the work of
\cite{MR1258865}
and
\cite{MR1973309},
the first author of this paper has succeeded in proving the following
exponential bound.
\smallskip
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:Greene-W-HyperGeomBound}
(Greene, 2014)
Suppose that $\sum_{i=1}^n Y_i \sim \mbox{Hypergeometric} (n, D, N)$.
Define $\mu_N = D/N$ and suppose $N>4$ and $2 \le n < D \le N/2$. Then for all $0 < \lambda < \sqrt{n}/2$ we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lefteqn{P\left ( \sqrt{n} ( \overline{Y}_n - \mu_N) \ge \lambda \right )} \\
& \le & \sqrt{\frac{1}{2\pi \lambda^2}} \left ( \frac{1}{2} \right )
\sqrt{ \left ( \frac{N-n}{N} \right ) \left ( \frac{\sqrt{n} + 2\lambda}{\sqrt{n} - 2 \lambda }\right )
\left ( \frac{N- n + 2 \sqrt{n} \lambda}{N-n - 2 \sqrt{n} \lambda }\right ) } \\
&& \ \ \cdot \exp \left ( - \frac{2}{1-\frac{n}{N}} \lambda^2 \right )
\exp \left ( - \frac{1}{3} \left ( 1 + \frac{n^3}{(N-n)^3} \right ) \frac{\lambda^4}{n} \right ) .
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{thm}
The proof of this bound, along with a complete analogue for the
hypergeometric distribution of a bound of Talagrand (1994) for the binomial distribution,
appears in \cite{Greene-Wellner:2015} and in the forthcoming Ph.D. thesis of the first author,
\cite{Greene:2016}.
The bound given in Theorem~\ref{thm:Greene-W-HyperGeomBound}
involves a still better finite-sampling correction factor, namely
$1- \overline{f}_n = 1- n/N$, which
has also appeared in \cite{MR856817} in the context of a Bayesian analysis of
finite sampling. Note that as $N\rightarrow \infty$, the above bound yields
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lefteqn{\limsup_{N\rightarrow \infty} P\left ( \sqrt{n} ( \overline{Y}_n - \mu_N) \ge \lambda \right )} \\
& \le & \sqrt{\frac{1}{2\pi \lambda^2}} \left ( \frac{1}{2} \right )
\sqrt{ \left ( \frac{\sqrt{n} + 2\lambda}{\sqrt{n} - 2 \lambda }\right ) }
\cdot \exp \left ( - 2 \lambda^2 - \frac{\lambda^4}{3n} \right ) ,
\end{eqnarray*}
a bound which improves slightly on the bound given by \cite{MR1973309}
in the case of sums of i.i.d. Bernoulli random variables.
Before leaving this section we begin to make a connection to finite-sampling empirical
distributions:
Now let ${\mathbb F}_n (t) = n^{-1} \sum_{i=1}^n 1_{(-\infty , t]} (Y_i ) $ and $F_N (t) = N^{-1} \sum_{i=1}^N 1_{(-\infty, t]} (c_i ) $.
Then it is easily seen that Serfling's bound yields
\begin{eqnarray*}
P( \sqrt{n} ( {\mathbb F}_n (t) - F_N (t) ) \ge \lambda ) \le \exp \left ( - \frac{2 \lambda^2}{(1 - (n-1)/N)} \right )
\end{eqnarray*}
for each fixed $\lambda >0$ and $t \in {\mathbb R}$. Note that since ${\mathbb F}_n (t)$ is equal in distribution to
the sample mean
of $n$ draws without replacement from an urn containing $N F_N (t)$ $1$'s and $N(1-F_N (t))$ $0$'s, the
bound in the last display only involves the hypergeometric special case of Serfling's inequality.
This leads to the following conjecture concerning bounds for the finite sampling empirical process
$\{ \sqrt{n} ({\mathbb F}_n (t) - F_N (t) ) : \ t \in {\mathbb R} \}$:
\medskip
\par\noindent
{\bf Conjecture:} There exist constants $C, D>0$ (possibly $C=1$ and $D=2$?) such that
\begin{eqnarray}
&& P\left ( \sqrt{n} \sup_{t} ( {\mathbb F}_n (t) - F_N (t) ) \ge \lambda \right )
\le C \exp \left ( - \frac{2 \lambda^2}{(1 - f_n)} \right ) ,
\label{ConjectureInequalKS-FSOneSided}\\
&& P\left ( \sqrt{n} \sup_{t} | {\mathbb F}_n (t) - F_N (t) | \ge \lambda \right )
\le D \exp \left ( - \frac{2 \lambda^2}{(1 - f_n)} \right )
\label{ConjectureInequalKS-FSTwoSided}
\end{eqnarray}
for all $\lambda>0$. The possibility that $D=2$ is suggested by
the corresponding inequality established by
\cite{MR1062069}
in the case of sampling with replacement.
With these strong indications of the plausibility of an improvement of Serfling's bound
and corresponding improvements in exponential bounds for the uniform-norm deviations
of the finite-sampling empirical process,
we can now turn to an application of the basic idea
in the context of two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistics.
\section{Two-sample tests and finite-sampling connections}
\hfill \\
To connect this with the two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistics, suppose that
$X_1, \ldots , X_m$ are i.i.d. $F$ and $Y_1, \ldots , Y_n$ are i.i.d. $G$. Let $N=m+n$.
Then for testing
$H_c : F=G$ with $F$ continuous versus $K^+ : \ F \ge G$ ($F \prec_s G$),
$K^{-} : \ G \ge F$, ($G \prec_s F$),
or $K: \ F \not= G$, the classical
K-S test statistics are
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& D_{m,n}^+ \equiv \sqrt{\frac{mn}{N}} \sup_x ( {\mathbb F}_m (x) - {\mathbb G}_n (x)) , \\
&& D_{m,n}^- \equiv \sqrt{\frac{mn}{N}} \sup_x ( {\mathbb G}_n (x) - {\mathbb F}_m (x)) , \ \ \mbox{and}\\
&& D_{m,n} \equiv \sqrt{\frac{mn}{N}} \sup_x | {\mathbb F}_m (x) - {\mathbb G}_n (x) | ,
\end{eqnarray*}
respectively. It is well-known that under $H_c$ we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
D_{m,n}^{\pm} \rightarrow_d \sup_{0 \le t \le 1} {\mathbb U} (t) , \qquad
D_{m,n} \rightarrow_d \sup_{0 \le t \le 1} | {\mathbb U} (t) |
\end{eqnarray*}
if $m \wedge n \rightarrow \infty$ where ${\mathbb U}$ is a standard Brownian bridge process
on $[0,1]$; see e.g.
\cite{MR0229351},
pages 189-190,
\cite{MR0097136}, and
\cite{MR1385671},
pages 360-366.
Note that with $\lambda_N \equiv m/N$ and
$$
{\mathbb H}_N \equiv \lambda_N {\mathbb F}_m + (1-\lambda_N) {\mathbb G}_n = N^{-1} \sum_{i=1}^N 1_{(-\infty, \cdot ]} (Z_{(i)} )
$$
where $Z_{(1)} \le \cdots \le Z_{(N)} $ are the order statistics of the pooled sample,
we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\mathbb F}_m - {\mathbb H}_N
& = & {\mathbb F}_m - \lambda_N {\mathbb F}_m - (1-\lambda_N) {\mathbb G}_n
= (1-\lambda_N) ({\mathbb F}_m - {\mathbb G}_n ), \qquad \mbox{and}\\
{\mathbb G}_n - {\mathbb H}_N
& = & {\mathbb G}_n - \lambda_N {\mathbb F}_m - (1-\lambda_N) {\mathbb G}_n = \lambda_N ( {\mathbb G}_n - {\mathbb F}_m ),
\end{eqnarray*}
and hence, with $\overline{\lambda}_N = 1- \lambda_N$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& \sqrt{\frac{mn}{N}} ( {\mathbb F}_m - {\mathbb G}_n )
= \sqrt{N} \sqrt{\lambda_N \overline{\lambda}_N} \frac{1}{\overline{\lambda}_N} ({\mathbb F}_m - {\mathbb H}_N)
= \frac{1}{\sqrt{\overline{\lambda}_N}} \sqrt{m} ( {\mathbb F}_m - {\mathbb H}_N), \\
&& \sqrt{\frac{mn}{N}} ( {\mathbb G}_n - {\mathbb F}_m )
= \sqrt{N} \sqrt{\lambda_N \overline{\lambda}_N} \frac{1}{\lambda_N} ({\mathbb G}_n - {\mathbb H}_N)
= \frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda_N}} \sqrt{n} ( {\mathbb G}_n - {\mathbb H}_N) .
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus, using the independence of the ranks $\underline{R}$ and the order statistics $\underline{Z}$
\begin{eqnarray*}
P( D^+_{m,n} \ge t )
& = & E_Z P_R \left ( \sqrt{m} \| ( {\mathbb F}_m - {\mathbb H}_N )^{+} \|_{\infty} > t \sqrt{1-\lambda_N} \right )
\end{eqnarray*}
and it would follow from (\ref{ConjectureInequalKS-FSOneSided}) that
\begin{eqnarray}
P( D_{m,n}^+ \ge t )
& \le & C \exp \left ( - 2 \overline{\lambda}_N t^2 / (1 - f_m) \right ) \nonumber \\
& \le & C \exp \left ( - 2 (n/N) t^2 / (n/(N-1)) \right ) \nonumber \\
& = & C \exp \left ( - 2 \frac{N-1}{N} t^2 \right ) \label{TwoSampleKS-OneSidedProbBoundsConj}
\end{eqnarray}
for all $t>0$. Similarly it would also follow from (\ref{ConjectureInequalKS-FSOneSided}) that
\begin{eqnarray*}
P( D_{m,n}^- \ge t )
& \le & C \exp \left ( - 2 \lambda_N t^2 / (1 - f_n ) \right ) \\
& \le & C \exp \left ( - 2 (m/N) t^2 / (m/(N-1)) \right ) = C \exp \left ( - 2 \frac{N-1}{N} t^2 \right )
\end{eqnarray*}
for all $t>0$.
Combining the two one-sided inequalities yields a (conjectured) two-sided inequality:
\begin{eqnarray*}
P( D_{m,n} \ge t )
& \equiv & P( \sqrt{mn/N} \| {\mathbb F}_m - {\mathbb G}_n \|_{\infty} > t ) \\
& \le & P( D_{m,n}^+ > t ) + P( D_{m,n}^{-} > t ) \\
& \le & 2C \exp \left ( - 2 \frac{N-1}{N} t^2 \right ) .
\end{eqnarray*}
In the next section we will prove that bounds of this type with $C=1$ and $D=2$ hold
in the special case $m=n$.
For some results for the two-side two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic in the case $m=n$ and
computational results for $m \not= n$, see
\cite{MR2887482}. These authors were aiming for a bound of the
form $ C \exp (-2 t^2)$ both for $m=n$ and $m\not= n$.
The above heuristics seem to suggest that a bound of the form
$C \exp ( - 2((N-1)/N) t^2)$ might be a natural goal.
\section{An exponential bound for $D_{m,n}^+$ when $m=n$}
\hfill \\
Throughout this section we suppose that the null hypothesis
$H_c$ holds: $G=F$ is a continuous distribution function.
From \cite{MR0097136}, (2.3) on page 473 (together with $t = \sqrt{mn/N} d$ and $d = a/n$ from page 473, line 4),
when $m=n$ (so $N=2n$),
\begin{eqnarray*}
P( D_{n,n}^+ \ge t )
& = & P\left ( \sqrt{\frac{mn}{N}} \sup_x ( {\mathbb F}_m (x) - {\mathbb G}_n (x) ) \ge \sqrt{\frac{mn}{N}} \frac{a}{n} \right ) \\
& = & P\left ( \sqrt{\frac{n^2}{2n}} \sup_x ( {\mathbb F}_n (x) - {\mathbb G}_n (x) ) \ge \sqrt{\frac{n^2}{2n}} \frac{a}{n} \right ) \\
& = & \frac{{2n \choose n-a}}{{2n \choose n}} \ \ \mbox{for} \ \ a = 1, 2, \ldots , n .
\end{eqnarray*}
We first compare the exact probability from the last display with the possible upper bounds
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& PB_2 (n) = \exp \left ( - 2 \frac{2n-1}{2n} \frac{a^2}{2n} \right ) ; \\
&& PB_3(n) = \exp \left ( - 2 \frac{a^2}{2n} \right ) .
\end{eqnarray*}
For $n=3$ we find that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\begin{array}{| r | r r r r |} \hline
a & 0 & 1 & 2 & 3 \\ \hline
E(xact) & 1 & .75 & 0.3 & 0.05 \\ \hline
PB2 & 1 & 0.7574 & 0.3291 & 0.0821 \\
PB2-E & 0 & 0.0074 & 0.0291 & 0.0321 \\ \hline
PB3 & 1 & 0.7165 & 0.2636 & 0.0498 \\
PB3-E & 0 & -0.0335 & -0.0364 & - 0.0002 \\ \hline
\end{array}
\end{eqnarray*}
Further comparisons for $m=n = 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 25$ support the validity
of the bound involving the finite sampling fraction $f_n$.
These comparisons agree with the following theorem:
\smallskip
\begin{thm}
\label{BasicGW-TwoSampleKS-bounds}
A. \ When $m=n$ (so that $N=2n$) the second bound in
(\ref{TwoSampleKS-OneSidedProbBoundsConj}) holds for all $n \ge 1 $ with $C=1$:
\begin{eqnarray}
P( D_{n,n}^+ \ge t)
& = & P\left ( \sqrt{\frac{mn}{N}} \sup_x ( {\mathbb F}_m (x) - {\mathbb G}_n (x) ) \ge t \right ) \\
& \le & \exp \left ( - 2 \frac{N-1}{N} t^2 \right ) \ \ \ \mbox{for all} \ \ t>0 .
\label{TwoSampleKS-OneSidedProbBoundsLittleMequalsLittleN}
\end{eqnarray}
Equivalently, when $m=n$,
\begin{eqnarray}
P\left ( \sqrt{\frac{mn}{N}} \sqrt{\frac{N-1}{N}} \sup_x ( {\mathbb F}_m (x) - {\mathbb G}_n (x) ) \ge t \right )
\le \exp \left ( - 2 t^2 \right )
\label{TwoSampleKS-OneSidedProbBoundsLittleMequalsLittleNAlternateForm}
\end{eqnarray}
for all $ t>0$.\\
B. \ On the other hand, when $m=n$ (so that $N=2n$), for all $n\ge 1$ we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
P( D_{n,n}^+ \ge t) > \exp ( - 2 t^2 ) \ \ \ \mbox{for all} \ \ 0 < t < 1.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}[\bf Proof]
A. \ Since the inequality holds trivially for $a=0$, and can be shown easily by numerical
computation for $a \in \{ 1, 2, 3 \}$ (see the Table above),
it suffices to show that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{{2n \choose n-a}}{{2n \choose n}} \le \exp \left ( - 2 \frac{2n-1}{2n} \frac{a^2}{2n} \right )
\end{eqnarray*}
for $a \in \{ 1, \ldots , n \}$ and $n\ge 4$. Furthermore, we will show that it holds for $a=n$
in a separate argument, and thus it suffices to show that it holds for $a \in \{ 1, \ldots , n-1 \}$ and $n\ge 4$.
By rewriting the numerator and denominator on the left side of the last display, the desired inequality
can be rewritten as
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{n! n!}{(n-a)! (n+a)!} \le \exp \left ( - \frac{2n-1}{2n} \cdot \frac{a^2}{n} \right ) .
\end{eqnarray*}
By taking logarithms we can rewrite this as
\begin{eqnarray}
\log \left ( \frac{n! n!}{(n-a)!(n+a)!} \right ) + \frac{2n-1}{2n} \frac{a^2}{n} \le 0 .
\label{BasicLogExpression}
\end{eqnarray}
Now by Stirling's formula with bounds (see e.g. \cite{MR0117359})
we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\phantom{blabl}\sqrt{2\pi k} \left (\frac{k}{e} \right )^k \exp \left ( \frac{1}{12k} - \frac{1}{360 k^3} \right )
\le k! \le \sqrt{2\pi k} \left (\frac{k}{e} \right )^k \exp \left ( \frac{1}{12k} \right ) .
\label{StirlingsFormula}
\end{eqnarray}
Using these bounds in (\ref{BasicLogExpression}) we find that the left side is
bounded above by
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lefteqn{
- n \left \{ (1- \frac{a}{n} ) \log (1- \frac{a}{n} ) + (1 + \frac{a}{n} ) \log (1 + \frac{a}{n} ) \right \} } \\
&& \ \ - \ \frac{1}{2} \left ( \log \left (1 - \frac{a}{n} \right ) + \log \left (1 + \frac{a}{n} \right ) \right ) \\
&& \ \ + \ \left \{ \frac{1}{6n} - \frac{1}{12 (n-a)} - \frac{1}{12(n+a)}
+ \frac{1}{360} \left ( \frac{1}{(n-a)^3} + \frac{1}{(n+a)^3} \right ) \right \} \\
&& \ \ + \ \frac{a^2}{n} - \frac{a^2}{2 n^2} \\
& \equiv & I_1 + I_2 + I_3 + I_4 .
\end{eqnarray*}
Note that $I_1$ and $I_2$ are as defined in \cite{MR2887482} page 640, while $I_3$ and $I_4 $ differ.
From \cite{MR2887482} page 640,
\begin{eqnarray}
I_1 \le - \frac{a^2}{n} - \frac{a^4}{6n^3} - \frac{a^6}{15 n^5} - \frac{a^8}{28 n^7} ,
\label{IOneBound}
\end{eqnarray}
(which is proved by Taylor expansion of $(1+x) \log (1+x) + (1-x) \log (1-x)$ about $x=0$), and
\begin{eqnarray}
I_2 \le \frac{a^2}{2n^2} + \frac{a^4}{4 n^4} + \frac{a^6}{6 n^6 (1 - a^2/n^2)} .
\label{ITwoBound}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that the lead term in the bound (\ref{IOneBound}) for $I_1$ and lead term of $I_4$ cancel each other,
while the first term of the bound (\ref{ITwoBound}) for $I_2$ cancels the second term of $I_4$.
Adding the bounds yields
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lefteqn{I_1 + I_2 + I_3 + I_4 }\\
& \le & - \frac{a^4}{12 n^3}- \frac{a^4}{12 n^3} - \frac{a^6}{15 n^5} - \frac{a^8}{28 n^7} \\
&& \ \ + \ \frac{a^4}{4 n^4} + \frac{a^6}{6n^6 (1- a^2/n^2)} + I_3 \\
& = & - \frac{a^4}{n^3} \left ( \frac{1}{12} - \frac{1}{4n} \right )- \frac{a^4}{12 n^3}
- \frac{a^6}{n^5} \left ( \frac{1}{15} - \frac{1}{6n (1 - a^2/n^2)} \right ) - \frac{a^8}{28 n^7}
\ + \ I_3 \\
& \le & - \frac{a^4}{n^3} \left ( \frac{1}{12} - \frac{1}{4n} \right ) - \frac{a^4}{12 n^3}
- \frac{a^6}{n^5} \left ( \frac{1}{15} - \frac{1}{6 ( 2 - 1/n)} \right ) - \frac{a^8}{28 n^7} + I_3\\
& \le & - \frac{a^4}{n^3} \left ( \frac{1}{12} - \frac{1}{4n} \right ) - \frac{a^4}{12 n^3}
+ \frac{3 a^6}{105 n^5} - \frac{a^8}{28 n^7} + I_3\\
& = & - \frac{a^4}{n^3} \left ( \frac{1}{12} - \frac{1}{4n} \right )
- \frac{a^4}{12 n^3}\left(1- \frac{36 a^2}{105 n^2}\right) - \frac{a^8}{28 n^7} + I_3\\
& \leq & - \frac{a^4}{n^3} \left ( \frac{1}{12} - \frac{1}{4n} \right ) - \frac{a^4}{21 n^3} - \frac{a^8}{28 n^7} + I_3\\
& \equiv & R_{12} + I_3 .
\end{eqnarray*}
Now $R_{12} \le 0 $ for $n\ge 4$ and $I_3 \le 0$ for all $n\ge 2$ and $a \in \{ 1, \ldots , n-1\}$
by the following argument:
\begin{eqnarray*}
I_3 & = & \frac{1}{6n} - \frac{1}{12 (n-a)} - \frac{1}{12(n+a)} + \frac{1}{360} \left ( \frac{1}{(n+a)^3} + \frac{1}{(n-a)^3} \right ) \\
& = & - \frac{1}{6} \frac{a^2}{n (n^2 - a^2)} + \frac{2}{360} \frac{n (n^2 + 3a^2)}{ (n^2 - a^2)^3} \\
& = & - \frac{1}{6 n (n^2-a^2)} \left \{ a^2 - \frac{2}{60} \frac{n^2 (n^2+3a^2)}{(n^2-a^2)^2} \right \} \\
& = & - \frac{1}{6 n (n^2 - a^2)} \left \{ a^2 - \frac{1}{30} \frac{n^2 (n^2 - a^2 + 4a^2)}{(n^2 -a ^2)^2} \right \} \\
& = & -\frac{1}{6 n (n^2 - a^2)} \left \{ a^2 \left ( 1 - \frac{2}{15} \frac{n^2}{(n^2 - a^2)^2} \right )
- \frac{n^2 (n^2-a^2)}{30 (n^2 - a^2)^2} \right \} \\
& \le & -\frac{1}{6 n (n^2 - a^2)} \left \{ a^2 \left ( 1 - \frac{2}{15} \frac{1}{3} \right )
- \frac{n^2 }{30 (n^2 - a^2)} \right \} \\
&& \ \ \ \mbox{by using } \ a \le n-1, \ \mbox{so} \ \ n^2 - a^2 \ge n^2 - (n-1)^2 = (2n-1) , \\
&& \ \ \ \mbox{and } \ n^2 /(2n-1)^2 \le 1/3 \ \ \mbox{for} \ \ n \ge 4, \\
& = & -\frac{1}{6 n (n^2 - a^2)} \left \{ a^2 \left ( 1 - \frac{2}{3\cdot 15} \right )
- \frac{n^2- a^2 + a^2 }{30 (n^2 - a^2)} \right \} \\
& = & -\frac{1}{6 n (n^2 - a^2)} \left \{ a^2 \left ( 1 - \frac{2}{3\cdot 15} - \frac{1}{30 (n^2-a^2)} \right )
- \frac{1}{30} \right \} \\
& \le & -\frac{1}{6 n (n^2 - a^2)} \left \{ a^2 \left ( 1 - \frac{2}{3\cdot 15} - \frac{1}{30 (2n-1)} \right )
- \frac{1}{30} \right \} \\
& \le & -\frac{1}{6 n (n^2 - a^2)} \left \{ a^2 \left ( 1 - \frac{31}{630} \right )
- \frac{1}{30} \right \} \\
\end{eqnarray*}
for $n\ge 4$. This is a decreasing function of $a$ for fixed $n$, and hence to show that it is $<0$ it suffices to
check it for $a=1$. But when $a=1$ the right side above equals
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lefteqn{- \frac{1}{6 n(n^2-1^2)} \left \{ 1 - \frac{31}{630} - \frac{1}{30} \right \} }\\
& = & - \frac{1}{ n(n^2-1)} \left \{ \frac{289}{6\cdot 315} \right \}
< - \frac{1}{n(n^2-1)} \left \{ \frac{280}{6\cdot 315} \right \}
= - \frac{4}{27 n(n^2-1)} <0,
\end{eqnarray*}
so we conclude that $I_3 <0$ for $a \in \{ 1, \ldots , n-1 \}$ and $n\ge 4$.
It remains only to show that the desired bound holds for $a=n$; that is we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{1}{{2n\choose n}} \le \exp (- (n-1/2) ) .
\end{eqnarray*}
But this can easily be shown via the Stirling formula bounds (\ref{StirlingsFormula}).
Thus
\begin{eqnarray*}
\exp ( I_1 + I_2 + I_3 ) \le \exp ( - I_4 ) = \exp \left ( - \frac{2n-1}{2n} \frac{a^2}{n} \right ),
\end{eqnarray*}
and the claimed inequality holds for all $n\ge 4$. Since the bounds hold for $n=1,2,3$ by
direct numerical computation, the claim follows.
B. \ We first define
\begin{eqnarray*}
r_n (a) & \equiv & \log \left \{ \frac{ {2n \choose n-a} / {2n \choose n} }{ \exp (- 2 a^2/(2n))} \right \} \\
& = & \log {2n \choose n-a} - \log {2n \choose n} + \frac{a^2}{n} .
\end{eqnarray*}
Since we can take $t = a/\sqrt{2n}$,
it suffices to show that $r_n (a) >0$ for $1 \le a \le \lfloor \sqrt{2n} \rfloor$.
We will first show this for $n \ge 31$. Then the proof will be completed by checking the inequality
numerically for $1 \le a \le \lfloor \sqrt{2n} \rfloor$ and $ n \in \{ 1, \ldots , 30 \}$.
By using the Stirling formula bounds of (\ref{StirlingsFormula})
as in the proof of A, but now with upper bounds replaced by lower bounds, we find that
\begin{eqnarray*}
r_n (a) & = & 2 \log (n!) - \log (n-a)! - \log (n+a)! + \frac{a^2}{n} \\
& \ge & - n \left \{ \left (1 - \frac{a}{n} \right ) \log \left (1 - \frac{a}{n} \right )
+ \left (1 + \frac{a}{n} \right ) \log \left (1 + \frac{a}{n} \right ) \right \} \\
&& \ \ \ - \ \frac{1}{2} \left \{ \log \left (1 - \frac{a}{n} \right ) + \log \left (1 + \frac{a}{n} \right ) \right \} \\
&& \ \ \ + \ \frac{1}{6n} - \frac{1}{180 n^3} - \frac{1}{12 (n-a)} - \frac{1}{12 (n+a)} \\
&& \ \ \ + \ \frac{a^2}{n} \\
& \equiv & L_1 + L_2 + L_3 + L_4 .
\end{eqnarray*}
As in (\ref{IOneBound}) and (\ref{ITwoBound}) and the displays following them
we find that
\begin{eqnarray*}
L_1 & \ge & - n \left \{ \frac{a^2}{n^2} + \frac{a^4}{6 n^4} + \frac{a^6}{15 n^6}
+ \frac{a^8}{28n^8} \left ( \frac{n^2}{ n^2 - a^2} \right )\right \}, \\
L_2 & \ge & \frac{a^2}{2n^2} + \frac{a^4}{4 n^4} + \frac{a^6}{6n^6}, \\
L_3 & = & - \frac{a^2}{6 n (n^2 - a^2)} - \frac{1}{180 n^3} , \\
L_4 & = & \frac{a^2}{n} .
\end{eqnarray*}
Putting these pieces together and rearranging we find that
\begin{align}
r_n (a) \ge &\left[\frac{31 a^2}{64 n^2}+\frac{a^4}{4n^4}+\frac{a^6}{6n^6}
-\frac{a^4}{6n^3}-\frac{a^6}{15n^5}-\frac{a^8}{28n^5}\left( \frac{1}{n^2-a^2}\right)\right]\nonumber \\
&+\left[\frac{a^2}{64n^2} +\frac{1}{6 n} - \frac{1}{180 n^3} -\frac{1}{12(n+a)}-\frac{1}{12(n-a)}\right] \label{second_exp}\\
&=: K_1+K_2> 0 \label{third_exp}
\end{align}
will prove the claim. Note in \eqref{second_exp} that the $a^2/n$ term
cancelled by virtue of the lower bound estimate based on the Taylor
expansion of $(1+x)\log(1+x)+(1-x)\log(1-x)$. First note that
\begin{eqnarray*}
K_2
& = &
\frac{a^2}{64n^2}+\frac{1}{6 n} - \frac{1}{180 n^3} -\frac{1}{12(n+a)}-\frac{1}{12(n-a)}\\
& = &
\frac{a^2[28n^3-45 a^2 n]+a^2[16 n^3-480n^2]+[a^2 n^3+16 a^2-16 n^2]}{2880 n^3 (n-a) (n+a)}
\end{eqnarray*}
The denominator of the right-hand-side is clearly positive for
$a\in\left\{1,2,\dots,\lfloor\sqrt{2n}\rfloor\right\}$. By inspection, we can see the term
$a^2 n^3+16a^2-16n^2$
in the numerator is increasing in $a$. Picking $a=1$, we then see
$n^3+16-16n^2 > 0$ for $n \geq 31$, and thus $a^2 n^3+16a^2-16n^2>0$ for all admissible
$a$.
Next, the polynomial $28 n^3-45 a^2 n$ is decreasing in the admissible $a$.
For any fixed $n$, the minimum value it can attain is then larger than
$28 n^3- 90n^2$. For $n\geq 31$, this quantity is positive.
Therefore, $28 n^3-45 a^2 n > 0$ for all admissible $a$ when $n \geq 31$. Finally,
note that $16n^3-480n^2 = 16 n^2 (n - 30) > 0$ for $n\ge 31$.
Hence we have shown
$K_2 > 0$.
We next have
\begin{eqnarray}
K_1
& = & \left[\frac{31a^2}{64n^2}-\frac{a^4}{6n^3}\right]
+ \left[\frac{a^4}{4n^4}-\frac{a^6}{15n^5}\right]
+ \left[\frac{a^6}{6n^6}-\frac{a^8}{28n^5}\left( \frac{1}{n^2-a^2}\right)\right] \nonumber \\
&= & \left[\left(\frac{a^2}{192 n^3}\right)(93 n-32 a^2)\right]
+ \left[\left(\frac{a^4}{60 n^5}\right)(15n-4 a^2)\right] \nonumber\\
&& \qquad \ \ \ + \
\left[ \left(\frac{a^6}{84 n^6 \left(n^2-a^2\right)}\right)(14 n^2-3 a^2 n-14 a^2)
\right]
\nonumber \\
&\equiv & \left[\left(\alpha\right)(93 n-32 a^2)\right]
+ \left[\left(\beta\right)(15n-4 a^2)\right] \nonumber \\
&& \ \ \ + \ \left[ \left(\gamma \right)(14 n^2-3 a^2 n-14 a^2)\right]\ .
\label{I1_EXP}
\end{eqnarray}
Again since $a \in \left\{1,\dots,\lfloor\sqrt{2n}\rfloor\right\}$, it is clear that $\alpha,\beta,$ and
$\gamma$ in \eqref{I1_EXP} are positive for all admissible choices of $a$.
Hence, the sign of each bracketed term will be dictated by the remaining polynomial in $a$.
It is also clear from their form that each polynomial is decreasing in $a$; hence we need
only evaluate at the endpoints to determine positivity. But
$93n-32(\sqrt{2n})^2 = 29n>0$, $15n-4(\sqrt{2n})^2 = 15n-8n=7n>0$,
and $14 n^2-3 (\sqrt{2n})^2 n-14 (\sqrt{2n})^2=14n^2-6n^2-28n=4n(2n-7)>0$
with the final inequality following as $n \geq 31$. Hence all terms in \eqref{I1_EXP} are positive and so $K_1 > 0$.
Together with $K_2 > 0$ as proved above, the claim is proved for $n\ge 31$.
Since the bound holds for $a \in \{ 1, \ldots , \lfloor \sqrt{2n} \rfloor \}$ and $n \in \{ 1, \ldots , 30 \}$ by
direct numerical computation, the claim follows.
\end{proof}
\section{Some comparisons and connections}
\subsection{Comparisons: two-sided tail bounds}
Here we compare and contrast our results with those of \cite{MR2887482}. As in
\cite{MR2887482} (see also \cite{Wei-Dudley:11}), we say that {\sl the DKW inequality holds for given $m,n$ and $C$} if
\begin{eqnarray*}
P( D_{m,n} \ge t ) \le C \exp ( - 2 t^2 ) \ \ \ \mbox{for all} \ \ t>0,
\end{eqnarray*}
and we say that {\sl the DKWM inequality holds for given $m,n$} if the inequality in the
last display holds with $C=2$. \cite{MR2887482} prove the following theorem:
\smallskip
\begin{thm}
\label{WeiDudleyMainThm}
(Wei and Dudley, 2012)\ \
For $m=n$ in the two sample case:\\
(a) The DKW inequality always holds with $C = e \dot= 2.71828 $.\\
(b) For $m=n\ge 4$, the smallest $n$ such that $H_c$ can be rejected at level $0.05$,
the DKW inequality holds with $C=2.16863$. \\
(c) The DKWM inequality holds for all $m=n \ge 458$. \\
(d) For each $m=n < 458$, the DKWM inequality fails for some $t$ of the form $t= k/\sqrt{2n}$.\\
(e) For each $m=n< 458$, the DKW inequality holds for $C=2(1+\delta_n)$ for some $\delta_n>0$
where, for $12\le n \le 457$,
$$
\delta_n < - \frac{0.07}{n} + \frac{40}{n^2} - \frac{400}{n^3} .
$$
\end{thm}
\smallskip
For comparison, the following theorem follows from Theorem~\ref{BasicGW-TwoSampleKS-bounds}.
We say that {\sl the modified DKWM inequality holds for given $m,n$} if
\begin{eqnarray*}
P( D_{m,n} \ge t ) \le 2\exp \left ( - 2 \left ( \frac{N-1}{N} \right ) t^2 \right ) \ \ \ \mbox{for all} \ \ t>0,
\end{eqnarray*}
\smallskip
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:TwoSampleKS-ourBoundSummary}
For $m=n$ in the two sample case:\\
(a) For all $n\ge1$ the modified DKWM inequality holds. \\
(b) Alternatively, for the modified Kolmogorov statistic given by
$$
D_{m,n}^{mod} \equiv \sqrt{\frac{N-1}{N}} \sqrt{\frac{mn}{N}} \| {\mathbb F}_m - {\mathbb G}_n \|_{\infty} ,
$$
the DKWM inequality holds for all $n\ge1$.
\end{thm}
\smallskip
We are not claiming that our ``modified'' version of the DKWM inequality improves on the results of
\cite{MR2887482}: it is clearly worse for $m=n> 458$. On the other hand, it may provide a useful
clue to the formulation of DKWM type exponential bounds for two-sample Kolmogorov statistics
when $m \not= n$. In this direction we have the following conjecture:
\smallskip
\par\noindent
{\bf Conjecture:} For any $m\not= n$,
\begin{eqnarray}
&& P \left ( D_{m,n}^+ > t \right ) \le \exp \left ( - 2 \left ( \frac{N-1}{N} \right ) t^2 \right ) \ \ \mbox{for all} \ \ t>0
\label{OneSidedModifiedDKWMGeneralMandN}\\
&& P \left ( D_{m,n} > t \right ) \le 2 \exp \left ( - 2 \left ( \frac{N-1}{N} \right ) t^2 \right ) \ \ \mbox{for all} \ \ t>0 .
\label{TwoSidedModifiedDKWMGeneralMandN}
\end{eqnarray}
That is, we conjecture that the modified DKWM inequality holds for all $m,n \ge1$.
This is supported by all the numerical experiments we have conducted so far.
\subsection{Comparisons: one-sided tail bounds}
\cite{MR2887482}
do not treat bounds for the one-sided statistics.
Here we summarize our results with a theorem which parallels their
Theorem~\ref{WeiDudleyMainThm} above.
In analogy with their terminology, we say that
{\sl the one-sided DKW inequality holds for given $m,n$ and $C$} if
\begin{eqnarray*}
P( D_{m,n}^+ \ge t ) \le C \exp ( - 2 t^2 ) \ \ \ \mbox{for all} \ \ t>0,
\end{eqnarray*}
and we say that {\sl the one-sided DKWM inequality holds for given $m,n$} if the inequality in the
last display holds with $C=1$.
Moreover, we say that {\sl the modified one-sided DKWM inequality holds for given $m,n$} if
\begin{eqnarray*}
P( D_{m,n}^+ \ge t ) \le \exp \left ( - 2 \left ( \frac{N-1}{N} \right ) t^2 \right ) \ \ \ \mbox{for all} \ \ t>0.
\end{eqnarray*}
\smallskip
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:OneSideTwoSampleKS-bound}
For $m=n$ in the two sample case:\\
(a) The one-sided DKW inequality holds for all $n\ge 1$ with $C = e/2 \dot= 2.71828 /2 $ \\
$\phantom{blab}= 1.35914 $. For this range of $n$, $C=e/2$ is sharp since equality occurs \\
$\phantom{blab}$for $n=1$ and
$t=1/\sqrt{2}$ (or $a = t \sqrt{2n} = 1$).\\
(b) For $m=n\ge 5$,
the one-sided DKW inequality
holds with $C=2.16863/2=$\\
$\phantom{blab}1.084315$. \\
(c) The one-sided DKWM inequality fails for all $m=n \ge 1$. \\
(d) The modified one-sided DKWM inequality holds for all $m=n\ge1$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}[\bf Proof]
(c) follows from Theorem~\ref{BasicGW-TwoSampleKS-bounds}-B.
(d) follows from Theorem~\ref{BasicGW-TwoSampleKS-bounds}-A.
It remains only to prove (a) and (b).
To prove (a), we first note that \cite{MR2887482} showed that for $n\ge108$ we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{{2n \choose n+a}}{ {2n \choose n}}
& < & \exp ( - a^2/n) \ \ \ \mbox{for} \ \ \sqrt{3n} \le a \le n \\
& < & (e/2) \exp ( - a^2/n) .
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus to prove that the claimed inequality holds for $n\ge 108$, it suffices to show that
it holds for $ t_0 \sqrt{n} \le a \le \sqrt{3} \sqrt{n}$ where $t_0 \equiv \sqrt{(1/2)\log(e/2)}$ is
the smallest value of $t$ for which the bound is less than or equal to $1$.
Proceeding as in the proof of Theorem~\ref{BasicGW-TwoSampleKS-bounds}-A, we find that we want to show that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\log \frac{n! n!}{(n+a)! (n-a)!} + \frac{a^2}{n} - \log (e/2) < 0 \ \ \mbox{for} \ \ t_0 \sqrt{n}\le a \le \sqrt{3} \sqrt{n} .
\end{eqnarray*}
By the same arguments used in the proof of Theorem~\ref{BasicGW-TwoSampleKS-bounds}-A,
we find that the left side in the last display is bounded above by
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& - \frac{a^4}{6n^3} - \frac{a^6}{15 n^5} - \frac{a^8}{28n^7} + \frac{a^4}{4 n^4} + \frac{a^6}{6 n^6 (1 - a^2/n^2)} + I_3\\
&& \qquad + \ \frac{a^2}{2n^2} - \log (e/2) \\
&& \ \ \equiv K_1 + K_2 .
\end{eqnarray*}
Now $K_1 \le 0$ for $n \ge 4$ and $a \in \{ 1, \ldots , n-1 \}$ by the previous proof, and
\begin{eqnarray*}
K_2 \equiv \frac{a^2}{2 n^2} - \log (e/2) < 0 \ \ \mbox{for all} \ \ a \le \sqrt{3}\sqrt{n}
\end{eqnarray*}
if
$$
\frac{3}{2n} < \log (e/2) , \ \ \ \mbox{or} \ \ \ n > \frac{3}{2 \log (e/2)} \dot= 4.888\ldots .
$$
This completes the proof for $n \ge 108$. Numerical computation easily shows that the claim holds
for all $n \in \{ 1, \ldots , 107 \}$.
The proof of (b) is similar upon replacing $e/2$ by $1.084315$,
and again computing numerically for $n \in \{ 1, \ldots , 107 \}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
For $n\ge 5$ and $C = 1.084315$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
P(D_{n,n}^+ \ge t)
& \le & \min \left \{ \exp \left ( -2 \left (1 - 1/N \right ) t^2 \right ) , \ C \exp (- 2 t^2 ) \right \} \\
& = & \left \{ \begin{array}{l l} C \exp(- 2t^2), & t \ge t_0 \equiv \sqrt{n \log C} \dot= .285 \sqrt{n} , \\
\exp ( - 2 (1-1/N)t^2) , & t \le t_0 \equiv \sqrt{n \log C} .
\end{array} \right .
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{cor}
Figures~\ref{fig1} and~\ref{fig2} illustrate Theorem~\ref{thm:OneSideTwoSampleKS-bound}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[keepaspectratio=true,scale=0.8]{Figures/delta_plot_1.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Difference between approximations and exact one-sided probabilities $P\left(D_{n,n}^+ > t\right)$
for $n=128$ and $a \in \left\{1,2,\dots,128\right\}$. Negative values indicate the exact probability exceeds the approximation.
Serfling DKWM is the bound obtained via the heuristic of section 2, using the sampling fraction $1-f_n^* = (N-n+1)/N$. Modified
DKWM uses the sampling fraction $1-f_n=(N-n)/(N-1)$. DKWM uses the fraction from Wei and Dudley.
\label{fig1}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[keepaspectratio=true,scale=0.8]{Figures/delta_plot_2.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Difference between approximations and exact one-sided probabilities $P\left(D_{n,n}^+ > t\right)$
for $n=23$ and $a \in \left\{1,2,\dots,23\right\}$. Negative values indicate the exact probability exceeds the approximation.
DKWM6a corresponds to the DKWM bound with the constant $e/2$, discussed in Theorem 6(a).
DKWM6b corresponds to the DKWM bound with the constant $2.16863/2$,
discussed in Theorem 6(b).
\label{fig2}}
\end{figure}
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The second author owes thanks to Werner Ehm for several helpful conversations
and to Martin Wells for pointing out the Pitman reference.
We also owe thanks to the referee for a number of helpful comments and suggestions.
\bigskip
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sintro}
Optimization problems for spectral functionals are widely studied in the literature; in a general framework one may consider an admissible class $\mathcal{A}$ of operators and the problem is then formulated as
\begin{equation}\label{genpb}
\min\big\{F\big(\sigma(A)\big)\ :\ A\in\mathcal{A}\big\}
\end{equation}
where $\sigma(A)$ denotes the spectrum of the operator $A\in\mathcal{A}$ and $F$ is a suitable given cost function that depends on $\sigma(A)$.
The most studied case is when the admissible class $\mathcal{A}$ of operators consists of the Laplace operator $-\Delta$ over a variable domain $\Omega$, with homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions on $\partial\Omega$. If the Lebesgue measure $|\Omega|$ is supposed finite, the resolvent operators are compact and then their spectrum reduces to an increasing sequence of positive eigenvalues, so than the optimization problem \eqref{genpb} takes the form
$$\min\big\{F\big(\lambda_1(\Omega),\lambda_2(\Omega),\dots\big)\ :\ \Omega\in\Omega\big\}$$
where $\Omega$ indicates the class of admissible domains. We refer to \cite{bb05}, \cite{bremc} and to the references therein for a survey on this topic and for the various existence results that are available in this situation.
Optimization problems of the form \eqref{genpb} have been also considered in \cite{jep} for operators of Schr\"odinger type $-\Delta+V(x)$, under the assumption $V\ge0$ and on a fixed bounded domain, on the boundary of which the homogeneous Dirichlet conditions are imposed. Again, the resolvent operators are compact, hence their spectra are discrete and the optimization problem \eqref{genpb} takes the form
$$\min\big\{F\big(\lambda_1(V),\lambda_2(V),\dots\big)\ :\ V\in\mathcal{V}\big\}$$
where $\mathcal{V}$ indicates now the class of admissible potentials. Several existence results for optimal potentials have been obtained in \cite{jep} in this situation.
In the present paper we consider Schr\"odinger operators $-\Delta+V(x)$ where the potential $V$ is assumed to be compactly supported and is allowed to become negative. Thus the resolvent operators are not any more compact and the spectrum $\sigma(V)$, besides its continuous part, exhibits discrete negative eigenvalues. Such a situation occurs for instance in the context of very thin quantum waveguides, where a one-dimensional effective potential, depending on local curvature and twist, appears explicitly (see for instance \cite{CDFK}, \cite{BMT}, \cite{BMT2}). The optimization problems we consider are described in Theorems \ref{exth} and \ref{exth2}, in which we show the existence of optimal potentials.
Some examples illustrate the range of possibilities in which our existence results apply.
Along all the paper, the notation of function spaces $L^2$, $H^1$ and similar, without the indication of the domain of definition, is used when the domain is the whole $\mathbb{R}^d$. Similarly, the absence of the domain of integration in an integral means that the integral is made on the whole $\mathbb{R}^d$.
\section{Presentation of the problem}\label{spres}
The problems we aim to consider are of the form
\begin{equation}\label{prob}
\min\big\{F(V)\ :\ V\in\mathcal{A}\big\}
\end{equation}
where $F$ is a suitable cost functional and $\mathcal{A}$ is a suitable class of admissible potentials defined on $\mathbb{R}^d$. In order to simplify the presentation, we assume that all the potentials we consider have a support contained in a given compact set $K$. The admissible potentials may change sign and indeed their negative parts are mostly important for our purposes; the class $\mathcal{A}$ is then defined as
$$\mathcal{A}=\big\{V:\mathbb{R}^d\to\overline\mathbb{R},\ \spt V\subset K\big\}.$$
For a Schr\"odinger operator $-\Delta+V(x)$ we denote by $\sigma(V)$ its spectrum and by $\sigma_{dis}(V)$ its discrete part, consisting of {\it isolated} eigenvalues; finally $\sigma^-_{dis}(V)$ will denote the part of $\sigma_{dis}(V)$ which consists of {\it strictly negative} eigenvalues. By the Cwikel-Lieb-Rosenbljum bound (see for instance \cite{resi}) it is known that
\begin{equation}\label{CLR}
\#\sigma^-_{dis}(V)\le C_{q,d}\int|V^-|^q\,dx\qquad\forall d\ge3,\ \forall q\ge d/2.
\end{equation}
where the eigenvalues are counted with their multiplicity. Other important inequalities we will use are the Lieb-Thirring inequality (see for instance \cite{lawe00,lieb})
which is valid in any dimension $d$.
\begin{equation}\label{liethi}
\sum_{\lambda\in\sigma^-_{dis}(V)}|\lambda|^{p-d/2}\le L_{p,d}\int|V^-|^p\,dx\qquad\forall p>d/2.
\end{equation}
and the Keller inequality (see for instance \cite{CFL})
\begin{equation}\label{Keller}
|\lambda_1|^{p-d/2}\le K_{p,d}\int|V^-|^p\,dx\qquad\forall p>d/2.
\end{equation}
The cost functionals we consider are of the following two classes:
\begin{equation}\label{cost}
F(V)=\sum_{\lambda\in\sigma^-_{dis}(V)} m_V(\lambda)\, h(\lambda)+k\int|V|^p\,dx
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{cost2}
F(V)=g\big(\Phi(\sigma^-_{dis}(V))\big)+k\int|V|^p\,dx \ .
\end{equation}
In definition \eqref{cost}, $k$ is a given positive number, $p>d/2$ and $m_V(\lambda)$ denotes the multiplicity of the eigenvalue $\lambda$. The function $h:\mathbb{R}\to]-\infty,+\infty]$ is a given lower semicontinuous function.
In definition \eqref{cost2}, we denoted by $\Phi$ the map which sends $\sigma^-_{dis}(V)$ into the space $c_0(\mathbb{R}^-)$ of vanishing sequences of negative real numbers, defined as follows: let $\lambda_1\ge\lambda_2\ge\lambda_3\dots$ be an enumeration of the elements of $\sigma^-_{dis}(V)$ in increasing order and repeated according to their multiplicity; then we set
$$\Phi(\sigma^-_{dis}(V)):=\begin{cases}
\{\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_N,0,0,\dots\}&\hbox{if }\#\sigma^-_{dis}(V)=N\\
\{\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\dots\}&\hbox{if }\#\sigma^-_{dis}(V)=+\infty.
\end{cases}$$
The function $g$ is a given function on $c_0(\mathbb{R}^-)$ with values in $]-\infty, +\infty]$.
Our main results are the existence of optimal potentials for the minimization problem \eqref{prob}, as precised in the following Theorems.
\begin{theo}\label{exth}
Let $F$ be a cost functional as in \eqref{cost}. We assume that the function $h$ satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{h0}
h(0)\ge0
\end{equation}
and the following coercivity condition:
\begin{equation}\label{lowerh}
\begin{split}
&h^-(t)\le M+c|t|^{p-d/2}\qquad\forall t<0\quad\text{if $d\ge3$} \\
&h^-(t)\le c|t|^{p-1}\qquad\forall t<0\quad\text{if $d=2$}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
for suitable positive constants $M,c$ with $c<k/L_{p,d}$. Then the minimization problem
$$\min\Big\{F(V)\ :\ \spt V\subset K\Big\}$$
admits a solution.
\end{theo}
\begin{theo}\label{exth2}
Let $F$ be a cost functional as in \eqref{cost2}. We assume that the function $g$ is lower semicontinuous on $c_0(\mathbb{R}^-)$ (i.e. for the componentwise convergence) and satisfies the following coercivity condition:
\begin{equation}\label{lowerh2}
g^-(\lambda)\le M+c|\lambda_1|^{p-d/2}\qquad\forall\lambda\in c_0(\mathbb{R}^-)
\end{equation}
for suitable positive constants $M,c$ with $c<k/K_{p,d}$. Then the minimization problem
$$\min\Big\{F(V)\ :\ \spt V\subset K\Big\}$$
admits a solution provided the infimum is finite.
\end{theo}
\begin{rema}
We stress that in the definition \eqref{cost} of the cost functional $F$, the multiplicity $m(\lambda)$ appears. However it is easy to check that Theorem \ref{exth} and Theorem \ref{exth2} still hold if that coefficient $m(\lambda)$ is removed, providing we assume the sub-additivity of the function $h$ (i.e. $h(s+t)\le h(s) + h(t)$). On the other hand the assumption \eqref{h0} will be important for the existence issue in order to penalize negative eigenvalues close to $0$. Note that for $d\ge 3$, thanks to the Cwikel-Lieb-Rosenbljum bound \eqref{CLR}, the sum in \eqref{cost} is a finite sum, which is not true for $d=2$.
\end{rema}
\begin{rema}\label{variant}
By the same proof, the existence of optimal potentials obtained in Theorems \ref{exth} and \ref{exth2} still holds for cost functionals $F$ of the form
$$\sum_{\lambda\in\sigma^-_{dis}(V)}m_V(\lambda)\,h(\lambda)+G(V)\quad\text{or}\quad g(\Phi(\sigma^-_{dis}(V)))+G(V)\;,$$
where $G$ is any weakly lower semicontinuous functional in $L^p$ such that $G(V)\ge k\int|V|^p\,dx$. This includes for instance the case of constrained optimization problems of the kind
$$\min\Big\{F(V) \ :\ \spt V\subset K,\ |V|\le1\Big\}\;,$$
where we may drop the coercivity assumptions \eqref{lowerh} or \eqref{lowerh2}.
\end{rema}
\begin{exam}\label{setE}
Let us consider a compact set $E\subset \, ]-\infty,0[$ and the function
$$h(t)=-1_E(t)=\begin{cases}
-1&\hbox{if }x\in E\\
0&\hbox{if }x\notin E.
\end{cases}$$
The function $h$ above satisfies the assumptions of the existence Theorem \ref{exth}, and therefore according to Remark \ref{variant} the optimization problem
$$\max\Big\{\sum_{\lambda\in E\cap\sigma^-_{dis}(V)}m_V(\lambda)\ :\ \spt V\subset K,\ |V|\le1\Big\}$$
admits a solution. This solution is then a potential $V$ that, among the ones supported by $K$ and with values in $[-1,1]$, has the maximum number of negative discrete eigenvalues in $E$, counted with their multiplicity.
\end{exam}
\begin{exam}\label{LTex}
Consider now a number $p>d/2$ and the function
$$h(t)=-|t|^{p-d/2}.$$
The function $h$ above satisfies the assumptions of the existence Theorem \ref{exth}, and therefore, also using the Remark \ref{variant}, the optimization problem
$$\max\Big\{\sum_{\lambda\in\sigma^-_{dis}(V)}m_V(\lambda)|\lambda|^{p-d/2}\ :\ \spt V\subset K,\ V\le0,\ \int|V|^p\,dx\le1\Big\}$$
admits a solution. Notice that this provides, among negative potentials $V$ supported by $K$, the best potential for the Lieb-Thirring inequality \eqref{liethi}.
\end{exam}
\begin{exam}\label{Kex}
Consider a fixed natural number $N$ and a lower semicontinuous function $g:\mathbb{R}^N\to]-\infty,+\infty]$. For instance we may take
$$g(\lambda)=\lambda_j$$
in which we look for the lowest possible $j$-th negative eigenvalue, or
$$g(\lambda)=\lambda_1-\lambda_2$$
where we look for the maximal gap between $\lambda_2$ and $\lambda_1$ (under the convention that we take $\lambda_2=0$ whenever $\lambda_1$ is the only element of $\sigma^-_{dis}(V)$). By the existence Theorem \ref{exth2} and Remark \ref{variant}, we deduce that the optimization problem
$$\min\Big\{g\big(\lambda_1(V),\dots,\lambda_N(V)\big)\ :\ \spt V\subset K,\ -1\le V\le0\Big\}$$
admits a solution.
\end{exam}
\section{Proof of the results}\label{sproo}
We start by two useful lemmas.
\begin{lemm}\label{coercive} (Coercivity)
Let $p>d/2$ and let $h$ be a function satisfying the assumption \eqref{lowerh}. Then the functional $F$ in \eqref{cost}is coercive in $L^p$.
\end{lemm}
\begin{proof}
Let $(V_n)$ be such that $F(V_n) \le C$. Then, by Lieb-Thirring inequality
\[\begin{split}
C\ge&F(V_n)\ge k\int|V_n|^p\,dx-\sum_{\lambda\in\sigma^-_{dis}(V_n)}m_{V_n}(\lambda)h^-(\lambda)\\
\ge&k\int|V_n|^p\,dx-\sum_{\lambda\in\sigma^-_{dis}(V_n)}m_{V_n}(\lambda)(M+c|\lambda|^{p-d/2})\\
\ge&(k-cL_{p,d})\int|V_n|^p\,dx-M\#\sigma^-_{dis}(V_n)
\end{split}\]
being $M=0$ if $d=2$. The conclusion is straightforward if $d=2$ whereas, if $d\ge3$, it follows from the CLR inequality \eqref{CLR} with exponent $q=d/2$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemm}\label{strongres}
Let $V_n$ be a sequence of potentials converging to a potential $V$ weakly in $L^p$ with $p>d/2$. Then we have $R_n\to R$ strongly in $L^2$, where $R_n$ and $R$ are the resolvent operators corresponding to $V_n$ and $V$ respectively.
\end{lemm}
\begin{proof}
By the Lieb-Thirring inequality \eqref{liethi} all the negative eigenvalues of $-\Delta+V_n$ and of $-\Delta+V$ are uniformly bounded from below; let us take $k>0$ such that
$$k+\lambda_1(V_n)\ge1\qquad\forall n\in\mathbb{N}.$$
If $f\in L^2$ let us denote by $u_n,u\in H^1_0$ the solutions of
\begin{equation}\label{resolveq}
-\Delta u_n+(V_n+k)u_n=f,\qquad-\Delta u+(V+k)u=f.
\end{equation}
Since $k+\lambda_1(V_n)\ge1$ we have
$$\int u_n^2\,dx\le\int|\nabla u_n|^2+(V_n+k)u_n^2\,dx=\int fu_n\,dx$$
from which we deduce that $u_n$ is bounded in $L^2$. We show now that $u_n$ is bounded in $H^1$. By the equality above we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{est1}
\int|\nabla u_n|^2\,dx\le C+\int V_n^-u_n^2\,dx.
\end{equation}
We fix now a constant $M>0$; we have
\begin{equation}\label{est2}
\begin{split}
\int V_n^-u_n^2\,dx&\le M\int_{\{V_n^-\le M\}}u_n^2\,dx+\int_{\{V_n^->M\}}u_n^2\,dx\\
&\le CM+\left(\int|u_n|^{2^*}dx\right)^{2/2^*}\left(\int_{\{V_n^->M\}}|V_n^-|^{d/2}\right)^{2/d}\\
&\le CM+C\left(\int|\nabla u_n|^2\,dx\right)\|V_n^-\|_{L^p}|\{V_n^->M\}|^{(2p-d)/pd}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Since
$$|\{V_n^->M\}|\le\int_{\{V_n^->M\}}\frac{V_n^-}{M}\,dx\le\frac1M\|V_n^-\|_{L^p}|\{V_n^->M\}|^{(p-1)/p},$$
we obtain
$$|\{V_n^->M\}|\le CM^{-p},$$
and from \eqref{est2}
$$\int V_n^-u_n^2\,dx\le CM+\frac{C}{M^{(2p-d)/d}}\int|\nabla u_n|^2\,dx.$$
Taking $M$ such that $M^{(2p-d)/d}=2C$, from \eqref{est1} we deduce that $\int|\nabla u_n|^2\,dx$ is bounded.
Then we have that $u_n$ converges to $u$ in $L^2_{loc}$. Moreover, we can deduce from H\"older inequality that
\begin{equation}\label{weakstrong}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\int V_n|u_n|^2\,dx=\int V|u|^2\,dx.
\end{equation}
Indeed $|u_n|^2\to|u|^2$ a.e. and by Sobolev inequality
$$\int|u_n|^{2p'+{\varepsilon}}\,dx=
\int|u_n|^{2^*}\,dx\le C\left(\int|\nabla u_n|^2\right)^{2^*/2},$$
being ${\varepsilon} = 2^* -2 p' $. Then it follows from Vitali's convergence Theorem that $|u_n|^2 \to |u|^2$ strongly in $L^{p'}(K)$
and so \eqref{weakstrong} follows.
To finish the prove we need only to check that $u_n \to u$ strongly in $L^2$. By \eqref{resolveq}, we have
\[\begin{split}
&\int|\nabla u_n|^2\,dx+\int(V_n+k)|u_n|^2\,dx=\int fu_n\,dx\;,\\
&\int|\nabla u|^2 + \int (V + k)|u|^2\,dx=\int fu\,dx\;.
\end{split}\]
By the weak $L^2$ lower semicontinuity of the $H^1$-norm and \eqref{weakstrong}and recalling that $k>0$, we deduce that $\limsup_n \int |u_n|^2 \le \int |u|^2$
hence the conclusion.
The strong convergence of resolvents follows by the classical argument that it is enough to check it for only one value outside the spectra.
\end{proof}
We are now in a position to prove the result of Theorem \ref{exth}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{exth}]We divide the proof in three steps.
\medskip
{\bf Step 1. }Consider a minimizing sequence $(V_n)$; thanks to the coercivity Lemma \ref{coercive}, the sequence $(V_n)$ is bounded in $L^p$ and so we may assume, up to extracting a subsequence, that it converges weakly to some function $V\in L^p$.
\bigskip
{\bf Step 2. }Since $V_n$ converges weakly to $V$, by Lemma \ref{strongres} we have the strong convergence of resolvent operators and hence that of the principal eigenvalues $\lambda_1(V_n)\to\lambda_1(V)$. In addition, the spectral measures $E_n$ related to the self-adjoint operators $-\Delta+V_n$ weakly converge to the spectral measure $E$ of $-\Delta+V$ (see for instance \cite{conca}). In other words, for every $\lambda$ which does not belong to the spectrum of $-\Delta+V$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{weakmeas1}
\langle E_n(\lambda)\phi,\psi\rangle\to\langle E(\lambda)\phi,\psi\rangle\qquad\forall\phi,\psi\in L^2.
\end{equation}
Since $\sigma^-_{dis}(V)$ is finite, we have
\begin{equation}\label{weakmeas2}
dE_n\big|_{]-\infty,\lambda[}=\sum_{t\in\sigma^-_{dis}(V_n)}\delta_t\,P_{X_n(t)}
\end{equation}
where $\delta_t$ is the Dirac mass at $t$ and $P_{X_n(t)}$ is the orthogonal projector on the finite dimensional eigenspace $X_n(t)$ associated to the eigenvalue $t$. From \eqref{weakmeas1} and \eqref{weakmeas2} we deduce that for any $\lambda<0$, with $\lambda\notin\sigma^-_{dis}(V)$, $dE_n\big|_{]-\infty,\lambda[}\to dE\big|_{]-\infty,\lambda[}$ weakly in the sense of operators of finite rank and hence strongly. In particular, taking the trace on both sides, we deduce that
\begin{equation}\label{spectralCV}
\mu_n\big|_{]-\infty,\lambda[}\to\mu\big|_{]-\infty,\lambda[}
\quad\forall\lambda\in\mathbb{R}^-\setminus\sigma^-_{dis}(V)\;,
\end{equation}
where the convergence is intended in the weak* convergence of measures and the nonnegative measures $\mu_n,\mu$ are defined by
\begin{equation}\label{defmu}
\mu_n:=\sum_{t\in\sigma^-_{dis}(V_n)}m_{V_n}(t)\,\delta_t\;,\qquad\mu:=\sum_{t\in\sigma^-_{dis}(V)}m_V(t)\,\delta_t\;.
\end{equation}
\bigskip
{\bf Step 3. }With the notations introduced in \eqref{defmu}, we may write
$$F(V_n)=\int h(t) \, d\mu_n(t) + k \int |V_n|^P \, dx,\qquad F(V) = \int h(t) \, d\mu(t) + k \int |V|^P \, dx\ .$$
In view of Steps 1 and 2, and recalling that $V_n\to V$ weakly in $L^p$, the existence of an optimal potential will be achieved as soon as
we show the lower semicontinuity of $F$ which reduces to the inequality
\begin{equation}\label{last}
\liminf_n \int h(t)\,d\mu_n(t)\ge\int h(t)\,d\mu(t)\;.
\end{equation}
We start with the case $d\ge3$. By \eqref{CLR}, it holds $\int d\mu_n\le C$ for a suitable constant $C$. Let ${\varepsilon}>0$ be such that $-{\varepsilon}\notin\sigma^-_{dis}(V)$. Then
$$\int h(t)\,d\mu_n(t)
\ge\int_{]-\infty,-{\varepsilon}[}h(t)\,d\mu_n-C\sup_{[-{\varepsilon},0]}h^-\;.$$
By \eqref{spectralCV} and by the lower semicontinuity of $h$ we obtain
$$\liminf_n\int h(t)\,d\mu_n(t)\ge\int_{]-\infty,-{\varepsilon}[}h(t)\,d\mu-C\sup_{[-{\varepsilon},0]}h^-.$$
The conclusion \eqref{last} follows by the assumption $h(0)\ge0$ letting ${\varepsilon}\to 0$.
Let us now consider the case $d=2$ in which the measures $\mu_n$ can be unbounded in the vicinity of zero. By the assumption \eqref{lowerh}, we have
$$\int h(t)\,d\mu_n(t)\ge
\int_{]-\infty,-{\varepsilon}[}h(t)\,d\mu_n-c\int_{]-{\varepsilon},0[}|t|^{p-1}\,d\mu_n\;.$$
Let $r$ such that $0<r<p-1$. Thanks to the Lieb-Thirring inequality \eqref{liethi} with exponent $p-r$, we have
$$\int_{]-{\varepsilon},0[}|t|^{p-1}\,d\mu_n\le{\varepsilon}^r\int_{]-{\varepsilon},0[}|t|^{p-1-r}\,d\mu_n
\le{\varepsilon}^r\,L_{p-r,2}\,\int|V_n^-|^{p-r}\,dx\le C\,{\varepsilon}^r\;,$$
and similarly for $\mu$. Therefore as $n\to\infty$, we obtain
$$\liminf_n\int h(t)\,d\mu_n(t)
\ge\int_{]-\infty,-{\varepsilon}[}h(t)\,d\mu-cC{\varepsilon}^r
\ge\int h(t)\,d\mu-2cC{\varepsilon}^r\;,$$
thus the conclusion \eqref{last} as ${\varepsilon}\to 0$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{exth2}] The proof follows the same scheme as the one of Theorem \ref{exth}. The coercivity of $F$ can be obtained as in Lemma \ref{coercive} using the inequality \eqref{Keller}. Step 2 remains unchanged and so the only difference is in Step 3. It is enough to observe that, thanks to the convergence of resolvents of spectral measures proved in Step 2, we have the convergence $ \Phi(\sigma^-_{dis}(V_n) \to \Phi(\sigma^-_{dis}(V)$ in $c_0(\mathbb{R}^-)$ hence the conclusion by the lower semicontinuity of $g$.
\end{proof}
\bigskip
\ack This work started during a visit of the second author at IMATH of University of Toulon. A part of this paper was written during a visit of the authors at the Johann Radon Institute for Computational and Applied Mathematics (RICAM) of Linz. The authors gratefully acknowledge both Institutes for the excellent working atmosphere provided. The second author is member of the Gruppo Nazionale per l'Analisi Matematica, la Probabilit\`a e le loro Applicazioni (GNAMPA) of the Istituto Nazionale di Alta Matematica (INdAM), and his work is part of the project 2010A2TFX2 {\it``Calcolo delle Variazioni''} funded by the Italian Ministry of Research and University.
|
\section{Background}
The structure and dynamics of viruses are a fascinating research
subject not only from a biological, but also from a physical
perspective \cite{Roos2010}. In particular, they are a very
instructive model system to study self-assembly of large protein
complexes with a relatively clear biological function. As viruses do
not show metabolic activity of their own, they need to infect host
organisms in order to replicate. One key step during the replication
process is the formation of the protein shell containing the viral
genome. For many viruses, the capsid formation is sufficiently
autonomous that it occurs even \textit{in vitro}
\cite{Fraenkel-Conrat1955}. This robustness of the process guarantees
successful replication within the dynamic and heterogeneous
environment of a living cell. Although virus shell formation is
considered as a paradigm for the self-assembly of protein complexes
\cite{Johnson1997}, its underlying principles are far from being fully
understood. Progress in our understanding of virus assembly
would increase our knowledge of a process of large biological and
medical relevance as well as help to advance new self-assembly
strategies in material science applications \cite{Pawar2010}.
A large variety of mathematical models and simulation approaches has
been developed to gain insight into the dynamics of capsid formation
from a theoretical perspective. In these approaches the
characteristics of protein association and dissociation processes were
analyzed depending on parameters like interaction strength, subunit
geometry or temperature. The employed techniques range from
large-scale Molecular Dynamics (MD) simulations with only a modest
amount of coarse-graining of the atomic details
\cite{Arkhipov2006} through various schemes of coarse-grained MD
\cite{Rapaport2004,Hagan2006,Nguyen2007,Rapaport2008,Rapaport2010,Johnston2010}
to patchy particle simulations with interaction potentials
\cite{Wilber2009,Wilber2009a}. A thermodynamic framework for assembly
of icosahedral viruses has been established by Zlotnick and coworkers
\cite{Moisant2010,Zlotnick1994,Zlotnick1999,Zlotnick2002,Endres2002,Johnson2005,Zlotnick2010}.
In general, these studies have revealed that the formation of complete
virus capsids requires intermediate bond stability. If interaction
strength is too high (or, equivalently, temperature too low), the
system becomes kinetically trapped in intermediates which cannot
reconstruct anymore due to the strong binding. If interaction strength
is too low (or, equivalently, temperature too high), the target
structure is not sufficiently stable. Another mechanism which can
prevent complete capsid formation is the occurrence of misfits, leading
to structural polymorphism as often studied with MD-schemes allowing
for cluster distortions \cite{Nguyen2008,Elrad2008,Nguyen2009}.
Due to the large number of single building blocks assembling during
virus formation (the simplest icosahedral capsid, T1, has already 60
protein components), there is a multitude of topologically possible
assembly pathways. Similar to protein folding, the dominance of few
key structures is believed to limit the number of pathways and to
speed up the process \cite{Moisant2010}. In this respect it has been
observed that some viruses have developed mechanisms to orchestrate
self-assembly by regulating the reactivity of their binding sites
\cite{Cardarelli2011,Dokland2000}. This switching establishes a
hierarchy in the formation of transient intermediates during the
assembly process. In a number of experiments, partly supported by
theoretical calculations, it has been shown that intermediates of
pentameric and hexameric symmetry are of special importance for the
assembly process of icosahedral viruses
\cite{Johnson1997,Tonegawa1970,Salunke1986,Flasinski1997,Zlotnick2000,Willits2003,Hanslip2006,Oppenheim2008}.
Early observations of \textit{in vitro} assembly of phages and small
viruses revealed pentamer sub-structures to play a key role
\cite{Tonegawa1970,Salunke1986}. Experiments on Brome Mosaic Virus
\cite{Flasinski1997}, Cowpea Chlorotic Mottle Virus
\cite{Willits2003}, Human Papillomavirus \cite{Hanslip2006} and Simian
Virus 40 \textit{in vivo} and \textit{in vitro} \cite{Oppenheim2008}
explicitly treat capsid assembly from pentameric capsomers. A model
for the assembly of Cowpea Chlorotic Mottle Virus suggests that its
protein shell assembles from pentamers as well as from trimers of
dimers (hexamers) \cite{Johnson1997}.
Despite the described variety of computational approaches used for
virus assembly, to our knowledge the effect of a state-dependent activation
of binding sites during the assembly process (\textit{hierarchical
assembly}) has not been explored yet from the theoretical point of
view. Although some models consider assembly from pentameric and
hexameric clusters, these subunits at the same time represent the
smallest entities of the system and their formation from single
proteins is not included \cite{Nguyen2008,Wales2009,Johnston2010}.
Here we investigate the effect of a binding hierarchy on the assembly
of icosahedral viruses by comparison of hierarchical and
non-hierarchical (direct) assembly from single monomers. We use
Brownian Dynamics simulations with reaction patches which have
previously been used to study transport-limited protein reactions
\cite{Schluttig2008,Schluttig2010}. Our approach assumes well-defined
capsid geometries (in the spirit of local rules) and does not require
the use of interaction potentials. This makes our simulations
relatively fast, but does not allow us to study structural polymorphism.
One particular strength of our approach is that it implements the correct mobility
matrix for each possible geometry of the assembling clusters
\cite{Schluttig2008}. Another advantage which is exploited here is
that one can easily implement hierarchical assembly by an event-driven
switching of patch reactivity.
This paper is organized as follows. We first give an overview of the
simulation framework and the implemented geometries. Then we present
our results for direct and hierarchical assembly of T1 virus capsids.
The analysis of T1-assembly is completed with a comparison of
the two assembly mechanisms and a discussion of the effect of an
increased number of initial monomers. We then explain our results for
direct and hierarchical assembly of the more complex T3 virus. They
are followed by a detailed analysis of the formation of individual
capsomers, which includes a master equation approach. The paper closes
with concluding remarks and an outlook to potential future
applications of our approach.
\section{Methods}
\subsection{Outline of the Computer Simulations}
To study virus assembly we use a Brownian Dynamics approach with
patchy particles which has been developed before to investigate
diffusion and association of model proteins and their complexes
\cite{Schluttig2008,Schluttig2010}. Single proteins are modeled as
hard, spherical particles with equal radius. They are equipped with a
specific number of reaction patches representing the binding
sites. The geometry of the virus capsid is coded in the position
of the reaction patches on the spheres. Assemblies of several proteins are
treated as rigid objects whose diffusive characteristics are
calculated on the fly upon formation \cite{Carrasco1999}. In each
simulation step the particles are propagated according to their
translational and rotational diffusive properties, followed by
possible association and dissociation steps. Binding of two proteins
is implemented as a two-step process following the notion of the
encounter complex \cite{Schreiber2009}. Upon diffusional overlap of
two reaction patches, binding occurs stochastically with a predefined
patch-specific rate $k_a$. Thus, the probability for the transition
from encounter to a bound state within a given timestep $\Delta t$ is
$p_\text{bind}=k_a \Delta t$. If the bond formation is accepted, the
binding partners instantaneously click into their predefined relative
orientation, assuming that his processes is much faster and less
stochastic than diffusion and association. The repositioning is
distributed among the two clusters according to their diffusive
weights. If this reorientation leads to a steric overlap of the two
associating partners with each other or with other protein complexes,
binding is rejected and the old positions and orientations of the
clusters are used for the next simulation step. Similarly to
association, dissociation of an existing bond occurs stochastically
with the bond specific rate $k_d$. Thus, a bond is disrupted within
$\Delta t$ with the probability $p_\text{break}=k_d \Delta t$. If the
broken bond was the only connection between two clusters, both are
propagated independently in the following simulation step. The
simulation algorithm is combined with a visualization routine which
enables us to follow the assembly process. Some representative snapshots of the step-wise
assembly of a T1 virus capsid are shown in Figure 1. While the upper
row shows direct assembly from 60 monomers (dark blue), in the lower
row monomers (light blue) first have to form pentamers (red), which
then in turn form the complete capsid (hierarchical assembly).
\subsection{Capsid Geometries}
The capsid geometries follow the well-established Caspar-Klug scheme
where the quasi-equivalent positions in the scaffold of an icosahedral
capsid are represented by different types of monomers
\cite{CasparD.L.DAndKlug1962}. The structural complexity is described
by the triangulation number T derived from the capsid geometry. T is
restricted to certain integer values (T=1,3,4,7,9,...) and denotes the
number of protein types which are needed to form a full icosahedral
shell. The total number of monomers per capsid is $n_f$=60 T. The
icosahedron vertices represent points around which the proteins
cluster into close-packed arrays. The proteins grouped around the
twelve vertices (which represent axes of fivefold symmetry) form
pentamers, while the triangular faces of the icosahedron are covered
with hexamers. Every scaffold consists of 12 pentameric and $10 \cdot
($T$-1)$ hexameric capsomers. In our description we restrict the
effect of growing complexity (T$>1$) to the hexamers. Thus, every
hexamer contains (T$-1$) different proteins, so that the number of
hexameric subunits as well as the number of individual components of
each hexamer increase with T. We want to point out that this scheme
for virus geometries into ringlike subunits represents only one out of
several possible realizations. Following previous approaches to the
characterization of icosahedral geometries \cite{Schwartz1998}, we use
a set of local rules to define the bond angles between the individual
particles. In this way, the resulting structure is encoded in the bond
properties of the elementary subunits. Due to the high symmetry of the
viral capsid, only a small number of different bonds is sufficient to
define a unique target geometry. We note that the exact definition of
bond properties impedes the formation of aberrant cluster
structures. Therefore the approach used here does not allow us to
study structural polymorphism.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figure_1.eps}
\caption{Visualization of the computer simulations. The snapshots show the course of T1 virus capsid formation for direct (top) and hierarchical
assembly (bottom) from $n_f$=60 single monomers. In hierarchical assembly, a color change of the proteins from blue to red indicates the switch of binding characteristics upon completed formation of a pentameric capsomer.}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Direct and Hierarchical Assembly}
Direct assembly is defined as the formation of a capsid from monomers
whose bond properties remain unchanged throughout the whole
simulation. Thus every reaction patch is active at all times. In
contrast to this unconstrained assembly mechanism, hierarchical
assembly is decomposed into multiple steps of switching of patch
reactivity depending on the configuration of the particles. Since
pentameric and hexameric rings have been identified as key subunits in
the assembly process, we implement hierarchical assembly as switching
of reactivity upon formation of these structures. Initially only the
two patches leading to assembly of pentameric or hexameric ring
structures are active on every single protein (intra-capsomer bonds).
These patches are locked once the ring has closed, so that the
formation of these subunits is irreversible. Simultaneously to the
locking of intra-capsomer patches the binding sites which connect the
pentamers and hexamers with each other (inter-capsomer bonds) are
activated so that in a second step, formation of the capsid proceeds
via association of the capsomer rings. This collective switching in binding
properties should not be confused with the conformational switching
of individual subunits which has been used before to study structural polymorphism
\cite{Nguyen2008,Elrad2008,Nguyen2009}.
\subsection{Simulation Details}
At the beginning of each simulation run the single proteins are placed
at random, non-overlapping positions in a cubic periodic boundary
box. From this configuration we let the system evolve according to the
algorithm described above with a constant timestep $\Delta t$
corresponding to a real time of $0.1$ ns. A trajectory (one simulation
run of predetermined finite length) is considered as successful if a
complete virus shell is formed within the simulation time. The
diffusive properties used here correspond to a temperature value of
T=293 K and a viscosity value of $\eta$=$2\cdot10^{-3}$Pa s. The
single proteins have a radius of $R$=1 nm and a patch radius of
$r$=0.4 nm with the center of the spherical patches placed at the
surface of the protein. We choose the same initial concentrations for
all simulations of one virus geometry. To observe a considerable
number of association events within a reasonable time we use
relatively high concentrations of several mM. Although these
concentration values exceed those applied in experimental setups
(several $\mu$M \cite{Schreiber2009}), this is a common practice in
simulation approaches
\cite{Nguyen2007,Rapaport2010,Schluttig2008,Schluttig2010}. During
the simulations we record the number of clusters of size $n$, $\nu_n$
($1\leq n\leq n_f$=60 T), as well as the first passage times (FTPs) of
intermediates of specific sizes. The probability that some monomer
belongs to a cluster of size $n$ is $p(n)=(\nu_n n)/n_f$. The sum of
these probabilities is normalized to one. The average cluster size is
given by
\begin{equation}
\overline{n}=\sum_{n=1}^{n_f}p(n) n=\sum_{n=1}^{n_f} \frac{\nu_n n}{n_f} n\ .
\label{equation_1}
\end{equation}
\section{Results}
\subsection{Overview}
In this section we investigate the dynamics of virus capsid formation
for direct and hierarchical assembly and compare them in order to
identify their generic differences. To characterize the assembly
performance, the yield (i.e. the relative number of successful
trajectories within a given simulation time) and the first passage
times (FPTs) of selected intermediates are recorded for different
model parameters. We systematically compare both assembly mechanisms
in a parameter space ranging from $k_a$=3.0 ns$^{-1}$ to 9.0
ns$^{-1}$ and from $k_d$=$1.5 \cdot 10^{-3}$ns$^{-1}$ to $1.95
\cdot 10^{-2}$ns$^{-1}$. For the simulations of assembly of T1
capsids we use an initial monomer concentration of $c$=4.5 mM ($60$
particles in a cubic box with side length $L$=28 nm). Investigation
of T3 is carried out at an initial concentration of $c$=1.7 mM
($n_f$=180, $L$=55 nm). To classify different assembly regimes we
distinguish between three different phases: the early, intermediate
and final phases which we define to be delineated by the emergence of
cluster sizes 1/3 $n_f$, 2/3 $n_f$ and $n_f$, respectively.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{figure_2.eps}
\caption{T1 direct assembly. a) and b) show the relative population of different cluster sizes
as a function of time for a favorable ($k_a$=5.0 ns$^{-1}$, $k_d$=$13.5 \cdot 10^{-3}$ns$^{-1}$)
and a unfavorable ($k_a$=8.0 ns$^{-1}$, $k_d$=$1.5\cdot 10^{-3}$ns$^{-1}$) set of parameters, respectively.
The average cluster size is shown as solid line. In the inset the monomer population $\nu_1(t)$ is shown as a function of time.
c) Parameter space analysis of direct assembly. Relative yield (left) and relative assembly speed (right) are depicted using a heat-map representation for
various combinations of $k_a$ and $k_d$. All data are obtained from 40 independent simulation runs.}
\label{figure2}
\end{figure}
\subsection{T1 Direct Assembly}
Figures 2a and b show the temporal evolution of the relative
population of all cluster sizes for one favorable and one unfavorable
set of model parameters, respectively. The average cluster size
$\bar{n}(t)$ (see Eq. 1) is shown as solid line and shows a sigmoidal
shape. Starting from a full set of available monomers, we observe
subsequent formation of dimers, trimers and then larger intermediate
clusters. In the favorable case shown in Figure 2a, the distribution
always stays close to the average and complete capsid formation is
achieved. Remarkably, this successful case is also characterized by
the relatively long persistence of a monomer pool (inset to Figure
2a). The persistence of a relatively high number of monomers during
the intermediate assembly phase shows the system's capability to
reorganize and enables one dominant cluster to grow. In marked
contrast, for the unfavorable case shown in Figure 2b, the distribution of
intermediates considerably broadens. The average does not reach
complete capsid formation, and the monomer pool is depleted much
earlier. Here the intermediates are more restricted in undergoing
recombinations, many trajectories become kinetically trapped and the
average does not capture anymore the dynamics of the assembly
process. In both cases, the assembly dynamics slow down during the
final phase. This can, at least partly, be attributed to monomer
starvation as the slow-down occurs when only very few monomers are
left. The prominent features found here (sigmoidal kinetics, fast
growth after lag time, kinetic trapping, monomer starvation
in the final phase) have been found before also with coarse-grained
MD-simulations \cite{Hagan2006,Nguyen2007,Rapaport2008}.
The main difference between the two parameter sets used in Figure 2 is
that the second (unfavorable) case leads to more stable intermediates (higher $k_a$,
lower $k_d$). In Figure 2c we systematically investigate the effects of the bond
parameters on direct assembly by comparing yield and
assembly speed for different combinations of $k_a$ and $k_d$. The
upper left corner of the parameter plots represent strong bonds (high
$k_a$, low $k_d$), while weak bonds are found in the lower right
corner (low $k_a$, high $k_d$). The left plot shows the relative
yield averaged over an ensemble of 40 trajectories. Direct assembly
of T1 shows a large region of high yield for dissociation rate values
above a threshold of around $k_d$=$10.5 \cdot 10^{-3}$ns$^{-1}$. Below
this value almost no successful assembly is observed. This is due to
the limited possibilities of the intermediates to reorganize, which
results in the occurrence of kinetically trapped structures. For low
dissociation rates we also observe a dependency of the yield on the
choice of $k_a$. In this region, lowering of the bond breaking rate
$k_d$ can at least partly be compensated by lowering of the
association rate $k_a$.
In the right plot of Figure 2c, we show the relative assembly speed as
a function of model parameters. The assembly speed is defined as the
inverse of the completion time of the capsid, $v$ =
1/FPT($n_f$). Because this quantity can be obtained only for
successful assemblies, here we average only over completed
trajectories. In contrast to the relative yield, we see a clear
dependence of the assembly speed on the association rate $k_a$ across
the whole parameter space. Fastest assembly is observed for
relatively low values of $k_a$. The observation that relatively high
association rates lead to slower assembly can be explained by the
increasing tendency to form more than one large cluster in the early
and intermediate phases. Thus, even for high dissociation rates, the
necessary rearrangement of the clusters slows down the assembly
process considerably. We also record a relatively high assembly speed
at low $k_d$ values where only low yield is observed. Since the
relative speed values are obtained by averaging over successful
trajectories only, these results show that, if a full capsid is
formed, it is completed within a short time.
To conclude, we see that the success of assembly in terms of yield is
mostly determined by the choice of the dissociation rate $k_d$. For
low values of $k_d$ the system becomes kinetically trapped, while
large values of $k_d$ allow for the reorganization of the clusters.
The relative assembly speed of successful trajectories is strongly
influenced by the choice of $k_a$. Here we identify an optimum at
$k_a$=5.0 ns$^{-1}$, with speed being worse both at larger and smaller
values. In agreement with previous studies, we observe that most
efficient assembly (i.e. high yield combined with fast capsid
completion) occurs at intermediate bond stability and that bond
reversibility is an important requirement for successful capsid
formation \cite{Rapaport2008,Hagan2011,Rapaport2010b}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{figure_3.eps}
\caption{T1 hierarchical assembly. a) and b) show the relative population for a favorable ($k_a$=8.0 ns$^{-1}$, $k_d$=$1.5 \cdot 10^{-3}$ns$^{-1}$) and unfavorable ($k_a$=5.0 ns$^{-1}$, $k_d$=$1.35\cdot 10^{-2}$ns$^{-1}$) set of parameters, respectively. The average cluster size is shown as solid line.
In the inset of a) the FPT($n_f$) is plotted against the FPT of the last pentamer. The inset of b) shows the completion times of
the pentamers for the parameter sets analyzed in a) and b), respectively.
c) Parameter space analysis of hierarchical assembly. The relative yield of full capsids (left) and of clusters of size $n$=55 (right)
are depicted using a heat-map representation for various combinations of $k_a$ and $k_d$. All data are obtained from 40 independent simulation runs.}
\label{figure3}
\end{figure}
\subsection{T1 Hierarchical Assembly}
Hierarchical assembly of a T1 virus capsid is analyzed in a similar
manner as direct assembly. Figures 3a and b show the evolution of
relative cluster size population and the average cluster size for
assembly under favorable and unfavorable conditions, respectively.
Due to the imposed hierarchy, clusters above pentamer size adopt only
particular size values (multiples of five). Hierarchical assembly
under favorable conditions (Figure 3a) shows a long early phase during
which the first pentamers are formed. The following intermediate
phase is characterized by addition of newly formed capsomers to one
dominant cluster. A striking feature of hierarchical assembly is the
dramatic slow-down in the final phase. A majority of trajectories
remains in the $n$=55 state for a long time where all but one pentamer
have formed and joined the almost complete capsid. This can be
explained by increased monomer starvation. In hierarchical assembly,
all small clusters of sizes below five are connected by single bonds
only. Since the low monomer concentration in the final phase reduces
the frequency of diffusional encounter, it takes a long time before
the last pentameric ring can be closed irreversibly. From the inset of
Figure 3a we clearly identify the formation of the last pentamer as
the bottleneck of capsid completion in hierarchical assembly. Here the
capsid completion time is plotted against the formation time of the
last pentamer for several successful trajectories of one exemplary
parameter set. We observe that the completion of the last pentamer is
almost instantly followed by its integration into the capsid.
The assembly dynamics shown in Figure 3b for an unfavorable parameter
combination does not lead to complete assembly within the given
simulation time. In contrast to the favorable case (Figure 3a), the
association rate is lower and the dissociation rate is higher, which
results in a reduced overall bond stability. This is found to strongly
hinder the formation of the late pentamers. Although slower, the
overall course of the assembly process is not substantially different
from the successful case in Figure 3a. The main difference between
the two parameter combinations becomes clear by looking at the
completion times of the pentamers which are shown in the inset of
Figure 3b. We see that the pentamer FPTs of both cases follow the same
shape during the early and intermediate phases, but that for low bond
stability the completion times in the late phase are delayed. This
delay grows with ongoing assembly, so that the final pentamer does not
close within the simulation time. Here the negative effect of low
monomer concentration on capsomer assembly, which was discussed
earlier, is amplified by the low bond stability.
To quantify the effects of different combinations of $k_a$ and $k_d$
on hierarchical assembly of T1, we again perform a systematic
investigation of the bond parameter space as shown in Figure 3c.
Considering the relative yield of complete capsids (Figure 3c, left
image), we observe that only a narrow range of parameters leads to a
considerable fraction of successful trajectories. High yield is only
observed at high bond stabilities (high $k_a$, low $k_d$) in the upper
left corner of the parameter plot. To take into account the critical
role of the formation of the last pentamer in our simulations, we also
show the yield of almost finished capsids ($n$=55) at the end of the
simulation time (Figure 3c, right image). The region where we observe
almost finished capsid is considerably expanded and a large fraction
of trajectories reaches $n$=55 in the upper left corner of parameter
space. The yield decreases along the diagonal from high towards low
bond stability values (lower right corner). It becomes clear that the
unfavorable parameter combinations do not show kinetically trapped
states as they occur in direct assembly, and that most trajectories
are close to capsid completion. The high yield of almost finished
capsids and the lack of trapped trajectories suggests that the bond
hierarchy promotes successful capsid completion, but is vulnerable to
monomer starvation.
\subsection{T1 Direct versus Hierarchical Assembly}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figure_4.eps}
\caption{Comparison of T1 direct and hierarchical assembly. We evaluate a) FPT(30), b) FPT(40), c) FPT(50) and d) FPT(60) for different parameter combinations ($k_a$, $k_d$). Blue fields indicate points at which the respective FPT for direct assembly is smallest while red fields identify hierarchical assembly to be faster. Points where no clear distinction is possible are colored in gray. Every data point is obtained from 40 simulation runs.}
\label{figure_4}
\end{figure}
The above analysis has revealed a marked difference between direct and
hierarchical assembly schemes. From Figures 2 and 3, it is also clear that
the final state of a trajectory is strongly affected by the finite
length of the simulation and provides only limited information on the
dynamics of assembly. In particular hierarchical assembly depends
strongly on the formation of the last pentamer and suffers from
monomer starvation in the final phase. To evaluate in more detail the
performance of the assembly process in its different phases, we
systematically compare the FPTs of certain intermediates for both
direct and hierarchical assembly. The results are depicted in Figure
4 in a sequence of phase diagrams. Blue areas are those where direct
assembly performs better while red indicates parameter combinations
where hierarchical assembly is faster. Points where a clear
distinction is not possible are shown in gray (difference of direct and hierarchical FPTs less than $10\%$ of the sum of both FPTs).
For the first emergence of intermediates of half the capsid size (FPT(30), Figure 4a), direct assembly is faster throughout the whole parameter space. This is related to the earlier observation of an extended initial phase of hierarchical assembly when compared to direct assembly (see Figure 3). It can be explained by the fact that the monomers in direct assembly exhibit three active binding sites and thus easily form clusters of considerable size.
Since hierarchically assembling monomers are designed to form flat pentamer rings, only the two patches forming intra-capsomer bonds are active until full capsomers are formed. Thus the number of fruitful encounters is reduced remarkably, which leads to the observed slow-down of the initial phase.
Looking at the FPTs for the two-third assembled capsid (FPT(40), Figure 4b), we see a large region in the upper left part of the parameter space (high $k_a$, low $k_d$) where hierarchical assembly
is now able to overtake direct assembly. This can be attributed to two effects. Firstly, hierarchical assembly speeds up once a pool of capsomers is available. Secondly, direct assembly is slowed down at high bond stabilities. Since the combination of fast formation of large, stable clusters in the early phase (due to high $k_a$) and slow dissociation of small clusters leads to a small number of free monomers, the dominant cluster grows only slowly. In the region of lower bond stability, direct assembly remains faster. Here the increased ability of un- and rebinding of single proteins allows for fast rearrangement, leading to a sufficiently large supply of free monomers so that the dominant cluster can easily grow beyond $n$=40. Simultaneously the pentamer rings in the hierarchical setup form slower than at high bond stabilities.
The difference between the two assembly mechanisms becomes even more evident when looking at FPT(50) (Figure 4c).
At low $k_d$ values, direct assembly experiences kinetic trapping. As a consequence, hierarchical assembly is superior
for almost all small $k_d$ values, also at points where the question of dominance remained undecided for FPT(40).
The parameter region of weak bonds where direct assembly is faster than hierarchical one is observed to extend during the step from FPT(40) to FPT(50)
(lower right corner of parameter space). Under these conditions the effect of beginning monomer starvation delays the pentamer completion of hierarchical assembly.
For the assembly speed of the complete virus capsid (FPT(60), Figure 4d), direct assembly dominates again across almost the whole parameter space.
Only at very high bond stabilities hierarchical assembly shows lower or comparable FPT values. This is not surprising taking into account the results
for the overall yield of hierarchical assembly (Figure 3c) and underlines the large impact of monomer starvation on hierarchical assembly.
We conclude that hierarchical assembly is not always better than direct assembly. Direct assembly performs better
both at the initial and final phases. During the intermediate phase,
however, hierarchical assembly is more successful, because it does not suffer from stable bonds preventing structural rearrangements.
Due to the limited number of possible interactions, hierarchical assembly is unlikely to get trapped in sub-pentameric units.
In general, for hierarchical assembly parameter combinations resulting in high bond stability are favorable. At these values we observe kinetic
trapping of most of the directly assembling systems. In addition, the symmetry of the pentamers themselves and the low complexity of their
interactions prevent them from getting trapped in large clusters incompatible with the final
capsid. For T1, this favors the step-wise build-up of the target structure.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{figure_5.eps}
\caption{Effect of initial number of monomers on T1 assembly. Comparison of FPT(50) (a-c) and yield (d-f) for direct and hierarchical assembly with an initial number of N=60, N=80 and N=120 monomers, respectively. Blue fields indicate points at which the FPT for direct assembly is smallest or the yield is largest while red fields identify hierarchical assembly to be faster or the yield to be higher. Points where no clear distinction was possible are colored in gray. Every data point is obtained from 45 simulation runs.}
\end{figure}
\subsection{T1 Effect of Initial Number of Monomers}
Until now we have used exactly as many monomers as needed to form one
complete capsid. In experiments, monomers are likely to be present in
surplus or to be provided with a certain rate. To study the effect of
the limited number of monomers on our simulation, we next increase the
initial supply to N=80 and N=120 monomers while keeping the
concentration constant by enlarging the simulation box. For the case
N=80, a surplus of 20 monomers will be present upon formation of a
complete capsid. For the case N=120, two capsids might be formed in
parallel and thus the benefit of an increased initial monomer
concentration might be shared by them in a complex manner. Figures 5a-5c
show a comparison between direct and hierarchical assembly of the FPT(50) for an initial number of N=60, N=80
and N=120 monomers, respectively. As in Figure 4, blue fields indicate
that direct assembly has a lower FPT(50), red fields mark parameter
pairs for which hierarchical assembly is faster and for gray fields no
clear distinction is possible. We see that the comparison of both
mechanisms leads to similar results for all setups. When increasing
number of initial monomers we observe a slightly larger region of the
parameter space in which hierarchical assembly becomes favorable. This
is not surprising, as we identified monomer starvation to strongly
hinder the final capsid completion for hierarchical assembly. However,
in general the effect of monomer starvation seems to have relatively
little impact on the relative efficiency of the two different assembly
schemes for clusters of size N=50.
Figures 5d-5f show the yield of the first capsid within simulation time
for an initial number of N=60, N=80 and N=120 monomers,
respectively. Here again red indicates a higher yield of hierarchical
assembly while blue indicates a higher yield of direct assembly. Gray
marks parameter pairs with the same yield. In contrast to the FPT(50),
we can clearly see that increasing the initial number of monomers
results in a largely expanded parameter space in which hierarchical
assembly is favorable. This shows that monomer starvation affects the
final phase of hierarchical assembly in particular as it has been
inferred in the previous section. In fact hierarchical assembly
performs well throughout the whole parameter space and shows high
yield for intermediate and weak bonds. At very high bond strength we
even observe some trapping for hierarchical assembly. However, direct
assembly still strongly suffers from kinetic trapping so that the
parameter space corresponding to high bond strength remains clearly
dominated by hierarchical assembly. We also note that increasing the initial
number of monomers from N=80 to N=120 does not lead to a further promotion of
hierarchical assembly, presumably because now two capsids form
in parallel, each drawing monomers in a similar manner as before
for N=60.
To conclude, we find that our main results from the previous section
remain valid for an increased number of initial monomers. Hierarchical
assembly is favorable at high bond strength due to the decreased
possibility of trapping while direct assembly is favorable at low bond
strength allowing for fast reorganization of large clusters. In
general, we expect that our results also carry over to even larger
systems.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{figure_6.eps}
\caption{Model for T3 virus capsid. (a) Visualization of the T3 virus capsid and its capsomers of (b) pentameric and (c) hexameric structure. The hexamer is composed of two different protein types.}
\end{figure}
\subsection{T3 Direct versus Hierarchical Assembly}
Given the results for T1 virus assembly, we now ask how they carry
over to more complicated geometries like T3 viruses. In this section
we compare the characteristics of direct and hierarchical assembly of
T3 viruses which are composed of $n_f$=180 monomers. Now we place
again exactly the number of monomers needed for the formation of one
complete capsid into the simulation box. While in the hierarchical
assembly of T1 viruses the capsid was built from pentameric subunits
only, T3 virus capsids consist of 12 pentameric and 20 hexameric
capsomers. Figure 6 shows a model capsid which, in the hierarchical
case, assembles from two different subunits. While the pentamers are
formed from identical proteins, the hexamers contain two different
particle types. Due to the increased complexity of the T3 capsid, we
observe only a small range of bond parameters to lead to high yield
for direct assembly in our computer simulations. Moreover, we are not
able to identify a parameter combination that allows successful
hierarchical assembly within the used simulation time. This is caused
by the lowered concentration of individual species of monomers which
leads to a dramatic slow-down of capsomer formation in the final
phase. As hierarchical assembly reaches the largest cluster sizes at a
high association rate of $k_a$=9.0 ns$^{-1}$, we now systematically
analyze the effect of different dissociation rates $k_d$ ($5 \cdot
10^{-4}$ns$^{-1} \leq k_d \leq 1.35 \cdot 10^{-2}$ns$^{-1}$) while
keeping $k_a$ fixed.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{figure_7.eps}
\caption{Comparison of T3 direct and hierarchical assembly. a), b) and c) show the first passage times FPT(60), FPT(120) and FPT(150) together with the relative yield of the corresponding cluster size for fixed $k_a$=9.0 ns$^{-1}$. Blue and red boxes show the results for direct and hierarchical assembly, respectively. The data points are obtained from 10 simulation runs. The maximum simulation length of $9\cdot10^{6}$ns represents the upper boundary of the FPT values.}
\end{figure}
Figure 7 shows different FPTs ($1/3$ $n_f$, $2/3$ $n_f$ and $5/6$ $n_f$) for direct (blue color) and hierarchical (red) assembly for $k_a$=9.0 ns$^{-1}$ and varying dissociation rate.
The FPTs are complemented with yield histograms showing the relative number of trajectories which reached the corresponding size within the simulation time.
From Figure 7a we immediately see that all trajectories in the investigated parameter interval have grown beyond a cluster size of $n$=60 at the end of the simulation.
Comparison of the FPTs for direct and hierarchical assembly reveals assembly speeds of the same magnitude at low values of $k_d$.
With growing dissociation rate the FPTs increase for direct as well as for hierarchical assembly. This is not surprising since a lower bond stability leads to an increased number of dissociation events and a slower cluster growth.
The FPTs of direct assembly increase only moderately (about one order of magnitude) compared to those of hierarchical assembly (two orders of magnitude).
This extreme sensitivity of hierarchical assembly is caused by the strong impact of the low bond stability on capsomers formation.
The effect was already observed in hierarchical assembly of T1 and is amplified here due to the presence of several protein types and the resulting lowered effective initial concentration:
The number of fruitful monomer encounters is not only reduced by the smaller number of active patches compared to direct assembly, but also by the limited number of suitable binding partners.
As a consequence of the dramatic slow-down of hierarchical assembly with increasing $k_d$, we observe zero yield of intermediates of size $n$=120 above a threshold around
$k_d$=$7.5\cdot 10^{-3}$ns$^{-1}$ (Figure 7b). On the contrary, we record a decrease in the yield of direct assembly below this $k_d$ value.
This can be explained with the occurrence of kinetic trapping which we already encountered in T1 direct assembly.
Analysis of the corresponding FPT values of so far successful trajectories reveals that, despite the trapping tendency, the speed of direct assembly is still comparable to that of hierarchical assembly at low $k_d$ values.
For even larger cluster sizes (FPT(150), Figure 7c) we see further partitioning of the parameter space. Above a threshold around $k_d$=$4.5 \cdot 10^{-3}$ns$^{-1}$,
no hierarchical assembly is observed, while below this value, only one directly assembling trajectory reaches this size.
\subsection{T3 Effect of Initial Number of Monomers}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figure_8.eps}
\caption{Effect of initial number of monomers on T3 assembly. Comparison of T3 direct and hierarchical assembly for an initial number of N=180, N=198 and N=216 monomers. a)-c) show the FPT(120) and d)-f) show the FPT(150) together with the relative yield of the corresponding cluster size for the respective initial number of monomers while. Blue and red boxes show the results for direct and hierarchical assembly at a fixed $k_a$=9.0ns${-1}$ in a range of $k_d=1.5\cdot 10^{-3}$ns$^{-1}-13.5\cdot 10^{-3}$ns$^{-1}$.For N=180 a additional value at $k_d=0.5\cdot10^{-3}$ns${-1}$is shown. The data points were obtained from at least 10 simulation runs with a maximum length of $9\cdot10^{6}ns$}
\end{figure}
As for the assembly of T1 capsids, we again investigate the role of an
increased initial number of monomers on the simulation results for the
T3 capsid. We increase the initial number of monomers by $10\%$ and
$20\%$ (without changing the concentration) and record the FPTs for
these simulations. In Figures 8a-8c the FPT(120) and the yield of
clusters of size 120 is shown for an initial number of N=180, N=196
and N=216 monomers, respectively. As in the previous section we
explore the effect of varying $k_d$ while keeping $k_a=9.0$ns$^{-1}$
fixed. Comparing the FPT(120) for the different setups we see that
above $k_d=1.5$, hierarchical assembly becomes faster for an increased
initial number of monomers. Direct assembly in contrast is only
slightly affected throughout the parameter space. When looking at the
yield of clusters of size 120 within simulation time ($9\cdot
10^{6}$ns), we clearly see the positive effect of an increased initial
number of monomers on hierarchical assembly for weaker bonds (higher
$k_d$). However, it remains worse than direct assembly at these bond
strengths. These findings are in agreement with the effect observed
for T1 when increasing the initial number of monomers. While the
dynamic of direct assembly is only weakly affected by the initial
number of monomers, hierarchical assembly suffers less from the effect
of monomer starvation at weak bond strength. Considering the FPT(150)
we again see a complete separation of the parameter space into one
region in which only direct assembly is observed and another region in
which hierarchical assembly dominates. Looking at the yield we see
that for an initial number of 180 monomers hierarchical assembly is
only observed for $k_d\leq1.5\cdot 10^{-3}$ns while this region
expands to $k_d\leq 4.5\cdot 10^{-3}$ns for an increased initial
number of monomers. It might be possible that the parameter space in
which hierarchical assembly is favorable expands further for a larger
increase of the initial number of monomers, similar as it was observed
for T1 (Figure 5). However, it seems that the favorable effect of an
increased initial number of monomers is weaker for T3 capsids than for
T1 capsids due to the more complex geometry. In the following section
we will investigate the role of complexity of the T3 capsid for the
hierarchical assembly of a T3 capsid.
\subsection{Capsomer Formation in T3 Hierarchical Assembly}
In order to further investigate the effects that slow down
hierarchical assembly, we now analyze the dynamics of hexamer and
pentamer formation both with computer simulations and a master
equation approach. To compare the FPTs for pentamer and hexamer
formation, we scale these values with the number of monomers per
capsomer ring. This linear scaling is based on the assumption that the
mean time for a net addition of monomers to small ring-forming
clusters is independent of the cluster size. This simplification in
particular neglects the increased number of decay paths of hexamers
compared to pentamers. However, the assumption seems justified for
the present case of high bond stabilities (high $k_a$, low $k_d$), at
least for the early and intermediate phase of assembly.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figure_9.eps}
\caption{Analysis of T3 capsomer assembly. a) FPTs of pentamer and hexamer capsomers emerging during T3 hierarchical assembly are compared to those of T3-like and identical hexamers from the down-scaled simulations. All simulations use $k_a$=9.0 ns$^{-1}$ and $k_d$=$1.5\cdot 10^{-3}$ns$^{-1}$. As there are different total numbers of capsomers to be formed of each type, we compare the relative progress of assembly by plotting all species in the same plot with different scales (1 to 12 for pentamers, 1 to 20 for hexamers). FPTs are scaled with the ring size. All values are obtained from 10 independent simulation runs each. b) Relative cluster size population $n\cdot\nu_n(t)$ during hexamer assembly in the down-scaled systems. The results for monomers ($\nu_1$) and complete capsomers ($\nu_6$) from the analytical master equation approach (lines) are compared to the simulation data (symbols) for T3-like and identical hexamers.}
\end{figure}
In Figure 9a the average capsomer formation times from T3 assembly at
the most promising parameters identified from Figure 7 are shown (now
again for N=120). We find that during T3 capsid assembly hexamers
form slower than pentamers (for the same sequential number). The
difference between the completion times increases with time (the last
hexamer data point, no. 18, is an exception to this rule since its FPT
is artificially cut down to lower values by the finite length of the
simulation). In order to investigate whether this is caused by the
different relative densities of monomers forming pentamers (60/180)
and hexamers (120/180) or a result of the increased complexity of the
hexamer rings, we perform a separate set of simulations. In this
complementary simulation we compare the assembly of hexamers
consisting of one type of protein (identical hexamers) and hexamers
built from two different types of proteins (T3-like hexamers). To
reduce the computational effort we downscale the system to half its
size while preserving the concentration (i.e. assembly of 10 hexamers
in the presence of 30 pentamer-forming monomers). In Figure 9a the
hexamer-FPTs from the complementary simulation are compared to those
at the same relative positions in the assembly process of the full
simulations. The FPTs are again scaled with the ring size. While the
dynamics of the identical hexamers follow the course of the pentamers
in the full simulation, the FPTs of the T3-like hexamers and the T3
hexamers of the full simulation are in good agreement. This
observation suggests that the delay in hexamer formation observed in
the full simulation is caused by the two-type complexity of the
hexamers compared to the uniformly structured pentamers.
To complement this investigation we use an analytical master equation approach to perform a closer analysis of the dynamics of parallel assembly of several hexamers.
Here we develop a set of equations which gives analytic results for the number of clusters of size $n$,
$\nu_n(t)$ ($1\leq n \leq n_f$=6), as a function of association and dissociation rate.
The time evolution of the macroscopic quantity $\nu_{n}$ is the result of reactions between clusters of all sizes $k$
which cause a change of $\nu_{n}$.
We introduce the association rate $a$ for successful binding of two clusters per unit time and the dissociation rate $b_{nk}$ which denotes the rate for decay of a cluster of size $n$ to two daughters of sizes $k$ and $(n-k)$.
$b_{nk}$ is composed of the dissociation rate per bond per unit time, $b$, and a factor $d_{nk}$ which quantifies the probability for the
decay of a cluster of size $n$ to a constellation where one of the daughters is of size $k$.
$d_{nk}$ is determined by the ratio of total dissociation probability (proportional to the number of bonds which compose $n$)
and the probability of the decay products to have the required size.
The population $\nu_i$ increases by the decay of clusters with sizes larger than $i$, so that $d_{ji}$ ($i<j<n_f$) is always positive. For these cases we find $d_{ji}$=2 for each pair $j$, $i$, since the decay from $2i$ to two daughters of sizes $i$ accounts for a double increase of $\nu_i$. The factor $d_{nn}$ denotes the total decay probability of a
cluster, it is thus negative and proportional to the cluster size. Here we use $d_{nn}=-(n-1)$ for every $n<n_f$.
We account for one-step processes only, which means we focus on transitions where two clusters merge or one cluster falls apart
into two daughter clusters.
If we assume that the formation of the complete hexamer ring is irreversible and that the total number of particles $N$ is preserved, the
complete set of equations describing the time evolution of the system reads
\begin{align}
&\dot{\nu}_{n}(t)=\underbrace{ \sum_{k+l=n} a \nu_{k}(t)\nu_{l}(t) }_{\substack{\textnormal{growth by association}\\\textnormal{of smaller clusters}}}
- \underbrace{ \nu_{n}(t) \sum_{k=1}^{n_f-n} a \nu_{k}(t) }_{\substack{\textnormal{decrease by association}\\\textnormal{with other clusters}}}
+\underbrace{ \sum_{k=n}^{n_f-1} b_{kn} \nu_{k}(t) }_{\substack{\textnormal{growth/decrease}\\ \textnormal{by dissociation events}}} \\
&\dot{\nu}_{n_f}(t)=\sum_{k=1}^{n_f / 2} a \nu_{k}(t)\nu_{(n_f-k)}(t) \hspace{17.5mm} \textnormal{(boundary condition)} \\
&\sum_{n=1}^{n_f} n \cdot \nu_{n}(t) = N \hspace{35mm} \textnormal{(constraint)}
\end{align}
Numerical evaluation with the initial condition $\nu_1(t$=0)=$N$ gives the time evolution of all cluster size populations $\nu_n$.
By fitting the set of equations to the course of all $\nu_n(t)$ from the complementary simulation ($n_f$=6, $N$=60),
we obtain parameter combinations $a$, $b$ which reproduce the observed assembly dynamics.
Under the constraint that the dissociation rate $b$ per bond
is constant for identical and T3-like hexamers (since the simulations apply the same $k_d$), we find the following parameters:
$a^{id}$=$2.4\cdot 10^{-6}$ns$^{-1}$ (identical hexamers), $a^{T3}$=$1.2\cdot 10^{-6}$ns$^{-1}$ (T3-like hexamers)
and $b$=$9\cdot 10^{-5}$ns$^{-1}$.
In general, all $\nu_n(t)$ are reproduced well. This suggests that the assumption of a constant association rate $a$ per bond,
independent of the sizes of the encountering clusters, is a reasonable approximation for the formation of small rings.
The results for $\nu_1(t)$ and $\nu_6(t)$ are displayed in Figure 9b together with the simulation data points for both types of hexamers.
The early phase is the region which exhibits the largest discrepancies between data and ME results, while the final phase of assembly shows a high level of consistency. This can be explained by the fact that the rate equation framework does not include any spatial constraints and is thus not able to reproduce the same sort of lag time before the first protein reactions as was observed in the simulations, where the randomly distributed particles react only after diffusional mixing leads to the first encounter events. This is also the reason why the difference between the cases of T3-like and identical hexamers becomes visible in the simulation data only after a certain time, while the ME results differ from the very first iteration step (see Figure 9b).
Since the rate equations do not contain a diffusional component, the coefficients $a$ and $b$ can not be directly related to the
simulation parameters $k_a$ and $k_d$. While $k_a$ determines the rate of transition from encounter to a bound state,
$a$ as well includes the formation of diffusional patch overlap.
Their relation is defined as $a=k_a/(N_A \cdot V)$, where $V$ is the simulation box volume. Using the initial concentration
$c=N/(N_A \cdot V)$, we find the expression $a = k_a \cdot \frac{c}{N}$.
$a$ is thus, as expected, proportional to the initial
monomer concentration in the simulation box. Applying this relation to the fit parameters using the effective initial concentration of the protein types, we estimate the overall association rate values to be $k_{a^id}^{fit}$=$3.3\cdot10^7$s$^{-1}$M$^{-1}$ and $k_{a^T3}^{fit}=6.5\cdot10^7$s$^{-1}$M$^{-1}$.
The fact that the association rate $a^{id}$ for identical hexamers is about twice the value found for $a^{T3}$
confirms that the difference in assembly dynamics for identical and T3-like hexamers has its origin in a reduced
association rate, caused by reduced encounter of matching protein types.
Our observations suggest that the association rate decreases linearly with increasing number of bond partners in the system and
thus the number of different protein types needed to form a capsomer ring.
When comparing our values for the diffusional encounter rate to data from experiments, we see that we overestimate the association rate. In general, the association rate for bimolecular binding reactions is experimentally found to lie between $4\cdot10^6$ and $10^7$s$^{-1}$M$^{-1}$ \cite{Schreiber2009}. Absence of long-ranged forces, as it is the case for our simulation framework, is predicted to push the rates below $10^6$s$^{-1}$M$^{-1}$ \cite{Northrup1992}.
The reason for our relatively high estimates for the encounter rate could be the treatment of dissociation as a stochastic event without
immediate relocation of the partners. In the present implementation, two patches stay in an encounter after dissociation and their
movement is subject to the cluster mobility.
We assume this to cause an overestimation of rebinding frequencies which results in an increased association constant.
Whereas the association rate constant can be related to other results, there is no such argument for the value of $b$.
\section{Conclusion}
Understanding the biophysical principles underlying the self-assembly
of virus capsids is of fundamental importance for biology and
medicine, and might also promote novel applications in materials
science. Here we have presented a Brownian dynamics study of the
assembly of icosahedral virus capsids. Using a patchy particle model
without potentials, our simulations are relatively fast and therefore
we are able to obtain good statistics with relatively modest computing times.
One special strength of our approach is the rigorous treatment of translational
and rotational diffusion, with the motility matrices for any cluster
shape calculated on the fly. Our approach is particularly suited to
focus on the effect of a bonding hierarchy on the performance of the
assembly process. The hierarchy was established by an event-driven
switching of bond characteristics upon the formation of capsomer
rings, which have earlier been identified as key intermediate
structures of the assembly pathway of some icosahedral viruses
\cite{Johnson1997,Tonegawa1970,Salunke1986,Flasinski1997,Willits2003,Hanslip2006,Oppenheim2008}.
We first conducted a detailed comparison of direct versus hierarchical
assembly for T1 viruses. To elucidate the effects of an increased
complexity of the capsid geometry on the formation of the capsomer
rings, we then performed a detailed analysis of capsomer assembly for
T3 viruses, including a master equation approach complementing the
computer simulations.
Our results for direct assembly of T1 virus capsids show that capsid
completion is only successful if the bonds are weak enough to allow
for a sufficient number of unbinding and reorganization
events. Otherwise kinetically trapped clusters appear. These findings
are in good agreement with the results of previous approaches
\cite{Hagan2006,Rapaport2008,Hagan2011,Rapaport2010b}. In marked
contrast, hierarchical assembly performs better for high bond
stabilities, as the imposed hierarchy reduces kinetic trapping.
However, hierarchical assembly is more vulnerable to monomer starvation in the final
phase. This effect has previously been observed in other
approaches for direct assembly \cite{Hagan2006,Mukherjee2010}, but it is even more severe
for hierarchical assembly specifically studied here.
Comparison of direct and hierarchical assembly at various
reveals that hierarchical assembly, although slower in the early phases, is able to outperform direct
assembly at high and intermediate bond strength.
This is due to the fact that capsids assembling from highly symmetric capsomers do not require fundamental
reorganizations to achieve large cluster size, as it is the case in direct assembly.
The analysis of T3 virus assembly shows that the effects apparent for
T1 viruses become amplified by the increased complexity of the capsid
geometry. In general, the assembly process of T3 viruses is slower due
to the size of the capsid and the increased complexity of the protein
interactions. Starting with exactly 180 monomers the parameter space
for successful direct assembly is narrowed and we do not observe any
complete capsids in hierarchical assembly within the used simulation
times. Investigation of the course of assembly of the two mechanisms
reveals that they both perform best in distinct regions of the
parameter space. Increasing the initial number of monomers we find
that hierarchical assembly performs better while direct assembly
remains widely unaffected. However, we still observe that both
mechanisms are favorable in distinct regions of the parameter space.
To analyze the effect of geometric complexity on capsomer formation
during hierarchical assembly, we perform a closer analysis of assembly
of different capsomer types. The results show a significant slow-down
of capsomer formation with increasing structural complexity, which
explains why we do not observe any full T3 virus capsids in the
hierarchical setup within the given simulation time. These findings
suggest a further slow-down for the assembly dynamics of more complex
capsids such as T4 and T7 for hierarchical assembly.
Computer simulations of virus assembly are usually carried out with a
fixed number of initial monomers and therefore necessarily lead to
monomer starvation in the final phase. \textit{In vivo}, this
constraint should be less relevant than in our simulations. Once a
cell is infected by a virus, one expects to see a constant production
rate for viral proteins, and therefore monomer starvation should be
less of an issue. It would be interesting to test if in such a
situation, hierarchical assembly becomes even more favorable than
found here. In computer simulations, this could be done by
continuously adding new monomers and removing completed capsids. We
leave this to future studies as it would entail to introduce at least
two more model parameters, namely the rates for monomer injection and
capsid removal, as well as explicit rules on the spatial positioning
of the new monomers. A similar study could be done experimentally for
viruses which self-assemble \textit{in vitro}, although here too there
might be technical problems to implement such procedures. For
\textit{in vivo} systems, such studies would depend very much on the
details of the virus assembly of interest, in particular on the
spatial coordination in regard to the different cellular compartments.
Our simulation framework has great potential for further investigation
of assembly of icosahedral viruses, i.e. capsids with higher T-number
(T4, T7,...). Although larger simulation times become necessary, they
are potentially much smaller than the ones required for less
coarse-grained approaches, including patchy particle models with
interaction potentials or coarse-grained molecular dynamics
simulations. A particular strength of our approach is the possibility
to switch patch reactivity during the assembly process. This suggests
to investigate even more complex ways to build virus capsids. Our
approach could also be applied to other interesting cases of protein
assembly, for example to the actin cytoskeleton, for which different
regulatory proteins lead to changes in local reactivity.
We conclude that it might be beneficial for icosahedral viruses to
assemble hierarchically, since it prevents kinetic trapping and allows
for faster formation of larger structures. Our results suggest that
hierarchical assembly performs better than direct assembly for high
and intermediate bond stability, while direct assembly is favorable
for weak bonds allowing for fast reorganization. For complex viruses,
our study suggests that the problem of monomer starvation and critical
concentrations has to be addressed for each type of monomer
separately, thus making the process more vulnerable for fluctuations
in the supply chain and imposing limits to the overall degree of
complexity. The partitioning of parameter space into favorable regions
for direct versus hierarchical schemes becomes even stronger for more
complex capsid geometries and suggests ways to design optimal assembly
schemes for different molecular species.
\begin{acknowledgments}
We thank Jakob Schluttig for providing the initial computer code
and for helpful discussions. HCRK was supported by fellowships from
the Landesgraduiertenstiftung Baden-Wuerttemberg and from
the Cusanuswerk. USS is member of the CellNetworks
cluster of excellence at Heidelberg.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
\subsection{Key derivation from sensitive data}
In this paper we make an attempt to adapt the problem of overcoming weak expectations, which recently has attracted considerable attention in the cryptographic community \cite{journals/iacr/BarakDKPPSY11,conf/tcc/DodisY13,DBLP:conf/icits/YaoL13}, to yet another well-recognized setting -- the Bounded Retrieval Model (BRM) \cite{DBLP:conf/tcc/Dziembowski06,DBLP:dblp_conf/tcc/CrescenzoLW06}. Here, the term {\em weak expectations} refers to the (expected) chances of breaking a cryptosystem when an imperfect source of randomness is employed in places where uniformly random bits were supposed to be used. For instance, one can quantify security of a system with semi-random keys used instead of keys drawn from uniform distribution. What motivates such analysis is that the standard assumption about unlimited availability of truly random bits turns out to be overoptimistic in practice. On the other hand, cheap sources of weak randomness can be easily found ``in nature''. Suffice it to mention physical sources or biometric data \cite{conf/eurocrypt/BoyenDKOS05,dodis_fuzzy}, which remain somewhat unpredictable for adversaries.
In the conventional approach to cryptography, security of a scheme relies on privacy of cryptographic keys. The dawn of so called {\em side channel attacks} has influenced this perspective significantly. There, an adversary may gain some partial knowledge about the secret keys, e.g., by measuring timings \cite{Kocher:1996:TAI:646761.706156}, power consumption \cite{kocher99differential}, electromagnetic radiation \cite{conf/esmart/QuisquaterS01}, or even sounds (acoustic cryptoanalysis) \cite{DBLP:dblp_conf/crypto/GenkinST14} emitted by a device a cryptographic protocol is implemented on. Leakage-resilient cryptosystems are meant to address attacks of this form and remain secure when the adversary is allowed to adaptively learn arbitrary functions of the secret keys subject to only one restriction -- namely, the total length of information leaked in the process must not exceed a leakage bound $\lambda$. There are in fact two slightly different models of leakage considered in the literature. The {\em relative leakage} allows $\lambda$ to be some fraction of the length of a secret key. In the {\em absolute leakage} setting, also known as the BRM \cite{conf/focs/DziembowskiP08}, the parameter $\lambda$ is fixed in the first place, and then the length of a key may be chosen accordingly, depending on $\lambda$, to achieve the desired level of security. It is important to note that this flexibility in increasing the key size does not affect other parameters possibly present in a BRM protocol, such as computation or communication complexity -- these should only depend on a security parameter but not on $\lambda$.
\subsubsection{Space-efficient BRM}
The leakage bound $\lambda$ and, consequently, the size of a key in the BRM are typically very large, the latter being of order of gigabytes. Although per-gigabyte storage cost is becoming lower every year, this downside of BRM protocols may still be an issue, e.g., for many mobile devices with quite limited size of non-volatile memory available. When combined with the fact that keys used in these protocols are required to be sufficiently random, it means that computers running a BRM protocol are clogged with some huge blob of random and otherwise useless data. In the solution we propose, BRM keys can be derived on-the-fly (that is, it is not necessary to keep them on disk, and they may be computed when a relevant portion of the key is requested) from data a user want to store on his disk for any other reason. The private user data usable in this context may include: text documents, photos, audio files, or other media. This may lessen the problem of wasted disk space however for a reduced space we trade in additional computations needed to determine BRM keys.
An issue that arises here is that such data, when viewed as a source of randomness, while being unpredictable, to a degree, for an adversary, is certainly not uniformly random (e.g., note that certain segments in some file formats may be fixed or come from a prescribed set of values). Here, the connection to the aforementioned problem of overcoming weak expectations and, which is related, key derivation, becomes apparent.
\subsubsection{Overcoming weak expectations}
A study of cryptographic applications that retain a comparable level of security when fed with weakly random sources instead of ones having uniform distributions was initiated by Barak {\it et al.} \cite{journals/iacr/BarakDKPPSY11}. There, the authors explore the idea of applying universal hash functions to key derivation. The renowned Leftover Hash Lemma (LHL) \cite{HAstad:1999:PGA:312173.312213} states that families of such functions constitute good randomness extractors. Specifically, when applied to a source of min-entropy $k$, an extractor of this form produces $m$ bits which are $\delta$-close (in terms of statistical distance) to uniform, as long as $k \geq m + 2\log{(1/\delta)}$. A key obtained this way can be then used in a cryptographic application. The min-entropy loss of magnitude $2\log(1/\delta)$ may be unacceptably large in some situations but, as shown by Radhakrishnan and Ta-Shma \cite{Radhakrishnan00boundsfor}, it cannot be prevented in general. However, as argued by the authors, there exists a wide range of applications where the entropy loss can be cut down by the factor of $2$ for a price of some security loss in the application using non-uniform keys. This line of research was continued by Dodis and Yu \cite{conf/tcc/DodisY13}.
\subsubsection{Sensitive data}
Building a cryptographic protocol on top of randomness derived from private data bears an obvious risk of compromising that data. One can imagine an artificial protocol that simply publishes all accessible randomness. Also, a protocol in the BRM does not necessarily guarantee protection of its key. Some fragments of a BRM key may be passed, as a part of normal operating procedure, to an honest party that did not possess the key in the first place. To give an example illustrating such a situation, one can conceive of an authentication protocol in the BRM, which itself appears to be folklore, based on Merkle tree \cite{Merkle:1979:SAP:909000}. There, a hash tree is built on an input BRM key and the resulting hash from the root is then forwarded to a verifier (say, a bank). This way a user can commit to his key which, in its entirety, is only stored on user's side for efficiency reasons. On the other hand, the verifier may learn parts of the key when the user attempts to authenticate himself. In order to do that, the verifier demands to present hashes along some path of his choice in the Merkle tree. Such a path includes data from the initial BRM key and thus its fragment gets revealed to the verifier.
Now, if a BRM key used in this protocol is obtained from data stored on disk then, clearly, the key derivation procedure should enjoy some kind of a one-wayness property. If the procedure does not hide its input then a dishonest verifier may attempt to recover the underlying data or, at least, he may gain some partial knowledge. In this paper, we aim at a solution that allows a user to protect his private and possibly sensitive data in this scenario. Namely, we require that an adversary can hardly learn anything more about the data except that he could otherwise achieve via leakage.
\subsubsection{Overview of our solution}
Seemingly, the problem of extracting an almost random key from sufficiently random data can be easily solved, even in presence of leakage, using a well-known primitive -- namely, an average-case strong randomness extractor. Its definition requires that for any two random variables $X$ and $I$ (where $I$ can be viewed as side information about $I$, i.e., a leak) such that the (conditional) min-entropy of $X$ given $I$ (see \eqref{met} for a precise definition of conditional min-entropy) is high enough, then the output of the extractor $\operatorname{Ext}(X, R)$ is statistically close to uniform even given a short random seed $R$ and the side information $I$, in short: $\bigl(\operatorname{Ext(X, R)}, R, I\bigr) \approx (U, R, I)$. Dodis {\it et al.} \cite{dodis_fuzzy} extend the LHL to show that universal hash functions constitute good aveon-rage-case extractors retaining nearly the same parameters as in the original LHL. We also note that the definition of such extractors is enough to cover the privacy requirement in our particular application -- if $\operatorname{Ext}(X, R)$ disclosed some information about private data $X$ then by setting $I$ to be this information we would produce a correlation between $\operatorname{Ext}(X, R)$ and $I$, thus violating the condition about $\operatorname{Ext}(X, R)$ being close to uniform and independent of $I$. Overall, randomness extractors allows us to cover the two main properties we aim at in this paper, i.e., the uniformity of keys and the privacy of underlying data. However, such a construction would be downright impractical. From the computational point of view, extractors are not suited best to work on inputs as huge as in our application. Also, they are inherently non-local in the sense that each bit of an output should depend on almost every bit of an input. This means that in order to compute even a small portion of the derived key on demand using an extractor, one has to read and supply almost the whole input data which is not a viable option.
To address the issue related to efficiency and locality, we propose a different way of deriving keys from private data. Our idea is quite straightforward -- it boils down to splitting all the data into consecutive blocks of the same fixed length $n$ (say, $n = 4\text{kB}$). A block could naturally correspond to the smallest allocation unit in a filesystem present on a user's device. Then, we use hashing to extract randomness from blocks. The naïve method to implement it would be computing hashes block by block. This approach, albeit simple, has a significant drawback. The only assumption we make about the input data is that its joint min-entropy is not too small (this measures the {\em a priori} knowledge of the adversary about the private data, before leakage is taken into account). We do not demand however that the randomness is equidistributed across all the blocks. Therefore, it may happen that even for high overall min-entropy, e.g., $\frac{1}{2} \ell n$ where $\ell$ is the number of blocks, there exist $\ell / 2$ blocks which, from the adversary's point of view, are constant. Consequently, the corresponding parts of a derived key carry no randomness at all and are known to the adversary.
We circumvent the problem caused by blocks with low min-entropy we increase the number of blocks a single block of a derived key depends on. That is, each hash is calculated by taking not one but $d$ blocks of input. Additionally, we amplify the likelihood of the event that there is at least one high min-entropy block among the selected $d$-tuple. This step actually introduces a new flavor to the reasoning. Namely, we argue the assumption on joint min-entropy of the input blocks with large probability implies that there exists a large number of blocks each having high min-entropy. This statement may seem rather natural and intuitive yet it is somewhat tricky to prove. A related problem of extracting random blocks was considered before by Nisan and Zuckerman \cite{NZ} and Alwen, Dodis, and Wichs \cite{ADW}.
The fact that there should be plenty of sufficiently random blocks in the input allows us to pick $d$-tuples of block randomly. However, to recreate portions of the derived on-the-fly one would have to store the auxiliary randomness used to select those tuples, which may not be acceptable. Instead, we suggest employing dispersers -- $d$-regular bipartite graphs with the property that any sufficiently large set of vertices on the left side is connected to almost all vertices on the right side. Every such a disperser induces a selection of $d$-tuples.
Clearly, increasing the degree of regularity $d$ of a disperser reduces locality of the key derivation method. This however comes as a trade-off. We use a simulation-based argument to prove that any protocol using the derived key can be simulated by a protocol operating on an original key with $O(n\ell/d)$ of additional leakage.
\subsection{Chain rule for min-entropy}\label{chain}
Since the beginning of formal treatment of cryptography most works have heavily relied on different flavours of \emph{entropy}. Depending on the context, those notions are used to measure compressibility, unpredictability or uncertainty of outcomes of random processes. In his seminal work Shannon applied the simplest, compressibility notion of entropy (called after his name), i.e., the one defined by $\ensuremath{\mathbf{H}}(X) \mydef {\mathbb E}_x\log\frac{1}{\Pr(X = x)}$ to prove that in a perfectly secure symmetric key encryption scheme the length of the key is necessarily as large as the length of the message. The notion which turned out to be even more useful in the area of cryptography is \emph{min-entropy} defined by the formula $\ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(X) \mydef -\log(\max_x \Pr(X = x))$ and encompassing unpredictability properties of a random variable $X$.
\subsubsection{Conditional entropy}
Shannon's entropy possesses a natural generalization to its conditional version $\ensuremath{\mathbf{H}}(X|Y)$ which satisfies the formula $\ensuremath{\mathbf{H}}(X,Y) = \ensuremath{\mathbf{H}}(X|Y) + \ensuremath{\mathbf{H}}(Y)$. This corresponds to an intuitive interpretation stating that the information contained in $(X,Y)$ consists of the information in $Y$ extended by the conditional information in $X$ given $Y$. Dodis {\it et al.} \cite{dodis_fuzzy} provided an analogous notion for min-entropy. Namely, for two random variables $X,Y$ the conditional min-entropy $\ensuremath{\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}_{\infty}}(X|Y)$ is given by the formula:
\begin{equation}\label{met}
\ensuremath{\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}_{\infty}}(X|Y) \mydef -\log\left({\mathbb E}_y 2^{-\ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(X | Y = y)}\right).
\end{equation}
This definition turns out to preserve the natural interpretation of min-entropy as maximal probability of success in guessing $X$ given $Y$, i.e., for any algorithm ${\cal A}$ we have:
\[
\Pr({\cal A}(Y) = X) = {\mathbb E}_y \Pr({\cal A}(y) = X) \leq {\mathbb E}_y 2^{-\ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(X | Y = y)} = 2^{-\ensuremath{\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}_{\infty}}(X|Y)}.
\]
Regrettably, the above definition possesses serious drawbacks explained in the following example.
\begin{example}[Cross distribution]\label{example:cross}
Let $X = (X_1,X_2) \in (\{0,1\}^n)^2$ be a random variable distributed uniformly over ''the cross``, i.e., a set $\{0,1\}^n \times e \cup e \times \{0,1\}^n$ for some fixed $e \in \{0,1\}^n$.
Note that, we have $\ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(X_1,X_2) = -\log\frac{1}{2^{n+1} - 1} \in [n,n+1]$ and $\ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(X_i) = -\log\frac{2^n}{2^{n+1} - 1} < 1$ and therefore, the sum property does not hold without any further assumptions or conditions. Moreover, $\ensuremath{\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}_{\infty}}(X_2|X_1) < \ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(X_2)$ and therefore $\ensuremath{\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}_{\infty}}(X_2|X_1) + \ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(X_1) < 2$ which consequently means that the most natural chain rule does not hold either.
\end{example}
The authors also prove the following result.
\begin{lemma}[Lemma 2.2 in \cite{dodis_fuzzy}]\label{lem:avg_ent}
Let $X,Y,Z$ be random variables. Then
\begin{enumerate}[a)]
\item
For eny $\delta > 0$, the conditional entropy $\ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(X | Y = y)$ is at least $\ensuremath{\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}_{\infty}}(X|Y) - \log(1/\delta)$ with probability at least $1-\delta$ over the choice of $y$.
\item \label{step:chain_rule_kalectwo}
If $Y$ has at most $2^\lambda$ possible values, then $\ensuremath{\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}_{\infty}}(X|(Y,Z)) \geq \ensuremath{\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}_{\infty}}((X,Y)|Z) - \lambda \geq \ensuremath{\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}_{\infty}}(X|Z) - \lambda$.
In particular, $\ensuremath{\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}_{\infty}}(X|Y)\geq \ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(X,Y) - \lambda \geq \ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(X) - \lambda$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
The above item \ref{step:chain_rule_kalectwo}) of \cref{lem:avg_ent} is treated as chain rule for min-entropy. Its significant weakness is that the inequality does not depend on the random properties of $Y$ but its actual size $\lambda$. We illustrate this by a simple example.
\begin{example}[Two blocks almost half entropy]\label{example:two_blocks_no_gain}
Let $X,Y$ be two random variables distributed over $\{0,1\}^n$ with joint distribution of min-entropy $\ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(X,Y) = n$. Then, the above item \ref{step:chain_rule_kalectwo}) gives us a trivial estimate $\ensuremath{\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}_{\infty}}(X|Y) \geq \ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(X,Y) - |Y| = 0$.
\end{example}
Nevertheless, if we condition $(X_1,X_2)$ given in \cref{example:cross} with a random variable $\mathrm{Hint}$ defined by the formula
\[
\mathrm{Hint} = i \iff X_i = e,
\]
then the second variable $X_{3-i}$ has conditional min-entropy $\ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(X_{3-i} | \mathrm{Hint} = i) = n$. Therefore, there exists a certain additional ``knowledge'' $\mathrm{Hint}$ which allows us to extract almost whole min-entropy from the pair $(X_1,X_2)$. Namely, the event
\[
\ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(X_1 | \mathrm{Hint} = i) + \ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(X_2 | \mathrm{Hint} = i) \geq \ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(X_1,X_2) - 1
\]
holds with probability $1$ over the choice of $i$. This suggests that the right way to obtain the chain rule is additional conditioning. Similar approach was used in certain different applications and is classically called \emph{spoiling knowledge}.
\begin{remark}
We believe that our results might find a meaningful application in the theory of extractors as we exhibit a certain (non-strict) block-wise structure of any distribution of high min-entropy (cf. proof of the Claim inside \cref{cor:many_blocks}). Block-wise distributions are widely used in theory of extractors (see, e.g., \cite{nisan_extractors}).
\end{remark}
\subsubsection{Previous results concerning chain rule.}
Previous research concerning (or somehow related) to chain rule is not only mentioned in discussed above \cite{dodis_fuzzy}.
For example authors of \cite{ADW} and \cite{NZ} prove that random (sufficiently large) subtuple of some set of variables with high min-entropy must preserve some significant amount of this entropy. Our result can be viewed as a generalization of this fact since from our reasoning we get that some \emph{specific} (not random) subtuple preserves some min-entropy. (see Corollary \ref{cor:many_blocks}.) Moreover in \cite{NZ} authors try to deal with the problem of chain rule for min-entropy but need to make big effort to get some complicated workaround since they do not have any quasi chain rule for min-entropy in hand. Moreover, they show a simplified version of their result and give a short brief proof based on chain rule for Shannon entropy.
Another important previous result is Lemma A.1 (min-entropy split) from \cite{BK} (and also other variants from \cite{BK1, BK2}).
Here authors formulate a theorem that also can be viewed as a quasi chain rule. As an example compare with the following:
\begin{lemma}[Lemma 4.2 (Min-Entropy-Splitting Lemma) in \cite{BK1}]
Let $\epsilon \geq 0$ and let $X_0, X_1$ be random variables (over possibly different alphabets) with $\ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}^{\epsilon}(X_0 X_1) \geq \alpha$. Then, there exists a binary random variable $C$ over $\{ 0,1 \}$ such that
$\ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}^{\epsilon} (X_{1-C} C) \geq \alpha/2$.
\end{lemma}
This is very interesting result that shows that it is possible to extract partial min-entropy from a pair of variables. However authors justify high min-entropy of just one viariable from the pair. In our result we get significantly more dealing with both variables at once. See \cref{lem:golden_first} for details.
\section{Our contribution}
The results of the paper are twofold.
\subsubsection{Making BRM space efficient.} In this paper, we give a new idea to overcome a problem with large space requirements in the BRM model. As a reminder: BRM uses huge private keys for purpose of leakage-resiliency. Here we describe an idea to derive secret key from private data (this could include text documents, videos, etc.). That content is supposed to have high enough min-entropy, however it raises a problem with privacy: we do not want to reveal any sensitive data outside. Our construction fulfills this expectation. So the private data remains undisclosed even if the entire derived key is compromised.
The secret key is being computed on-the-fly from private data so that no extra memory is used to store the key. Access to the key is fast so one does need to read limited portion of private data to compute some part of the secret key.
The main result shows that any cryptographic protocol from well defined and vast class (intuitively: game based protocols) is still secure if we use a key derived from private data in place of a random key.
\subsubsection{Chain rule through spoiling knowledge.}
The reasoning from Section \ref{chain} exhibits a pair of random variables $X,E$ such that $\ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(X | E = e) + \ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(Y | E = e) \gg \ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(X) + \ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(Y)$ with probability $1$ over the choice of $e$. Analogous simplified situations were investigated by Bennett {\it et al.} \cite{generalized_privacy} for collision entropy $\mathbf{H}_2$ and utilized in privacy amplification. Furthermore, similar examples also exists for other Renyi entropies $\mathbf{H}_\alpha$ for $\alpha > 1$ and were systematically analysed by Cachin in \cite{cachin_maurer} in context of smooth entropy. Our methods substantially generalize ``profiling'' method of Cachin and Maurer and gives a precise spoiling knowledge sufficient to obtain chain rule for min-entropy. Our main result in this part of the paper is the following (see \cref{lem:golden_first}):
\begin{description}
\item[Chain rule.] Let $X, Y$ be random variables. Then, there exists a function $\mathrm{Hint}(y) \in \{1,\ldots,K\}$ for some $K > 0$ such that for any $\varepsilon > 0$ and $N = \ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(X,Y)$ the event:
\[
\forall_{y \in \mathrm{Hint}^{-1}(h)} \ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}\bigl(X|Y = y, \mathrm{Hint}(Y) = h\bigr) + \ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}\bigl(Y | \mathrm{Hint}(Y) = h\bigr) > \Bigl(1 - \varepsilon - \frac{1}{K}\Bigr)\cdot N
\]
occurs with probability $\geq 1 - K\cdot 2^{-\varepsilon N}$ over the choice of $h$.
\end{description}
As a corollary, we significantly generalize this result in order to obtain the chain rule for many variables (see \cref{cor:many_blocks}). To the best of our knowledge, prior to this work there was no efficient chain rule for min-entropy except \cref{lem:avg_ent} (see Dodis {\it et al.} \cite{dodis_fuzzy} or Cachin and Maurer \cite{cachin_maurer} for similar results for Renyi entropy).
It is important to mention that in any cryptographic application supplementary side information appears to be beneficial for the adversary and therefore using \cref{lem:golden_first} should facilitate any security proof requiring detailed treatment of min-entropy (cf. Remark after proof of \cref{lem:wichs}).
\subsubsection{Usefulness of Chain rule.} Our result seems to help to prove some facts that often look trivial at very first sight. The typical problem with proving such "obvious observations" comes from the fact that, in general, the chain rule for min-entropy is false. For example one may go through the proof of Lemma 5.2 from \cite{BK} to see how technical and delicate it is. We believe that using chain rule from this paper could significantly simplify reasonings like that. The reason for that is that our statement seems to work better then e.g. Lemma A.1 (min-entropy split) from \cite{BK} that is key for proving Lemma 5.2. The technical cause for that raises from the fact that Brakerski {\it et al.} split somehow the min-entropy of a pair but do not have full control of min-entropy of one of the elements. That makes the proof much harder in one case. Our techniques tend to follow the ideas from \cite{BK} and make them more clean to use.
Another good example for usefulness for our chain rule is \cref{lem:disperse_oneway} from this paper. Here we need the multivariate case of our result (\cref{cor:many_blocks}) which was not considered in previous works at all.
\section{Preliminaries}\label{sec:preliminaries}
\label{sec:rom_and_leakage}
We assume the existence of a \emph{random oracle}, i.e., perfectly random function $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\colon \{0,1\}^{*} \to \{0,1\}^n$ which can be evaluated only by querying a certain oracle $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ \todo{Może utożsamić $h$ i $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ żeby nie mnożyć oznaczeń}. At the beginning, all values of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ are uniformly distributed, in particular, unpredictable. Throughout the protocols operation, one can issue a query $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}(m)$ obtaining the value of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}(m)$ and gaining no other information.
In order to model leakage attacks, we introduce a \emph{restricted leakage oracle} ${\cal O}^{{\mathbb D}}$ parametrized by a random variable ${\mathbb D} \in \{0,1\}^{|{\mathbb D}|}$. A query ${\cal O}^{{\mathbb D}}(f)$, consists of a function $f\colon \{0,1\}^{|{\mathbb D}|} \to \{0,1\}^\lambda$ given as a Turing machine, and results in the value $f({\mathbb D})$. A \emph{leakage oracle} ${\cal O}^{{\mathbb D},\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}$ (also denoted by ${\cal O}({\mathbb D},\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}})$) is defined analogously but with leakage functions containing apart from ordinary operations a black-box access to a random oracle, which on an input $x$ returns the value $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}(x)$.
We say that the total leakage is of at most $\lambda$ bits if the sum $\sum_i \lambda_i$ for all issued $f_i\colon \{0,1\}^{|{\mathbb D}|} \to \{0,1\}^{\lambda_i}$ is bounded by $\lambda$.
We denote by $\mathbf{TM}^{{\cal O}({\mathbb D})}_{\lambda}$ the class of all probabilistic Turing machines equipped with an adaptive access to a restricted leakage oracle ${\cal O}$ with total leakage of at most $\lambda$ bits. Moreover, by $\mathbf{TM}^{{\cal O}({\mathbb M},\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}),\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}_{\lambda, q}$ we mean the subclass of $\mathbf{TM}^{{\cal O}({\mathbb M})}_{\lambda}$ equipped with an adaptive access to a leakage oracle ${\cal O}^{{\mathbb D},\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}$ together with additional $ q$ executions of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$.
We say that a function $f$ is ${\cal H}$-randomized (or simply randomized if no confusion can arise) if it is result is dependent on a certain random oracle ${\cal H}$. We denote a ${\cal H}$-randomized function by $f(-,{\cal H})$.
\section{Chain rule for min-entropy}
\todo{Potrzebne krótkie zagajenie}
\subsection{Bivariate case}
We first prove the following case for two random variables.
\todo{Przydałaby się intuicja na temat dowodu, na co wskazuje hint}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:golden_first}
Let $X$ and $Y$ be two (possibly dependent) random variables. Then, there exists a function $\mathrm{Hint}(y) \in \{1,\ldots,K\}$ for some $K > 0$ such that for any $\varepsilon > 0$ and $N = \ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(X,Y)$ the event:
\[
\forall_{y \in \mathrm{Hint}^{-1}(h)} \ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}\bigl(X|Y = y, \mathrm{Hint}(Y) = h\bigr) + \ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}\bigl(Y | \mathrm{Hint}(Y) = h\bigr) > \Bigl(1 - \varepsilon - \frac{1}{K}\Bigr)\cdot N
\]
occurs with probability $\geq 1 - K\cdot 2^{-\varepsilon N}$ over the choice of $h$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We begin with two straightforward facts concerning min-entropy. Firstly, observe that for any random variable $Z$ and an event $E$ the conditional min-entropy
\[
\ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(Z | E) \mydef \min_z\{-\log\left(\Pr(Z=z|E)\right)\}
\]
satisfies the inequality $\ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(Z | E) \geq \ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(Z) - \log\rfrac{1}{\Pr(E)}$.
Secondly, using the formula for conditional probability we see that
\[
\Pr(X = x|Y = y) = \frac{\Pr(X = x,Y = y)}{\Pr(Y = y)} \leq \frac{2^{-\ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(X,Y)}}{\Pr(Y = y)},
\]
which means that
\[
\Pr(Y = y) \leq \frac{2^{-\ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(X,Y)}}{\max_x \Pr(X = x|Y = y)} = 2^{-\ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(X,Y) + \ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(X|Y = y)}.
\]
This consequently implies that $\ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(Y) \geq \ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(X,Y) - \max_y\ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(X \mid Y = y)$.
We now proceed to the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:golden_first}. We define a function $\mathrm{Hint}$ by the condition:
\[
\mathrm{Hint}(y) = i \iff \ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(X | Y = y) \in [\frac{i-1}{K}N,\frac{i}{K}N],
\]
where $N$ denotes the min-entropy $\ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(X,Y)$ (we disregard the boundary cases).
By the definition of $\mathrm{Hint}$ we see that
\begin{align}
\forall_{y \in \mathrm{Hint}^{-1}(i)} \ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(X | \mathrm{Hint} = i,Y = y) \geq \frac{i-1}{K}N. \label{eq:def_hint}
\end{align}
Moreover, using both of the above general observations, we get that
\[
\ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(Y | \mathrm{Hint} = i) \geq \ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(X,Y | \mathrm{Hint} = i) - \frac{i}{K}N \geq N - \frac{i}{K}N - \log\rfrac{1}{\Pr(\mathrm{Hint} = i)}. \label{eq:general_app}
\]
By summing (\ref{eq:def_hint}) and (\ref{eq:general_app}) up we obtain:
\[
\forall_{y \in \mathrm{Hint}^{-1}(i)} \ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(X | \mathrm{Hint} = i, Y = y) + \ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(Y | \mathrm{Hint} = i) \geq N - \frac{N}{K} - \log\rfrac{1}{\Pr(\mathrm{Hint} = i)}.
\]
Now observe that for all values $i$ of $\mathrm{Hint}$ that satisfy $\Pr(\mathrm{Hint} = i) \geq 2^{-\varepsilon N}$ we have:
\[
\forall_{y \in \mathrm{Hint}^{-1}(i)} \ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(X | \mathrm{Hint} = i, Y = y) + \ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(Y | \mathrm{Hint} = i) \geq N - \frac{N}{K} - \varepsilon N = (1 - \frac{1}{K} - \varepsilon) \cdot N. \label{eq:formula_chain_rule}
\]
There are at most $K$ other values of $\mathrm{Hint}$ which consequently occurs with probability smaller than $K \cdot 2^{-\varepsilon N}$. This finishes the proof.
\qed
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
For the sake of brevity, from now on we omit the $\forall$ quantifier and write $\ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(X;Y = y,\mathrm{Hint} = h)$ \todo{używamy tego?} to denote the fact that $y$ is consistent with the value $h$ of a random variable $\mathrm{Hint} = \mathrm{Hint}(Y)$. Then, with the same assumptions as above, we have \footnote{By $\ensuremath{\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}_{\infty}}(X|Y ; \mathrm{Hint} = h)$ we mean the conditional min-entropy $\ensuremath{\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}_{\infty}}(X|Y)$ computed with respect to the distribution conditioned on the event $\mathrm{Hint} = h$}:
\begin{align}
\ensuremath{\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}_{\infty}}(X|Y ; \mathrm{Hint} = h) + \ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(Y | \mathrm{Hint} = h) > \left(1 - \varepsilon - \frac{1}{K}\right)\cdot\ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(X,Y) \\
\ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(X | \mathrm{Hint} = h,E) + \ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(Y | \mathrm{Hint} = h) > \left(1 - \varepsilon - \frac{1}{K}\right)\cdot\ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(X,Y)
\end{align}
for any event $E$ depending only on $Y$ with probability $\geq 1 - K\cdot 2^{-\varepsilon N}$ over the choice of $h$. This follows from averaging over the choice of $y$. Note that the subtlety of definition of conditional min-entropy given in \cite{dodis_fuzzy} is not relevant as the formula (\ref{eq:formula_chain_rule}) works for any $y$ such that $\mathrm{Hint}(y) = h$.
\end{remark}
As corollaries we obtain:
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:two_blocks_assymetric}
Let $X,Y$ be random variables satisfying $\ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(X,Y) = mn$. For every $\Delta \in \mathbb{N}$ such that there exists a random variable $\mathrm{Hint}$ such that:
\[
\ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(X|Y = y, \mathrm{Hint} = h) + \ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(Y | \mathrm{Hint} = h) > (m-2\Delta)n
\]
occurs with probability $\geq 1 - 2^{-(\Delta n - \log m)}$ over the choice of $h$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Apply \cref{lem:golden_first} for $\varepsilon = \frac{\Delta}{m}$ and $K = \lceil \frac{m}{\Delta} \rceil$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Multivariate case}
Moreover, by more involved inductive considerations we obtain:
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:many_blocks}
Let $X_1,\ldots,X_{\ell}$ be random variables satisfying $\ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(X_1,\ldots,X_{\ell}) = s\ell$ for some $s > 0$. Then, for any $D > 0$ there exists a random variable $\mathrm{Hint}$ such that
\begin{align}\label{bigsum}
& \sum_{1\leq i \leq \ell} \ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(X_i | \mathrm{Hint} = h,E_i) \geq s\ell(1 - \frac{1}{D})
\end{align}
with probability $1 - 2D\ell(\ell - 1)\cdot 2^{-\frac{s}{2D}}$ over the choice of $h$, where $E_i$ are events depending on $\mathrm{Hint}$ and variables with smaller indices, i.e., $X_1,\ldots,X_{i}$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
We prove the following claim by descending induction with respect to $k$.
\begin{claim}
For any $k \in [1,\ell]$ there exists a random variable $\mathrm{Hint}_k$ such that:
\begin{align}
& \ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(X_1,\ldots,X_k | \mathrm{Hint}_k = h) + \sum_{k+1 \leq i \leq \ell} \ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(X_i | \mathrm{Hint} = h) \geq s(\ell - \frac{\ell - k}{D})
\end{align}
with probability $1 - 2D\ell(\ell - k) \cdot 2^{-\frac{s}{2D}}$ even if we additionally condition $\ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(X_{k+m} ; \mathrm{Hint}_k = i)$ for $m>0$ with any event $E_{k+m}$ depending solely on $\mathrm{Hint}_k$ and variables with smaller indices, i.e., $X_1,\ldots,X_{k+m-1}$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}[Proof of the claim]
The base case $k = \ell$ is just the assumption $\ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(X_1,\ldots,X_{\ell}) = s\ell$ for an empty variable $\mathrm{Hint}_\ell$ (note that there is no additional assumption on further conditioning). Now, assume that the claim is true for some $k > 1$ and that
\[
\ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(X_1,\ldots,X_k | \mathrm{Hint}_k = i) = c_i s,
\]
for some $0 < c_i \leq \ell$. By Lemma \ref{lem:golden_first} applied for $\varepsilon = \frac{1}{2Dc_i}$, $K = 2D \lceil c_i \rceil$, $X = X_k$, and $Y = (X_1,\ldots,X_{k-1})$ conditioned on $\mathrm{Hint}_k = i$ we obtain a random variable $\mathrm{H}^k_i$ such that
\begin{align}
\ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(X_k | \mathrm{Hint}_k = i, \mathrm{H}^k_i = h', E) + \ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(Y | \mathrm{Hint}_k = i, \mathrm{H}^k_i = h') & \geq c_i s (1 - \frac{1}{2Dc_i} - \frac{1}{2D \lceil c_i \rceil}) \label{eq:induction_step} \\
& \geq s(c_i - \frac{1}{D}) = sc_i - \frac{s}{D} \nonumber.
\end{align}
for any event $E$ depending on $Y$ with probability $1 - 2D \lceil c_i \rceil \cdot 2^{-\frac{s}{2D}} \geq 1 - 2D\ell \cdot 2^{-\frac{s}{2D}}$ over the choice of $h'$. We now set $\mathrm{Hint}_{k-1} = (\mathrm{Hint}_k,\mathrm{H}^k_{\mathrm{Hint}_k})$ \todo{Co to $\mathrm{H}^k_{\mathrm{Hint}_k}$?} and compute that
\begin{align}
\ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(X_1,\ldots,X_{k-1} | \mathrm{Hint}_{k-1} = (h,g)) & + \sum_{k \leq i \leq \ell} \ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(X_i | \mathrm{Hint}_{k-1} = (h,g))) \geq \nonumber\\
\ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(Y ; \mathrm{Hint}_{k-1} = (h,g)) + \ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(X_k | \mathrm{Hint}_{k-1} = (h,g)) & + \sum_{k+1 \leq i \leq \ell} \ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(X_i | \mathrm{Hint}_{k-1} = (h,g)) \geq \label{eq:golden2}\\
\ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(X_1,\ldots,X_k | \mathrm{Hint}_k = h) - \frac{s}{D} & + \sum_{k+1 \leq i \leq \ell} \ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(X_i | \mathrm{Hint}_{k-1} = (h,g)) \geq \label{eq:golden3}\\
\ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(X_1,\ldots,X_k | \mathrm{Hint}_k = h) - \frac{s}{D} & + \sum_{k+1 \leq i \leq \ell} \ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(X_i | \mathrm{Hint}_{k} = h) \geq \label{eq:golden4}\\
& \geq s(\ell - \frac{\ell - k + 1}{D}) \nonumber
\end{align}
with probability
\[
\geq (1 - 2D\ell(\ell - k)\cdot 2^{-\frac{s}{2D}})(1 - 2D\ell \cdot 2^{-\frac{s}{2D}}) \geq 1 - 2\ell(\ell - k + 1) \cdot 2^{-\frac{s}{2D}},
\]
where in (\ref{eq:golden2}) we used the definition of $Y$, in (\ref{eq:golden3}) we applied the formula (\ref{eq:induction_step}) and in (\ref{eq:golden4}) we removed additional conditioning on event $\mathrm{H}^k_{\mathrm{Hint}_k} = g$ which depends only on variables with smaller indices (induction step) and is therefore harmless (cf. hypothesis of the claim). The inductive claim concerning additional conditioning follows along the same lines (just by adding further events in min-entropies), but is a bit cumbersome to state succinctly.
\end{proof}
Our corollary follows from the claim for $k = 1$ and the inequality $\frac{\ell - 1}{\ell} < 1$, i.e., the expected $\mathrm{Hint}$ equals $\mathrm{Hint}_1$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
The proof above shows that the size of $\mathrm{Hint}$ is in fact polynomial in $\ell$ and $D$.
\end{remark}
We now state an elementary proposition which allows us to obtain a certain bound on the number of high min-entropy blocks given $\ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(X_1,\ldots,X_\ell) \geq \beta \ell n$ for $\beta \leq 1$.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:numbers}
Let $x_1,\ldots,x_\ell$ be a sequence of numbers satisfying $0 \leq x_i \leq n$ and $x_1 + \dotsb + x_\ell = \beta \ell n$ for some $0 < \beta \leq 1$. Then, for any $0 \leq \gamma < \beta$ there are more than $\lfloor \frac{\beta - \gamma}{1 - \gamma} \ell \rfloor$ numbers $x_i$ such that $x_i \geq \gamma n$.
\end{proposition}
A proof of this fact appears in \cref{sec:aux}.
As a corollary we obtain:
\begin{corollary}[High min-entropy blocks]\label{cor:high_minentropy_blocks}
Let $X_1,\ldots,X_\ell$ be random variables distributed over $\{0,1\}^n$ and satisfying $\ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(X_1,\ldots,X_\ell) \geq \beta \ell n$. Then, for any $D$ and $\gamma < \beta(1 - \frac{1}{D})$ there exists a random variable $\mathrm{Hint}$ such that with probability $1 - 2D\ell(\ell - 1)\cdot 2^{-\frac{\beta n}{2D}}$ the number of blocks $X_i$ satisfying $\ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(X_i | \mathrm{Hint} = h) \geq \gamma n$ is greater than $\lfloor \frac{\beta(1 - \frac{1}{D}) - \gamma}{1 - \gamma} \ell \rfloor$. In particular, for $D = 2$ and $\gamma = \frac{\beta}{4}$ we obtain that there exists a random variable $\mathrm{Hint}$ such that with probability $1 - 4\ell(\ell - 1)\cdot 2^{-\frac{\beta n}{4}}$ there exists $\lfloor \frac{\beta}{4 - \beta} \ell \rfloor \geq \lfloor \frac{\beta\ell}{4} \rfloor$ blocks of min-entropy $\ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(X_i | \mathrm{Hint} = h) \geq \frac{\beta n}{4}$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
For the general case, we consequently use \cref{cor:many_blocks} and \cref{prop:numbers}. We obtain the special case by direct specialization.
\end{proof}
\section{Key derivation procedure based on sensitive data}
In this chapter, we define formally a class of protocols whose security can be expressed in terms of a game with a certain probability of success. Consequently, we define two properties, security and privacy, of a randomised transformation function $\ensuremath{\mathsf{kdp}}(-,{\cal H})$ which makes it suitable for derivation of keys from sensitive disk data.
\subsection{Security games}
\begin{definition}[Security game]\label{definition:securitygame}
Let $K$ be a random variable. A \emph{security game against an adversary ${\cal A}$ based on randomness $K$} is a tuple $\mathsf{Game} = ({\cal C},\mathsf{KeyGen},\mathsf{Setup}_{\mathrm{Ch}},\mathsf{Setup}_{\mathrm{Adv}},\mathsf{Execute})$ consisting of an interactive algorithm ${\cal C}$ together with a randomized key generation procedure $\mathsf{KeyGen}$, a pair of setup procedures $\mathsf{Setup}_{\mathrm{Ch}}$, $\mathsf{Setup}_{\mathrm{Adv}}$ and an execution procedure $\mathsf{Execute}$ which given an interactive algorithm ${\cal A}$ operates as described in \cref{fig:execution_procedure} below.
\vspace{0.2cm}
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}
\scalebox{0.93}{
\fbox{
{
\begin{minipage}[c]{1.0\linewidth}
\vspace{0.1cm}
\begin{center}
{\bf Execution procedure $\mathsf{Execute}$ of $\mathsf{Game} = ({\cal C},\mathsf{KeyGen},\mathsf{Setup}_{\mathrm{Ch}},\mathsf{Setup}_{\mathrm{Adv}})$. }
\end{center}
\vspace{0.1cm}
\begin{enumerate}
\item The key is initialized by $\mathtt{key} \leftarrow \mathsf{KeyGen}(K)$ and then the input tapes of ${\cal A}$ and ${\cal C}$ are
set to $\mathsf{Setup}_{\mathrm{Adv}}(\mathtt{key})$ and $\mathsf{Setup}_{\mathrm{Ch}}(\mathtt{key})$ respectively. \label{line:init_adv}\\
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\begin{center}{\bf Execution phase:} \end{center}
\vspace{-0.4cm}
\item The following loop is conducted:
\begin{center}
\begin{algorithm}[H]\small\caption{Main loop}
\SetAlgoLined
$\mathtt{msg}_{{\cal A}} = \bot$ \tcc{first message is empty}
\While{$\mathtt{state}_{{\cal C}} \not\in \{\mathtt{Accept},\mathtt{Reject}\}$}
{
${\cal A}$ : $(\mathtt{state}_{{\cal A}},\mathtt{msg}_{{\cal A}}) \leadsto (\mathtt{state'}_{{\cal A}}, \mathtt{msg}_{{\cal C}})$ \label{line:adversary} \\
${\cal C}$ : $(\mathtt{state}_{{\cal C}},\mathtt{msg}_{{\cal C}}) \leadsto (\mathtt{state'}_{{\cal C}}, \mathtt{msg}_{{\cal A}})$ \label{line:challenger} \\
}
\end{algorithm}
\end{center}
\item When ${\cal C}$ transits to either $\mathtt{Accept}$ or $\mathtt{Reject}$ the execution terminates. \label{step:indices}
\end{enumerate}
\vspace{0.1cm}
{\bf Output:} The final state $\mathsf{state}_{\cal C} \in \{\mathtt{Accept},\mathtt{Reject}\}$ of the challenger ${\cal C}$.
\vspace{0.2cm}
\end{minipage}
}}}
\caption{Execution procedure}
\label{fig:execution_procedure}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
\vspace{0.5cm}
In lines \ref{line:adversary} and \ref{line:challenger} of the Main Loop we used the notation ${\cal B} : (\mathtt{state},\mathtt{msg}) \leadsto (\mathtt{state}',\mathtt{msg}')$ which indicates that the interactive machines ${\cal B}$ resumes in state $\mathtt{state}$ given an input message $\mathtt{msg}$ and transits to state $\mathtt{state}'$ with an output message $\mathtt{msg}'$. Given all the parameters, we denote the execution of the game by $\mathsf{Game}[{\cal A} \leftrightharpoons {\cal C},\mathtt{key} \gets \mathsf{KeyGen}(K)]$.
\end{definition}
Intuitively, the operation of $\mathsf{Game}[{\cal A} \leftrightharpoons {\cal C},\mathtt{key} \gets \mathsf{KeyGen}(K)]$ boils down to an adaptive, sequential (numbered by $\mathsf{round}$) exchange of messages between interactive machines ${\cal A}$ and ${\cal C}$ initialized by the values $\mathsf{Setup}_{\mathrm{Adv}}(\mathtt{key})$ and $\mathsf{Setup}_{\mathrm{Ch}}(\mathtt{key})$ respectively, which ends up in the last state of the algorithm ${\cal C}$.
\begin{remark}[Complexity]
We can require that ${\cal C}$ or ${\cal A}$ belong to a certain complexity class $\mathbf{TM}$ which might be characterized by number of Turing machine steps allowed to be taken, access to some oracle ${\cal O}$ (e.g., hash, leakage) or a memory bound. For example, to describe an adversary which works in time polynomial in the size of the key $\mathtt{key}$ and can access leakage oracle ${\cal O}(\mathtt{key})$ with a leakage bound $\lambda$, we write that ${\cal A} \in \mathbf{TM}^{{\cal O}(\mathtt{key})}_{\lambda}(\mathrm{poly}(|\mathtt{key}|)$. While computing any kind of complexity (e.g. time, storage, leakage), as a final result we consider the total amount of resources used during all transitions conducted (cf., e.g., line \ref{line:adversary} and \ref{line:challenger} above) in an interactive algorithm. In particular, an adversary ${\cal A}$ belongs to $\mathbf{TM}^{{\cal O}(\mathtt{key})}_{\lambda}$ if the total amount of leakage obtained during \emph{all transitions} of ${\cal A}$ does not exceed $\lambda$ bits.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}[Relation to classical Interactive Turing Machines]
In fact the definition given above is a RAM-based analogue of interactive Turing machines. We resigned from the formal approach based on common input tapes assumption in order to emphasize the sequential nature of the computation, which we shall exploit in the upcoming considerations.
\end{remark}
The above security game is tailored to cover a broad range of security definitions of various cryptographic protocols. We now state the description of a class of cryptographic protocols whose security is grasped through game-based definition.
\begin{definition}[Game security]
We say that $\mathsf{Game} = ({\cal C},\mathsf{KeyGen},\mathsf{Setup}_{\mathrm{Ch}},\mathsf{Setup}_{\mathrm{Adv}},\mathsf{Execute})$ based on randomness $K$ is $(\varepsilon, \mathbf{TM})$-secure
iff for every ${\cal A} \in \mathbf{TM}$ the probability that execution ends in $\mathtt{Accept}$ satisfies
\[
\Pr(\mathsf{Game}[{\cal A} \leftrightharpoons {\cal C},\mathtt{key} \gets \mathsf{KeyGen}(K)] = \mathtt{Accept}) \leqslant\varepsilon,
\]
where the probability is taken over $K$ and all random choices of ${\cal C}$ and ${\cal A}$.
\end{definition}
\begin{example}
The vast majority of cryptographic protocols are covered by the above game-based definition. Good example is identification scheme in BRM from \cite{ADW}. Another protocol that fits the definition is described in the introduction standard Merkle-tree authentication protocol.
\end{example}
Note, that the notation $\varepsilon$ for the security parameter might be confusing as we do not distinguish the case of unpredictability and indistinguishability applications (see \cite{DBLP:dblp_conf/eurocrypt/DodisPW14} for precise definitions), i.e., the security definition above covers the case of $\varepsilon \approx 0$ and $\varepsilon \approx \frac{1}{2}$.
\subsection{Security and privacy of key derivation functions}
After describing what security games are, we are ready to formulate precise definitions for intuitive requirements of privacy and security that we impose on our key-derivation procedure. From now on, $D$ is a random variable representing disk data, $\lambda$ denotes the number of bits adversary can leak, $N$ is the maximal value of min-entropy of disk data and $p$ is the ratio of actual min-entropy $\ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(D)$ and $N$.
\begin{definition}[privacy of a key-derivation procedure]
We say that a randomized function $\ensuremath{\mathsf{kdp}}(-,{\cal H}) : \{0,1\}^N \to \{0,1\}^{M}$ is $(p,\lambda,\Delta_\lambda,q,\varepsilon)$-private if there exists a simulator ${\cal S} \in \mathbf{TM}^{{\cal O}(D)}_{\lambda+\Delta_\lambda}$ such that for every random variable $D \in \{0,1\}^N$ of min-entropy $\ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(D) \geq pN$ and every
adversary ${\cal A} \in \mathbf{TM}^{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}(D,\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}),\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}_{\lambda, q}$ operating on $\mathtt{key} = \ensuremath{\mathsf{kdp}}(D,{\cal H})$, the output distributions satisfy:
\[
(\mathbf{Output}({\cal A}(\mathtt{key})),D) \approx_\varepsilon (\mathbf{Output}({\cal S}({\cal A})),D).
\]
\end{definition}
The privacy definition tracks down the amount of additional leakage $\Delta_\lambda$ that is necessary to constructor ${\cal S}$ capable of simulating the behaviour of any adversary ${\cal A}^{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}},\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}_{\lambda, q}$ operating on the key generated by the dispersing procedure. Observe that any algorithm ${\cal A}(\mathtt{key}) \in \mathbf{TM}^{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}(D),{\cal H}}_{\lambda, q}$ (cf. \Cref{sec:rom_and_leakage} for the formal specification of this complexity class) is provided with access to an oracle $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$, i.e., can test values of a random function, and moreover issues a sequence of leakage queries ${\cal O}^{D,\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}(f_i)$, which may also depend on the random oracle $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$, i.e., can learn some information concerning $D$ depending on the same random function $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$.
\begin{definition}[Security of a key-derivation procedure]
We say that a randomized function $\ensuremath{\mathsf{kdp}}(-,{\cal H}) : \{0,1\}^N \to \{0,1\}^{M}$ is $(p,\lambda,\Delta_\lambda,q,\varepsilon)$-secure if for any $(\varepsilon', \mathbf{TM}^{{\cal O}(\mathtt{key})}_{\lambda})$-secure game $\mathsf{Game} = ({\cal C},\mathsf{id},\mathsf{Setup}_{\mathrm{Ch}},\mathsf{Setup}_{\mathrm{Adv}},\mathsf{Execute})$\footnote{for detailed description of $\mathsf{Game}$ see \cref{definition:securitygame}} for randomness $K \gets U_N$, the game
$\mathsf{Game}_{\mathrm{Disk}} = ({\cal C},\ensuremath{\mathsf{kdp}}(D,{\cal H}),\allowbreak\mathsf{Setup}_{\mathrm{Ch}},\mathsf{Setup}_{\mathrm{Adv}},\mathsf{Execute})$ based on randomness $(D,{\cal H})$ is $(\varepsilon' + \varepsilon, \mathbf{TM}^{{\cal O}(D,{\cal H}),{\cal H}}_{\lambda-\Delta_\lambda, q})$-secure.
\end{definition}
The general aim of the security definition is to grasp the intuitive expectation that the an adversary playing against key derived from sensitive data should not gain any advantage comparing to the case of using a redundant, truly random key. Note that it suffices to give ${\cal A}$ the access to $\mathtt{key} = \ensuremath{\mathsf{kdp}}(D,{\cal H})$ as the transcript of any scheme's execution can be generated based on $\mathtt{key}$.
\section{$\mathsf{Disperse}$ as a key derivation procedure}
\subsection{$\mathsf{Disperse}$ graph}
Throughout the whole construction we shall make use of bipartite right $M$-regular graphs identified with functions $\sigma : [N_1] \times [M] \to [N_0]$ by the following recipe. By $\G_\sigma$ we denote a bipartite graph $\ensuremath{\mathcal{G}}$ with the sets of vertices equal to two disjoint sets $[N_0],[N_1]$ and with edges going from $n \in [N_1]$ to $\sigma^n_m \in [N_0]$ for any $m \in [M]$. The following definition is crucial:
\begin{definition}
A bipartite graph $\ensuremath{\mathcal{G}} = (V^0 \sqcup V^1,E)$ is a \emph{right $(K,L)$-disperser} if for every set $S \subset V^1$ such that $|S| = K$ the neighbourhood $N(S)$ satisfies
\[
|N(S)| \geqslant L,
\]
i.e. the sets of size $K$ expands into sets of size at least $L$.
\end{definition}
We often make use of explicit $\ell^d$-regular $(\ell^e,(1-\eta)\ell)$-dispersers. We implicitly assume that the numbers $d,e$ satisfy $d<1,e<1$ and $d+e>1$.
For more details on dispersers and further definitions see \cref{sec:disperser}.
In the \cref{fig:disperse}, we describe function $\mathsf{Disperse}$ explicitly. For the sake of simplicity, we identify vertices of graph with labels they contain. An exemplary $\mathsf{Disperse}$ function is shown in \cref{fig:exemplarydisperse}.
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}[h]
\scalebox{1}
{
\fbox{
{
\begin{minipage}[c]{1.0\linewidth}
\vspace{0.1cm}
\begin{center} {\bf Implementation of $\mathsf{Disperse}_{\G_\sigma}(D,{\cal H})$.} \end{center}
\vspace{0.1cm}
{\bf Input:} a bitstring $D = D_1 \ldots D_{\ell}$ for $D_1, \ldots, D_{\ell} \in \{0,1\}^n$; $\G_\sigma$ a $d$-regular biparite graph $(D \sqcup D', E)$, where $D = (D_1, \ldots, D_\ell)$ and $D' = (D'_1, \ldots, D'_\ell)$, such that $N(D'_i) = \{D_{\sigma^i_1}, \ldots, D_{\sigma^i_d}\}$; function ${\cal H}\colon \{0,1\}^{dn + \log\ell} \to \{0,1\}^n$\\% INPUT HEADER
{\bf Output:} a bitstring $D'$.
\begin{center} {\bf Execution: } \end{center}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Assign values to the "upper" vertices of $\G_\sigma$:\\
$D'_i \gets {\cal H} \left(i,D_{\sigma^i_1}, \ldots, D_{\sigma^i_d}\right)$, for $i = 1, \ldots, \ell$.
\item Return $D' = D'_1, \ldots, D'_\ell$.
\end{enumerate}
\vspace{0.1cm}
\vspace{0.3cm}
\end{minipage}
}}}
\caption{Operation of dispersion function.}\label{fig:disperse}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[thick,scale=0.8, every node/.style={scale=0.8}]
\node [align=center] at (0,1.1) {$D_1$};
\node [align=center] at (2,1.1) {$D_2$};
\node [align=center] at (4,1.1) {$D_3$};
\node [align=center] at (8,1.1) {$D_{\ell - 2}$};
\node [align=center] at (10,1.1) {$D_{\ell - 1}$};
\node [align=center] at (12,1.1) {$D_{\ell}$};
\node [align=center] at (0,3.7) {$D'_1$};
\node [align=center] at (2,3.7) {$D'_2$};
\node [align=center] at (4,3.7) {$D'_3$};
\node [align=center] at (8,3.7) {$D'_{\ell - 2}$};
\node [align=center] at (10,3.7) {$D'_{\ell-1}$};
\node [align=center] at (12,3.7) {$D'_{\ell}$};
\draw [decorate,decoration={brace,amplitude=10pt,mirror,raise=2pt},yshift=0pt]
(12.1,1.3) -- (12.1,3.4) node [black,midway,xshift=0.8cm] {$G$};
\draw [-] (0,1.4) -- (0,3.4);
\draw [-] (0,1.4) -- (2,3.4);
\draw [-] (0,1.4) -- (4,3.4);
\draw [-] (2,1.4) -- (2,3.4);
\draw [-] (2,1.4) -- (10,3.4);
\draw [-] (4,1.4) -- (6,3.4);
\draw [-] (4,1.4) -- (0,3.4);
\draw [-] (4,1.4) -- (12,3.4);
\draw [-] (6,1.4) -- (8,3.4);
\draw [-] (6,1.4) -- (4,3.4);
\draw [-] (6,1.4) -- (12,3.4);
\draw [-] (8,1.4) -- (4,3.4);
\draw [-] (8,1.4) -- (2,3.4);
\draw [-] (8,1.4) -- (6,3.4);
\draw [-] (8,1.4) -- (8,3.4);
\draw [-] (10,1.4) -- (10,3.4);
\draw [-] (10,1.4) -- (0,3.4);
\draw [-] (10,1.4) -- (12,3.4);
\draw [-] (12,1.4) -- (8,3.4);
\draw [-] (12,1.4) -- (10,3.4);
\draw [-] (12,1.4) -- (6,3.4);
\fill [white] (5,1.3) rectangle (7,3.5);
\node [align=center] at (6,2) {\ldots};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{An exemplary $\mathsf{Disperse}_{\G_\sigma}(D, \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}})$}\label{fig:exemplarydisperse}
\end{figure}
We now state our main result that for an appropriately chosen graph $\G_\sigma$ the function $\mathsf{Disperse}_{\G_\sigma}$ is in fact private and secure for reasonable parameters.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:disperse-is-sdf}
Let $\G_\sigma$ be a $\ell^d$-regular $\left(\ell^e, (1-\eta)\ell\right)$-right disperser and $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ a random oracle. Then for any $\beta$ satisfying $p - \frac{\lambda}{\ell n} > \beta > 4 \eta$ the function $\mathsf{Disperse}_{\G_\sigma}(-, \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}) : \{0,1\}^{\ell n} \to \{0,1\}^{\ell n}$ is:
\begin{itemize}
\item $(p,\lambda,\Delta_\lambda = \ell^e(\log q + \log \ell),q = 2^{o(\ell^{1-e})n},O(\ell^2 \cdot 2^{\frac{-\beta n}{4}}) )$-private
\item $(p,\lambda,\Delta_\lambda = \ell^e(\log q + n),q = 2^{o(\ell^{1-e})n},\varepsilon = O(\ell^2 \cdot 2^{\frac{-\beta n}{4}}) )$-secure.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
Since the proof of this theorem is long, it is divided into three parts -- at the beginning it is shown that even under the presence of leakage, function $\mathsf{Disperse}$ effectively hides the data underneath; then, basing on this result, privacy property is proven; next security is shown. At the end, we also shortly elaborate about the efficiency of $\mathsf{Disperse}_{\G_\sigma}$.
Before proceeding to actual proofs we shortly elaborate about the bounds on the parameters.
\begin{remark}[Efficiency of $\mathsf{Disperse}_{\G_\sigma}$]
It is important to note that in order to obtain a single bit of a derived key one need process $\ell^d$ blocks of disk data. This therefore constitutes a leakage-time trade-off for the operation of our function. Namely reduction of $d$ allows to compute a single bit of key more efficiently with a cost of an increased parameter $\Delta_\lambda$ proportional to $\ell^e$ (recall that $d+e>1$).
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}[Bounds on parameters]
The bounds $p - \frac{\lambda}{\ell n} > \beta$, resp. $\beta > 4 \eta$ express natural requirements that leakage ratio $\frac{\lambda}{\ell n}$ should not exceed the actual ratio $p$, resp. the quality of disperser $\eta$ should be superior to the entropy reserve represented by $p - \frac{\lambda}{\ell n}$. The bound on $q = 2^{o(\ell^{1-e})n}$ corresponds to a robust, exponential bound on the random oracle query-based complexity of an adversary.
\end{remark}
\subsection{One-wayness of $\mathsf{Disperse}$}
The $\mathsf{Disperse}$ procedure possesses a certain \emph{one-wayness} property expressed in the following lemma. We precede it with a necessary definition.
\begin{definition}[Bad query]\label{def:bad_query} Given a random variable $D$, a bipartite right $d$-regular graph $\G_\sigma$ and a random oracle ${\cal H}$ we say that a random oracle query ${\cal H}(b)$, submitted by some Turing Machine ${\cal A}$, is \emph{bad} if the argument $b$ equals $(i,D_{\sigma^i_1}D_{\sigma^i_2}\ldots D_{\sigma^i_d})$ for some $i \in \{1,\ldots,\ell\}$, i.e., the argument of random oracle query equals one of the values defined by graph $\G_\sigma$ and a random variable $D$.
\end{definition}
By $\mathrm{Bad}_{\cal A}$ we denote the set of all bad queries. By $\mathsf{indices}_{\cal A}$ we denote a list of all pairs $(k,i_k)$ of indices $k \in \{1,\ldots, q\}$ and $i_k \in \{1,\ldots,\ell\}$ such that $k$ is the smallest index of a bad random oracle query of ${\cal A}$ which is equal to $(i_k, D_{\sigma^{{i_k}}_{1}}\ldots D_{\sigma^{i_k}_{\delta}})$.
Since the total number of queries is $q$ and $\G_\sigma$ has $2\ell$ vertices, we can describe the list $\mathsf{indices}_{\cal A}$ using $|\mathsf{indices}_{{\cal A}}|\cdot(\log\ell + \log q)$ bits.
\begin{lemma}[One-wayness of $\mathsf{Disperse}$]\label{lem:disperse_oneway}
Let $\G_\sigma$ be a $\ell^d$-regular $\left(\ell^e, (1-\eta)\ell\right)$-right disperser and $D = (D_1, \ldots, D_\ell) \in \{0,1\}^{n\ell}$ be a random variable of min-entropy $p \ell n$. Then, the probability that an algorithm ${\cal A}(\mathsf{Disperse}_{\G_\sigma}(D, \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}})) \in \mathbf{TM}^{{\cal O}(D,{\cal H}),{\cal H}}_{\lambda, q}$ makes at least $\ell^e$ different bad queries satisfies:
\[
\Pr(|\mathsf{indices}_{{\cal A}}| \geq \ell^e) = O(\ell^2 \cdot 2^{\frac{-\beta n}{4}})
\]
for any $\beta$ satisfying $p - \frac{\lambda}{\ell n} > \beta > 4\eta$ and $q = 2^{o(\ell^{1-e})n}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Due to technical nature the proof is deferred to \cref{appendix:disperse_oneway_appendix}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Privacy of $\mathsf{Disperse}$}
In this section we show that $\mathsf{Disperse}$ is in fact a private key-derivation procedure. The bottom line of the proof is an application of one-wayness together with a careful design of leakage query. It is important to note that we significantly use our computational model, where we can submit potentially non-polynomial queries.
\begin{theorem}[Privacy]\label{thm:privacy}
Let $\G_\sigma$ be a $\ell^d$-regular $\left(\ell^e, (1-\eta)\ell\right)$-right disperser and $D = (D_1, \ldots, D_\ell) \in \{0,1\}^{n\ell}$ be a random variable of min-entropy $p \ell n$. Then, there exists a simulator ${\cal S} \in \mathbf{TM}^{{\cal O}(D)}_{\lambda+\ell^e(\log q + \log \ell)}$ such that for every adversary
${\cal A} \in \mathbf{TM}^{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}(D,\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}),\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}_{\lambda, q}$ operating on the key $\mathtt{key} = \mathsf{Disperse}_{\G_\sigma}(D, \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}})$, the output distributions satisfy:
$$
(\mathbf{Output}({\cal A}(\mathtt{key})),D) \approx_{\varepsilon} (\mathbf{Output}({\cal S}({\cal A})),D)
$$
for $\varepsilon = O(\ell^2 \cdot 2^{\frac{-\beta n}{4}})$, $q = 2^{o(\ell^{1-e})n}$ and any $\beta$ satisfying $p - \frac{\lambda}{\ell n} > \beta > 4\eta$.
\end{theorem}
In order to give a proof, we shall construct a machine ${\cal S}$ such that for any adversary ${\cal A}(\mathsf{Disperse}_{\G_\sigma}(D,{\cal H})) \in \mathbf{TM}^{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}(D,\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}),\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}_{\lambda, q}$ the result of ${\cal S}({\cal A})$ is indistinguishable from ${\cal A}(K)$ conditioned on $D$. We precede the construction by an essential transformation of random oracles and leakage functions, which plays a role of random oracle re-programming.
\begin{definition}[Twisted random oracle]\label{def:twisted}
Let $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ be a random oracle and $L = \langle(\mathrm{arg}_1,v_1),\ldots,(\mathrm{arg}_k,v_k)\rangle$ be a list of pairs of an argument $\mathrm{arg}_i$ together with a potential value $v_i$. We define a \emph{twisted random oracle} $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\{L\}$ to be an oracle whose operation is described as follows:
\begin{align*}
{\cal H}\{L\}(q) = \begin{cases}
v_i & \text{if } q = \mathrm{arg}_i \text{ for some } i \\
{\cal H}(q) & \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
In particular, given a random variable $D$, a random oracle ${\cal H}$ and a random variable $K = \langle K_1, \ldots, K_\ell \rangle \in \{0,1\}^{\ell n}$, by ${\cal H}\{D \xrightarrow{\G_\sigma} K\}$ we denote a random oracle ${\cal H}\{\langle (D_{\sigma^1_i}\ldots D_{\sigma^{\mathrm{deg}(G)}_i},K_i)\rangle_{i=1\ldots\ell}\}$. Observe that if $K \sim U_{\ell n}$ is independent of ${\cal H}$ then the distributions of ${\cal H}\{D\xrightarrow{\G_\sigma} K\}$ and ${\cal H}$ are the same.
\end{definition}
\subsubsection{Construction of the simulator}
The operation of ${\cal S}({\cal A})$, based on the description of ${\cal A}$, consists of the following steps described in \cref{fig:simulator_privacy}.
\begin{center}\begin{figure}[h!]
\scalebox{0.93}{
\fbox{{
\begin{minipage}[c]{1.0\linewidth}
\vspace{0.1cm}
\begin{center} {\bf Implementation of the simulator ${\cal S}$.} \end{center}
\vspace{0.1cm}
\begin{enumerate
\item ${\cal S}$ initializes a random oracle $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$, i.e., creates a table $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ of uniformly random values associated to all inputs of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ (or use $\mathbf{OracleQueryList}$). Moreover, it draws a random variable $K \gets U_{\ell n}$. \label{step:rom}
\item ${\cal S}$ initializes the random tape of ${\cal A}$ to a fixed sequence of uniformly random bits and then queries the leakage oracle with the Turing machine $\mathsf{ind} : \{0,1\}^{|D|} \to \{0,1\}^*$ which operates as follows:
\vspace{0.2cm}
\scalebox{1}{\fbox{{
\begin{minipage}[l]{0.85\linewidth}
\vspace{0.1cm} \begin{center}{\bf Operation of $\mathsf{ind}$: }\end{center}\vspace{-0.3cm}
\begin{description}
\item[Description of the function] Simulate the execution of ${\cal A}(K)$ step by step with random oracle queries $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ substituted with ${\cal H}\{D \xrightarrow{\G_\sigma} K\}$. Every time the adversary ${\cal A}$ issues a leakage oracle query given by a Turing machine $f$, the simulator ${\cal S}$ provides her with a result of a \emph{twisted leakage function} $f\{D \xrightarrow{\G_\sigma} K\}$, i.e., a Turing machine with all random oracle queries substituted with ${\cal H}\{D \xrightarrow{\G_\sigma} K\}$. \label{step:twisted_leakage}
\item[Result] The list $\mathsf{indices}_{\cal A}$. Returns $\mathsf{indices}_{\cal A}$ if its length satisfies $|\mathsf{indices}_{\cal A}| < \ell^e$, or $\bot$ otherwise. \label{step:indices}
\item[Complexity] Leakage: $|\mathsf{indices}_{{\cal A}}|(\log q + \log \ell)
\end{description}
\vspace{0.1cm}
\end{minipage}
}}}
\label{step:sim3}
\item ${\cal S}$ executes ${\cal A}(K)$ with a previously initialized (see Step (\ref{step:sim3})) random tape and ${\cal H}$ sampled above (see Step (\ref{step:rom})), and then runs it step by step with the following exceptions:
\begin{enumerate}
\item When ${\cal A}$ issues a leakage query given by a Turing machine $f$, the simulator ${\cal S}$ substitutes it with a twisted leakage function $f\{D \xrightarrow{\G_\sigma} K\}$. \label{step:repeat_twisted}
\item ${\cal S}$ keeps track of the number $k$ of random oracle queries issued to ${\cal H}$ and every time it appears in a pair $(k,i_k) \in \mathsf{indices}_{\cal A}$, replaces the value returned by ${\cal H}$ with $K_{i_k}$. Moreover, it stores the arguments $a_k$ of queries appearing in the list $\mathsf{indices}_{\cal A}$ and substitutes the value of ${\cal H}$ with $K_{i_k}$ every time $a_k$ appears as an argument.
\end{enumerate} \label{step:sim4}
\end{enumerate}
\vspace{0.1cm}
\end{minipage}
}}}
\caption{Implementation of Simulator}\label{fig:simulator_privacy}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
Before giving a formal proof of statistical indistinguishability of output distributions, we give some claryifing remarks about consecutive steps of the construction. Firstly, we should emphasize that in Step (\ref{step:sim3}) we crucially use the properties of our leakage model by querying leakage oracle with potentially non-polynomial function simulating whole behaviour of ${\cal A}$. Secondly, observe that in Step (\ref{step:indices}) the simulator leaks only the indices of queries, not their actual arguments as those can be observed during Step (\ref{step:sim4}) of simulation. Thirdly, note that in Step (\ref{step:repeat_twisted}) we need not perform any additional leakage apart from the value of $f$, as $f\{D \xrightarrow{\G_\sigma} K\}$ can be obtained inside the leakage query as in Step (\ref{step:twisted_leakage}). Therefore the leakage excess consists merely of the list $\mathsf{indices}_{\cal A}$ and consequently $\Delta\lambda = |\mathsf{indices}_{\cal A}|(\log q + \log \ell)$.
\begin{proof}[Proof of \cref{thm:privacy}]
We shall now argue that the simulator ${\cal S}$ constructed above satisfies the requirements of \cref{thm:privacy} for any adversary ${\cal A}$. Concretely, we prove that ${\cal S}$ perfectly simulates the execution of any adversary ${\cal A}$, unless $|\mathsf{indices}_{\cal A}| \geq \ell^e$.
Therefore, for any adversary ${\cal A}$ the output's distribution of ${\cal S}({\cal A})$ satisfies:
$$(\mathbf{Output}({\cal A}(K)),D) \approx_{\varepsilon} (\mathbf{Output}({\cal S}({\cal A})),D),$$
where $\varepsilon = \Pr(|\mathsf{indices_{\cal A}}| \geq \ell^e)$.
Firstly, note that the execution of ${\cal A}$ inside the leakage function $\mathsf{ind}_u$ (see Step (\ref{step:sim3})) is perfectly equivalent to an honest execution of ${\cal A}$ as ${\cal H}\{D \xrightarrow{\G_\sigma} K\}$ is distributed equally to ${\cal H}$. Consequently, the actual simulation given in Step (\ref{step:sim4}) differs from a perfect simulation only by the condition on $|\mathsf{indices}_{\cal A}|$, as its perfectly equivalent to the one performed during simulators leakage phase. This condition forces the return of $\bot$ instead of appropriate $\mathsf{indices}_{\cal A}$ with probability $\Pr(|\mathsf{indices}_{\cal A}| \geq \ell^e) = \varepsilon$. Consequently, we bound $\varepsilon$ by a factor negligible (in a certain sense) in the security parameters. Directly by applying \cref{lem:disperse_oneway} for an adversary ${\cal A}$ we see that:
\[
\varepsilon = \Pr(|\mathsf{indices_{\cal A}}| \geq \ell^e) = O(\ell^2 \cdot 2^{\frac{-\beta n}{4}}).
\]
This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Security of $\mathsf{Disperse}$}
Again, based on one-wanness of $\mathsf{Disperse}$ we prove that our function satisfies the security requirements. We have the following:
\begin{theorem}[Security]\label{thm:security_reduction}
Let $\mathsf{Game} = ({\cal C},\mathsf{id},\mathsf{Setup}_{\mathrm{Ch}},\mathsf{Setup}_{\mathrm{Adv}},\mathsf{Execute})$\footnote{$\mathsf{id}$ denotes the identity mapping} be an $\varepsilon$-secure game based on randomness $K \sim U_{n\ell}$ for the class of adversaries $\mathbf{TM}^{{\cal O}(K)}_{\lambda}$ then for every $\ell^d$-regular $\left(\ell^e,(1-\eta)\ell\right)$-disperser $\G_\sigma$, $\beta$ satisfying $p - \frac{\lambda}{\ell n} > \beta > 4\eta$ and $q = 2^{o(\ell^{1-e})n}$, the game $\mathsf{Game}_{\mathrm{Disk}} = ({\cal C},\mathsf{Disperse}_{\G_\sigma},\allowbreak\mathsf{Setup}_{\mathrm{Ch}},\mathsf{Setup}_{\mathrm{Adv}},\mathsf{Execute})$ based on randomness $(D,{\cal H})$ of min-entropy $\ensuremath{\mathbf{H}_{\infty}}(D) = p\ell n$ is $\varepsilon + O(\ell^2 \cdot 2^{\frac{-\beta n}{4}})$-secure for adversaries in $\mathbf{TM}^{{\cal O}(D,{\cal H}),{\cal H}}_{\lambda-\Delta_\lambda}$, where $\Delta_\lambda = \ell^e(\log q + n)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} Here, we omit the proof as it is technical and its main idea is analogous to the one presented in the proof of privacy. For the details see \cref{thm:security_reduction_appendix}. The high-level idea is to use reduction and apply \cref{lem:disperse_oneway} to bound the success probability.
\end{proof}
\bibliographystyle{splncs03}
|
\section{Introduction}
In 1965 Roger Penrose published his seminal paper \cite{Pen} which established
the first of the modern singularity theorems. In this paper Penrose
introduced the notion of a trapped surface $\cT $,
which he defined as ``a closed spacelike, two-surface with
the property that the two systems of null geodesics which meet $\cT $
orthogonally converge locally in future directions at $\cT $''. He then
showed that if the spacetime $M$ possesses both a closed trapped
surface and a non-compact Cauchy surface then provided the local
energy density is always positive (so that via Einstein's equations
the Ricci tensor satisfies the null convergence condition) the
spacetime cannot be future null complete. The Penrose paper established
for the first time that the gravitational singularity found in the
Schwarzschild solution was not a result of the high degree of
symmetry but that provided the gravitational collapse qualitatively
resembles the spherically symmetric case then (subject to the above
conditions) deviations from spherical symmetry cannot
prevent the formation of a gravitational singularity.
Penrose's paper was not only the first to define the notion of a
trapped surface but it also introduced the idea of using geodesic
incompleteness to give a mathematical characterisation of a singular
spacetime. The 1965 paper had immediate impact and inspired a series
of papers by Hawking, Penrose, Ellis, Geroch and others which led to
the development of modern singularity theorems (see the recent review
paper \cite{SenGar} for details). Despite the great power of these
theorems they follow Penrose in defining singularities in terms of
geodesic incompleteness and as a result say little about the nature of
the singularity. In particular there is nothing in the original
theorems to say
that the gravitational forces become unbounded at the singularity\footnote{
{{See however results on the extendability
of incomplete spacetimes under suitable curvature conditions, e.g.\ \cite{Cl82, Clarke,Racz,Thorpe},}{ which indicate that such spacetimes cannot be maximal unless the curvature blows up.}}}.
Furthermore the statement and proofs of the various singularity
theorems assume that the metric is at least $C^2$ and Senovilla in
\cite[Sec.\ 6.1]{Seno1} highlights the places where this assumption is
explicitly used. Thus the singularities predicted by the singularity
theorems could in principle be physically innocuous and simply be a
result of the differentiability of the metric dropping below $C^2$. As
emphasised by a number of authors (see e.g.\ \cite{Clarke,MS,Seno1})
the requirement of $C^2$-differentiability is significantly stronger
than one would want since it fails to hold in a number of physically
reasonable situations. In particular it fails across an interface
(such as the surface of a star) where there is a jump in the energy
density which, via the field equations, corresponds to the metric
being of regularity $C^{1,1}$ (also denoted by $C^{2-}$, the first
derivatives of the metric being locally Lipschitz continuous). For more
details see e.g.\ \cite[Sec.\ 6.1]{Seno1}.
Furthermore from the point of view of the singularity
theorems themselves the natural differentiability class for the
metric again is $C^{1,1}$ as this is the minimal condition which
ensures existence and uniqueness of geodesics.
Since the connection of a $C^{1,1}$-metric is locally Lipschitz,
Rademacher's theorem implies that it is differentiable almost
everywhere so that the (Ricci) curvature exists almost everywhere and
is locally bounded. Any further lowering of the differentiability
would result in a loss of uniqueness of causal geodesics\footnote{
In fact, uniqueness is lost for metrics
of local H\"older regularity class $C^{1,\alpha}$ ($\alpha<1$), see \cite{HW}.} (and hence of
the worldlines of observers) and generically in unbounded curvature\footnote{
While the curvature can be stably defined as a distribution even for metrics
of local Sobolev regularity $W^{1,2}\cap L^\infty$ (\cite{GT}) the curvature will in general
not be in $L^\infty$ unless the metric is $C^{1,1}=W^{2,\infty}$.},
both of which correspond more closely to our physical expectations of
a gravitational singularity than in the $C^2$-case.
The singularity theorems involve an interplay between results in
differential geometry and causality theory and it is only recently
that the key elements of $C^{1,1}$-causality have been established. In
particular it was only in \cite[Th.\ 1.11]{M} and in \cite[Th.\ 2.1]{KSS}
that the exponential map was shown to be a bi-Lipschitz homeomorphism, a key
result needed to derive many standard results in causality theory.
Building on the regularisation results of
\cite{CG,KSSV} and combining them with recent advances in
causality theory \cite{Chrusciel_causality, CG, M, KSSV} the present
authors in \cite{hawkingc11} gave a detailed proof of the Hawking singularity theorem for
$C^{1,1}$-metrics by following the basic strategy outlined in
\cite[Sec.\ 8.4]{HE}. In the present paper we establish the Penrose
singularity theorem for a $C^{1,1}$-metric. To be precise we prove
the following result:
\begin{Theorem}\label{penrose} Let $(M,g)$ be an $n$-dimensional $C^{1,1}$-spacetime. Assume
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] For any Lipschitz-continuous local null vector field $X$,
$\Ric(X,X)\ge 0$.
\item[(ii)] $M$ possesses a non-compact Cauchy-hypersurface $S$.
\item[(iii)] There exists a compact achronal spacelike submanifold $\cT $
in $M$ of codimension $2$ with past-pointing timelike mean curvature vector field $H$.
\end{itemize}
Then $M$ is not future null complete.
\end{Theorem}
For the definition of a $C^{1,1}$-spacetime, see below.
\begin{remark}\label{rem1.2}\
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)]
As explained above the Ricci-tensor, $\Ric$, of a $C^{1,1}$-metric is an (almost everywhere defined)
$L^\infty_{\mbox{\scriptsize loc}}$-tensor field. Condition (i) in Theorem \ref{penrose} is adapted
to this situation and reduces to the usual pointwise condition for metrics
of regularity $C^2$. In fact, any null vector can be extended (by parallel transport)
to a local null vector field that is $C^1$ if the metric is $C^2$ and
locally Lipschitz if $g$ is $C^{1,1}$ (cf.\ also the proof of Lemma \ref{approxlemma} below).
The assumption in (i) then means that the $L^\infty_{\mbox{\scriptsize loc}}$-function
$\Ric(X,X)$ is non-negative almost everywhere.
Since being a null vector field is not an `open' condition
(unlike the case of timelike vector fields as in Hawking's singularity theorem,
see \cite[Rem.\ 1.2]{hawkingc11}),
it will in general not be possible to extend a given null vector to a {\em smooth} local null
vector field.
\item[(b)] Concerning condition (iii), our conventions are as follows
(cf.\ \cite{ON83}): we define the mean curvature field as
$H_p=\frac{1}{n-2}\sum_{i=1}^{n-2}\text{II}(e_i,e_i)$ where
$\{e_i\}$ is any orthonormal basis of $T_p\cT $ and
the second fundamental form tensor is given by
$\text{II}(V,W)=\text{nor}\nabla_V W$ where $\text{nor}$ denotes
the projection orthogonal to $T_p\cT$.
Also the condition on $H$ in (iii) is equivalent to the
convergence $\conv(v):=g(H,v)$ being strictly positive for all
future pointing null vectors normal to $\cT $ and with our conventions is therefore
equivalent to the Penrose trapped surface
condition.
\end{itemize}
\end{remark}
The key idea behind Penrose's proof of the $C^2$-theorem is to look at
the properties of the boundary of the future of the trapped surface
$\cT $. The boundary $\partial J^+(\cT )$
is generated by null geodesics but Raychaudhury's
equation and the initial trapped surface condition together with the null
convergence condition result in there being a focal point along every
geodesic. This fact together with the assumption of null geodesic
completeness may be used to show that $\partial J^+(\cT )$ is compact. On
the other hand one may use the existence of the Cauchy surface $S$
together with some basic causality theory to construct a homeomorphism
between $\partial J^+(\cT )$ and $S$. This is not possible if $S$ is not
compact so that there must be a contradiction between the four
assumptions.
In our proof of the theorem for the $C^{1,1}$-case we need to further
extend the methods of \cite{CG, KSS, KSSV,hawkingc11} and approximate $g$ by a
smooth family of Lorentzian metrics $\hat g_\eps$ which have strictly wider
lightcones than $g$ and which are themselves globally hyperbolic. We then show
that by choosing $\eps$ sufficiently small the associated Ricci
tensor, $\Ric_\eps$, violates the null convergence condition by an
arbitrarily small amount, which allows us to establish the compactness
of $\partial J_\eps^+(\cT )=E_\eps^+(\cT )$ under the assumption of
null geodesic completeness. We then use the global
hyperbolicity of the $\hat g_\eps$ together with the fact that $S$ is
a Cauchy surface for $g$ to show that $E_\eps^+(\cT )$ is homeomorphic to
$S$, which leads to a contradiction with the non-compactness of $S$.
Finally, in Theorem \ref{penrose_alt} we show that if $M$ is
future null complete and the assumption that $S$ be non-compact is dropped
in (ii) then $E^+(\cT )$ is a compact Cauchy-hypersurface in
$M$. A main difficulty in these proofs, as compared to the case of
Hawking's singularity theorem in \cite{hawkingc11} lies in the
fact that curvature conditions on null vectors are less suitable
for approximation arguments (cf.\ Lemma \ref{approxlemma} below)
than conditions on timelike vectors (`timelike' being an `open' condition,
as opposed to `null').
\medskip
In the remainder of this section we fix key notions to be used throughout this
paper, cf.\ also \cite{hawkingc11}. We assume all
manifolds to be of class $C^\infty$ and connected (as well as Hausdorff and second countable), and
only lower the regularity of the metric. By a $C^{1,1}$-
(resp.\ $C^k$-, $k\in \N_0$) spacetime $(M,g)$, we mean a smooth manifold $M$
of dimension $n$ endowed with a Lorentzian metric $g$ of
signature $(-+\dots+)$ possessing locally Lipschitz continuous first
derivatives (resp.\ of class $C^k$) and with a time orientation given by a continuous timelike
vector field.
If $K$ is a compact set in $M$ we write $K\comp M$.
Following \cite{ON83}, we define the curvature tensor by
$R(X,Y)Z=\nabla_{[X,Y]}Z - [\nabla_X,\nabla_Y]Z$ and the Ricci
tensor by $R_{ab}=R^c{}_{abc}$. Since both of these conventions differ by a sign from
those of \cite{HE}, the respective definitions of Ricci curvature agree.
Note also that our definition of the convergence
$\conv$ follows \cite{ON83} and differs by a sign from that used by some other authors.
Our notation for causal structures will basically follow \cite{ON83},
although as in \cite{Chrusciel_causality,KSSV} we base all
causality notions on locally Lipschitz curves. Any
locally Lipschitz curve $c$ is differentiable almost everywhere with locally bounded
velocity. We call $c$ timelike, causal, spacelike or null, if $c'(t)$ has the
corresponding property almost everywhere. Based on these notions we
define the relative chronological future $I^+(A,U)$ and causal future
$J^+(A,U)$ of a set $A\subseteq M$ relative to $U\subseteq M$ literally as
in the smooth case (see \cite[Def.\ 3.1]{KSSV} \cite[2.4]{Chrusciel_causality}).
The future horismos of $A$ is defined as $E^+(A,U)=J^+(A,U)\setminus I^+(A,U)$.
As was shown in \cite[Th.\ 7]{M}, \cite[Cor.\ 3.1]{KSSV},
our definitions coincide with the ones based on smooth curves.
A Cauchy hypersurface is a
subset $S$ of $M$ which every inextendible timelike curve intersects
exactly once, see \cite[Def.\ 14.28]{ON83}. In the smooth case,
for spacelike hypersurfaces this definition of a Cauchy hypersurface
is equivalent to the one in \cite{HE}, and this remains true in the $C^{1,1}$-case \cite[Prop.\ A.31]{hawkingc11}.
A $C^{1,1}$-spacetime $(M,g)$ is called globally hyperbolic if it is strongly causal
and any causal diamond $J(p,q) = J^+(p)\cap J^-(q)$ is compact.
It follows from \cite[Lem.\ A.20, Th.\ A.22]{hawkingc11} that $M$ is globally hyperbolic if it
possesses a Cauchy-hypersurface.
We will write
$\exp_p$ for the exponential map of the metric $g$ at $p$, and $\exp_p^{g_\eps}$ for
the one corresponding to the metric $g_\eps$.
For a semi-Riemannian submanifold $S$ of $M$ we denote by $(N(S), \pi)$ its normal
bundle. By \cite[Th.\ 13]{M}, $N(S)$ is a Lipschitz bundle.
\section{Approximation results}
In this section we extend the approximation results of
\cite{hawkingc11} to deal with the fact that we need to be able to
approximate a globally hyperbolic $C^{1,1}$-metric by a smooth family
of globally hyperbolic metrics. In addition we require a more delicate
estimate for the Ricci curvature than that given in \cite[Lemma
3.2]{hawkingc11} due to the fact that the Penrose singularity theorem
makes use of the null convergence condition for the Ricci tensor
rather than the timelike convergence condition used in the Hawking
theorem.
We start by recalling from \cite[Sec.\ 3.8.2]{ladder}, \cite[Sec.\ 1.2]{CG}
that for two Lorentzian metrics $g_1$,
$g_2$, we say that $g_2$ has \emph{strictly wider light cones} than $g_1$, denoted by
\begin{equation}
g_1\prec g_2, \text{ if for any tangent vector } X\not=0,\ g_1(X,X)\le 0 \text{ implies that } g_2(X,X)<0.
\end{equation}
Thus any $g_1$-causal vector is $g_2$-timelike.
The key result now is \cite[Prop.\ 1.2]{CG}, which we give here in the slightly refined
version of \cite[Prop.\ 2.5]{KSSV}. Note that the smoothness of the approximating net with
respect to $\eps$ and $p$ is vital in Proposition \ref{CGrefined} below.
\begin{Proposition}\label{CGapprox} Let $(M,g)$ be a $C^0$-spacetime
and let $h$ be some smooth
background Riemannian metric on $M$. Then for any $\eps>0$, there exist smooth
Lorentzian metrics $\check g_\eps$ and $\hat g_\eps$ on $M$ such that $\check g_\eps
\prec g \prec \hat g_\eps$ and $d_h(\check g_\eps,g) + d_h(\hat g_\eps,g)<\eps$,
where
\begin{equation}\label{CGdh}
d_h(g_1,g_2) := \sup_{p\in M,0\not=X,Y\in T_pM} \frac{|g_1(X,Y)-g_2(X,Y)|}{\|X\|_h
\|Y\|_h}.
\end{equation}
Moreover, $\hat g_\eps(p)$ and $\check g_\eps(p)$ depend smoothly on $(\eps,p)\in \R^+\times M$, and if
$g\in C^{1,1}$ then letting $g_\eps$ be either $\check g_\eps$ or $\hat g_\eps$,
we additionally have
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $g_\eps$ converges to $g$ in the $C^1$-topology as $\eps\to 0$, and
\item[(ii)] the second derivatives of $g_\eps$ are bounded, uniformly in $\eps$, on compact sets.
\end{itemize}
\end{Proposition}
\begin{remark}\label{ghstab}
In several places below we will need approximations as in
Proposition \ref{CGapprox}, but with additional properties. In particular, we will
require that for globally hyperbolic metrics there exist approximations with
strictly wider lightcones that are themselves globally hyperbolic.
Extending methods of \cite{Ger70}, it was shown in \cite{BM11} that global hyperbolicity is stable
in the interval topology. Consequently, if $g$ is a smooth, globally hyperbolic Lorentzian metric
then there exists some smooth globally hyperbolic metric $g'\succ g$. In \cite[Th.\ 1.2]{FS11}, the
stability of global hyperbolicity was established for continuous cone structures. It has to be
noted, however, that the definition of global hyperbolicity in \cite{FS11} requires stable causality
(in addition to the compactness of the causal diamonds),
which is stronger than the usual assumption of strong causality, so this result is not directly
applicable in our setting. In \cite{S14} it is proved directly that if $g$ is a continuous
metric that is non-totally imprisoning and has the property that all causal diamonds are compact
(as is the case for any globally hyperbolic $C^{1,1}$-metric by the proof of \cite[Lemma 14.13]{ON83})
then there exists a smooth metric $g'\succ g$ that has the same properties, hence in particular is
causal with compact causal diamonds and thereby globally hyperbolic by
\cite{BS07}.
\end{remark}
\begin{Proposition}\label{CGrefined} Let $(M,g)$ be a $C^0$-spacetime
with a smooth background Riemannian
metric $h$.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] Let $\gec$, $\hat g_\eps$ as in Proposition \ref{CGapprox}. Then
for any compact subset $K\comp M$ there exists a sequence $\eps_j\searrow 0$ such that
$\hat g_{\eps_{j+1}}\prec \hat g_{\eps_{j}}$ on $K$
(resp.\ $\check g_{\eps_{j}}\prec \check g_{\eps_{j+1}}$ on $K$)
for all $j\in \N_0$.
\item[(ii)] If $g'$ is a continuous Lorentzian metric with $g\prec g'$ (resp.\ $g'\prec g$)
then $\hat g_\eps$ (resp.\ $\gec$) as in Proposition \ref{CGapprox} can be chosen such that
$g\prec \hat g_\eps \prec g'$ (resp.\ $g'\prec \gec \prec g$) for all $\eps$.
\item[(iii)] There exist sequences of smooth Lorentzian metrics $\check g_j\prec g \prec \hat g_{j}$
($j\in \N$)
such that $d_h(\check g_j,g) + d_h(\hat g_j,g)<1/j$ and $\check g_j \prec \check g_{j+1}$ as well
as $\hat g_{j+1}\prec \hat g_{j}$ for all $j\in \N$.
\item[(iv)] If $g$ is $C^{1,1}$ and globally hyperbolic then the $\hat g_\eps$
from Proposition \ref{CGapprox}, as well as the
$\hat g_j$ from (iii) can be chosen globally hyperbolic as well.
\item[(v)] If $g$ is $C^{1,1}$ then the regularizations constructed in (i)--(iv)
can in addition be chosen such that they converge to $g$ in the $C^1$-topology and
such that their second
derivatives are bounded, uniformly in $\eps$ (resp.\ $j$) on compact sets.
\end{itemize}
\end{Proposition}
\begin{proof} (i) We follow the argument of \cite[Lemma 1.5]{S14}: Pick any $\eps_0>0$. Since $g\prec \hat g_{\eps_0}$,
there exists some $\delta>0$ such that $\{X\in TM|_K\mid \|X\|_h=1,\ g(X,X)<\delta\}$ is contained in
$\{X\in TM\mid \hat g_{\eps_0}(X,X)< 0\}$. In fact, otherwise there would exist a convergent sequence
$X_k\to X$ in $TM|_K$ with $\|X_k\|_h=1$, $g(X_k,X_k)<1/k$, and $\hat g_{\eps_0}(X_k,X_k)\ge 0$. But then
$g(X,X)\le 0$ and $\hat g_{\eps_0}(X,X)\ge 0$, contradicting $g\prec \hat g_{\eps_0}$. Next, we
choose $\eps_1<\min(\eps_0,\delta)$, so $d_h(g,\hat g_{\eps_1})<\delta$. Then if $X\in TM|_K$, $\|X\|_h=1$ and
$\hat g_{\eps_1}(X,X)\le 0$, we obtain $g(X,X)< \hat g_{\eps_1}(X,X)+\delta \le \delta$, so $\hat g_{\eps_0}(X,X)<0$,
i.e., $\hat g_{\eps_1} \prec \hat g_{\eps_0}$ on $K$. The claim therefore follows by induction. Analogously one can construct
the sequence $\check g_{\eps_j}$.
\noindent(ii) The proof of (i) shows that for any $K\comp M$ there exists some $\eps_K$ such that for all
$\eps<\eps_K$ we have $g\prec \hat g_\eps \prec g'$ on $K$, and $d_h(g|_K,\hat g_\eps|_K)<\eps$.
Clearly all these properties are stable under shrinking $K$ or $\eps_K$. Therefore, \cite[Lemma 2.4]{KSSV}
shows that there exists a smooth map $(\eps,p)\mapsto \tilde g_\eps(p)$ such that for each fixed $\eps$,
$\tilde g_\eps$ is a Lorentzian metric on $M$ with $g\prec \tilde g_\eps \prec g'$ and such that
$d_h(g,\tilde g_\eps)<\eps$ on $M$. Again the proof for $\gec$ is analogous.
\noindent(iii) This follows from (ii) by induction.
\noindent(iv) By Remark \ref{ghstab} there exists a smooth globally hyperbolic metric $g'\succ g$.
Constructing $\hat g_\eps$ resp.\ $\hat g_j$ as in (ii) resp.\ (iii) then automatically gives
globally hyperbolic metrics (cf.\ \cite[Sec.\ II]{BM11} ).
\noindent(v) By \cite[Lemma 2.4]{KSSV}, in the construction given in (ii) above, for any $K\comp M$,
$\tilde g_\eps$ coincides with the original $\hat g_\eps$ on $K$ for $\eps$ sufficiently small.
Thus by (i) and (ii) from Proposition \ref{CGapprox} the $\tilde g_\eps$ (i.e., the new $\hat g_\eps$)
have the desired properties, and analogously for the new $\check g_\eps$.
Concerning (iii), fix any atlas $\mathcal A$ of $M$ and an exhaustive sequence $K_n$ of compact
sets in $M$ with $K_n\sse K_{n+1}^\circ$ for all $n$. Then in the inductive construction
of the $\hat g_j$ we may additionally require that the $C^1$-distance of $g$ and $\hat g_j$
on $K_j$ (as measured with respect to the $C^1$-seminorms induced by the charts in $\mathcal A$)
be less than $1/j$.
Moreover, for any $K_j$ there is some constant $C_j$ bounding
the second derivatives of the $\hat g_\eps$ from (ii) (again w.r.t.\ the charts in $\mathcal A$)
for $\eps$ smaller than some $\eps_j$. It is therefore also possible to have the
second derivatives of $\hat g_k$ bounded by $C_j$ on $K_j$ for all $k\ge j$.
Altogether, this gives the claimed properties for the sequence $(\hat g_j)$, and analogously for $(\check g_j)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{Lemma}\label{approxlemma} Let $(M,g)$ be a $C^{1,1}$-spacetime and
let $h$, $\tilde h$ be Riemannian metrics on $M$ and $TM$, respectively.
Suppose that $\Ric(Y,Y)\ge 0$ for every Lipschitz-continuous $g$-null local vector field $Y$.
Let $K\comp M$ and let $C$, $\delta > 0$. Then there exist $\eta>0$ and $\eps_0>0$
such that for all $\eps<\eps_0$ we have: If $p\in K$ and $X\in T_pM$ is such that $\|X\|_h \le C$
and there exists a $g$-null vector $Y_0\in TM|_K$ with $d_{\tilde h}(X,Y_0) \le \eta$ and $\|Y_0\|_h\le C$ then
$\Ric_\eps(X,X) > -\delta$.
Here $\Ric_\eps$ is the Ricci-tensor corresponding to a metric $\hat g_\eps$ as in Proposition \ref{CGapprox}.
\end{Lemma}
\begin{proof}
We first note that as in the proof of \cite[Lemma 3.2]{hawkingc11} it follows that we may assume
that $M=\R^n$, $\|\,.\,\|_h = \|\,.\,\|$ is the Euclidean norm and we may replace
$\hat g_\eps$ by $g_\eps:=g*\rho_\eps$
(component-wise convolution), and prove the claim for $\Ric_\eps$ calculated from $g_\eps$.
For the distance on $TM\cong \R^{2n}$ we may then simply use
$d(X_p,Y_q) := \|p-q\|+\|X-Y\|$ (which is equivalent to the distance function induced by the
natural product metric on $T\R^n$).
Denote by $E$ the map $v\mapsto (\pi(v),\exp(v))$, defined on an open neighbourhood of the zero
section in $T\R^n$. Let $L$ be a compact neighbourhood of $K$.
Then $E$ is a homeomorphism from some open
neighbourhood $\mathcal U$ of $L\times \{0\}$ in $T\R^n$ onto an open neighbourhood
$\mathcal V$ of $\{(q,q)\mid q\in L\}$
in $\R^n\times \R^n$ and there exists some $r>0$ such that for any $q\in L$
the set $U_r(q):=\exp_q(B_r(0))$ is a totally normal neighbourhood of $q$ and
$\bigcup_{q\in L} (U_r(q)\times U_r(q))\sse {\mathcal V}$
(cf.\ the proof of \cite[Th.\ 4.1]{KSS}). We may assume that $\mathcal U$ is of the form
$\{(q,v)\mid q\in L', \|v\|< a\}$ for some open $L'\supseteq L$ and some $a>0$ and
that $\overline {\mathcal U}$ is contained in the domain of $E$.
It follows from standard ODE theory
(cf.\ \cite[Sec.\ 2]{KSS}) that
\begin{equation}\label{geocon1}
\frac{d}{dt}(\exp^{g_\eps}_q(tv)) \to \frac{d}{dt}(\exp_q(tv)) \quad (\eps\to 0),
\end{equation}
uniformly in $v\in \R^n$ with $\|v\|\le 1$, $t\in [0,a]$, and $q\in L$. Hence for $\eps$ small
and such $v$, $t$ and $q$ and we have
\begin{equation}\label{geocon2}
\left\|\frac{d}{dt}(\exp_q(tv))\right\| \le \left\|\frac{d}{dt}(\exp^{g_\eps}_q(tv))\right\| +1.
\end{equation}
Furthermore, for $\eps$ small the operator norms of $T_v\exp_q^{g_\eps}$ are bounded,
uniformly in $\eps$, $v\in \R^n$ with $\|v\|\le a$ and $q\in L$ by some
constant $\tilde C_1$: this follows from (7) in \cite{KSS}, noting that we may assume that
$a$ as above is so small that this estimate is satisfied uniformly in $\eps$,
$\|v\|\le a$, and $q\in L$.
Consequently, for $\eps$ small, $q\in L$, $t\in [0,a]$ and $\|v\|\le 1$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{geocon3}
\left\|\frac{d}{dt}(\exp^{g_\eps}_q(tv))\right\| = \left\|T_{tv}\exp^{g_\eps}_q(v)\right\| \le \tilde C_1.
\end{equation}
It follows from \eqref{geocon2}, \eqref{geocon3} that there exists some $\eps'>0$ such that for any $\eps\in (0,\eps')$,
any $q\in L$, any $v\in \R^n$ with $\|v\|\le a$ and any $t\in [0,1]$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{geocon4}
\left\|\frac{d}{dt}(\exp_q(tv))\right\| = \left\|\left.\frac{d}{ds}\right|_{s=t\|v\|}
\left(\exp_q\left(s\frac{v}{\|v\|}\right)\right)\right\|
\|v\| \le (\tilde C_1 +1)\|v\|.
\end{equation}
Set
\begin{equation}\label{c12def}
C_1 := (\tilde C_1 +1)\sup_{p\in L}\|\Gamma(p)\|,\qquad
C_2 :=\sup_{p\in L}\|\Ric(p)\|
\end{equation}
Given any $C>0$ and $\delta>0$, pick $\eta_1\in (0,1)$ so small that $6C_2C \eta_1<\delta/2$ and let
\begin{equation}\label{rtildef}
\tilde r := \sup\{\|E^{-1}(p,p')\| \mid p,p' \in U_r(q),\, q\in L\}.
\end{equation}
Then $\tilde r <a$ and by compactness we may suppose that $r$ from above is so small that
$e^{C_1 \tilde r}<2$, $2C_1C\tilde r < \eta_1$, and $U_r(q)\sse L$ for all $q\in K$.
We may then cover $K$ by finitely many such sets $U_{r}(q_1),\dots,U_{r}(q_N)$.
Then $K=\bigcup_{j=1}^N K_j$ with $K_j\comp U_j:=U_{r}(q_j)$ for each $j$.
Set $s:=\min_{1\le j\le N}\text{dist}(K_j,\partial U_j)$
and let $0<\eta<\min(\eta_1,s/2)$.
Next, let $\rho\in {\mathcal D}(\R^n)$ be a standard mollifier, i.e., $\rho\ge 0$,
$\text{supp}(\rho)\sse B_1(0)$ and $\int \rho(x)\,dx=1$. From (3) in \cite{hawkingc11} we know that
\begin{equation
R_{\eps ik} - R_{ik}*\rho_\eps \to 0 \ \text{ uniformly on compact sets}.
\end{equation}
Hence there exists some $\eps'' \in (0,\eps')$ such that for all $0<\eps<\eps''$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{rest}
\sup_{x\in K} |R_{\eps ik}(x) - R_{ik}*\rho_\eps(x)| < \frac{\delta}{2C^2}.
\end{equation}
To conclude our preparations, we set $\eps_0:=\min(\eps'',s/2)$ and consider any $\eps<\eps_0$.
Now let $p\in K$ and $X\in \R^n$ such that $\|X\| \le C$
and suppose there exists some $g(q)$-null vector
$Y_0\in \R^n$ with $q\in K$,
\begin{equation}
d(X_p,(Y_0)_q) = \|p-q\| + \|X-Y_0\| \le \eta,
\end{equation}
and $\|Y_0\|\le C$.
Then for some $j\in \{1,\dots,N\}$ we have $p\in K_j$, and since $\eta<s/2$ we also have
$q\in U_j$.
Since $g(q)(Y_0,Y_0)=0$,
we may extend $Y_0$ to a Lipschitz-continuous null vector field, denoted by $Y$, on all of $U_j$ by parallelly
transporting it radially outward from $q$.
Let $p'\in U_j$ be any point different from $q$ and let $v:=\overrightarrow{qp'}
=E^{-1}(q,p')$. Then $Y(p')=Z(1)$, where
$Z(t) = Y(\exp_q(tv))$ for all $t\in [0,1]$ and $Z$ satisfies the linear ODE
\begin{equation}\label{ode}
\frac{dZ^k}{dt} = -\Gamma_{ij}^k(\exp_q(tv))\frac{d}{dt}(\exp_q^i(tv))Z^j(t)
\end{equation}
with initial condition $Z(0)=Y(q)=Y_0$. By Gronwall's inequality it follows that
\begin{equation}\label{zt}
\|Z(t)\| \le \|Y_0\| e^{t \|\Gamma\|_{L^\infty(U_j)}\sup_{t\in [0,1]}\|\frac{d}{dt}(\exp_q(tv))\| } \quad (t\in [0,1]).
\end{equation}
Therefore, \eqref{geocon4}, \eqref{c12def}, and \eqref{rtildef} give
\begin{equation}\label{yp}
\|Y(p')\|\le \|Y_0\|e^{C_1\tilde r} < 2 \|Y_0\|
\end{equation}
for all $p'\in U_j$. Moreover, for all $t\in [0,1]$ we have
\begin{equation}
\|Z(t)-Y_0\|\le t\cdot \sup_{t\in [0,1]}\left \|\frac{dZ^k}{dt}\right\|,
\end{equation}
which, due to $\|Y_0\|\le C$, by \eqref{ode}, \eqref{zt}, and \eqref{yp} leads to
\begin{equation}
\|Y(p')-Y_0\|\le \sup_{t\in [0,1]} \left \|\frac{dZ^k}{dt}\right\|\le C_1 C \tilde r e^{C_1\tilde r}
< 2 C_1 C \tilde r < \eta_1.
\end{equation}
We also extend $X$ to a constant vector field on $U_j$, again denoted by $X$.
Then $\|Y\| < 2C$ by \eqref{yp}, and
\begin{equation}
\|X-Y\|\le \|X-Y_0\| + \|Y_0-Y\| < 2\eta_1
\end{equation}
on $U_j$.
It follows that, on $U_j$, we have the following inequality
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
|\Ric(X,X)-\Ric(Y,Y)| & = |\Ric(X-Y, X)+\Ric(X-Y,Y)|\\
&\le C_2\|X-Y\|\|X\| + C_2\|X-Y\|\|Y\| \le 6C_2C\eta_1 <\delta/2.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Since $\Ric(Y,Y)\ge 0$, we conclude that $\Ric(X,X)>-\delta/2$ on $U_j$.
Set
\begin{equation}
\tilde R_{ik}(x) := \left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
R_{ik}(x) & \text{ for } x\in B_{s/2}(p)\\
0 & \text{otherwise}.
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
By our assumption and the fact that $\rho\ge 0$ we then have $(\tilde R_{ik}X^iX^k)*\rho_\eps\ge -\delta/2$ on $\R^n$.
Furthermore, since $\eps<s/2$ it follows that $(R_{ik}*\rho_\eps)(p) =
(\tilde R_{ik}*\rho_\eps)(p)$, so \eqref{rest} gives:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
|R_{\eps ik}(p)X^iX^k - ((\tilde R_{ik}X^iX^k)*\rho_\eps)(p)| &= |(R_{\eps ik}(p) - (R_{ik}*\rho_\eps)(p))X^iX^k| \\
&\le C^2 \sup_{x\in K} |R_{\eps ik}(x) - R_{ik}*\rho_\eps(x)|<\delta/2.\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
It follows that $R_{\eps ik}(p)X^iX^k>-\delta$, as claimed.
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of the main result}\label{mainproof}
Based on the approximation results of the previous section we are now ready to
prove Theorem \ref{penrose}. As a final preliminary result we need:
\begin{Proposition} \label{eepscomp}
Let $(M,g)$ be a $C^{1,1}$-spacetime that is future null complete and suppose
that assumptions (i) and (iii) of Theorem \ref{penrose} are satisfied.
Moreover, suppose that $\hat g_\eps$ ($\eps>0$) is a net of smooth
Lorentzian metrics on $M$
as in Proposition \ref{CGapprox}.
Then there exists some $\eps_0>0$ such that for all $\eps<\eps_0$ the future horismos
$E_\eps^+(\cT )$ of $\cT $ with respect to the metric $\hat g_\eps$ is relatively compact.
\end{Proposition}
\begin{proof} Let $h$ be a smooth background Riemannian metric and define
$$
\tilde T := \{v\in N(\cT )\mid v \text{ future-directed } g\text{-null and } h(v,v)=1\},
$$
where $N(\cT )$ is the $g$-normal bundle of $\cT $ and analogously
$$
\tilde T_\eps := \{v\in N_\eps(\cT )\mid v \text{ future-directed } \hat g_\eps\text{-null and } h(v,v)=1\},
$$
where $N_\eps(\cT )$ is the $\hat g_\eps$-normal bundle of $\cT $.
Moreover, we set (cf.\ Remark \ref{rem1.2}(b))
\begin{equation*}
m:=(n-2)\min_{v\in \tilde T}\conv(v) = (n-2)\min_{v\in \tilde T}g(\pi(v))(H,v) >0
\end{equation*}
and pick $b>0$ such that $(n-2)/b<m$.
Denote by $H_\eps$ the mean curvature vector field of $\cT $ with respect to $\hat g_\eps$, and
similarly for $\conv_\eps$. Then $H_\eps\to H$ uniformly on $\cT $ and we claim that
for $\eps$ sufficiently small and all $v\in \tilde T_\eps$ we have $\conv_\eps(v)>1/b$.
To see this, suppose to the contrary that there exist a sequence $\eps_k\searrow 0$ and
vectors $v_k\in \tilde T_{\eps_k}$ such that $\hat g_{\eps_k}(\pi(v_k))(H_{\eps_k},v_k)\le 1/b$
for all $k$. By compactness we may suppose without loss of generality that $v_k\to v$
as $k\to \infty$. Then $v\in \tilde T$ but $\conv(v)\le 1/b$, a contradiction.
Now we show that there exists some $\eps_0>0$ such that for all $\eps<\eps_0$
we have
\begin{equation}\label{relcomp}
E_\eps^+(\cT ) \sse \exp^{\hat g_{\eps}}(\{sv\mid s\in [0,b],\, v\in \tilde T_{\eps}\}) \comp M.
\end{equation}
Again arguing by contradiction, suppose that there exists a sequence $\eps_j\searrow 0$ and
points $q_j\in E_{\eps_j}^+(\cT )\setminus \exp^{\hat g_{\eps_j}}(\{sv\mid s\in [0,b],\, v\in \tilde T_{\eps_j}\})$.
By \cite[Th.\ 10.51, Cor.\ 14.5]{ON83}, for each $j\in \N$ there exists a
$\hat g_{\eps_j}$-null-geodesic $\gamma_j$ from $\cT $ to $q_j$ which is $\hat g_{\eps_j}$-normal to $\cT $ and
has no focal point before $q_j$. Let
$\gamma_j(t)=\exp^{\hat g_{\eps_j}}(t\tilde v_j)$
with $\tilde v_j\in \tilde T_{\eps_j}$.
Let $t_j$ be such that $\gamma_j(t_j)=q_j$. Then by our indirect assumption, $t_j>b$ for all $j$.
In particular, each $\gamma_j$ is defined at least on $[0,b]$.
By compactness, we may assume that $\tilde v_j\to \tilde v$ as $j\to \infty$. Then $\tilde v\in \tilde T$, and
we set $\gamma(t):=\exp^g(t\tilde v)$. As $(M,g)$ is future-null complete,
$\gamma$ is defined on $[0,\infty)$. It now follows from standard ODE-results
(cf.\ \cite[Sec.\ 2]{KSS})
that $\gamma_j\to \gamma$ in the $C^1$-topology on $[0,b]$.
In particular, $\gamma_j'(t)\to \gamma'(t)$ uniformly on $[0,b]$. Pick $C>0$
and a compact set $K\Subset M$ such that $\|\gamma_j'(t)\|_h\le C$
and $\gamma_j(t)\in K$ for all $t\in [0,b]$ and all $j\in \N$.
Then by Lemma \ref{approxlemma}, for any $\delta>0$ there exists some $j_0\in \N$ such that
$\Ric_{\eps_j}(\gamma_j'(t),\gamma_j'(t))>-\delta$ for all $j\ge j_0$ and all $t\in [0,b]$.
Denoting by $\theta_j$ the expansion of $\gamma_j$ we have by the Raychaudhuri equation
\begin{equation}\label{deltaest}
\frac{d(\theta_j^{-1})}{dt}\geq\frac{1}{n-2}+\frac{1}{\theta_j^2}
\Ric_{\hat g_{\eps_j}}({\gamma}'_j,{\gamma}'_j) > \frac{1}{n-2}-\frac{\delta}{\theta_j^2}.
\end{equation}
At this point we fix $\delta>0$ so small that
\begin{equation}\label{bc}
a:=\frac{n-2}{m} < \frac{n-2}{\alpha m} <b,
\end{equation}
where $\alpha:= 1 - (n-2)m^{-2}\delta$ and choose $j_0$ as above for this $\delta$.
For $j\ge j_0$ let $m_j:=(n-2)\min_{v\in \tilde T_{\eps_j}}\conv_{\varepsilon_j}(v)$, then $m_j\to m$ ($j\to \infty$)
and $\alpha_j:= 1 - (n-2)m_j^{-2}\delta\to \alpha$ ($j\to \infty$), so for $j$ large, \eqref{bc} implies
\begin{equation}\label{9}
a<\frac{n-2}{\alpha_j m_j} < b.
\end{equation}
Consequently, choosing $j$ so large that $\alpha_j>0$, the right hand side of \eqref{deltaest} is
strictly positive at $t=0$.
Thus $\theta_j^{-1}$ is initially strictly increasing and $\theta_j(0)=-(n-2)\conv_j(\gamma_j'(0))<-m_j<0$, so
from \eqref{deltaest} we conclude that $\theta_j^{-1}(t)\in [-m_j^{-1},0)$
on its entire domain of definition. Hence $\theta_j$ has no zero on
$[0,b]$, whereby $\theta_j^{-1}$ exists on all of $[0,b]$.
From this, using \eqref{deltaest}, it follows that $\theta_j^{-1}(t)
\ge f_j(t) := -m_j^{-1} + t \frac{\alpha_j}{n-2}$
on $[0,b]$. In particular this means that $\theta_j^{-1}$ must go to zero at or before the zero of $f_j$,
i.e., there exists some $\tau\in (0,\frac{n-2}{\alpha_j m_j})$ such that $\theta_j^{-1}(t)\to 0$ as $t\to \tau$.
But for $j$ sufficiently large \eqref{9} implies that $\theta_j^{-1}\to 0$
within $[0,b]$. However, since
$\gamma_j$ does not incur a focal point between $t=0$ and $t=t_j>b$,
$\theta_j$ is smooth, hence bounded, on $[0,b]$, a contradiction.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{minass} As an inspection of the proofs of Lemma \ref{approxlemma} and Proposition
\ref{eepscomp} shows, both results remain valid for any approximating net $g_\eps$
(or sequence $g_j$) of metrics that satisfy properties (i) and (ii) from Proposition \ref{CGapprox}.
In particular, this applies to the approximations $\check g_\eps$ from the inside.
For the proof of the main result, however, it will be essential to use approximations
from the outside that themselves are globally hyperbolic.
\end{remark}
\noindent{\bf Proof of Theorem \ref{penrose}:}
Suppose, to the contrary, that $M$ is future null complete.
Proposition \ref{eepscomp} applies, in particular, to a net $\hat g_\eps$ as in
Proposition \ref{CGrefined} (iv), approximating $g$ from the outside and such that each $\hat g_\eps$
is itself globally hyperbolic.
Fix any $\eps<\eps_0$, such that by Proposition \ref{eepscomp} $E^+_\eps(\cT )$
is relatively compact. Then since $\hat g_\eps$ is
globally hyperbolic, smooth causality theory (cf.\ the proof of \cite[Th.\ 14.61]{ON83})
implies that $E_{\eps}^+(\cT ) = \partial J^+_{\hat g_{\eps}}(\cT )$
is a topological hypersurface that is $\hat g_{\eps}$-achronal.
We obtain that $E_{\eps}^+(\cT )$ is compact and since $g\prec \hat g_{\eps}$, it
is also $g$-achronal.
As in the proof of \cite[Th.\ 14.61]{ON83} let now $X$ be a smooth $g$-timelike vector field
on $M$ and denote by $\rho: E_\eps^+(\cT )\to S$ the map that assigns to each $p\in E_\eps^+(\cT )$
the intersection of the maximal integral curve of $X$ through $p$ with $S$. Then due to the
achronality of $E_\eps^+(\cT )$, $\rho$ is injective, so by invariance of domain it
is a homeomorphism of $E_\eps^+(\cT )$ onto an open subset of $S$. By compactness this set is
also closed in $S$. But also in the $C^{1,1}$-case, any Cauchy hypersurface is connected
(the proof of \cite[Prop.\ 14.31]{ON83} also works in this regularity).
Thus $\rho(E_\eps^+(\cT ))=S$, contradicting the fact that $S$ is non-compact.
This concludes the proof of Theorem \ref{penrose}. \hspace*{\fill}$\Box$\medskip
We also have the following analogue of \cite[Th.\ 14.61]{ON83}:
\begin{Theorem}\label{penrose_alt} Let $(M,g)$ be an $n$-dimensional $C^{1,1}$-spacetime.
Assume that
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] For any Lipschitz-continuous local null vector field $X$,
$\Ric(X,X)\ge 0$.
\item[(ii)] $M$ possesses a Cauchy-hypersurface $S$.
\item[(iii)] There exists a compact spacelike achronal submanifold $\cT $
in $M$ of codimension $2$ with past-pointing timelike mean curvature vector field $H$.
\item[(iv)] $M$ is future null complete.
\end{itemize}
Then the future horismos of $\cT $, $E^+(\cT )$, is a compact Cauchy-hypersurface in $M$.
\end{Theorem}
\begin{proof} Since $(M,g)$ is globally hyperbolic,
\cite[Prop.\ A.28]{hawkingc11} implies that the causality relation $\le$ on $M$
is closed.
Thus since $\cT $ is compact it follows that $J^+(\cT )$ is closed. Also, by \cite[Cor.\ 3.16]{KSSV},
$J^+(\cT )^\circ=I^+(\cT )$, so $E^+(\cT )=\partial J^+(\cT )$. It is thereby the topological boundary of a
future set and the proof of \cite[Cor.\ 14.27]{ON83} carries over to the $C^{1,1}$-setting
(using \cite[Th.\ A.1, Prop.\ A.18]{hawkingc11}) to show
that $E^+(\cT )$ is a closed achronal topological hypersurface. It
remains to show that any inextendible
timelike curve intersects it.
Suppose to the contrary that there exists some inextendible
timelike (locally Lipschitz) curve $\tilde \alpha$ that is disjoint from
$E^+(\cT )$. Then as in (the proof of) \cite[Lemma A.10]{hawkingc11} we may also
construct an inextendible timelike $C^2$-curve $\alpha$
that does not meet $E^+(\cT )$ (round off the breakpoints of the piecewise
geodesic obtained in \cite[Lemma A.10]{hawkingc11} in a timelike way).
By \cite[Ex.\ 14.11]{ON83}, since $(M,g)$ is strongly causal, $\alpha$ is an
integral curve of a timelike $C^1$-vector field $X$ on $M$.
Next, let $\hat g_j$ be an approximating net as in
Proposition \ref{CGrefined} (iv),(v) (to which thereby all arguments from the proof
of Theorem \ref{penrose} apply, cf.\ Remark \ref{minass}). Denote by $I^+_j(\cT )$, $J^+_j(\cT )$,
$E^+_j(\cT )$ the chronological and causal future, and the future horismos, respectively, of $\cT $
with respect to $\hat g_j$.
Set $K:=\{sv\mid s\in [0,b],\, v\in TM|_\cT ,\, \|v\|_h=1\}\comp TM$,
where $h$ is some complete smooth Riemannian background metric on $M$. It then follows
from the locally uniform convergence of $\exp^{\hat g_j}$ to $\exp^g$, together with
\eqref{relcomp} that there exists some $j_0\in \N$ such that for $j\ge j_0$ we have
\begin{equation}
\partial J_j^+(\cT ) = E_j^+(\cT )\sse \exp^{\hat g_j}(K)\sse
\overline{\{p\in M\mid \text{dist}_h(p,\exp^g(K))\le 1\}}=:L\comp M.
\end{equation}
Let the map $\rho$ from the proof of Theorem \ref{penrose} be constructed from the
vector field $X$ from above. Then by the proof of Theorem \ref{penrose}
we may additionally suppose that $j_0$ is such that, for
each $j\ge j_0$, $E_j^+(\cT )$ is a compact achronal topological hypersurface
in $(M,g)$ that is homeomorphic
via $\rho$ to $S$. Therefore $\alpha$ (which is timelike for all $\hat
g_j$) intersects every $E^+_j(\cT )$ ($j\ge j_0$) precisely
once. Let $q_j$ be the intersection
point of $\alpha$ with $\partial J_{j}^+(\cT )=E^+_{j}(\cT )$.
We now pick $t_j$ such that $q_j=\alpha(t_j)$ for all $j\in \N$. Each
$q_j$ is contained in $L$, so since $(M,g)$ is globally hyperbolic, hence
non-partially-imprisoning (as already noted in Rem.\ \ref{ghstab}, the proof of \cite[Lemma 14.13]{ON83}
carries over verbatim to the $C^{1,1}$-case),
it follows that $(t_j)$ is a bounded sequence in $\R$ and without loss of
generality we may suppose that
in fact $t_j\to \tau$ for some $\tau \in \R$. Then also $q_j=\alpha(t_j)\to
q=\alpha(\tau)\in L$.
As $q_j\in \partial J_{j}^+(\cT )$ there exist $p_j\in \cT $ and $\hat g_{j}$-causal curves
$\beta_j$ from $p_j$ to $q_j$ (in fact, the $\beta_j$ are $\hat g_j$-normal
$\hat g_j$-null geodesics). Again
without loss of generality we may assume that $p_j\to p\in \cT $.
By \cite[Th.\ 3.1]{Minguzzicurves} (or \cite[Prop.\ 2.8.1]{Chrusciel_causality}) there exists an
accumulation curve $\beta$ of the sequence $\beta_j$ such that $\beta$ goes from $p$ to $q$.
Moreover, since $\hat g_{j+1}\prec \hat g_j$ for all $j$, each
$\beta_k$ is $\hat g_{j}$-causal for all $k\ge j$. Therefore, $\beta$
is $\hat g_{j}$-causal for each $j$. Thus by (the proof of) \cite[Prop.\ 1.5]{CG},
$\beta$ is $g$-causal and we conclude that $q=\alpha(\tau)\in J^+(\cT )$. If we had $q\in I^+(\cT )$
then for some $j_1$ we would also have $q_j\in I^+(\cT )\sse I^+_{j}(\cT )$ for all $j\ge j_1$
(using \cite[Cor.\ 3.12]{KSSV}). But this
is impossible since $q_j\in \partial J^+_{j}(\cT )=E^+_{j}(\cT )$.
Thus
\begin{equation}
q=\alpha(\tau)\in E^+(\cT ),
\end{equation}
a contradiction to our initial assumption. We conclude that $E^+(\cT )$ is indeed a Cauchy-hypersurface in $M$.
Finally, as in the proof of Theorem \ref{penrose}, the map $\rho$ is a homeomorphism
from $E_j^+(\cT )$ onto $E^+(\cT )$ (for $j\ge j_0$), so $E^+(\cT )$ is compact.
\end{proof}
In particular, as in \cite[Cor.\ B of Th.\ 14.61]{ON83} it follows that if (i), (ii)
and (iii) from Theorem \ref{penrose_alt} hold and there exists some inextendible
causal curve that does not meet $E^+(\cT )$ then $(M,g)$ is future null incomplete.
Indeed by \cite[Lemma A.20]{hawkingc11} the existence of such a curve shows that
$E^+(\cT )$ cannot be a Cauchy-hypersurface.
\medskip\noindent
{\bf Acknowledgements.} We would like to thank Clemens S\"amann for helpful discussions.
This work was supported by FWF-projects P23714 and P25326.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}
Adding extra Higgs doublets to the Standard Model (SM) would be one of the most
attractive and the simplest ways to consider the extension of the SM.
In fact, such extra Higgs doublets are present in many Beyond Standard Models (BSMs)
motivated by some theoretical problems of the SM such as gauge hierarchy problem. Theoretical and phenomenological aspects of multi-Higgs-Doublet models have been
widely discussed so far.
Especially, two-Higgs-Doublet models (2HDM) with (softly broken) $Z_2$ Higgs symmetry
are well-investigated,
motivated by supersymmetry, grand unification theories (GUT), Higgs and dark matter
physics (see Ref. \cite{Branco:2011iw} for recent reviews).
Also a lot of interests on this model have been drawn in light of
new LHC data~\cite{2HDMLHC}.
The softly broken discrete $Z_2$ Higgs symmetry is introduced to avoid the tree-level
flavor changing neutral currents (FCNCs) \'{a} la Natural Flavor Conservation
(NFC) criterion \cite{Glashow}. The resulting 2HDMs predict the so-called minimal flavor
violation, where the FCNCs mediated by neutral Higgs bosons are suppressed by
the CKM matrix and thus phenomenologically safe.
In order to avoid too large tree-level FCNCs, the present authors made new proposals
of (flavor-dependent) gauged $U(1)_H$ Higgs symmetry instead of the $Z_2$ symmetry
in Refs. \cite{Ko-2HDM,Ko-2HDMtype1,Ko-Top,Ko-Top2}.
In the 2HDMs with $U(1)_H$ symmetry (denoted as 2HDM$_{\rm U(1)}$ hereafter),
two Higgs doublets are charged under new local $U(1)_H$ gauge symmetry, and they
break both electroweak (EW) and $U(1)_H$ Higgs gauge symmetries. In this new proposal,
SM fermions have to be charged under $U(1)_H$; otherwise one cannot write the realistic Yukawa
couplings at the renormalizable level.
The 2HDM$_{\rm U(1)}$ is strongly constrained
by the measurements of the electroweak precision observables (EWPOs),
as well as the collider searches for $Z'$ and Higgs boson.
In fact, the present authors investigated the constraints in the type-I 2HDM$_{U(1)}$ in
detail, and discussed the current status of the Type-I 2HDM$_{\rm U(1)}$ in light of the
recent LHC results on Higgs properties and provided the future prospects in
Ref.~\cite{Ko-2HDMtype1}. Also they constructed the inert 2HDM model with $U(1)_H$
gauge symmetry and showed that the light dark matter (DM) mass region below
$\sim m_W$ is widely open if the $Z_2$ symmetry is implemented into local $U(1)_H$
gauge symmetry, due to newly open annihilation channels of the DM pair into
the extra $U(1)_H$ gauge boson(s):
$HH \rightarrow Z_H Z_H , Z Z_H$, which are not present in the ordinary inert 2HDM with
discrete $Z_2$ symmetry \cite{Ko-IDM}.
In fact this phenomenon is very generic in dark matter models with local dark gauge
symmetries~\cite{Baek:2013qwa,Baek:2013dwa,Ko:2014nha,Ko:2014bka,Baek:2014kna,Ko:2014lsa}.
Note that the $U(1)_H$ gauge symmetry is nothing but local dark gauge symmetry,
since it acts only on the inert doublet, and not to the SM fields at all.
We may have to introduce extra chiral fermions to avoid gauge anomalies depending on
the $U(1)_H$ charge assignments to the SM fermions.
In Ref. \cite{Ko-2HDMtype1}, it was shown that the anomaly-free $U(1)_H$ charge assignments to the SM fermions are possible in the Type-I 2HDM$_{\rm U(1)}$,
so the fermion sector is just the same as the SM case
except right-handed neutrinos.
However, in other types of 2HDMs, $U(1)_H$ becomes anomalous without extra chiral fermions, and then we face the strong constraints on extra fermions from various experiments. For example, in the Type-II
2HDM$_{U(1)}$, which is the main subject of this work, there is no solution for the
anomaly-free conditions without extra chiral fermions, as discussed in Ref. \cite{Ko-2HDM}.
The extra particles would be colored and carry the electric charges.
Hence, they would be
produced and detected at the LEP and hadron colliders, depending on their masses
~\cite{Ko-2HDM}. Therefore such additional particles charged under $U(1)_H$ and/or
the SM gauge groups would suffer from strong theoretical and experimental constraints.
On the other hand, some of them might be stable (or long-lived enough) and could be
good cold dark matter (CDM) candidates as pointed out in Refs.~\cite{Ko-2HDM, Ko-IDM}.
Their stability could be guaranteed by the remnant symmetry of $U(1)_H$ \cite{Ko-IDM}.
In this paper, we study Higgs and dark matter physics, as well as the experimental and theoretical
constraints, in the Type-II 2HDM$_{U(1)}$, inspired by $E_6$ GUT.
From the point of view of the bottom-up approach, there are many choices for the
$U(1)_H$ charge assignment to realize the Type-II Yukawa couplings, where one Higgs
doublet couples with the up-type fermions and the other one couples with the down-type
fermions in accordance with NFC. One well-known $U(1)_H$ Higgs gauge symmetry
would be the one predicted by GUT, such as $E_6$ and $SO(10)$ GUT.
The rank of $E_6$ gauge group is $``6"$, so that $E_6$ predicts $2$ extra $U(1)$ symmetries and
the SM fermions, as well as extra fermions to make the models free of gauge anomalies.
They could be derived from the three-family ${ \bf 27}$ representations at low energy,
in the supersymmetric $E_6$ model.\footnote{The general analysis of $Z'$ in the $E_6$
GUT has been done in Refs. \cite{E6Zprime1,E6Zprime}.
One can also see the reviews of the $E_6$ GUT\cite{E6review,E6review2}.}
If we assume that $U(1)_H$ is originated from breaking of two $U(1)$ symmetries at low
energy scale, the $U(1)_H$ charges are predicted explicitly by the RG flow and the
decoupling scales of the extra fields \cite{Babu,Rizzo}.
The representative $U(1)_H$ charge assignments are $U(1)_{\psi}$, $U(1)_{\chi}$, and $U(1)_{\eta}$,
and they face stringent constraints from the Drell-Yan (DY) processes from
hadron colliders~\cite{E6bound}. However, if we assume $U(1)_H$ is the so-called
leptophobic $U(1)_b$ under which the SM leptons are not charged~\cite{E6leptophobic,E6leptophobic2,E6leptophobic3,E6leptophobic4,Babu,Rizzo},
one could evade the strong constraints from the Drell-Yan processes, and the
$U(1)_H$ gauge boson could be as low as $\sim O(100)$ GeV.
In our type-II 2HDM$_{U(1)}$, we shall assign one gauged $U(1)_H$ symmetry, which
may be derived from the $E_6$ GUT model, assuming one of the two $U(1)$'s is broken
at a high scale. From the viewpoint of the top-down approach, the $U(1)_H$ may be
fixed once we chose the broken $U(1)$ symmetry, because they may be approximately
orthogonal each other. For instance, $U(1)_H$ may be the linear combination of $U(1)_Y$
and $U(1)_{\psi}$ when $U(1)_{\chi}$ is broken at high energy.
In this paper, we define the $U(1)_H$ as the leptophobic $U(1)_b$ which is the linear combination of
$U(1)_{\eta}$ and $U(1)_Y$ taking the bottom-up approach. This is because we could expect that such
leptophobic interaction may be sizable enough so that we may be able to observe new physics effects at
colliders and dark matter experiments as demonstrated in the following. Furthermore, we consider the
Yukawa couplings which respect both $U(1)_b$ and $U(1)_{\psi}$ (or $U(1)_{\chi}$), in order to avoid
the FCNCs induced by the mass mixings between extra fermions and the SM fermions
\footnote{ $U(1)_{\psi}$ and $U(1)_{\chi}$ are not orthogonal to the leptophobic $U(1)_b$.
We will also give comments on the case with $U(1)_H \equiv U(1)_{\psi}$ or $U(1)_{\chi}$.}.
Besides, we introduce only two Higgs doublets and the minimal set of the chiral fermions for
the anomaly-free conditions which could be coming from the three-family of fundamental ${\bf 27}$'s.
The extra fermions consist of the quark-like and lepton-like particles whose charges under the SM gauge
groups are the same as the right-handed down quarks, the left-handed leptons and the right-handed
neutrinos. After EW symmetry breaking, the extra leptons are decomposed into neutral and charged
particles just like neutrinos and charged leptons in the SM. In fact, there are 9 extra neutral and 6 charged
particles, as we will see in Sec. II, and we could find the lightest neutral particle among them.
The extra $U(1)_H$ symmetries are spontaneously broken but the remnant $Z_2^{{\rm ex}}$ symmetry is
conserved.
The lightest particle is charged under $U(1)_H$ and has odd parity under the remnant $Z_2^{{\rm ex}}$ symmetry,
so that it becomes a good dark matter candidate. DM will interact with SM particles through $Z_H$ and
scalar boson exchanges.
This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \ref{section2}, we introduce the setup of our 2HDM$_{U(1)}$,
presenting the extra $U(1)_H$ charge assignments to the SM fermions and extra chiral fermions
for the anomaly cancellation. Then we discuss the interactions of the extra particles and the stability of
the CDM candidate in Sec. \ref{section3}. Then, we study the contributions of the $U(1)_H$ gauge boson
and the extra fermions to the EWPOs, Higgs signals and phenomenology of CDM in Sec. \ref{section4}, \ref{section5} and \ref{section6}, respectively.
Finally, Sec. \ref{section6} is devoted to summary.
The gauge interactions and the vacuum polarizations in our models are
introduced in Appendix~\ref{gaugeinteraction} and \ref{ewpos}.
\section{Type-II 2HDM with Higgs symmetry}
\label{section2}
In order to realize the minimal flavor violation, one fermion sector should couple with one Higgs doublet
\'{a} la NFC. Such Yukawa couplings can be realized by assuming an additional symmetry that
distinguishes the two Higgs doublets: $Z_2$ symmetry \cite{Glashow} or gauged $U(1)_H$ symmetry \cite{Ko-2HDM}.
In the 2HDM$_{U(1)}$, the SM particles are
also charged under the additional gauge symmetry and extra chiral fermions
might be required to cancel the anomaly. In Ref. \cite{Ko-2HDMtype1},
the type-I 2HDM$_{U(1)}$ is mainly discussed
and the gauged $U(1)_H$ symmetry is anomaly-free without any extra chiral fermions
except right-handed neutrinos.
In the type-II 2HDM$_{U(1)}$, the anomaly-free conditions
cannot be satisfied without extra fermions \cite{Ko-2HDM}, so that we have to
consider the more complex matter content and $U(1)_H$ charge assignment.
We could consider many models where the gauge anomalies are canceled by the extra fields as discussed in Ref. \cite{Ko-2HDM}.
In this section, we introduce the type-II 2HDM$_{U(1)}$ inspired by $E_6$ GUT.
\subsection{Type-II 2HDM with gauged $U(1)_H$ symmetry inspired by $E_6$ GUT}
\label{sec:E6 Model}
The scalar potential of general 2HDMs with $U(1)_H$ is completely fixed by local gauge invariance and renormalizability:
\begin{eqnarray}
V&=& \Hat{m}^2_1(|\Phi|^2) H^{\dagger}_1 H_1+ \Hat{m}^2_2(|\Phi|^2) H^{\dagger}_2 H_2
+m^2_{\Phi} |\Phi|^2 + \lambda_{\Phi} |\Phi|^4 - \left ( m^2_{3} (\Phi) H^{\dagger}_1 H_2
+h.c. \right ) \nonumber \\
&&+ \frac{\lambda_1}{2} (H^{\dagger}_1 H_1)^2 + \frac{\lambda_2}{2} (H^{\dagger}_2 H_2)^2
+ \lambda_{3} (H^{\dagger}_1 H_1)(H^{\dagger}_2 H_2)+ \lambda_{4} |H^{\dagger}_1 H_2|^2 .
\label{eq:potential}
\end{eqnarray}
Here $\Phi$ is a SM singlet complex scalar field with $U(1)_H$ charge, $q_{\Phi}$, and contributes to
the $U(1)_H$ symmetry breaking. $\Hat{m}^2_i(|\Phi|^2)$ $(i=1,2)$ and $m^2_{3} (\Phi)$ are functions of
$\Phi$ only:
\[
\Hat{m}^2_i(|\Phi|^2)=m_i^2+ \widetilde{\lambda}_i |\Phi|^2
\]
at the renormalizable level. The function $m^2_{3} (\Phi)$ is fixed by the $U(1)_H$ charges ($q_{H_i}$) of the Higgs doublets ($H_i$) and $q_{\Phi}$, and
$m^2_{3} (\langle \Phi \rangle)=0$ is satisfied at $\langle \Phi \rangle=0$: $m^2_{3} (\Phi) = \mu \Phi^n$,
with $n \equiv (q_{H_1}-q_{H_2})/q_{\Phi}$. The parameter $\mu$ can be rendered real after suitable
redefinition of the phase of $\Phi$. Note that the $\lambda_5$ term
\[
\frac{1}{2} \lambda_5 [(H_1^\dagger H_2)^2+h.c.]
\]
in usual 2HDMs does not appear in the potential of our model because we employ a continuous $U(1)_H$
gauge symmetry rather than a discrete $Z_2$ symmetry.
The Yukawa couplings in the Type-II 2HDMs are defined as
\begin{equation}
\label{potential}%
V_y= y^U_{ij} \overline{Q_L}^i \widetilde{H}_2 U^j_R+ y^D_{ij} \overline{Q_L}^i H_1 D^j_R+ y^E_{ij} \overline{L}^i H_1 E^j_R+ y^N_{ij} \overline{L}^i \widetilde{H}_2 N^j_R+h.c..
\end{equation}
Note that the $H_1$ and $H_2$ should carry different $U(1)_H$ charges in order to distinguish these two.
\footnote
{For $U(1)_\chi$, two Higgs doublets carry the same charges, but right-handed up-type and down-type quarks
have the different $U(1)_\chi$ charges.
}
In the Type-II 2HDM inspired by $E_6$, the charge assignments
for the SM particles and the Higgs doublets are given in Table~\ref{table1}.
\begin{center}
\begin{table} \label{table1}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c||c|c|c|c|c|}\hline
& $SU(3)$ & $SU(2)$ & $U(1)_Y$ & $U(1)_b$ & $U(1)_{\psi}$ & $U(1)_{\chi}$ & $U(1)_{\eta}$ \\ \hline
$Q^i$ & $3$ &$2$ & $1/6$ & $-1/3$ & $1$ & $-1$ & $-2$ \\ \hline
$U^i_{R}$ & $3$ &$1$ & $2/3$ & $2/3$ & $-1$ & $1$ & $2$ \\ \hline
$D^i_R$ & $3$ &$1$ & $-1/3$ & $-1/3$ & $-1$ & $-3$ & $-1$ \\ \hline
$L_i$ & $1$ &$2$ & $-1/2$ & $0$ & $1$ & $3$ & $1$ \\ \hline
$E^i_R$ & $1$ &$1$ & $-1$ & $0$ & $-1$ & $1$ & $2$ \\ \hline
$N^i_R$ & $1$ &$1$ & $0$ & $1$ & $-1$ & $5$ & $5$ \\ \hline
$H_1$ & $1$ &$2$ & $1/2$ & $0$ & $2$ & $2$ & $-1$ \\ \hline
$H_2$ & $1$ &$2$ & $1/2$ & $1$ & $-2$ & $2$ & $4$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Charge assignments of the SM fermions under the SM gauge group and various $U(1)$ subgroups
of $E_6$ group
}
\label{table1}
\end{table}
\end{center}
Let us assume that $E_6$ gauge symmetry breaks down as
\begin{equation}\label{E6}
E_6 \rightarrow SO(10) \times U(1)_{\psi} \rightarrow SU(5) \times U(1)_{\chi} \times U(1)_\psi .
\end{equation}
The linear combination of $U(1)_{\psi}$ and $U(1)_{\chi}$ gives $U(1)_{\eta}$,
and the leptophobic $U(1)_b$ is defined by their linear combinations with $U(1)_Y$ \cite{E6leptophobic,E6leptophobic2,E6leptophobic3,E6leptophobic4,Babu,Rizzo}:
\begin{eqnarray}
Q_{\eta}&=&\frac{3}{4} Q_{\chi}-\frac{5}{4} Q_{\psi}, \\
Q_b&=&\frac{1}{5} (Q_{\eta}+2Q_Y).
\end{eqnarray}
We can see the charge assignment for each $U(1)$ symmetry in Table~\ref{table1}.
The U(1) charge assignments of the SM fermions do not satisfy the anomaly-free conditions,
and we have to introduce the following extra chiral fermions for anomaly cancellation:
\begin{equation}
q^i_{L}, ~q^i_{R},~l^i_{L},~l^i_{R},~n^i_L.
\end{equation}
Here $n^i_L$ is neutral, and $(q^i_{L},q^i_{R})$ and $(l^i_{L},l^i_{R})$ are vector-like fermions under
the SM gauge groups. Their $U(1)$ charges are chiral, as shown in Table~\ref{table2}.
\begin{center}
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c||c|c|c|c|c|}\hline
& $SU(3)$ & $SU(2)$ & $U(1)_Y$ & $U(1)_b$ & $U(1)_{\psi}$ & $U(1)_{\chi}$ & $U(1)_{\eta}$ \\ \hline
$q^i_{L}$ & $3$ &$1$ & $-1/3$ & $2/3$ & $-2$ & $2$ & $4$ \\ \hline
$q^i_{R}$ & $3$ &$1$ & $-1/3$ & $-1/3$ & $2$ & $2$ & $-1$ \\ \hline
$l^i_L$ & $1$ &$2$ & $-1/2$ & $0$ & $-2$ & $-2$ & $1$ \\ \hline
$l^i_R$ & $1$ &$2$ & $-1/2$ & $-1$ & $2$ & $-2$ & $-4$ \\ \hline
$n^i_L$ & $1$ &$1$ & $0$ & $-1$ & $4$ & $0$ & $-5$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Charge assignments of the exotic chiral fermions under the SM gauge group and various
$U(1)$ subgroups of $E_6$.
}
\label{table2}
\end{table}
\end{center}
The generation index, $i$, corresponds to those of the SM fermions, and anomaly-free conditions are
achieved within each generation.
In the $E_6$ GUT, the SM fermions and these extra chiral fermions are nicely embedded into three-family
$\bf{27}$ representations.
We have also introduced one extra complex scalar, $\Phi$, which is a singlet under the SM gauge group,
in order to break $U(1)_H$ spontaneously and generate the mass terms of the extra fermions.
Let us define the charges of $\Phi$ as shown in Table~\ref{table3} \footnote{In the supersymmetric $E_6$ model,
$\Phi^*$ could be interpreted as the superpartner of $n_L$.}.
\begin{center}
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline
& $SU(3)$ & $SU(2)$ & $U(1)_Y$ & $U(1)_b$ & $U(1)_{\psi}$ & $U(1)_{\chi}$ & $U(1)_{\eta}$ \\ \hline
$\Phi$ & $1$ &$1$ & $0$ & $1$ & $-4$ & $0$ & $5$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Charge assignments of a singlet scalar $\Phi$ under the SM gauge group and $U(1)$ subgroup
of $E_6$. This scalar $\Phi$ makes an additional contribution to $U(1)$ symmetry breaking.
}
\label{table3}
\end{table}
\end{center}
Then the Yukawa couplings which respect all extra $U(1)$ symmetries are given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:lepton mass}
V^{\rm ex}_y= y^q_{ij} \Phi \overline{q_L}^i q_R^j +y^l_{ij} \Phi \overline{l_L}^i l_R^j + y^n_{ij} \overline{l_R}^i
\widetilde{H}_1 n^j_L +y'^n_{ij} \overline{l^c_L}^i H_2 n^j_L+h.c..
\end{equation}
When $\Phi$ develops a nonzero vacuum expectation value (VEV),
$q^i_{L,R}$ and $l^i_{L,R}$ would become massive through the
Yukawa couplings.
As we discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:introduction}, we assume only one $U(1)_H$ gauge symmetry, which is the linear combination of the all $U(1)$ symmetries
and remains at low energy, whereas the other $U(1)$ from $E_6$ is spontaneously
broken at the high energy scale. If $U(1)_{\psi}$ or $U(1)_{\chi}$ is broken,
the following Yukawa couplings would be allowed,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:mass mixing}
V^{\rm FCNC}_y= c^D_{ij} \Phi \overline{q_L}^i D_R^j +c^L_{ij} \Phi \overline{L}^i l_R^j +c^Q_{ij} \overline{Q_L}^i q_R^j H_1
+c^E_{ij} \overline{l_L}^i E_R^j H_1+c^N_{ij} \overline{l_L}^i N_R^j \widetilde{H}_2 + h.c.,
\end{equation}
and the extra charged fermions mix with the SM quarks, and charged leptons and tree-level FCNC
interactions will appear in general. Hence we simply assume that $U(1)_{\psi}$ or $U(1)_{\chi}$ is broken
at some energy, but the remnant symmetry of $U(1)_{\psi}$ or $U(1)_{\chi}$ still holds down to low energy
scale to suppress the FCNCs. In fact, $U(1)_{\psi}$ $(U(1)_{\chi})$ breaks to $Z^{\psi}_2$ $(Z^{\chi}_2)$,
if only the VEVs of $H_{1,2}$ and $\Phi$ break the $U(1)$ symmetry.
The SM fermions are even and the extra fermions are odd under the remnant $Z_2$ symmetry,
so that the mass-mixing terms between the SM and the extra fermions in
Eq.~(\ref{eq:mass mixing}) are forbidden.
We could also consider the case that $U(1)_H$ is identical to $U(1)_{\psi}$, for instance,
and then the Yukawa couplings in Eq. (\ref{eq:mass mixing}) could be forbidden.
In the sections for phenomenology, we adopt the $U(1)_b$ as the $U(1)_H$,
and investigate the impact of the new interaction inspired by $E_6$ GUT,
so that we simply assume that the mass mixings are forbidden by
$Z^{\psi}_2$ ($Z^{\chi}_2$) symmetry at that time.
We shall also give a comment on the $U(1)_H \equiv U(1)_{\psi}$ case.
\section{Stability of the extra particles and the dark matter candidate}
\label{section3}
In this section, we briefly summarize the mass spectrum of the extra chiral fermions and discuss
their stability.
\subsection{Extra Leptons} \label{extraleptons}
Additional chiral fermions, $l^i_I$ $(I=L,R)$ and $n^i_L$, are color-singlets and their SM
charge assignment is the same as the one of the SM leptons and right-handed neutrino.
After the EW symmetry breaking, a doublet $l^i_I$ would split into a charged and a neutral fermions
like the SM left-handed lepton doublets. The charged fermions become massive due to the nonzero
$\langle \Phi \rangle$, and the masses of the neutral fermions and $n^i_L$ are given by
$\langle \Phi \rangle$ and $\langle H_{1,2} \rangle$ following Eq. (\ref{eq:lepton mass}).
The mass matrix for $l_I^T=( \widetilde{\nu}_I,\widetilde{e}_I)^T$ and $n_L$ is
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal L}_{ \nu}&=&-\frac{1}{2}
\begin{pmatrix} \overline{\widetilde{\nu}^c_L} & \overline{ \widetilde{\nu}_R} & \overline{ n^c_L} \end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix} 0 & m_{\widetilde{e}} & m_M \\ m_{\widetilde{e}} & 0 & m_D \\ m_M & m_D & 0 \end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix} \widetilde{\nu}_L \\ \widetilde{\nu}^c_R \\ n_L \end{pmatrix} +h.c. \\
&=&-\frac{1}{2}\begin{pmatrix} \overline{N_1} & \overline{ N_2} & \overline{ N_3} \end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix} m_1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & m_2 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & m_3 \end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix} N_1 \\ N_2 \\ N_3 \end{pmatrix}.
\end{eqnarray}
Each element is defined as $ m_{\widetilde{e}} =y^l v_\Phi/\sqrt{2}$, $ m_{D} =y^n v \cos \beta/\sqrt{2}$, and
$ m_{M} =y'^n v \sin \beta/\sqrt{2}$. $ m_{\widetilde{e}}$ is the mass of the charged fermion, $\widetilde{e}$.
In general, $m_{\widetilde{e}}$, $m_{D}$, and $m_M$ are $3\times 3$ matrices in flavor space, and
would not be diagonal. In the following, we simply assume that dimensionless constants
in Eq. (\ref{eq:lepton mass}) are flavor-blind and we omit the flavor index $i$ in $m_{\widetilde{e}}$,
$m_{D}$, and $m_M$.
At present, studying more general cases would be beyond the scope of this paper,
lacking any direct evidence of new particles at the LHC.
When $(m_{\widetilde{e}}^2+m_D^2+m_M^2)^3-27 (m_{\widetilde{e}}m_Dm_M)^2 \geq 0$ is satisfied, the mass eigenvalues, $m_1$, $m_2$ and $m_3$, are given by
\begin{equation}
2\sqrt{\frac{m_{\widetilde{e}}^2+m_D^2+m_M^2}{3}} \cos \frac{ \theta}{3},~2\sqrt{\frac{m_{\widetilde{e}}^2+m_D^2+m_M^2}{3}} \cos \left ( \frac{ \theta}{3} \pm \frac{2\pi}{3} \right ),
\end{equation}
where $\theta$ is defined as
\begin{equation}
\tan \theta= \frac{\sqrt{\{(m_{\widetilde{e}}^2+m_D^2+m_M^2)/3\}^3- (m_{\widetilde{e}}m_Dm_M)^2}}{(m_{\widetilde{e}}m_Dm_M)}.
\end{equation}
Three eigenstates of neutral fermions, $(N_1,N_2,N_3)$, are linear combinations of
$\widetilde{\nu}_L$, $\widetilde{\nu}_L^c$, $n_L$, defined as
\begin{equation}
\begin{pmatrix} \widetilde{\nu}_L \\ \widetilde{\nu}^c_R \\ n_L \end{pmatrix} = \sum_{a=1}^3 \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\left ( \frac{m^2_D -m^2_a}{m_D m_{\widetilde{e}}+m_M m_a} \right )^2+\left ( \frac{m_Dm_M + m_{\widetilde{e}} m_a}{m_D m_{\widetilde{e}}+m_M m_a} \right )^2}}
\begin{pmatrix} - \frac{m^2_D -m^2_a}{m_D m_{\widetilde{e}}+m_M m_a} \\ \frac{m_Dm_M + m_{\widetilde{e}} m_a}{m_D m_{\widetilde{e}}+m_M m_a} \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} P_L N_a
\label{mixingneutral}
\end{equation}
where $P_L$ is the projection operator, $P_L=(1-\gamma_5)/2$.
Defining $Z^{\rm{ex}}_2 \equiv Z_2^{\psi} \times (-1)^{2 s}$ or $Z_2^{\chi} \times (-1)^{2 s}$ with $s$
being the spin of the particle, we can assign the odd $Z^{\rm{ex}}_2$ charge to all the exotic fermions.
This remnant $Z_2$ symmetry guarantees the stability of the lightest particle among the exotic fermions,
so that the lightest neutral particle $(\equiv X)$ among $N_a$ could be
a good cold dark matter candidate.
The extra charged lepton, $\widetilde{e}$, should decay in order to avoid a stable charged particle.
After the EW symmetry breaking, the gauge interactions of $\widetilde{e}$ and $N_a$ are described
in appendix~\ref{gaugeinteraction}. If $\widetilde{e}$ is heavier than at least $X$, the charged exotic lepton
$\widetilde{e}$ decays to the DM $X$ and the SM fermions through the $W^{(*)}$ exchange.
The exotic leptons $\tilde{e}$ and $N_a$ can be produced at colliders by
DY processes through the $s$-channel $W^\pm, \gamma$ and/or
$Z^0, Z_H$ exchanges. Note that the DY process through $Z_H$ exchange
is a new aspect in our model,
since $Z_H$ couples both to the SM quarks and exotic fermions.
Once they are produced at colliders, they will decay through the mixing in
Eq.~(\ref{gauge interaction}) (and the higher-dimensional operators),
the extra leptons and quarks decay as
\begin{equation}
N_{a=2,3} \to X + Z^{0(*)} , \ \ \widetilde{e}^\pm \to N_{a=1,2,3} + W^{\pm (*)} , \ \
\end{equation}
and $W^\pm$ or $Z^0$ (either real or virtual) will decay into two SM fermions.
Therefore, their collider signatures would be similar to those of charginos and
neutralinos in supersymmetric models, and bounds on chargino and neutralinos
could be applied to our model with simple modification.
The lower bound on $m_{\widetilde{e}}$ would be around $800$ GeV,
inferred from $pp \to \chi^{\pm} \chi^0$, $ \chi^{\pm} \chi^{\pm}$ \cite{Bound-ExtraLepton,Bound-ExtraLepton2}.
\subsection{Extra Quarks}
The SM charges of extra quarks, $q^i_{I}$ $(I=L,R)$, are the same as those of the right-handed down
quarks, $D^i_R$. However they can be distinguished by the $U(1)_H$ charges and $Z^{\rm ex}_2$.
In fact, the mass mixing between the extra quarks and the SM quarks in Eq. (\ref{eq:mass mixing})
is forbidden by the symmetry,
so that the tree-level FCNCs involving the extra quarks are absent and the exotic quarks can not decay
at the renormalizable level, in the 2HDM$_{U(1)}$ with $Z^{\rm ex}_2$. There might be $Z^{\rm ex}_2$
symmetric higher-dimensional operators. For example, a dim-8 operator such as
\begin{equation} \label{higher}
\frac{c_{ijkl}}{\Lambda^4} \Phi \overline{q_L}^i D_R^j \overline{l_L}^k E_R^l H_1 + h.c.,
\end{equation}
would make the extra quarks decay into the SM fermions and the DM $X$, with
the decay width given by
\[
\Gamma \sim \frac{1}{(4\pi)^3} \left( \frac{v \cos \beta v_\Phi m_{q}^2}{\Lambda^4} \right)^2
m_{q},
\]
where $m_q$ is the mass of the exotic quark.
Assuming $v_\Phi=m_{q}=1$ TeV and $\tan \beta \approx 1$, the lifetime is estimated as
$\sim 1~\mu$sec at $\Lambda=100$ TeV, which is much longer than the QCD time scale
$\tau_{\rm QCD} \sim \Lambda_{\rm QCD}^{-1}$. Therefore they will be hadronized, forming exotic
massive hadrons, and would decay inside or outside the detector, depending on its velocity.
Thus these exotic quarks would be constrained by exotic massive particle searches.
In case they decay inside the detector, the usual bounds from squark search will apply.
Exotic quarks $q_L^i$ and $q_R^i$ are produced copiously by QCD processes at hadron
colliders, and by the DY process at lepton colliders. Once they are produced, they will decay
through $Z^{\rm ex}_2$ symmetric higher dimensional operators such as Eq.~(\ref{higher}).
The extra-quark production could be constrained by the search for squark at LHC
\cite{Bound-ExtraQuark}, and the lower bound would be also around $1$ TeV.
Once they are produced at colliders, they will decay into the exotic leptons and the SM quarks through
the mixing in Eq.~(\ref{higher}), and then the exotic lepton decays into $l_{{\rm SM}} X$
through the gauge interaction in Eq.~(\ref{gauge interaction}):
\begin{equation}
q_I^i \to q_{{\rm SM}} l_{{\rm SM}} \widetilde{e} ~~~
{\rm followed ~by} ~~~~ \widetilde{e}^\pm \to N_{a=1,2,3} + W^{\pm (*)} ,
\end{equation}
where $q_{SM}$ and $l_{SM}$ are the SM quarks and leptons.
Therefore the collider signatures will be $4 l + 2 j + /\!\!\!\!{E_T}$,
$3 l + 4 j + /\!\!\!\!{E_T}$, or
$2 l + 6 j + /\!\!\!\!{E_T}$.
\section{Theoretical and Experimental Bounds}
\label{section4}
In this section, we discuss theoretical and experimental constraints on the 2HDM.
\subsection{Parameters}
In this subsection, we list the parameters in our model which will be scanned over.
In the Higgs potential Eq. (\ref{potential}), there are 11 parameters,
$m_i^2$ ($i=1,2,\Phi$), $\lambda_j$ ($j=1,2,3,4,\Phi$), $\tilde{\lambda}_k$
($k=1,2$), and $\mu$, two of which are fixed by the mass of the SM-like
Higgs boson ($h$), $m_h=125$ GeV, and $v=\sqrt{v_1^2+v_2^2}=246$ GeV.
In the numerical analysis we trace these parameters in the Higgs potential with more
physical ones related with observables such as masses and the mixing angles:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\tan\beta = v_2/v_1$, where $v_1$ and $v_2$ are VEVs of $H_i$,
\item $m_A$ : the mass of the pseudoscalar boson,
\item $m_{\tilde{h}}$ : the mass of the additional neutral Higgs boson due to introducing a new scalar $\Phi$,
\item $m_{H^+}$ : the mass of the charged Higgs boson,
\item $\Delta m_H = m_H - m_A$ : the mass difference between $H$ and $A$,
\item $\alpha,\alpha_1,\alpha_2$ : the mixing angles between three neutral scalar bosons,
\item $M_{Z_H}$ : the mass of the $U(1)_H$ gauge boson.
\end{itemize}
The parameters in the Higgs potential can be obtained in terms of these 9 physical parameters.
For example, $h$, $H$, and $\tilde{h}$ are the physical neutral Higgs bosons,
which are mixtures of three neutral Higgs components of $H_1$, $H_2$, and
$\Phi$, with the mixing angles $\alpha, \alpha_1,\alpha_2$.
The explicit relations are shown in Ref.~\cite{Ko-2HDMtype1}.
The ranges of the parameters are chosen as
$1\le \tan\beta \le 100$,
$125$ GeV $\le m_A, m_{\tilde{h}} \le 1$ TeV,
$360$ GeV $\le m_{H^+} \le 1$ TeV,
$ |\Delta m_H| \le 500$ GeV,
$|\alpha, \alpha_1, \alpha_2|\le \pi/2$,
and $125$ GeV $\le M_{Z_H} \le 1$ TeV.
$U(1)_H$ gauge interaction is parameterized by the gauge coupling $g_H$ and the $U(1)_H$ gauge
boson mass $(M_{Z_H})$. The range of $g_H$ is taken to be $0\le g_H \le 1$ because small $g_H$ is
preferred due to the constraints from EWPOs as we will discuss later.
We note that the VEV of $\Phi$ is obtained by
\begin{equation}
v_\phi = \sqrt{M_{Z_H}^2/g_H^2-v^2 \sin^2\beta}.
\end{equation}
Note that the $Z_H$ mass is bounded from below by
\[
M_{Z_H} \geq g_H v | \sin\beta | .
\]
In the Yukawa sector for extra chiral fermions, there are four parameters,
$y^q$, $y^l$, $y^n$, and $y^{\prime n}$ as shown in Eq.~(\ref{eq:lepton mass}).
The Yukawa couplings are taken to be in the range,
\[
0 \le y^q, y^l, y^n, y'^{n} \le 4 \pi .
\]
The masses of extra chiral fermions can be calculated in terms of the Yukawa couplings
($y^q$, $y^l$, $y^n$, $y'^{ n}$) and 3 scalar VEVs ($v_i$ and $v_\phi$).
In summary, we scan 14 parameters in the numerical analysis in order to find
the regions that are consistent with theoretical and experimental constraints.
The mass of the candidate for CDM is not restricted in the discussion
on Higgs physics or electroweak precision tests in Secs.~\ref{section4.3}
and \ref{section5}.
\subsection{Theoretical Bounds}
In the analysis, we impose perturbativity bounds on dimensionless quartic
couplings in the Higgs potential, $|\lambda_i| \le k$, which are
required for the model to be stable under higher-order corrections.
Here $k$ is a certain number and chosen as $4\pi$ in this work.
The $2\to 2$ scattering processes for scalar and gauge bosons are dominated by the induced quartic
couplings $Q_i$ at very high energy while the amplitudes including triple gauge couplings are suppressed.
We impose the perturbative unitarity condition on the induced quartic couplings at the tree level with
$|Q_i|\le 8 \pi$~\cite{unitarity}.
Finally, we impose the vacuum stability bounds at the tree level,
which require that
the dimensionless couplings $\lambda_{1,2,3,4}$ are to satisfy the following conditions:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:vacuum-condition}
\lambda_1 >0 ,~ \lambda_2>0 ,~ \lambda_3 > - \sqrt{\lambda_1 \lambda_2} ,
~ \lambda_3 +\lambda_4 > - \sqrt{\lambda_1 \lambda_2},
\end{equation}
in the $\langle \Phi \rangle = 0 $ direction.
They correspond to the ones in the usual 2HDMs without $\lambda_5$.
It is noticeable that the conditions in Eq.~(\ref{eq:vacuum-condition})
lead the scalar mass relation
\begin{equation}\label{eq:relation-2HDM-0}
m_h^2 +m_H^2-m_A^2 > 0.
\end{equation}
In the ordinary 2HDMs with softly broken $Z_2$ symmetry,
sizable $\lambda_5$ is allowed and
the conditions (\ref{eq:vacuum-condition}) and (\ref{eq:relation-2HDM-0})
should be modified by the replacements,
$m_A \to m_A +\lambda_5 v^2$ and $\lambda_4 \to \lambda_4+\lambda_5$
in Eqs. (\ref{eq:vacuum-condition}), and (\ref{eq:relation-2HDM-0}).
In the $\langle \Phi \rangle \neq 0$ direction, the vacuum-stability conditions for $\lambda_{\Phi}$, $\widetilde{\lambda_1}$ and $\widetilde{\lambda_2}$ are
\begin{eqnarray}
\lambda_{\Phi}>0,~\lambda_1 > \frac{\widetilde{\lambda_1}^2}{\lambda_{\Phi}},~ \lambda_2&>&\frac{\widetilde{\lambda_2}^2}{\lambda_{\Phi}}, ~\lambda_3 - \frac{\widetilde{\lambda_1}\widetilde{\lambda_2}}{\lambda_{\Phi}} > - \sqrt{ \left( \lambda_1-\frac{\widetilde{\lambda_1}^2}{\lambda_{\Phi}} \right) \left( \lambda_2-\frac{\widetilde{\lambda_2}^2}{\lambda_{\Phi}} \right)}, \nonumber \\
\lambda_3+\lambda_4 - \frac{\widetilde{\lambda_1}\widetilde{\lambda_2}}{\lambda_{\Phi}}& >& - \sqrt{ \left( \lambda_1-\frac{\widetilde{\lambda_1}^2}{\lambda_{\Phi}} \right) \left( \lambda_2-\frac{\widetilde{\lambda_2}^2}{\lambda_{\Phi}} \right)},
\end{eqnarray}
where the directions of $H_1$ and $H_2$ fields in the last four conditions
are the same as those of $H_1$ and $H_2$ fields in Eq.~(\ref{eq:vacuum-condition}).
\subsection{Experimental Constraints}
\label{section4.3}
In this subsection, we discuss various experimental constraints on our 2HDM
from collider experiments, flavor physics and the electroweak precision observables (EWPOs).
\subsubsection{Electroweak precision observables (EWPOs)}
In order to evaluate the allowed region for the new physics contributions to the EWPOs,
Peskin-Takeuchi parameters $S$, $T$, and $U$ are often used~\cite{peskin}, whose definitions can
be found in Ref.~\cite{EWPO-PDG}.
According to the recent LHC results, the bounds on $S$, $T$, and $U$
parameters are given by
$S=0.03 \pm 0.10,~T=0.05 \pm 0.12, ~ U=0.03 \pm 0.10,$
with $m^{\rm ref}_h=126$ GeV and $m^{\rm ref}_t=173$ GeV~\cite{Baak:2012kk,Baak:2013ppa}.
The correlation coefficients are $+0.89_{ST}$, $-0.54_{SU}$, and $-0.83_{TU}$.\footnote{Fixing $U=0$,
$S=0.05 \pm 0.09$ and $T=0.08 \pm 0.07$ with the correlation coefficient $+0.91$.
}
The Peskin-Takeuchi parameters have been calculated in the 2HDM (with extra scalars)~\cite{EWPO-2HDM,EWPO-2HDM2,EWPO-2HDMwScalars1,EWPO-2HDMwScalars2}
and in the 2HDM$_{U(1)}$ (with extra scalars and $U(1)$ gauge boson)~\cite{Ko-2HDMtype1}.
In addition to the contributions of extra scalar bosons and $U(1)_H$ gauge boson,
there may exist additional contributions from extra fermions in the type-II 2HDM$_{U(1)}$.
Since the extra quarks are $SU(3) \times U(1)_Y$ vector-like and $SU(2)$ singlet,
they do not contribute to the EWPOs.
The extra charged leptons and two of three-type neutral leptons are $SU(2) \times U(1)_Y$ vector-like,
while the other $n_L$ is $SU(2) \times U(1)_Y$ singlet.
The extra neutral leptons mix with each other (see Sec.~\ref{extraleptons}), and they contribute to the EWPOs.
The detail of the extra contribution to the vacuum polarization is shown in Appendix~\ref{ewpos}.
As discussed in Ref. \cite{Ko-2HDMtype1}, $Z_H$ contributes to the EWPOs at tree level through
the mass mixing between $Z_H$ and $Z$, because the Higgs doublet charged under $U(1)_H$
breaks not only the EW symmetry but also the $U(1)_H$ symmetry.
The present authors discussed the $Z_H$ correction to the EWPOs up to the one-loop level in Ref.~
\cite{Ko-2HDMtype1}. It is found that the $U(1)_H$ gauge coupling ($g_H$) and the gauge boson mass
($M_{Z_H}$) are strictly constrained in the low $Z_H$ mass region especially around the $Z$ boson mass.
In the usual 2HDM, there are two massive CP-even scalars, one massive CP-odd scalar,
and one charged Higgs pair after the EW symmetry breaking \cite{Branco:2011iw}.
They contribute to the EWPOs at the one-loop level, and it is found that the mass differences among the extra scalars are especially constrained strongly \cite{EWPO-2HDM,EWPO-2HDM2,Ko-2HDMtype1}.
In the 2HDM$_{U(1)}$, there is another extra neutral scalar $\tilde{h}$.
In total, there are three neutral scalar Higgs bosons, $h$, $H$, and $\tilde{h}$ plus one pseudoscalar boson $A$, where $h$ is the SM-like Higgs boson~\cite{Ko-2HDMtype1} which has
been observed at the LHC. All scalar bosons contribute to the EWPOs at the one-loop level.
The $U(1)_H$ gauge boson $(Z_H)$ also contributes to the EWPOs,
but its contribution appears even at the tree level through the mixing between
the $\hat{Z}$ and $\hat{Z}_H$ mixing, where $\hat{Z}$ and $\hat{Z}_H$
are gauge eigenstates while $Z$ and $Z_H$ are mass eigenstates, respectively.
In the type-I 2HDM$_{U(1)}$, the contribution of extra scalars and $Z_H$
is discussed in Ref.~\cite{Ko-2HDMtype1}.
In the type-II case, the correction of the scalars and $Z_H$ boson
to the EWPOs is the same as in the type-I case up to the one loop level,
but there are additional contributions from the extra chiral fermion loops.
They may affect the EWPOs through the self-energy diagrams of the SM gauge bosons.
The formulas for such extra contributions to the EWPOs will be
given in Appendix~\ref{ewpos} with detailed analysis.
\subsubsection{Constraints on the Charged Higgs boson}
The charged Higgs boson is constrained by direct production channels
in many experiments. In the type-II 2HDM case,
the lower bound for the mass of the charged Higgs boson is about 80 GeV
at the 95\% C.L.~\cite{chargedLEP}.
At the LHC, the stringent bound for $m_{H^+}$ comes from
search for the charged Higgs boson in the top quark decay
for $m_{H^+} < m_t$
and from the direct production of the charged
Higgs boson with subsequent decays $H^+\to \tau \nu$ or $H^+\to t \bar{b}$
for $m_{H^+} > m_t$~\cite{chargedLHC}.
It is found that the large $\tan \beta$ region is strongly constrained
for $m_{H^+} \lesssim 300$ GeV from the LHC experiments.
The most stringent bound for $m_{H^+}$ comes from flavour physics,
in particular, $b\to s \gamma$ decays.
In the type-II 2HDM, the region of $m_{H^+}\ge 360$ GeV is allowed
at 95\% C.L.~\cite{Hermann:2012fc}. We adopt this bound in this work.
The $B\to \tau\nu$ decays may constrain $\tan\beta$ and $m_{H^+}$
in the type-II 2HDM. We impose the condition on the branching ratio
for $B\to \tau\nu$ decays, $0.447\times 10^{-4} \le \textrm{Br}(B\to \tau\nu)
\le 1.012 \times 10^{-4}$, which was measured at the Belle with hadronic tagging
for the $\tau$ decay~\cite{btotaunu}.
The other measurements for the branching ratios for $B\to \tau\nu$ decays
at the Belle and the BABAR have
much larger uncertainties than the above value~\cite{otherbtotaunu}.
We note that the results in this work do not change so much
even though we use other results or the average of all results.
The $B_q$-$\bar{B}_q$ mixing is also affected by the charged Higgs exchange.
It is known that the $B_q$-$\bar{B}_q$ mixing disfavors
a small $\tan \beta$ region so that we impose $\tan\beta \ge 1$~\cite{santos}.
The mass of the pseudoscalar boson and $\tan\beta$ are constrained
by the production of the pseudoscalar
with the subsequent decays into $A\to \tau^+\tau^-$ or
$A\to \mu^+\mu^-$~\cite{pseudoLHC}. We take into account this constraint
on $m_A$ and $\tan \beta$ in our analysis.
Another interesting measurement which may strongly affect the constraints
on $\tan \beta$ and $m_{H^+}$ is the branching ratio
for the semileptonic decay $B\to D^{(\ast)}\tau \nu$.
The BABAR measurement for this branching ratio indicates that the SM as well
as the type-II 2HDM would be excluded with $99.8$\% probability~\cite{btodtaunu}.
This problem would require breaking of the so-called Natural Flavor
Conservation criteria, which could be realized in the flavor-dependent
$U(1)$ model~\cite{Ko-B}. However, this breaking cannot be achieved
in the 2HDM$_{U(1)}$ and the anomaly cannot be accommodated with this model.
We ignore the experimental constraint from $Br(B\to D^{(\ast)}\tau\nu)$
at the BABAR.
\subsubsection{Constraints on the neutral (pseudo)scalar bosons}
The search for the SM-like heavy Higgs boson would strongly constrains,
in particular, the heavy Higgs boson mass and its couplings.
The main channels for the SM-like heavy Higgs boson search are
the $H \to ZZ \to 4 l$ decays in the vector boson fusion (VHF) and
vector boson associated production (VH) or in the $gg$ fusion process ($gg$).
We impose the upper bound on the signal strength ($\mu$) for a heavy Higgs
boson production and decay:
$\mu_\textrm{VHF+VH}^{ZZ}, \mu_\textrm{gg}^{ZZ} \lesssim 0.1 \sim 1$
for $125$ GeV $< m_H < 1$ TeV~\cite{heavyHiggs}.
The lower bounds on the masses of extra quarks and charged leptons are
set to be 1 TeV and 800 GeV, respectively, as discussed in the previous section.
Finally, there is no bound on the mass of extra neutral leptons, $N_i$,
where the lightest one is a candidate for CDM, $X$.
If $m_X$ is less than $m_h/2$, the observed Higgs boson $h$ can decay to $2X$, which contributes to the invisible decay of $h$. The bound on the invisible decay of the SM-like
Higgs has been discussed in Refs.~\cite{invisible,global}.
Explicitly we assume $\textrm{BR}(h\to \textrm{invisibles}) \le 0.58$.
We take the mass of the extra scalars and gauge boson to be over the mass of the SM-like
Higgs boson. Thus, they do not contribute to the invisible decay of $h$.
Furthermore, if $m_X$ is lighter than the half of the $Z$-boson mass, $Z$ can also decay
to $2X$. This constraint may easily be avoided in the range $m_X\ge M_Z/2$.
\begin{center}
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline Higgs tagging channels & ATLAS & CMS \\
\hline $ H \rightarrow \gamma \gamma$ & $1.57^{+0.33}_{-0.28}$ & $1.13 \pm 0.24$ \\
$H \rightarrow Z Z^*$ & $ 1.44^{+0.40}_{-0.35}$ & $1.00 \pm 0.29$ \\
$H \rightarrow W W^*$ & $1.00^{+0.32}_{-0.29}$ & $0.83 \pm 0.21$ \\
$H \rightarrow b\overline{b}$ & $0.2^{+0.7}_{-0.6}$ & $0.93 \pm 0.49$ \\
$H \rightarrow \tau^+ \tau^-$ & $1.09^{+0.36}_{-0.32}$ & $0.91 \pm 0.27$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Higgs signal strength data reported at ICHEP2014}
\label{table:signal}%
\end{table}
\end{center}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\begin{center}
{\epsfig{figure=MZHvsgH-E6.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{$M_{Z_H}$ and $g_H$ in the type-II 2HDM$_{U(1)}$. The dot line
is the upper bound on the $U(1)_{\psi}$ gauge boson,
and the gray region is allowed for the $U(1)_H (\equiv U(1)_b)$ gauge boson.
}
\label{figure1}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{$U(1)_H$ gauge boson $Z_H$}
On the other hand, the $Z_H$ interaction is constrained by searches for a $Z'$ boson at collider
experiments. From now on we define the $U(1)_H$ charge assignments as the leptophobic case, i.e.
we consider the case $U(1)_H \equiv U(1)_b$.
Then the $U(1)_b$ gauge interactions of the SM particles are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\Hat{{\cal L}}_g &=& g_H \Hat{Z}_H^{\mu} \left (\frac{2}{3} \overline{U_R^i } \gamma_{\mu} U_R^i-\frac{1}{3}\overline{D_R^i } \gamma_{\mu} D_R^i- \frac{1}{3}\overline{Q^i } \gamma_{\mu} Q^i +\overline{N_R^i } \gamma_{\mu} N_R^i \right )+g_Z \Hat{Z}^\mu J^{SM}_\mu \nonumber \\
&&+\frac{1}{2}M^2_{Z_H}\Hat{Z}_H^{\mu}\Hat{Z}_{H \, \mu} +\frac{1}{2}M^2_{Z}\Hat{Z}^{\mu}\Hat{Z}_{ \mu} +\Delta M^2\Hat{Z}_H^{\mu}\Hat{Z}_{ \mu},
\end{eqnarray}
where $M_Z^2$, $g_Z$ and $J^{SM}_{\mu}$ are the mass, the gauge coupling and the current of
the $Z$ boson in the SM. The nonzero VEV of $H_2$ gives the mass mixing $\Delta M^2$ between
$\Hat{Z}_{H \, \mu}$ and $\Hat{Z}_{ \mu}$, so that $\Hat{Z}_{H \, \mu}$ and $\Hat{Z}_{\mu}$ are not in their
mass basis.
However, the mixing is strongly constrained by the EWPOs, as discussed in Ref. \cite{Ko-2HDMtype1},
so that $\Hat{Z}_{H \, \mu}$ and $\Hat{Z}_{\mu}$ could be approximately interpreted as the gauge bosons
($Z_{H \, \mu}$ and $Z_{\mu}$) in their mass basis.
Then we can ignore the $Z_H$ boson couplings to the SM leptons, thereby $Z_H$ becoming leptophobic.
The strong bounds from the Drell-Yan processes
and the LEP experiment can be evaded if the mass mixing of $Z$ and $Z_H$ is small enough.
The resonance searches for a $Z'$ boson in the dijet and $t \overline{t}$ production
also provide relevant constraints on the $Z_H$ boson.
They give the upper bound of $g_H$ in the $O(100)$ GeV
mass region~\cite{dijetbound,dijetbound2,ttbarbound,ttbarbound2}.
In Fig. \ref{figure1}, we depict the allowed region for $g_H$ and $M_{Z_H}$ in the type-II 2HDM$_{U(1)}$
with leptophobic $U(1)_H$ ($\equiv U(1)_b$) symmetry, which is represented by gray color.
For comparison, we also show the upper bound for the $U(1)_{\psi}$ gauge boson, which is represented
by the dot line. The bound for the $U(1)_\psi$ gauge boson is much stronger than that
for the $U(1)_H$ gauge boson due to the interaction with SM leptons. For the $U(1)_H$ gauge boson,
it is found that the low mass region is strictly constrained by the EWPOs,
i.e. the $Z$ decay width and $\rho$ parameter. While the bound in high mass region comes mainly
from the resonance searches in the dijet and $t \overline{t}$ production at hadron colliders.
The allowed value for $g_H$ is $O(0.01)$ in the low $M_{Z_H}$ region and $O(0.1)$ in the high
$M_{Z_H}$ region, respectively. We note that these upper bounds are a bit stronger than
in the Type-I 2HDM$_{U(1)_H}$ because the $Z_H$ boson is
fermiophobic in the Type-I case~\cite{Ko-2HDMtype1}.
\section{Higgs signals at the LHC}
\label{section5}
The SM-like Higgs boson with mass $\sim 125$ GeV was discovered at the LHC ~\cite{higgsdiscovery}.
At the first stage of the measurements, the signal strengths in the Higgs decaying into two photons or
$ZZ^*$ were slightly larger than the SM predictions. As more data were accumulated at the 8 TeV
center-of-momentum (CM) energy, however, the signal strengths became consistent with the SM
predictions in each decay mode as shown in Table~\ref{table:signal}.
Although this consistency may imply that the discovered boson is really the SM Higgs, we still cannot
rule out a possibility it could be a SM-like Higgs boson in the model with an extended Higgs sector like
the 2HDM, with a small mixture from the extended Higgs sector.
In the usual Type-II 2HDM, there are two CP-even scalar bosons, while there is one more CP-even scalar boson in the 2HDM$_{U(1)_H}$. The lightest one is assumed to be the SM-like Higgs boson in this work.
In both models, there is a CP-odd scalar $A$. The Yukawa couplings of the SM-like Higgs boson and extra
scalar boson with the SM fermions depend on the vacuum alignment of VEVs of two Higgs doublets.
In the 2HDM$_{U(1)_H}$, the $U(1)_H$ gauge boson $Z_H$ and extra chiral fermions also take part
in interactions. Therefore all the extra particles in 2HDM$_{U(1)_H}$can change Higgs physics at the
LHC. The charged Higgs boson can contribute to $h\to \gamma\gamma$ and $h\to Z\gamma$
at the loop level~\cite{Ko-2HDMtype1}. Extra charged and/or colored particles contribute
to $h \to \gamma \gamma, Z \gamma$ and the $h \to gg$ at one loop level. Furthermore, the SM-like
Higgs boson may decay to the extra particles, if the sum of masses of final particles are less than $m_h$.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\begin{center}
{\epsfig{figure=rggrzz-E6.eps,width=0.45\textwidth}}
{\epsfig{figure=rggrzz-typeI.eps,width=0.45\textwidth}}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{Signal strengths $\mu_{\gamma\gamma}^{gg}$ and $\mu_{ZZ}^{gg}$
(a) in the Type-II 2HDMs and (b) in the Type-I 2HDMs.
}
\label{fig2}%
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{fig2}, we depict the signal strengths $\mu_{\gamma\gamma}^{gg}$ and $\mu_{ZZ}^{gg}$
in the Type-II 2HDMs, which are calculated by using HDECAY~\cite{hdecay}.
We modified the original HDECAY code by modifying Higgs couplings
to the SM fermions and weak gauge bosons and by including the contribution
of the charged Higgs boson and extra charged fermions to the $h g g$, $h\gamma\gamma$, and
$h Z\gamma$ vertices. We also draw the same figure in the Type-I 2HDMs for comparison,
which is based on Ref.~\cite{Ko-2HDMtype1}. The pink points are allowed in the Type-II (-I)
2HDM$_{Z_2}$, while the cyan points are allowed in the Type-II (-I) 2HDM$_{U(1)_H}$, respectively.
The blue and green boxes are CMS and ATLAS data at $\sqrt{s}=7, 8$ TeV
in the 1$\sigma$ level, respectively.
Explicitly, we use
$\mu^{\gamma\gamma}_{ggH}=1.12_{-0.32}^{+0.37}$
and $\mu^{ZZ}_{ggH,t\bar{t}H}=0.80^{+0.46}_{-0.36}$
for the CMS data~\cite{cmsnew}
while $\mu^{\gamma\gamma}_{ggF}=1.32\pm 0.38$
and $\mu^{ZZ}_{ggF+b\bar{b}h+t\bar{t}h}=1.7^{+0.5}_{-0.4}$
for the ATLAS data~\cite{atlasnew}.
The SM prediction for the Higgs signal strength is $\mu=1$ by definition, which is consistent with
the CMS and ATLAS data within $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$, respectively.
This implies that new physics should not affect the Higgs signal strengths too much.
In this respect, the decoupling scenario, where all the scalar bosons except the SM-like
Higgs boson are heavy enough to decouple from EW physics, or the alignment scenario, where the heavy
Higgs boson coupling to gauge boson is suppressed, are preferred in the 2HDMs~\cite{alignment}.
A similar situation would be true in the 2HDM$_{U(1)_H}$.
In Fig.~\ref{fig3}, we depict the allowed regions in the $( (\beta-\alpha)/\pi, \tan\beta)$ planes for
(a) the Type-II 2HDMs and (b) the Type-I 2HDMs, where all points are consistent with the theoretical
and experimental bounds discussed in the previous sections. We note that the Higgs signal strengths
$\mu_{gg}^{\gamma\gamma}$ and $\mu_{gg}^{ZZ}$ of all the points in Fig.~\ref{fig3} are consistent
with the CMS data ($\mu_{gg}^{\gamma\gamma}$ and $\mu_{gg}^{ZZ}$) in the $1\sigma$ level, as
shown in Fig.~\ref{fig2}.
If the ATLAS data or combined data of ATLAS and CMS are used, we would get similar plots.
As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig2}(b), the Higgs signal strengths can reach in the following ranges:
$\mu_{gg}^{\gamma\gamma} \lesssim 1.4$ and
$0.4 \lesssim \mu_{gg}^{ZZ} \lesssim 1.1$ in the Type-I 2HDM$_{Z_2}$,
but $\mu_{gg}^{\gamma\gamma} \lesssim 1.4$ and
$0 \lesssim \mu_{gg}^{ZZ} \lesssim 1.1$ is allowed in the Type-I 2HDM$_{U(1)_H}$.
The region where $\mu_{gg}^{ZZ}\sim 0$ is allowed in the Type-I 2HDM$_{U(1)_H}$,
but it is disallowed in the Type-I 2HDM$_{Z_2}$.
This is because both couplings of the SM-like Higgs boson to fermions and
gauge bosons have an additional suppression factor $\cos\alpha_1$.
That is, the rescaling factors of the SM-like Higgs boson couplings are
$g_{hff}=\cos\alpha_1 \cos\alpha/\sin\beta$ and
$g_{hVV}=\cos\alpha_1 \sin(\beta-\alpha)$ in the Type-I 2HDM$_{U(1)_H}$.
We note that the rescaling factors in the Type-I 2HDM$_{Z_2}$ can be obtained
if we set $\alpha_1=0$.
On the other hand, in the Type-II case, both signal strengths
$\mu_{gg}^{\gamma\gamma}$ and $\mu_{gg}^{ZZ}$ can take their values from 0 to $\sim 3$.
The SM-like Higgs coupling to the SM gauge bosons are the same as in the Type-I case, but the Yukawa
couplings are different. Note that the rescaling factor of the Yukawa coupling to the up-type fermions is
$g_{huu}=\cos\alpha\cos\alpha_1/\sin\beta$, while that to the down-type fermions
is $g_{hdd}=-\sin\alpha\cos\alpha_1/\cos\beta$.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\begin{center}
{\epsfig{figure=albeVStan-E6.eps,width=0.45\textwidth}}
{\epsfig{figure=albeVStan-typeI.eps,width=0.45\textwidth}}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{ $(\beta-\alpha)/\pi$ vs. $\tan\beta$
(a) in the Type-II 2HDMs and (b) in the Type-I 2HDMs.
All the points satisfy the CMS data ($\mu_{gg}^{\gamma\gamma}$ and
$\mu_{gg}^{ZZ}$) within $1\sigma$ level.
}
\label{fig3}%
\end{figure}
In the Type-I case, the allowed parameter spaces in ordinary 2HDM$_{Z_2}$ and 2HDM$_{U(1)_H}$
are rather similar. As discussed in Ref.~\cite{Ko-2HDMtype1}, $|\sin\alpha|\gtrsim 0.8$ is not allowed
because the coupling $g_{hff}\sim \cos\alpha/\sin\beta$ is small for $\tan\beta > 1$.
In this region $|\cos(\beta-\alpha)| \lesssim 0.4$ and the Yukawa couplings have similar values as
the SM Yukawa couplings.
In the Type-II 2HDM$_{Z_2}$, two parameter regions are allowed. One of them is
$(\beta-\alpha)\sim \pi/2$ corresponding to the SM limit line, $\sin(\beta-\alpha)\sim 0$.
The other branch corresponds to the line $\sin(\beta+\alpha) \sim 0$.
In this branch, the Yukawa couplings of the up-type fermions are very close
to the SM Yukawa couplings, while those of the down-type fermions have
the opposite sign relative to the SM Yukawa couplings~\cite{opposite}.
In the Type-II 2HDM$_{U(1)_H}$, the intermediate region between two pink
branches is also allowed. This intermediate region contains the parameter space
with $\sin\alpha \sim 0$. The rescaling factor of the Yukawa couplings
of the up-type fermions is $|g_{hu\bar{u}}| \sim 1$, where the opposite sign is also allowed.
This is because all the rescaling factors include an overall factor $\cos\alpha_1$.
For negative $\cos\alpha_1$, the negative Yukawa coupling can be achieved.
The rescaling factor of the down-type fermions is allowed in $|g_{hd\bar{d}}|\lesssim 1$.
In particular, $|g_{hd\bar{d}}|$ may have a very small value in some points.
In the analysis, we do not constrain the Yukawa couplings of the down-type fermions directly.
If the Yukawa couplings of the down-type fermions are well measured in the near future, the allowed
parameter spaces for $g_{hd\bar{d}}$ would strongly be constrained.
In the allowed region, both $\tan\beta$ and $U(1)_H$ coupling are rather small:
$\tan\beta \lesssim 15$ and $g_H \lesssim 0.13$. There are no strict bounds on the extra scalars, i.e.
$m_{H,a,\tilde{h}} \ge m_h$ and $ m_{H^+}\ge 360$ GeV. The mass of the $U(1)_H$ gauge boson is
in the range of $m_{Z_H}\ge m_h$ and the VEV of $\Phi$ is $v_\phi \gtrsim 2.5$ TeV.
Because of the small $U(1)_H$ gauge coupling $g_H$, the $Z_H$ boson with $100$ GeV $\sim$ $1$ TeV
mass can avoid the strong constraints from experiments. The mass of the dark matter candidate is
in the range of $0 < m_X \lesssim 1.2$ TeV.
In principle, our models could be distinguished from the ordinary 2HDMs
because there exist additional particles: an additional neutral Higgs boson,
a new gauge boson $Z_H$, and extra chiral fermions, that could be produced directly at colliders
or can appear in the loop. However, note that the qualitative features in Higgs physics, in particular,
the Higgs signal strengths (Fig.~\ref{fig2}) are not so different between two models in the ATLAS/CMS
data regions. Therefore it is not that easy to distinguish these two models only by the Higgs signal
strength measured at the LHC, since the LHC data are in good agreement with the SM (see Fig.~2).
Large deviations of the Higgs signal strengths from the SM predictions or discovery of new particles
would be necessary to tell our 2HDM with local $U(1)_H$ gauge symmetry from the usual 2HDM with
$Z_2$ symmetry.
Still the detail of the model parameter space are different as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig3}.
In the ordinary type-II 2HDM, the allowed region for $\tan\beta$ and $(\beta-\alpha)$ is restricted in the
two branches, while in our model, the allowed region is much broader.
This is mainly due to the additional neutral Higgs boson with new mixing angles that appear
in the Yukawa couplings and the Higgs couplings to the weak gauge bosons.
Also the extra colored and/or charged particles cancelling the gauge anomalies generate the difference
in the Higgs signal strengths through their contribution to the $h g g$ and $h\gamma\gamma$ couplings.
As we have mentioned, our models have new particles that are not present in the ordinary 2HDM:
three neutral scalar bosons, a new gauge boson $Z_H$ and extra chiral fermions.
Discovery of some of these new particles would be distinctive signatures of our model.
For example, observation of extra fermions in the production/decay channels discussed in Sec.~III
would be clear signatures of the Type-II 2HDM with local $U(1)_H$ gauge symmetry.
Note that we have not imposed constraints on the dark matter candidate yet in the analysis of this section.
The constraints on dark matter from the thermal relic density, direct and indirect detection of dark matter
will also strongly constrain the parameter space. Still Figs.~\ref{fig2} and \ref{fig3} are meaningful
if we consider the model where the dark matter candidate can decay by introducing an additional scalar
that couples with the dark matter candidate. Then there is no dark matter in the model so that we do not
need to take into account the constraints from dark matter detection.
\section{Dark Matter Physics}
\label{section6}
As we discussed in Sec.~\ref{section4}, the lightest neutral particle $X$ is a Majorana fermion and
could be stable due to the remnant $Z^{ \rm ex}_2$ symmetry. In the mass matrix for
$(\widetilde{\nu}_L,\widetilde{\nu}_R^c,n_L)$, we assume that $m_{\widetilde{e}} \gg m_D,m_M$
in order to evade the stringent constraint from the extra lepton search.
In that limit, $m_X$ can be approximately evaluated as
\begin{equation}
m_X \approx \frac{2m_Dm_M}{m_{\widetilde{e}}}=\frac{y^n y^{\prime n} v^2}{m_{\widetilde{e}}} \cos \beta \sin \beta ,
\end{equation}
where $X$ is mostly $n_L$-like:
\[
X_L \approx n_L -\frac{m_D}{m_{\widetilde{e} }} \widetilde{\nu}_L-\frac{m_M}{m_{\widetilde{e} } }
\widetilde{\nu}_R^c \ .
\]
In order to make $m_X$ heavy enough, we require large Yukawa couplings, $y^n$ and $y^{\prime n}$
of $\sim O(1)$.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\begin{center}
{\epsfig{figure=E6-mX.eps,width=0.7\textwidth}}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{$y^n$ vs. $m_{X}$ with $\tan \beta=3$ and
$m_{\widetilde{e}}=1$ TeV.
The blue region satisfies all the bounds on the extra particles in the text, as well as the invisible $Z$
decay ($y^n \lesssim 3$ and $y^{\prime n} \lesssim 1$).
}
\label{fig4}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\begin{center}
{\epsfig{figure=omega-E6-2.eps,width=0.7\textwidth}}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{$m_{X}$ vs. $\Omega h^2$ in the decoupling limit,
$\sin(\beta-\alpha)=0, \alpha_1=\alpha_2=0$.
The cyan points satisfy the experimental constraints at colliders
while the pink points satisfy the bound from direct detection of DM
in the LUX experiment too.
The red line is for 500 GeV $\le m_{H,A,H^+} \le$ 1 TeV and $y^{\prime n}=1$,
while the blue line is for $m_A=m_H=200$ GeV, $m_{H^{+}}=360$ GeV and
$y^{\prime n}=1$.
}
\label{fig5}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{fig4}, the region for $m_X$ and $y^n$ is described, setting $\tan \beta=3$
and $m_{\widetilde{e}}=1$TeV. The blue region is the one allowed for the bound from the invisible decay
of $Z$ boson ($y^n \lesssim 3$ and $y^{\prime n} \lesssim 1$), which is derived from the $1 \sigma $ error of
the invisible decay width of $Z$ boson \cite{PDG}.
$X$ could be thermally produced through the following annihilation processes: $XX \to f \overline f$,
$W^+W^-$, and $ZZ$. The extra fermions masses are generated by $\langle \Phi \rangle$, and could be
much heavier than $X$ because of the experimental constraints, so that they have already decoupled
at the freeze-out temperature of $X$. The $U(1)_H$ gauge interaction through $Z_H$ emission may
be also effective as we see in Fig.~\ref{figure1}. And $h$, $A$, $H$ exchanging in the $s$-channel are
efficient in the annihilation and scattering with nuclei, because of large Yukawa coupling.
However, all the cross sections are strongly suppressed by the mixing elements $U_{ab}$'s
defined in Eq. (\ref{mixingneutral}) and Appendix \ref{gaugeinteraction},
so that $X$ tends to be over-produced in our universe.
In Fig.~\ref{fig5}, we show the thermal relic density of $X$
in the decoupling limit where the mixing among
CP-even scalars are fixed at $\sin(\beta-\alpha)=1$ and $\alpha_1=\alpha_2=0$.
The cyan points satisfy the experimental constraints at colliders
which have been discussed
in previous sections. The pink points satisfy the LUX bound
for direct detection of DM in addition to the experimental constraints
at colliders.
For more concrete discussion, let us fix other parameters too.
In the red line, the masses of $A$, $H$ and $H_{\pm}$
are within $500$ GeV $ \leq m_{H,A,H^+} \leq 1$ TeV and $y^{\prime n}=1$.
Then the heavy scalar exchange processes are inefficient to reduce
the relic density for $m_X \lesssim 200$ GeV.
The blue line corresponds to the case with $m_A=m_H=200$ GeV,
$m_{H \pm}=360$ GeV, and $y^{\prime n}=1$.
The green band is the observed relic density in the PLANCK experiment~\cite{planck}.
In both cases, only the regions around the resonances, $m_X \approx m_h/2$ and $m_X \approx m_H/2$,
can result in the correct relic density of DM (we have calculated thermal relic density using the micrOMEGAs \cite{micromegas}).
The spin-independent and spin-dependent direct detection cross sections of DM X on proton
are estimated as $\sigma_{\rm SI}=6.54 \times 10^{-10}$ $(1.98 \times 10^{-10})$ pb and
$\sigma_{\rm SD}=2.41 \times 10^{-8}$ $(1.91 \times 10^{-5})$ pb at $m_X= 55.3$ $(83.5)$ GeV,
where the DM density is $\Omega h^2=0.166$ $(0.137)$.
They are far below the current experimental bounds from the direct detection \cite{LUX}.
If $m_X$ is less than half of $m_h$, the SM-like Higgs can decay into a pair of DMs, and
the branching ratio of the invisible decay is $0.1$ at $m_X=55.3$ GeV,
which is still acceptable~\cite{global}.
In Fig.~\ref{fig5}, there is a sharp peak around $m_X=50$ GeV, where the relic density is highly
suppressed due to the processes, $XX\to Z \to f\bar{f}$ ($f=$ SM fermions except $t$),
(the SM $Z$ boson resonance). The DM coupling with the SM $Z$ boson is generated by the
$Z$-$Z_H$ mixing. At $m_X \approx 60$ GeV, the relic density can be smaller than the current
observation due to the resonance effect of the SM-like Higgs boson mediation. In the region
$m_X > 60 $ GeV, new resonance processes, for example, the heavy scalar ($H$) exchange process,
could contribute to decreasing the relic density. At $m_X \simeq 80$ GeV, $XX\to W^+ W^-$ channel is
open so that the relic density could be below the observation.
Surely, it strongly depends on the DM-$Z$ coupling.
For a small DM-$Z$ coupling, the $XX\to W^+ W^-$ process is not sufficient
to reduce the relic density. In that case, the relic density is higher
than the current observation as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig5}.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\begin{center}
{\epsfig{figure=sigmav-E6.eps,width=0.7\textwidth}}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{$m_X$ vs. $\langle \sigma v \rangle$ in units of GeV and cm$^3/$s,
respectively.
The pink points satisfy collider constraints and direct detection bound
in the LUX experiments. The relic density is below the current observation
by the PLANCK Collaboration~\cite{planck}.
}
\label{fig6}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{fig6}, we depict the DM mass vs. the velocity-averaged annihilation
cross section, $\langle \sigma v \rangle$,
at the halo. The calculation was carried out by using micrOMEGAs~\cite{micromegas}.
All points satisfy the collider constraints discussed in previous sections
as well as the LUX bound for direct detection of DM.
We impose that the thermal relic densities are below the PLANCK observation
$\Omega_\textrm{CDM}h^2=0.1199\pm0.0027$ with 3$\sigma$ uncertainty~\cite{planck}.
The horizontal line, whose value is $\langle \sigma v \rangle \simeq
3\times 10^{-26}$ cm$^3/$s, corresponds to the bound from the relic density
for the $s$-wave annihilation dominant case.
The solid and dotted curves are the Fermi-LAT bound for the DM annihilation
into $b\bar{b}$ and $W^+ W^-$, respectively.
At the $Z$-resonance region ($m_X \sim 50$ GeV), the indirect detection bound
might severely constrain our model. The bound is assumed that $XX\to b\bar{b}$
is dominant, but in our model its contribution is about 17\%.
The rest contribution comes from the DM annihilation into SM fermions
except $b$ and $t$ pairs. This would slightly relieve the strong bound from
the indirect detection of DM.
As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig6}, the Higgs-resonance region is less constrained
because of the resonance effects coming mainly from difference between
the DM velocity at the freeze-out and at the current halo.
At the region $m_X\gtrsim m_W$, our model is strongly constrained by
the indirect detection of DM again, but there are still some allowed regions
as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig6}.
\section{Summary}
\label{section6}
In this paper, we have studied the type-II 2HDM$_{U(1)}$ inspired by $E_6$, which was proposed
by the present authors a few years ago~\cite{Ko-2HDM}.
Both of the two Higgs doublets ($H_1$ and $H_2$) and the SM chiral fermions are charged under
$U(1)_H$ and the theory becomes anomalous. Therefore, for the purpose of anomaly cancellation,
we have introduced extra quarks and leptons, which could be derived from ${\bf 27}$ representation
together with the SM fermions, from the point of view of bottom-up approach. Unlike the fermion sector,
the Higgs sector of our model has not been extended to ${\bf 27}$ representation of $E_6$.
This is the main difference between our model and the usual $E_6$ GUT.
Still we could expect that our 2HDM$_{U(1)}$ is effectively realized by supersymmetric $E_6$ GUT.
But we have simply discussed the phenomenology involving the extra Higgs doublet and fermions,
assuming only one gauged $U(1)_H$ and $Z^{\rm ex}_2$ discrete symmetry
which may be predicted by $E_6$ gauge symmetry survive at low energy.
Especially, we considered the leptophobic $U(1)_H$ charge assignments to avoid the stringent
constraint from DY processes, and study the $Z_H$ effect on the Higgs and DM physics.
In fact, $Z_H$ could be as light as $\sim O(100)$ GeV, but very light $Z_H$ is strictly constrained
by the EWPOs, as we see in Fig. \ref{figure1}.
It may be difficult to draw explicit bounds on 2HDMs from the Higgs signal strengths at the LHC alone.
But we found that the Type-II 2HDM can easily enhance or reduce the signal strength of
$h \to ZZ$ and $\gamma \gamma$, because of the sensitivity to $h \to b \overline b$, compared with
Type-I 2HDMs, so that we can expect that our Type-II 2HDM$_{U(1)}$ will be strictly constrained
by the LHC Run-II.
Search for the extra quarks and leptons is especially important to our model.
The current lower bound from the exotic fermion searches is around $800$ GeV, and
it will become more stringent at the LHC Run-II. We may find Majorana fermion dark matter candidate
among the extra neutral particles, where the DM stability is guaranteed by $Z^{\rm ex}_2$.
It may be difficult to shift the mass of the DM, because of the stringent constraints on the extra charged
particles and $Z^{\rm ex}_2$; $O(10)$ GeV DM mass corresponds to $O(1)$ Yukawa couplings, $y^n$
and $y'^n$. If we accept such large Yukawa couplings, we can explain the correct thermal relic DM density,
and escape from the strong bounds from the DM direct detections.
The DM scenario predicts the invisible decay of the $125$ GeV Higgs and the branching ratio is
$\sim O(0.1)$, which may be reached at the LHC.
$Z^{\rm ex}_2$ plays two important roles: it does not only guarantee the DM stability, but also forbid the
unwanted FCNCs involving the extra fermions.
In other words, we have to consider the effect of the mixing terms between the SM particles
and the extra fermions as in Eq. (\ref{eq:mass mixing}), if we cannot realize $Z^{\rm ex}_2$
from $E_6$ gauge symmetry. It will cause problems in flavor physics, but
may give some rich phenomenology in neutrino and dark matter physics.
It was discussed in Ref. \cite{Ko:2014tca} and the detail of the work is in progress.
\acknowledgments
We thank Korea Institute for Advanced Study for providing computing resources
(KIAS Center for Advanced Computation Abacus System) for this work.
This work was supported in part by Basic Science Research Program through the
National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education Science
and Technology 2011-0022996 (CY), by NRF Research Grant 2012R1A2A1A01006053
(PK and CY), and by SRC program of NRF funded by MEST (20120001176)
through Korea Neutrino Research Center at Seoul National University (PK).
The work of YO is supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific research from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports, and Culture (MEXT), Japan, No. 23104011.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
The mass of the neutrino has been a topic of speculation and research since the theory of beta decay was formulated by Fermi \cite{fermi_tentativo_1933}. Neutrino mass affects the shape of the beta spectrum, and even with the limited data available at the time, Fermi was able to conclude that the mass of the neutrino must be ``either zero, or in any case very small, in comparison to the mass of the electron'' \cite{Wilson:1968zz}. The discovery by Alvarez and Cornog \cite{PhysRev.56.613} in 1939 that tritium was radioactive and had a small Q-value was important because the effect of neutrino mass is relatively greater in that case. Moreover, tritium has a simple atomic structure, a uniquely valuable property as the sensitivity of neutrino mass experiments has advanced over the years. Seventy-five years later, tritium remains the isotope of choice in the continuing quest to measure the mass of the neutrino.
The first neutrino mass determinations from the shape of the tritium spectrum were carried out with proportional counters in 1948 by Hanna and Pontecorvo \cite{PhysRev.75.983.3} at Chalk River and by Curran {\em et al.}~\cite{PhysRev.76.853} in Glasgow. Hanna and Pontecorvo were able to set a limit of 500 eV on the neutrino mass, Curran {\em et al.}~about 1 keV. Experimental work continued until the discovery of parity non-conservation in the weak interaction in 1956 \cite{Lee:1956qn} and the measurement of the helicity of the neutrino in 1958 \cite{Goldhaber:1958nb} made plausible the idea that the neutrino was massless, and massless neutrinos were subsequently built into the standard model. A decade-long hiatus in searches for neutrino mass followed. A second kind of neutrino, the muon neutrino, was discovered in 1962 \cite{1962PhRvL...9...36D}, and a third, the tau neutrino, was found to exist in 1975 \cite{1975PhRvL..35.1489P}. Interest in direct searches for neutrino mass revived once it was realized that neutrinos were not responsible for parity violation because the neutral current \cite{Hasert:1973ff} also violated parity \cite{Prescott:1978tm}. A flurry of excitement pervaded the neutrino-mass community when in 1981 Lyubimov {\em et al.}~\cite{Lyubimov:1980un} reported that the electron antineutrino had a mass of 30 eV, a value that closes the universe gravitationally and would explain its observed flatness. Unfortunately this result turned out to be incorrect, as was shown by a group at Los Alamos \cite{Robertson:1991vn}. The Los Alamos experiment used a source of gaseous T$_2$, because Bergkvist had observed in 1972 \cite{Bergkvist:1972xb} that experiments had reached a sensitivity where it becomes essential to consider molecular and atomic excitations in interpreting the spectrum. It was almost certainly the complexities of the tritiated valine molecule that contributed to the erroneous result of Lyubimov {\em et al.}
The discovery of neutrino oscillations in atmospheric, solar, and reactor neutrinos \cite{Fukuda:1998mi,Ahmad:2002jz,Eguchi:2002dm} brought a profound change. Neutrinos were shown to have mass, and a lower limit on the average mass of the three eigenstates (0.02 eV) has been established. All three masses are linked by small differences, which means that direct searches can focus on the experimentally most accessible neutrino (the electron antineutrino) and will be able to determine the 3 masses from a single measurement (with a two-fold ambiguity from the presently unknown hierarchy). The quantity measured in a beta decay experiment is a weighted sum of eigenmasses:
\begin{eqnarray}
m_\beta^2 &=& \sum_{i=1,3}\left|U_{ei}\right|^2m_{\nu i}^2, \label{eq:mbetadef}
\end{eqnarray}
where the $m_{\nu i}$ are neutrino eigenmasses and ${\bf U}$ is the Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata-Pontecorvo mixing matrix \cite{Beringer:1900zz}. The absolute lower bound, which neutrino oscillation measurements provide, is $m_\beta \ge 0.01$ eV/c$^2$ for the normal hierarchy, and $m_\beta \ge 0.05$ eV/c$^2$ for the inverted hierarchy. When the mass is larger than roughly $ 0.1$ eV/c$^2$, the `quasi-degenerate' regime, $m_\beta \simeq m_{\nu1} \simeq m_{\nu2} \simeq m_{\nu3}$. Figure \ref{fig:mbeta_moores} shows a steady `Moore's Law' decrease in the upper limit on neutrino mass from experiments spanning more than 60 years.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centerline {
\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{mbeta_moores.pdf}
}
\caption[]{Upper limits on neutrino mass obtained from tritium beta decay experiments {\em vs.} year. The point with error bars is the non-zero value reported by Lyubimov {\em et al.}~\cite{Lyubimov:1980un}. Also indicated by HDM is the mass that would close the universe in the absence of other contributions, and the lower bounds set by oscillations for the inverted and normal hierarchies.
}
\label{fig:mbeta_moores}
\end{figure}
The current upper limit on neutrino mass comes from two tritium experiments, one at Mainz \cite{Kraus:2004zw}, and the other at Troitsk \cite{Aseev:2011dq}. The experiments lead to a concordant limit of about 2 eV \cite{Beringer:1900zz}.
Neutrino mass is an important question in physics for two reasons. It is the first definitive contradiction to the minimal standard model. The standard model is known to be incomplete, lacking things like gravity and dark matter, but until neutrinos were found to have mass, it had never produced a disagreement with data. Understanding the origin and patterns of neutrino mass is thus of great interest, because new physics at a very high mass scale may be responsible. Neutrinos also play a significant role in the formation of the universe. They are only a small fraction of the dark matter, but because they cool from relativistic to non-relativistic at a recent epoch in the last few billion years, they have influenced large-scale structure. Quantifying that influence is desirable, and a laboratory measurement would free cosmologists from the need to include neutrino mass in fits to extract other parameters that can only be obtained from astronomical observation.
In this review the status of experiments now in progress is considered. There are two experiments on tritium. The KATRIN experiment in Karlsruhe is in the final stages of construction. A new scheme, Project 8, is under exploratory development in Seattle. There are also ideas about using $^{187}$Re or $^{163}$Ho embedded in microcalorimeters but the Re decay is hindered, calling for large amounts of this costly element, and the Ho spectrum has a complex shape \cite{Robertson:2014zz}.
\section{The KATRIN experiment}
The KArlsruhe TRItium Neutrino experiment (KATRIN) couples a gaseous T$_2$ source to a large spectrometer, a `MAC-E' filter based on Magnetic Adiabatic Collimation with Electrostatic retardation. The experiment is located on the north campus of the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, contiguous with the prototype tritium-handling facility developed for the ITER controlled fusion experiment now under construction in France. The apparatus concept is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:KATRINoverview}.
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\centerline {
\includegraphics[width=6in]{KATRINoverview.pdf}
}
\caption[]{Overview of the KATRIN apparatus. Functional units (from left): Rear system with calibration devices (RS); differential pumping section (DPS1R); windowless gaseous tritium source (WGTS); differential pumping section (DPS1F); differential pumping section with magnetic chicane (DPS2F); cryogenic pumping section with argon frost at 3K (CPS); prespectrometer; main spectrometer; detector.
}
\label{fig:KATRINoverview}
\end{figure*}
The basic operation of the experiment begins with gaseous molecular tritium recirculated through the WGTS at a temperature of 27 K maintained by a two-phase neon cooling loop. A solenoidal field guides electrons from the source through several stages of pumping and into a prespectrometer that rejects all but the last 100 eV or so of the spectrum. Electrons that surmount the prespectrometer potential enter the main spectrometer, which has an energy resolution of 0.93 eV base width. If they also surmount the main spectrometer potential, the electrons are transmitted to a multipixel Si detector for counting. A spectrum can be built point by point, by stepping either the main spectrometer potential or the potential of the WGTS. A comprehensive description of the concept of KATRIN can be found in Ref.~\cite{Angrik:2005ep}.
On site and complete are the prespectrometer, main spectrometer, and detector. With an electron gun source, the main spectrometer and detector have been undergoing commissioning tests. The cryogenics for the WGTS have been built and tested: the system performs very well, with temperatures controlled to 4 mK at 27 K \cite{grohmann:2013aa}. The RS is nearing completion in Santa Barbara. The DPS1R, DPS1F, and WGTS magnets are built and ready for integration with the cryogenic system. The monolithic DPS2F system initially constructed suffered a failure of quench protection diodes that were inaccessible and could not be repaired. A new system is being built in Karlsruhe with 5 separate magnets. The CPS is under construction in Genoa.
The main spectrometer and detector operate largely as expected and required for a successful experiment. The spectrometer has run at up to 35 kV, has delivered sub-eV energy resolution, and has shown background rates of a fraction of 1 c/s. One surprise was the discovery of $^{219}$Rn decaying in the active volume of the spectrometers \cite{Frankle:2011xy}. This unusual isotope in the $^{235}$U series is emanating from the Zr-rich getter strips used to pump hydrogen isotopes, water, and air. Installation of liquid-nitrogen-cooled baffles has greatly reduced this background but necessitated a challenging design for high-voltage insulators carrying the LN supply from ground potential. Another difficulty has been the appearance, during bakeout, of short circuits in the connections between grid layers that line the shell of the spectrometer. The grids suppress electron backgrounds at the wall, and function best when operated at potentials differing by a few hundred volts. Progress has been made in repairing the shorts, and work continues apace.
It is expected that initial operation with tritium could begin in late 2016. The sensitivity of KATRIN is an upper limit of 0.2 eV at 90\% CL after 5 calendar years, or a discovery at $5\sigma$ of 0.35 eV.
\section{Project 8}
As Bergkvist pointed out in 1972, the final-state spectrum in the decay of tritium bound in a molecule imposes a line-broadening that must be folded with the theoretical beta spectrum. The line-broadening exacts both statistical and systematic penalties when small neutrino mass distortions are being searched for. The statistical demands are already severe: only $2\times10^{-13}$ of decays populate the last $\Delta E =1$ eV of the spectrum, and this fraction scales as the cube of $\Delta E$. The KATRIN experiment reaches its ultimate sensitivity with approximately equal contributions of statistical and systematic uncertainty.
A new approach (dubbed `Project 8') was proposed by Monreal and Formaggio in 2009 \cite{Monreal:2009za}. The statistical limit mentioned might be circumvented by not extracting and analyzing electrons from the tritium source gas, but instead detecting the cyclotron radiation they emit while moving in a uniform magnetic field $B$. The electrons from tritium beta decay are mildly relativistic ($\gamma=1.035$) and the cyclotron frequency depends on the kinetic energy $K$ of the electron:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:cyclotron}
f_\gamma \equiv \frac{f_c}{\gamma} =
\frac{e B}{\gamma m_e},
\end{equation}
\noindent where $e \left(m_e\right)$ is the electron charge (mass), $c$ is the
speed of light in vacuum, and $\gamma=\left(1+K/m_e c^2\right)$ is the Lorentz
factor. The nonrelativistic
frequency $f_c$ is \SI{2.799249110(6)E10}{\hertz\per\tesla}. The orbiting electron emits coherent
electromagnetic radiation with a power spectrum centered at
$f_\gamma$.
Due to the $K$ dependence
of $f_\gamma$, a frequency measurement of the cyclotron radiation is
sensitive to the energy of the electron, and thus provides a new form of spectroscopy, Cyclotron Radiation Emission Spectroscopy (CRES). The statistical advantage is two-fold: because the source gas is transparent to the radiation, a large, high-activity source can be used, and because a range of frequencies can be collected and analyzed at once, the time to accumulate a spectrum is shorter than with a spectrometer that records data point-by-point.
An experimental verification of this concept being desirable, apparatus was set up at the University of Washington to search for cyclotron emission from single electrons orbiting in a uniform magnetic field. Somewhat surprisingly, no observation of this has been reported. Cyclotron motion and radiation is, of course, well established, but the radiation detected was either from large numbers of electrons or, where single electrons were being studied, involved detection through coupling to their axial motion in a Penning trap \cite{PhysRevLett.100.120801}.
The power radiated by an electron is given by the Larmor formula,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:power}
P\left(\gamma,\theta\right)=\frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_0}
\frac{2}{3}\frac{e^4}{m_\mathrm{e}^2 c} B^2 \left(\gamma^2 - 1\right)\sin^2\theta,
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\epsilon_0$ is the permittivity of free space and $\theta$
is the pitch angle of the electron, defined as the angle between the momentum
vector of the electron and the magnetic field. An electron with energy
near the \SI{18.6}{\keV} endpoint of tritium and a pitch angle near $90^{\rm o}$ radiates
approximately 1.2 fW in a \SI{1}{\tesla} magnetic field. More power is available at higher fields, but the electron is losing energy more quickly by radiation and the receiver technology is more difficult. At lower fields, on the other hand, the signal-to-noise ratio with respect to background thermal radiation becomes more difficult.
The experiment \cite{Asner:2014cwa} was carried out not with tritium but with $^{83m}$Kr, a 1.8-hr isomeric activity that is the daughter of a much longer-lived parent, 86-d $^{83}$Rb. Not only is the Kr non-contaminating, but it produces a spectrum of nearly monoenergetic conversion electrons at kinetic
energies of \SIlist{17830.0(5); 30227(1); 30424(1); 30477(1)}{\eV}~\cite{Picard92}.
The Kr was introduced into a cell made of a section of WR42 waveguide enclosed with 25-$\mu$m Kapton windows. A vacuum of order 10 $\mu$Pa was maintained by getter pumps. The cell was connected by a 1-m length of waveguide to a pair of cascaded low-noise HEMT amplifiers maintained at a physical temperature of 50 K by a Gifford-McMahon cryocooler. The cell temperature was held at 130 K to prevent Kr from freezing out. The system noise temperature was measured to be 145 K. A uniform magnetic field of 0.9467(1) T was provided by a warm-bore superconducting magnet, and a weak harmonic trapping field was superimposed on the uniform field by means of a circular copper coil wound on the cell. This trapping field was necessary in order to keep electrons in the cell long enough to make a precise measurement of their frequencies. Signals were down-converted through two stages of double-balanced mixers and amplifiers to a 125-MHz wide slice that was digitized by a free-running 250-MSPS digitizer.
Spectrograms were formed from the digitized data by successive Fourier transforms every 32.8 $\mu$s. The frequency axis was binned in 30.52-kHz bins. One expects a signal from an electron to show a sudden onset of RF power at a certain frequency at the moment of the decay followed by steady emission that drifts monotonically up in frequency as the electron radiates. Eventually the electron will collide with a background gas atom and be ejected from the trap.
After a number of attempts success was achieved in June 2014. A spectrogram from the first second of data-taking is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:candidate0}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centerline {
\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{candidate0.png}
}
\caption[]{Spectrogram of cyclotron radiation from a trapped 30-keV electron.
}
\label{fig:candidate0}
\end{figure}
The tracks visible in this spectrogram have the predicted characteristics: a sudden onset of power followed by a slow, quasi-linear increase in frequency. What was not expected was the persistence of the electron in the trap. Several collisions with background gas atoms are seen, leading to jumps in the frequency, but the electron is not ejected until the seventh or perhaps eighth collision. Evidently the changes in pitch angle in the collision of a 30-keV electron with a gas molecule are typically very small. A histogram of the frequency jumps from many such events shows that the most probable energy loss is 14 eV, consistent with the expected background gas being hydrogen.
An energy spectrum was formed by analyzing the tracks to find the lowest frequency in each event, the frequency at the instant the electron was emitted. The spectrum is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:energy_spectrum}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centerline {
\includegraphics[width=3.25in]{energy_spectrum.pdf}
}
\caption[]{Spectrum of conversion lines from $^{83m}$Kr. The inset is an expanded view of the 30-keV line. The energy resolution in this spectrum is about 160 eV. (The 30-keV line is in fact a 53-eV doublet.) The shaded region was not included in the frequency range explored.
}
\label{fig:energy_spectrum}
\end{figure}
It is clear from these results that the basic scheme outlined by Monreal and Formaggio is a viable one for measuring the beta spectrum of tritium. A plan for further development of this technique includes a small-scale tritium experiment with apparatus not greatly different from the one used for the conceptual verification, and then larger-scale experiments with increasingly sensitive capabilities. While the statistical advantages of a large source and spectral efficiency may be within reach, the fundamental limitation to experiments with molecular T$_2$ is the final-state distribution, which has a standard deviation of about 0.4 eV. The distribution is calculable to high accuracy (of order 1\%, although difficult to quantify) but it nevertheless comes at a high price in statistical precision. For these reasons, exploratory work on an atomic tritium source has begun. Some encouragement that this might be possible comes from the success of the ALPHA experiment trapping antihydrogen at CERN \cite{Andresen:2011zz}. The technique involves axial trapping by solenoidal coils, and radial trapping with Ioffe bars on the surface of a cylinder around the source volume. Electrons require only the axial trap but atoms must also be radially confined. For atoms with a magnetic moment of 1 Bohr magneton to be trapped, fields of order \SI{5}{\tesla} are needed and the atoms must be cooled to sub-K temperatures. If this can be accomplished, the molecular component present as a contaminant will be frozen out. Very pure atomic tritium is required because the endpoint of the molecular spectrum is 8 eV higher than the atomic spectrum.
\section{Conclusions}
A direct measurement of the mass of the neutrino from a study of the phase space near the endpoint of a beta spectrum is very attractive for a number of reasons. There is no dependence on whether the neutrino is a Dirac or Majorana particle. There is no need to know a nuclear matrix element precisely, it serves only as a normalization constant for the count rate. No complex phases cloud the interpretation of Eq.\ref{eq:mbetadef}. No cosmological degrees of freedom are correlated with it.
It is nevertheless an extremely difficult endeavor to study and quantify a region of the beta spectrum that is populated only with a fractional intensity of $10^{-13} - 10^{-19}$. Two experimental campaigns are in progress now to reach below the presently known 2 eV level of mass sensitivity toward the lower limit set by oscillations, 0.01 eV. If 0.05 eV is reached without seeing a signal, then the hierarchy must be normal. The KATRIN project, by far the largest and most complex tritium beta decay experiment ever conceived, is moving steadily to first tritium operation in 2016 and will eventually either see the mass or limit it to 0.2 eV. A new idea, Project 8, has just passed its proof-of-concept milestone, and design work on the next phases is beginning.
\section{Acknowledgments}
Preparation of this report has been supported by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science, Office of Nuclear Physics under Award Number DE-FG02-97ER41020.
\bibliographystyle{elsarticle-num}
|
\section{Main result}
The center subgroup of the special unitary group $SU(n)$ is the cyclic group
$\mathbb{Z}_{n}$ of order $n$ generated by the diagonal matrix $diag\{e^
\frac{2\pi }{n}i},\cdots ,e^{\frac{2\pi }{n}i}\}\in SU(n)$. Let
c:SU(n)\rightarrow PSU(n):=SU(n)/\mathbb{Z}_{n}$ be the quotient
homomorphism. Consider the induced map on cohomologies
\begin{quote}
$c^{\ast }:H^{\ast }(PSU(n);R)\rightarrow H^{\ast }(SU(n);R)$ with $R=$
\mathbb{Q}$ or $\mathbb{Z}$.
\end{quote}
\noindent It is well known that if $R=\mathbb{Q}$ then $c^{\ast }$ is an
isomorphism of algebras. It is also known that if $R=\mathbb{Z}$ there exist
integral classes $\xi _{2r-1}\in H^{2r-1}(SU(n);\mathbb{Z})$, $2\leq r\leq n
, so that the integral cohomology $H^{\ast }(SU(n);\mathbb{Z})$ is
isomorphic to the exterior ring $\Lambda (\xi _{3},\cdots ,\xi _{2n-1})$.
Conceivably, there exist integral cohomology classes $\zeta _{2r-1}\in
H^{2r-1}(PSU(n);\mathbb{Z})$, as well as a sequence $(a_{n,2},\cdots
,a_{n,n})$ of integers, such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(1.1)] the set $\{1,\zeta _{I}=\underset{r\in I}{\Pi }\zeta
_{2r-1}\mid $ $I\subseteq \{2,\cdots ,n\}\}$ of square free monomials is a
basis of the free part of the ring $H^{\ast }(PSU(n);\mathbb{Z})$;
\item[(1.2)] the induced map of the covering $c$ satisfies the relation
$c^{\ast }(\zeta _{2r-1})=a_{n,r}\cdot \xi _{2r-1}$, $2\leq r\leq n$.
\end{enumerate}
\noindent See in the proof of Lemma 2.2 for the justification of the
statements (1.1) and (1.2). In addition, since the mapping degree of $c$ is
the order of the center $\mathbb{Z}_{n}$, and since the product $\zeta
_{3}\cdots \zeta _{2n-1}$ is a generator of the top degree cohomology
H^{m}(PSU(n);\mathbb{Z})=\mathbb{Z}$ ($m=\dim PSU(n)$) by (1.1), the
calculation by (1.2)
\begin{quote}
$c^{\ast }(\zeta _{3}\cdots \zeta _{2n-1})=(a_{n,2}\cdots a_{n,n})\cdot \xi
_{3}\cdots \xi _{2n-1}$
\end{quote}
\noindent indicates that the sequence $(a_{n,2},\cdots ,a_{n,n})$ satisfies
the constraint
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(1.3)] $n=a_{n,2}\cdot \cdots \cdot a_{n,n}$.
\end{enumerate}
\noindent In view of (1.2) and (1.3) it is both of topological and
arithmetic interests to study the problem of expressing the sequence
(a_{n,2},\cdots ,a_{n,n})$ by explicit function in $n$.
By \textsl{the prime factorization of an integer} $n\geq 2$ we mean the
unique expression $n=p_{1}^{r_{1}}\cdots p_{t}^{r_{t}}$ with $1<p_{1}<\cdots
<p_{t}$ the set of all prime factors of $n$. In term of this factorization
one introduces the partition on the set $\left\{ 2,\cdots ,n\right\} $ by
\begin{quote}
$\left\{ 2,\cdots ,n\right\} =Q_{0}(n)\underset{1\leq i\leq t}{\amalg
Q_{p_{i}}(n)$,
\end{quote}
\noindent where $Q_{p_{i}}(n)=\{p_{i}^{r}\mid 1\leq r\leq r_{i}\}$. The main
result of this paper is
\bigskip
\noindent \textbf{Theorem 1.1. }\textsl{One has}\textbf{\ }$a_{n,k}=p_{i
\QTR{sl}{\ }$\textsl{or }$1$ \textsl{for}\textbf{\ }$k\in Q_{p_{i}}(n)$
\QTR{sl}{or}$ $k\in Q_{0}(n)$\textsl{.}
\bigskip
Theorem 1.1 implies that the decomposition (1.3) coincides with the prime
factorization of the integer $n$. It plays also a role in computing the
integral cohomology ring of the Lie group $PSU(n)$, compare Theorem 1.1 with
\cite[i), Lemma 4.6]{D}.
The remaining parts of the paper are so arranged. Based on a general
approach to the cohomology theory of compact Lie groups developed in \cite{D}
an arithmetic characterization of the integers $a_{n,k}$ is obtained in
Lemma 2.2. Section 3 constitutes the major contribution of the present work,
where (granted with Lemma 2.2) Theorem 1.1 is established. In addition, in
this paper the cohomologies are over the ring $\mathbb{Z}$ of integers,
unless otherwise stated.
\section{Preliminaries in topology}
The center of the unitary group $U(n)$ of order $n$ is the circle subgroup
S^{1}=\{diag\{e^{i\theta },\cdots ,e^{i\theta }\}\mid $ $\theta \in \lbrack
0,2\pi ]\}$ that acts on $U(n)$ via right multiplication. The quotient group
$PSU(n):=U(n)/S^{1}$ is the adjoint Lie group of the type $A_{n-1}$ \cite{BB
, while the quotient map $C:U(n)\rightarrow PSU(n)$ is both a group
homomorphism and an oriented circle bundle over $PSU(n)$. Let $\omega \in
H^{2}(PSU(n))$ be the Euler class of the bundle $C$, and let $J_{n}(\omega
)\subset H^{\ast }(PSU(n))$ be the subring generated by $\omega $. For a
pair $(n,k)$ of integer with $1\leq k\leq n$ we set
\begin{quote}
$b_{n,k}=g.c.d.\{\binom{n}{1},\cdots ,\binom{n}{k}\}$,
\end{quote}
\noindent where $\binom{n}{k}=\frac{n!}{k!(n-k)!}$ is the binomial
coefficient.
\bigskip
\noindent \textbf{Lemma 2.1. }\textsl{The class }$\omega $\textsl{\
generates the group} $H^{2}(PSU(n))=\mathbb{Z}_{n}$\textsl{,} \textsl{and
the subring }$J_{n}(\omega )$\textsl{\ has the presentation}
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(2.1)] $J_{n}(\omega )=\mathbb{Z}[\omega ]/\left\langle b_{n,k}\omega
^{k},1\leq k\leq n\right\rangle $, $\deg \omega =2$.
\end{enumerate}
\noindent \textbf{Proof. }For a compact and $1$--connected Lie group $G$
whose center is the cyclic group $\mathbb{Z}_{q}$ of order $q$, consider the
circle bundle over the quotient group $G/\mathbb{Z}_{q}$
\begin{quote}
$C:\left[ G\times S^{1}\right] /\mathbb{Z}_{q}\rightarrow G/\mathbb{Z}_{q}$,
\end{quote}
\noindent where $\mathbb{Z}_{q}$ acts on the circle group $S^{1}$ via the
anti--clockwise rotation through angle $\frac{2\pi }{q}$. The first
statement is verified by the facts that the Euler class of this bundle
generates $H^{2}(G/\mathbb{Z}_{q})=\mathbb{Z}_{q}$ (see \cite[Theorem 1.3]{D
), and that the unitary group $U(n)$ is isomorphic to $\left[ SU(n)\times
S^{1}\right] /\mathbb{Z}_{n}$.
Taking a maximal torus $T$ on $PSU(n)$ the Borel transgression $\tau $ in
the fibration $\pi :PSU(n)\rightarrow PSU(n)/T$ fits into the short exact
sequence
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(2.2)] $0\rightarrow H^{1}(T)\overset{\tau }{\rightarrow
H^{2}(PSU(n)/T)\overset{\pi ^{\ast }}{\rightarrow }H^{2}(PSU(n))\rightarrow
0 $ (see \cite[(2.5)]{D}).
\end{enumerate}
\noindent Moreover, with respect to the canonical Schubert basis $\{\omega
_{1},\cdots ,\omega _{n-1}\}$ on the cohomology $H^{2}(PSU(n)/T)$, the
subgroup
\begin{quote}
$\func{Im}\tau =\ker \pi ^{\ast }\subset H^{2}(PSU(n)/T)$
\end{quote}
\noindent is spanned by the subset (see \cite[Theorem 2.4]{D})
\begin{quote}
$\left\{ 2\omega _{1}-\omega _{2},-\omega _{k-1}+2\omega _{k}-\omega
_{k+1},-\omega _{n-2}+2\omega _{n-1}\mid 2\leq k\leq n-2\right\} $,
\end{quote}
\noindent Consequently, the induced map $\pi ^{\ast }$ in (2.2) satisfies
that
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(2.3)] $\pi ^{\ast }(\omega _{k})=k\omega $, $1\leq k\leq n-1$.
\end{enumerate}
On the other hand, by \cite[i) of Theorem 5.1]{D} the ring $H^{\ast
}(PSU(n)/T)$ has the presentation
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(2.4)] $H^{\ast }(PSU(n)/T)=\mathbb{Z}[\omega _{1},\cdots ,\omega
_{n-1}]/\left\langle c_{r}(\omega _{1},\cdots ,\omega _{n-1}),2\leq r\leq
n\right\rangle $
\end{enumerate}
\noindent in which $c_{r}(\omega _{1},\cdots ,\omega _{n-1})$ is the $r^{th}$
elementary symmetric polynomials in the set
\begin{quote}
$\left\{ \omega _{{\footnotesize 1}},\omega _{{\footnotesize k}}-\omega _
{\footnotesize k-1}},-\omega _{{\footnotesize n-1}}\mid \text{ }2\leq k\leq
n-1\right\} $
\end{quote}
\noindent with cardinality $n$. By (2.3) and (2.4) the map $\pi ^{\ast }$
carries the ring $H^{\ast }(PSU(n)/T)$ surjectively onto the subring
J_{n}(\omega )\subset H^{\ast }(PSU(n))$, and induces the desired isomorphism
\begin{quote}
$H^{\ast }(PSU(n)/T)/\left\langle \ker \pi ^{\ast }\right\rangle =\mathbb{Z
[\omega _{1}]/\left\langle \binom{n}{r}\omega _{1}^{r},1\leq r\leq
n\right\rangle \cong J_{n}(\omega )$.$\square $
\end{quote}
Note that $b_{n,k}\mid b_{n,k-1}$ with $b_{n,1}=n$ and $b_{n,n}=1$. The
following result gives an arithmetic characterization for the integers
a_{n,k}$ in (1.2).
\bigskip
\noindent \textbf{Lemma 2.2.} $a_{n,k}=\frac{b_{n,k-1}}{b_{n,k}}$, $k\geq 2$.
\bigskip
\noindent \textbf{Proof.} The Gysin sequence of the circle bundle $C$
provides us with an exact sequence relating the cohomologies $H^{\ast
}(U(n)) $ and $H^{\ast }(PSU(n))$
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(2.5)] $\cdots \rightarrow H^{r}(PSU(n))\overset{C^{\ast }}
\rightarrow }H^{r}(U(n))\overset{\theta }{\rightarrow }H^{r-1}(PSU(n)
\overset{\cup \omega }{\rightarrow }H^{r+1}(PSU(n))\overset{C^{\ast }}
\rightarrow }\cdots $,
\end{enumerate}
\noindent see \cite[p.149]{MS} or \cite[Theorem 1.3]{D}. Let $\xi _{2r-1}\in
H^{2r-1}(U(n))$ be the primary $1$--form with characteristic polynomial
c_{r}(\omega _{1},\cdots ,\omega _{n-1})$ (\cite[Definition 3.5]{D}). Then
\begin{quote}
b) $\theta (\xi _{2k-1})=\binom{n}{k}\omega ^{k-1}\in J_{n}(\omega )$ (see
\cite[Formula (4.10)]{D}).
\end{quote}
\noindent In addition, in view of the canonical diffeomorphism $U(n)\cong
S^{1}\times SU(n)$ (\cite[Theorem 1.2]{D}) let $p:$ $U(n)\rightarrow SU(n)$
be the projection onto the second factor. Then the induced map $C^{\ast }$
factors through $c^{\ast }$ in the fashion
\begin{quote}
c) $C^{\ast }=p^{\ast }\circ c^{\ast }:H^{\ast }(PSU(n))\rightarrow H^{\ast
}(SU(n))\rightarrow H^{\ast }(U(n))$,
\end{quote}
\noindent while the map $p^{\ast }$ carries $H^{\ast }(SU(n))$
isomorphically onto the first summand of the decomposition by a)
\begin{quote}
d) $H^{\ast }(U(n))=\Lambda (\xi _{3},\cdots ,\xi _{2n-1})\oplus \xi
_{1}\cdot \Lambda (\xi _{3},\cdots ,\xi _{2n-1})$.
\end{quote}
Comparing b) with the presentation (2.1) we find that the order of the class
$\theta (\xi _{2k-1})\in H^{\ast }(PSU(n))$ is precisely $\frac{b_{n,k-1}}
b_{n,k}}$. By the exactness of the sequence (2.5), and taking into account
of the decomposition c), there exists a set
\begin{quote}
$\Phi =\{\zeta _{2k-1}\in H^{2k-1}(PSU(n))\mid $ $2\leq k\leq n\}$
\end{quote}
\noindent of cohomology classes satisfying the relations
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(2.6)] $c^{\ast }(\zeta _{2k-1})=\frac{b_{n,k-1}}{b_{n,k}}\cdot \xi
_{2k-1}$, $2\leq k\leq n$.
\end{enumerate}
\noindent With (2.6) corresponding to (1.2) it suffices to show that the set
$\{1,\zeta _{I}=\underset{r\in I}{\Pi }\zeta _{2r-1}\mid I\subseteq
\{2,\cdots ,n\}\}$ of monomials satisfies the property (1.1).
Setting $m=\dim PSU(n)$ then the product $\xi _{3}\cdots \xi _{2n-1}$ is a
generator of the top degree cohomology group $H^{m}(SU(n))=\mathbb{Z}$ by
d). Since the mapping degree of $c$ is $n$ the calculation
\begin{quote}
$c^{\ast }(\zeta _{3}\cdots \zeta _{2n-1})=b_{n,1}\cdot (\xi _{3}\cdots \xi
_{2n-1})=n\cdot (\xi _{3}\cdots \xi _{2n-1})$
\end{quote}
\noindent by (2.6) indicates that the monomial $\zeta _{3}\cdots \zeta
_{2n-1}$ is a generator of the top degree cohomology $H^{m}(PSU(n))=\mathbb{
}$. Consequently, by \cite[Lemma 2.9]{DZ} the set $\{1,\zeta _{I}=\underset
r\in I}{\Pi }\zeta _{2r-1}\mid I\subseteq \{2,\cdots ,n\}\}$ of $2^{n-1}$
monomials is linearly independent, and spans a direct summand of the free
part of the ring $H^{\ast }(PSU(n))$. The proof is now completed by the
routine relation
\begin{quote}
$\dim (H^{\ast }(PSU(n))\otimes \mathbb{Q)=}2^{n-1}$ .$\square $
\end{quote}
\bigskip
\noindent \textbf{Remark 2.3.} In \cite[\S 4]{BB} Baum and Browder obtained
certain information on the Serre spectral sequence associated to the fiber
sequence
\begin{quote}
$U(n)\overset{C}{\rightarrow }PU(n)\overset{\chi }{\rightarrow }BS^{1}$,
\end{quote}
\noindent where $\chi $ is the classifying map of the Euler class $\omega
\in H^{2}(PU(n))$. Precisely, write $H^{\ast }(U(n))=\Lambda
(z_{i}:i=1,\cdots ,n)$ and $H^{\ast }(BS^{1})=\mathbb{Z}[\alpha ]$, where
\left\vert z_{i}\right\vert =2i-1$ and $\left\vert \alpha \right\vert =2$,
Baum and Browder showed that the differentials $d_{r}$ satisfy the relations
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(2.7)] $d_{r}(z_{i})$ $=$ $0$ for $r<2i$; $d_{2i}(z_{i})$ $=$ $\binom{
}{i}\alpha ^{i}$.
\end{enumerate}
\noindent From (2.7) one can obtain alternative proofs of Lemmas 2.1 and
2.2. For instance the subring $J_{n}(\omega )$ can be seen to be $\func{Im
\chi =E_{\infty }^{\ast ,0}(PU(n))$, see Ruiz \cite{R}.
In comparison our approach to Lemmas 2.2 is based on the exact sequence
(2.5) which can be extended to compute the integral cohomologies of the
adjoint Lie groups \cite[Theorem 4.7, Theorem 4.12]{D}.$\square $
\section{The prime orders of binomial coefficients}
Let $\mathbb{R}^{+}$ and $\mathbb{N}$ be, respectively, the set of positive
reals and the set of natural numbers. For a real $x\in \mathbb{R}$ let $[x]$
denote the unique integer satisfying $0\leq x-[x]<1$. It is straightforward
to see that
\bigskip
\noindent \textbf{Lemma 3.1.} \textsl{For any} $x,y\in \mathbb{R}^{+}$,
m,n\in \mathbb{N}$, \textsl{with} $x+y=m+n$,\textsl{\ we have }
\begin{quote}
\textsl{\qquad }$[x]+[y]\leq \lbrack m]+[n],$
\end{quote}
\noindent \textsl{where the inequality holds} \textsl{if} \textsl{either}
x\neq \lbrack x]$\textsl{\ or }$y\neq \lbrack y]$\textsl{.}$\square $
\bigskip
Given a prime $p$ and an $m\in \mathbb{N}$ \textsl{the order of }$m$ \textsl
at} $p$, denoted by $ord_{p}(m)$, is the biggest integer $a$ so that $m$ is
divisible by the power $p^{a}$. Clearly, if $n_{1},\cdots ,n_{r}$ is a
sequence of positive integers then
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(3.1)] $ord_{p}(g.c.d.\{n_{1},\cdots
,n_{r}\})=min\{ord_{p}(n_{1}),\cdots ,ord_{p}(n_{r})\}.$
\end{enumerate}
\noindent The next formula is shown in \cite[Theorem 416]{HW}
\bigskip
\noindent \textbf{Lemma 3.2.} $ord_{p}(n!)=\sum_{k=1}^{\infty }[\tfrac{n}
p^{k}}]$.
\bigskip
Applying Lemma 3.2 we show that
\bigskip
\noindent \textbf{Lemma 3.3.} \textsl{Assume that }$n=p^{r}n^{\prime }
\textsl{\ with }$(n\prime ,p)=1$\textsl{.} \textsl{Then }$k\in Q_{p}(n)
\textsl{\ implies that the number }$a_{n,k}$\textsl{\ is divisible by }$p
\textsl{.}
\bigskip
\noindent \textbf{Proof. }In view of the formula (3.1) and by Lemma 2.2, it
suffices to show that
\begin{quote}
$ord_{p}(\binom{n}{p^{s}})<ord_{p}(\binom{n}{k})$
\end{quote}
\noindent for any $1\leq k<p^{s}$ and $1\leq s\leq r$. This is equivalent to
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(3.2)] $ord_{p}(p^{s}!(n-p^{s})!)>ord_{p}(k!(n-k)!)$, $1\leq k<p^{s}$,
$1\leq s\leq r$.
\end{enumerate}
By Lemma 3.2 if $1\leq k\leq p^{s}$ then
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(3.3)] $ord_{p}(k!(n-k)!)$ $=\sum_{j=1}^{\infty }([\tfrac{n-k}{p^{j}
]+[\tfrac{k}{p^{j}}])=\sum_{j=1}^{s}([\tfrac{n-k}{p^{j}}]+[\tfrac{k}{p^{j}
])+\sum_{j=s+1}^{\infty }[\tfrac{n-k}{p^{j}}]$,
\end{enumerate}
\noindent where the second equality comes from the obvious relation
\begin{quote}
$\sum_{j=s+1}^{\infty }[\tfrac{k}{p^{j}}]=0$.
\end{quote}
\noindent Since the integer $n$ is divisible by $p^{s}$ the open interval $
\tfrac{n-p^{s}}{p^{j}},\tfrac{n}{p^{j}})$ with $j>s$ contains no integer
(for otherwise, there would be an integer $m\in (0,p^{s})$ such that $n-m$
is divisible by the power $p^{j}$ for some $j>s$, contradicting to that $m$
is not divisible by $p^{s}$). It follows that
\begin{quote}
$[\tfrac{n-p^{s}}{p^{j}}]=[\tfrac{n-k}{p^{j}}]$ for all $1\leq k<p^{s}$,
j>s $.
\end{quote}
\noindent Summing this equality over $j\geq s+1$ yields that
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(3.4)] $\sum_{j=s+1}^{\infty }[\tfrac{n-k}{p^{j}}]=\sum_{j=s+1}^
\infty }[\tfrac{n-p^{s}}{p^{j}}].$
\end{enumerate}
\noindent Finally, the relation (3.2) is shown by the calculation
\begin{quote}
$ord_{p}(p^{s}!(n-p^{s})!)=\sum_{j=1}^{s}([\tfrac{n-p^{s}}{p^{j}}]+[\tfrac
p^{s}}{p^{j}}])+\sum_{j=t+1}^{\infty }[\tfrac{n-p^{s}}{p^{j}}]$ (by (3.3))
$\quad >\sum_{j=1}^{s}([\tfrac{n-k}{p^{j}}]+[\tfrac{k}{p^{j}
])+\sum_{j=s+1}^{\infty }[\tfrac{n-p^{s}}{p^{j}}]$ (by Lemma 3.1)
$\quad =\sum_{j=1}^{s}([\tfrac{n-k}{p^{j}}]+[\tfrac{k}{p^{j}
])+\sum_{j=s+1}^{\infty }[\tfrac{n-k}{p^{j}}]$ (by (3.4))
$\quad =ord_{p}(k!(n-k)!)$ (by (3.3)).$\square $
\end{quote}
\bigskip
\noindent \textbf{Proof of Theorem 1.1. }Assume that the prime factorization
of the integer $n\geq 2$ is $n=p_{1}^{r_{1}}\cdots p_{t}^{r_{t}}$. For each
k\in Q_{p_{i}}(n)$ we can assume by Lemma 3.3 that
\begin{quote}
$a_{n,k}=p_{i}\cdot \overline{a}_{n,k}$
\end{quote}
\noindent for some $\overline{a}_{n,k}\in \mathbb{N}$, and rephrase the
decomposition (1.3) of the integer $n$ as
\begin{quote}
$n=\underset{k\in Q_{p_{i}}(n),1\leq i\leq t}{\Pi }a_{n,k}\underset{k\in
Q_{0}(n)}{\Pi }a_{n,k}$
$\quad =p_{1}^{r_{1}}\cdots p_{t}^{r_{t}}\underset{k\in Q_{p_{i}}(n),1\leq
i\leq t}{\Pi }\overline{a}_{n,k}\underset{k\in Q_{0}(n)}{\Pi }a_{n,k}$.
\end{quote}
\noindent Since the factor $p_{1}^{r_{1}}\cdots p_{t}^{r_{t}}$ on the right
hand side coincides with the prime factorization of $n$, the equality above
forces out the relations $\overline{a}_{n,k}=1$ for $k\in Q_{p_{i}}(n)$, and
$a_{n,k}=1$ for $k\in Q_{0}(n)$. This completes the proof of Theorem 1.1.
\square $
\bigskip
We conclude this paper with an application of Theorem 1.1. For a compact Lie
group $G$ with a maximal torus $T$ let $\pi ^{\ast }:H^{\ast
}(G/T)\rightarrow H^{\ast }(G)$ be the induced map of the fibration $\pi
:G\rightarrow G/T$. By Grothendieck \cite{G} the subring $\func{Im}\pi
^{\ast }$ $\subset H^{\ast }(G)$ is the \textsl{Chow ring} $A^{\ast }(G^{c})$
of the reductive algebraic group $G^{c}$ corresponding to $G$. From the
proof of Lemma 2.1 we find that
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(3.5)] $A^{\ast }(PSU(n)^{c})=J_{n}(\omega )$ (see (2.1)).
\end{enumerate}
\noindent On the other hand, in view of the obvious decomposition
b_{n,k}=a_{n,k+1}$ $\cdots a_{n,n}$ and by Theorem 1.1, the number $b_{n,k}$
admits the prime factorization
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(3.6)] $b_{n,k}=\underset{1\leq i\leq t}{\Pi }p_{i}^{r_{i}-l(i,k)}$
\textsl{\ }
\end{enumerate}
\noindent where $l(i,k)=r_{i}$ if $k\geq p_{i}^{r_{i}}$, and satisfies the
relation
\begin{quote}
$p_{i}^{l(i,k)}\leq k<p_{i}^{l(i,k)+1}$\
\end{quote}
\noindent if $k<p_{i}^{r_{i}}$. Combining (3.5) with (3.6) yields the
following canonical decomposition of the ring $A^{\ast }(PSU(n)^{c})$ into
its primary torsion ideals
\bigskip
\noindent \textbf{Corollary 3.4.} \textsl{If }$n>2$ \textsl{has} \textsl{the
prime factorization }$p_{1}^{r_{1}}\cdots p_{t}^{r_{t}}$\textsl{, then }
\begin{center}
$A^{\ast }(PSU(n)^{c})=\mathbb{Z}\underset{i\in \{1,\cdots ,t\}}{\mathbb
\oplus }}$ $\mathbb{Z}[\omega ]^{+}/\left\langle p_{i}^{r_{i}}\omega
,p_{i}^{r_{i}-1}\omega ^{p_{i}},p_{i}^{r_{i}-2}\omega ^{p_{i}^{2}},\cdots
,\omega ^{p_{i}^{r_{i}}}\right\rangle $.$\square $
\end{center}
|
\section{Introduction}
\IEEEPARstart {W}{ireless} sensor networks (WSNs) were initially motivated by the military for battlefield surveillance [1], and now are further developed for various industrial applications such as the assembly line monitoring and manufacturing automation for the sake of improving the factory efficiency, reliability, and productivity [2], [3], which are referred to as the industrial WSNs [4]-[6]. In industrial applications, the real-time communications among the spatially distributed sensors should satisfy strict security and reliability requirements [7]. The failure of ensuring the security and reliability of the sensed information transmissions may cause an outage of the production line, a damage of the factory machine, or even the loss of workers' lives. Moreover, in industrial environments, the machinery obstacles, metallic frictions, engine vibrations and equipment noise are hostile to the radio propagation and certainly adversely affect the performance of wireless transmissions.
In industrial WSNs, due to the broadcast nature of radio propagation, the wireless medium is open to be accessed by both authorized and unauthorized users, leading WSNs to be more vulnerable to the eavesdropping attack than wired sensor networks, where communicating nodes are physically connected with wire cables and a node without being connected is unable to access for illegal activities. To be specific, as long as an eavesdropper hides in the industrial WSNs, the legitimate wireless transmissions among the sensors can be readily overheard by the eavesdropper, which may decode its tapped transmissions and violate the confidentiality of the sensors' information communications [8]. Therefore, it is of importance to investigate the protection of industrial WSNs against the eavesdropping attack.
Traditionally, the cryptographic techniques were exploited to protect the wireless communications against eavesdropping, which typically rely on secret keys and can prevent an eavesdropper with limited computational capability from intercepting the data transmission between wireless sensors. However, an eavesdropper with unlimited computing power is still able to crack the encrypted data communications with the aid of exhaustive key search (known as the brute-force attack) [9], [10]. Moreover, the secret key distribution and agreement between the wireless sensors exhibit numerous vulnerabilities and further increase the security risk. To this end, physical-layer security is emerging as a promising paradigm for secure communications by exploiting the physical characteristics of wireless channels, which can effectively protect the confidentiality of communication against the eavesdropping attack, even with unlimited computational power [11].
The physical-layer security work was pioneered by Shannon in [12] and extended by Wyner in [13], where an information-theoretic framework was established by developing achievable secrecy rates for a classical wiretap channel model consisting of one source, one destination and an eavesdropper. In [14], the so-called \emph{secrecy capacity} was shown as the difference between the channel capacity of the main link from source to destination and that of the wiretap link from source to eavesdropper. If the secrecy capacity becomes non-positive (i.e., the channel capacity of the main link becomes less than that of the wiretap link), the eavesdropper will succeed in intercepting the source message and an intercept event is considered to occur in this case [15], [16]. This implies that increasing the secrecy capacity can effectively decrease the probability that the eavesdropper successfully intercepts the source message. However, the secrecy capacity of wireless transmission is severely limited due to the wireless fading effect. Moreover, the presence of machinery obstacles, metallic frictions and engine vibrations in industrial environments makes the wireless fading fluctuate drastically, resulting in a further degradation of the secrecy capacity.
To overcome this limitation, considerable research efforts have been devoted to improving the secrecy capacity of the wireless transmission through the artificial noise generation [17]-[19]. The artificial noise aided security approaches allow the legitimate transmitters to generate a specifically designed interfering signal (called artificial noise) such that only the eavesdropper is adversely affected by the artificial noise, while the intended receiver remains unaffected. This leads to a degradation of the wiretap link in terms of the channel capacity without affecting the channel capacity of the main link, resulting in an increased secrecy capacity. In [17] and [18], the authors considered the use of multiple antennas for generating the artificial noise and showed that the number of antennas at the legitimate transmitter should be more than that at the legitimate receiver for the sake of ensuring that the main link is unaffected by the artificial noise. Additionally, in [19], Goeckel investigated the employment of cooperative relays for the artificial noise generation and demonstrated a significant security improvement in terms of the secrecy capacity.
It is pointed out that although the artificial noise approaches in [17]-[19] can effectively enhance the wireless secrecy capacity, additional power resources are consumed for generating the artificial noise to confuse the eavesdropper. To this end, Zou \emph{et al.} proposed the multiuser scheduling scheme in [20] for improving the wireless physical-layer security without any additional power cost and showed the security improvement of cognitive radio networks in terms of the secrecy capacity and intercept probability. In this paper, we examine the sensor scheduling in an industrial WSN consisting of a sink node and multiple sensors in the presence of an eavesdropper, differing from the multiuser scheduling for cognitive radio networks as studied [20]. More specifically, in industrial WSNs, the wireless channel is complicated due to the machinery obstacles, metallic frictions and engine vibrations. This motivates us to consider the use of a complex fading model (i.e., Nakagami model) for characterizing the industrial wireless channel, instead of a simpler Rayleigh fading model used in [20].
{{The sensor scheduling to be studied in this paper exhibits some advantages over the conventional relay selection [15], [16] and the artificial noise methods [17]-[19] in terms of reducing the system implementation complexity and saving the power resource. Specifically, in [15] and [16], additional network nodes were introduced and employed for relaying the transmissions between the source and destination, which are refereed to as relay nodes. Given multiple relay nodes available, the authors of [15] and [16] investigated the relay selection for wireless security enhancement, where the relay node that can achieve the highest secrecy against eavesdropping is chosen as the ``best" relay to assist the source-destination transmissions. Although the relay selection studied in [15] and [16] improves the wireless physical-layer security, it relies on additional relay nodes and requires complex synchronization among spatially distributed relays, resulting in extra system complexity. In addition, the artificial noise methods were devised in [17]-[19] to improve wireless security by generating a sophisticatedly-designed artificial noise for confusing the eavesdropper only without affecting the legitimate destination. This, however, costs additional energy resources for the artificial noise generation, compared to the sensor scheduling, where a sensor with the highest secrecy against eavesdropping is scheduled for data transmission without consuming any additional energy resources. Since wireless sensors are usually powered with limited batteries, the energy becomes one of the most precious resources in industrial WSNs, which makes the sensor scheduling more attractive than the conventional artificial noise methods from the energy saving perspective.}}
The main contributions of this paper are summarized as follows. First, an optimal sensor scheduling scheme is proposed for protecting the industrial wireless transmission {{against}} the eavesdropping attack, where a sensor with the highest secrecy capacity is selected to transmit its sensed information to the sink. The conventional round-robin scheduling is also considered as a benchmark. Second, closed-form expressions of the intercept probability for the conventional round-robin scheduling and the proposed optimal sensor scheduling schemes are derived in Nakagami fading environments. Third, an asymptotic intercept probability analysis is conducted and the diversity order of the proposed scheduling scheme is shown as the sum of Nakagami shaping factors of the main links from the sensors to the sink. Finally, numerical results show the advantage of the proposed sensor scheduling scheme over the conventional round-robin scheduling in terms of the intercept probability.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section II presents the system model of an industrial WSN in the presence of eavesdropping attack and describes the conventional round-robin scheduling as well as the proposed optimal sensor scheduling schemes. Next, in Section III, the closed-form intercept probability expressions of the conventional round-robin scheduling and proposed optimal scheduling schemes are derived in Nakagami fading environments. In Section IV, we present the asymptotic intercept probability analysis, followed by Section V, where the numerical intercept probability comparison between the conventional and proposed sensor scheduling schemes are presented. Finally, Section VI provides some concluding remarks.
\section{Sensor Scheduling in Industrial WSNs}
\subsection{System Model}
\begin{figure}
\centering
{\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{Fig1.eps}\\
\caption{An industrial WSN consisting of a sink and $N$ sensors in the presence of an eavesdropper (\emph{e}).}\label{Fig1}}
\end{figure}
As shown in Fig. 1, we consider an industrial WSN consisting of a sink node and $N$ sensors in the presence of an eavesdropper, where all nodes are assumed with single antenna and the solid and dash lines represent the main link and wiretap link, respectively. Notice that the eavesdropper of Fig. 1 could be either an illegitimate user or a legitimate user who is interested in tapping other users' data information. For notational convenience, $N$ sensors are denoted by ${\cal{S}}=\{s_i|i=1,2,\cdots,N\}$. As illustrated in Fig. 1, the presence of machinery obstacles, metallic frictions and engine vibrations in industrial environments is hostile to the radio propagation, which makes the wireless fading fluctuate drastically. We thus consider the use of Nakagami fading model for characterizing both the main channel and wiretap channel. It is pointed out that the Nakagami model is more complex than other fading models (e.g., Rayleigh fading, etc.), which is widely used in literature [21], [22].
In the industrial WSN of Fig. 1, $N$ sensors communicate with the sink using an orthogonal multiple access method such as the time division multiple access (TDMA) and orthogonal frequency division multiple access (OFDMA). When a sensor (e.g., $s_i$) is scheduled to transmit its data to the sink over a channel (e.g., a time slot in TDMA or an OFDM subcarrier in OFDMA), the eavesdropper attempts to intercept the information transmitted from $s_i$. Traditionally, given an orthogonal channel, a node with the highest data throughput is typically selected among $N$ sensors to access the given channel and to communicate with the sink, which aims at maximizing the transmission capacity without considering the eavesdropping attack. By contrast, this paper is focused on improving the wireless physical-layer security with the aid of sensor scheduling. In order to effectively defend against the eavesdropping attack, the sensor scheduling should take into account the channel state information (CSI) of both the main channel and wiretap channel, differing from the traditional scheduling method, where only the CSI of main channel is considered for the throughput maximization. In this paper, we assume that the CSIs of both the main channel and wiretap channel are available, which is an assumption commonly used in the physical-layer security literature (e.g., [14]-[20]).
\subsection{Conventional Round-Robin Scheduling}
For comparison purposes, let us first examine the conventional round-robin scheduling as a benchmark, where $N$ sensors take turns in accessing a given channel and thus each sensor has an equal chance to transmit its sensed data to the sink. Without any loss of generality, we consider that $s_i$ is scheduled to transmit its signal $x_i$ ($E(|{x_i}{|^2}) = 1$) with power $P_i$ and rate $R_i$, where $R_i$ is specified to the maximum achievable rate (also known as the channel capacity) from $s_i$ to the sink, which guarantees that the ergodic capacity is achieved by the legitimate transmission.
{{It needs to be pointed out that the sensed information $x_i$ could be different types of data for different sensors. For example, the $N$ sensors of Fig. 1 may be used to detect and monitor different aspects of an industrial plant environment, including the machine motion, temperature, moisture, pressure, and so on. The sensor data may also be obtained by exploiting the collaboration between multiple sensors for distributed state estimation [23]-[25]. Although the sensors may generate different types of data, their data streams are assumed with the same priority in accessing the wireless channel for transmission in this paper. However, in practice, different data types may have different quality of service (QoS) requirements. For example, some sensors may have time-critical data with a strict real-time requirement, which should be assigned with a higher priority in accessing the wireless channel than the others. It is of interest to consider different QoS requirements for different sensor data, which is out of the scope of this paper and regarded as future work.}}
Thus, we can express the received signal at sink as
\begin{equation}\label{equa1}
{y_s} = \sqrt {P_i} {h_{is}}{x_i} + {n_s},
\end{equation}
where ${h_{is}}$ is a fading coefficient of the main channel from $s_i$ to the sink and $n_s$ represents the zero-mean additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) with variance $N_0$. Using the Shannon capacity formula [12] and (1), we can obtain the channel capacity of main link from $s_i$ to sink as
\begin{equation}\label{equa2}
{C_s}(i) = {\log _2}\left(1 + \frac{{|{h_{is}}{|^2}P_i}}{{{N_0}}}\right),
\end{equation}
where $i \in {\cal{S}}$. Meanwhile, due to the open nature of wireless medium, the eavesdropper can overhear the signal transmitted from $s_i$ and attempts to decode $x_i$ from its overheard signal. Following the physical-layer security literature [11]-[20], the eavesdropper is assumed to have the perfect knowledge of legitimate transmissions from $s_i$ to sink, including the coding and modulation scheme, encryption algorithm and secret key, except that the source signal $x_i$ is confidential. Hence, the signal overheard at eavesdropper $e$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{equa3}
{y_{e}} = \sqrt {P_i} {h_{ie}}{x_i} + {n_{e}},
\end{equation}
where ${h_{ie}}$ is a fading coefficient of the wiretap channel from $s_i$ to the eavesdropper and $n_{e}$ represents the zero-mean AWGN with variance $N_0$. Using (3), we can similarly obtain the channel capacity of wiretap link from $s_i$ to eavesdropper $e$ as
\begin{equation}\label{equa4}
{C_{e}}(i) = {\log _2}\left(1 + \frac{{|{h_{ie}}{|^2}P_i}}{{{N_{0}}}}\right).
\end{equation}
As discussed in [13] and [14], the secrecy capacity is shown as the difference between the channel capacity of main link and that of wiretap link. Therefore, in the presence of eavesdropping attack, the secrecy capacity of wireless transmission from $s_i$ to sink can be obtained as
\begin{equation}\label{equa5}
{C_{\textrm{secrecy}}}(i) = {C_s}(i) - {C_{{e}}}(i),
\end{equation}
where ${C_s}(i)$ and ${C_{{e}}}(i)$ are given by (2) and (4), respectively.
\subsection{Proposed Optimal Sensor Scheduling}
This subsection presents an optimal sensor scheduling scheme to maximize the secrecy capacity of the legitimate transmission. Naturally, a sensor with the highest secrecy capacity should be chosen and scheduled to transmit its data to the sink. Hence, from (5), the optimal sensor scheduling criterion is given by
\begin{equation}\label{equa6}
\begin{split}
{\textrm{Optimal User}} &= \arg \mathop {\max }\limits_{i \in {\cal{S}}} {C_{\textrm{secrecy}}}(i) \\
&= \arg \mathop {\max }\limits_{i \in {\cal{S}}} \dfrac{{1 + \frac{{|{h_{is}}{|^2}P_i}}{{{N_0}}}}}{{1 + \frac{{|{h_{ie}}{|^2}P_i}}{{{N_0}}}}},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\cal{S}$ represents the set of $N$ sensors. {{It is observed from (6) that the channel state information (CSI) (i.e., $|h_{is}|^2$ and $|h_{ie}|^2$) of each sensor is required for determining the optimal sensor, which can be obtained by using classic channel estimation methods [26]-[28]. More specifically, each sensor may first estimate its own CSI through channel estimation and then transmits the estimated CSI to the sink. After collecting all the sensors' CSI, the sink can readily determine the optimal sensor and notify the whole network.}} Thus, in the presence of an eavesdropper, the secrecy capacity of legitimate transmissions relying on the proposed sensor scheduling scheme can be obtained from (6) as
\begin{equation}\label{equa7}
{C^{\textrm{proposed}}_{\textrm{secrecy}}}=\mathop {\max }\limits_{i \in {\cal{S}}} {\log _2}\left( {\dfrac{{1 + \frac{{|{h_{is}}{|^2}P_i}}{{{N_0}}}}}{{1 + \frac{{|{h_{ie}}{|^2}P_i}}{{{N_0}}}}}} \right).
\end{equation}
It is pointed out that the wireless link between any two nodes of Fig. 1 is modeled as the Nakagami fading channel. Thus, $|h_{is}|$ and $|h_{ie}|$ are Nakagami distributed random variables with respective shape factors $m_i$ and $k_i$, which, in turn, leads to the fact that $|h_{is}|^2$ and $|h_{ie}|^2$ are Gamma distributed, i.e., $|{h_{is}}{|^2} \sim \Gamma ({m_i},\frac{{\sigma _{is}^2}}{{{m_i}}})$ and $|{h_{ie}}{|^2} \sim \Gamma ({k_i},\frac{{\sigma _{ie}^2}}{{{k_i}}})$, where $\sigma _{is}^2$ and $\sigma _{ie}^2$ are expected values of $|{h_{is}}{|^2}$ and $|{h_{ie}}{|^2}$, respectively. Denoting ${X_{is}} = |{h_{is}}{|^2}$ and ${X_{ie}} = |{h_{ie}}{|^2}$, we can obtain the probability density functions (PDFs) of ${X_{is}}$ and ${X_{ie}}$ as
\begin{equation}\label{equa8}
\begin{split}
&{f_{{X_{is}}}}({x_{is}}) = \frac{1}{{\Gamma ({m_i})}}{(\frac{{{m_i}}}{{\sigma _{is}^2}})^{{m_i}}}x_{is}^{{m_i} - 1}\exp ( - \frac{{{m_i}{x_{is}}}}{{\sigma _{is}^2}})\\
&{f_{{X_{ie}}}}({x_{ie}}) = \frac{1}{{\Gamma ({k_i})}}{(\frac{{{k_i}}}{{\sigma _{ie}^2}})^{{k_i}}}x_{ie}^{{k_i} - 1}\exp ( - \frac{{{k_i}{x_{ie}}}}{{\sigma _{ie}^2}}),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\Gamma ( \cdot )$ denotes Gamma function.
\section{Exact Intercept Probability Analysis over Nakagami Fading Channels}
In this section, we analyze the intercept probability of the conventional round-robin scheduling and the proposed optimal sensor scheduling schemes over Nakagami fading channels.
\subsection{Round-Robin Scheduling}
As shown in [15]-[17], when the secrecy capacity becomes non-positive (i.e., the channel capacity of the main link becomes less than that of the wiretap link), the eavesdropper will succeed in decoding and intercepting the source message and an intercept event is considered to occur in this case.
Hence, given that ${s}_i$ is scheduled to transmit to the sink, the intercept probability of ${{s}}_i$-to-sink transmission is obtained from (5) as
\begin{equation}\label{equa9}
P_{{\mathop{\textrm{int}}} }^i = \Pr \left[ {C_{{\textrm{secrecy}}} (i) < 0} \right] = \Pr \left[ {C_s (i) < C_e (i)} \right].
\end{equation}
Substituting (2) and (4) into (9) yields
\begin{equation}\label{equa10}
P_{{\mathop{\textrm {int}}} }^i = \Pr \left( {|h_{is} |^2 < |h_{ie} |^2 } \right),
\end{equation}
where $|h_{is} |^2$ and $|h_{ie} |^2$ are Gamma distributed random variables with respective PDFs shown in (8). Noting that $|h_{is} |^2$ and $|h_{ie} |^2$ are independent of each other and denoting ${X_{is}} = |{h_{is}}{|^2}$ and ${X_{ie}} = |{h_{ie}}{|^2}$, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{equa11}
\begin{split}
P_{{\mathop{\textrm {int}}} }^i&=\Pr \left( {{X_{is}} < {X_{ie}}} \right)\\
&= \iint\limits_{{{x_{is}} < {x_{ie}}}} {{{f_{{X_{ie}}}}({x_{ie}}){f_{{X_{is}}}}({x_{is}})d{x_{ie}}d{x_{is}}}} \\
&= \int_0^\infty {\Gamma ({m_i},\frac{{{m_i}}}{{\sigma _{is}^2}}{x_{ie}}){f_{{X_{ie}}}}({x_{ie}})d{x_{ie}}} ,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where ${f_{{X_{ie}}}}({x_{ie}})$ is given by (8) and $\Gamma ({m_i},\frac{{{m_i}}}{{\sigma _{is}^2}}{x_{ie}})$ denotes the lower incomplete gamma function as given by
\begin{equation}\nonumber
\Gamma ({m_i},\frac{{{m_i}}}{{\sigma _{is}^2}}{x_{ie}}) = \int_0^{\frac{{{m_i}}}{{\sigma _{is}^2}}{x_{ie}}} {\frac{1}{{\Gamma ({m_i})}}{x^{{m_i} - 1}}\exp ( - x)dx}.
\end{equation}
One can observe from (11) that the intercept probability of the ${{s}}_i$-to-sink transmission is independent of the transmit power $P_i$ and noise variance $N_0$, which implies that increasing the transmit power cannot improve the wireless physical-layer security. This also motivates us to explore new approaches (e.g., sensor scheduling) for improving the wireless security against the eavesdropping attack. In the round-robin scheduling scheme, $N$ sensors take turns in transmitting to the sink and thus the intercept probability of the round-robin scheduling is the mean of $N$ sensors' intercept probabilities, yielding
\begin{equation}\label{equa12}
P_{\textrm{int}}^{\textrm{round}} = \frac{1}{N}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^N {P_{{\mathop{\textrm {int}}} }^i},
\end{equation}
where $N$ is the number of sensors and $P_{{\mathop{\textrm {int}}} }^i$ is given by (11). It is noted that numerical intercept probability results of the round-robin scheduling scheme can be readily determined by using (12).
\subsection{Optimal Sensor Scheduling}
This subsection derives an exact intercept probability of the proposed optimal sensor scheduling scheme over Nakagami fading channels. As aforementioned, an intercept event occurs when the secrecy capacity becomes non-positive. Hence, using (7), we obtain the intercept probability of proposed sensor scheduling scheme as
\begin{equation}\label{equa13}
\begin{split}
{P^{\textrm{proposed}}_{{\mathop{\textrm {int}}} }} &= \Pr \left( {{C^{\textrm{proposed}}_{\textrm{secrecy}}} < 0} \right) \\
&= \Pr \left[ {\mathop {\max }\limits_{i \in {\cal{S}}} {{\log }_2}\left( {\frac{{1 + \frac{{|{h_{is}}{|^2}P_i}}{{{N_0}}}}}{{1 + \frac{{|{h_{ie}}{|^2}P_i}}{{{N_0}}}}}} \right) < 0} \right]\\
&=\Pr \left[ {\mathop {\max }\limits_{i \in {\cal S}} \left( {\frac{{N_0 + |h_{is} |^2 P_i }}{{N_0 + |h_{ie} |^2 P_i }}} \right) < 1} \right],
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\cal S$ denotes the set of $N$ sensors. Noting that for different sensors $i \in {\cal S}$, random variables $|h_{is} |^2$ and $|h_{ie}|^2$ are independent of each other, we can simplify (13) as given by
\begin{equation}\label{equa14}
\begin{split}
{P^{\textrm{proposed}}_{{\mathop{\textrm {int}}} }}
&= \prod\limits_{i = 1}^N {\Pr \left( {\frac{{N_0 + |h_{is} |^2 P_i }}{{N_0 + |h_{ie} |^2 P_i }} < 1} \right)}\\
&= \prod\limits_{i = 1}^N {\Pr \left( {|{h_{is}}{|^2} < |{h_{ie}}{|^2}} \right)}\\
&=\prod\limits_{i = 1}^N {P_{{\mathop{\textrm {int}}} }^i},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $P_{{\mathop{\textrm {int}}} }^i$ is given by (11). So far, we have derived the closed-form intercept probability expressions of both the conventional round-robin scheduling and the proposed optimal scheduling schemes in Nakagami fading environments. It is worth mentioning that although the intercept probability expressions given by (12) and (14) can be used to conduct numerical performance evaluation, it fails to provide an insight into the impact of the number of sensors on the intercept probability. Therefore, the following section presents an asymptotic intercept probability analysis to characterize the diversity order performance.
\section{Asymptotic Intercept Probability Analysis of Sensor Scheduling}
In this section, we analyze the asymptotic intercept probability of both the conventional round-robin and proposed optimal scheduling schemes.
\subsection{Conventional Round-Robin Scheduling}
Let us first consider the conventional round-robin scheduling as baseline. For notational convenience, the average channel gains of the main link and wiretap link (i.e., $\sigma_{is}^2$ and $\sigma_{ie}^2$) are represented by $\sigma_{is}^2=\alpha_{is}\sigma^2_{m}$ and $\sigma_{ie}^2=\alpha_{ie}\sigma^2_{e}$, where $\sigma^2_{m}$ and $\sigma^2_{e}$ are called the reference channel gains of the main link and the wiretap link, respectively. Moreover, let $\lambda_{me}$ represent the ratio of $\sigma^2_{m}$ to $\sigma^2_{e}$, i.e., $\lambda_{me}=\sigma^2_{m}/\sigma^2_{e}$, which is referred to as the main-to-eavesdropper ratio (MER) throughout this paper. We will examine the asymptotic intercept probability as MER $ \lambda_{me} \to \infty$. Following [15], the diversity gain of the conventional round-robin scheduling scheme is expressed as
\begin{equation}\label{equa15}
{d_{{\textrm{round}}}} = -\mathop {\lim }\limits_{{\lambda_{me}} \to \infty } \dfrac{{\log (P^{\textrm{round}}_{{\textrm{int}}})}}{{\log({\lambda _{me}})}},
\end{equation}
where $P^{\textrm{round}}_{{\textrm{int}}}$ is given by (12). We first rewrite $P_{{\mathop{\textrm {int}}} }^i$ from (11) as
\begin{equation}\label{equa16}
\begin{split}
P_{{\mathop{\textrm {int}}} }^i &= \Pr \left( {{X_{is}} < {X_{ie}}} \right) \\
&= \Pr \left( {\frac{{{X_{is}}}}{{\sigma _e^2}} < \frac{{{X_{ie}}}}{{\sigma _e^2}}} \right),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\sigma^2_{e} > 0$ is the reference channel gain of the wiretap link. Denoting ${Y_{is}} = \frac{{{X_{is}}}}{{\sigma _e^2}}$, ${Y_{ie}} = \frac{{{X_{ie}}}}{{\sigma _e^2}}$, ${\alpha _{is}} = \frac{{\sigma _{is}^2}}{{\sigma _m^2}}$ and ${\alpha _{ie}} = \frac{{\sigma _{ie}^2}}{{\sigma _e^2}}$, we readily obtain the PDFs of ${Y_{is}} $ and ${Y_{ie}} $ from (8) as
\begin{equation}\label{equa17}
\begin{split}
&{f_{{Y_{is}}}}({y_{is}}) = \frac{1}{{\Gamma ({m_i})}}{(\frac{{{m_i}}}{{{\alpha _{is}}{\lambda _{me}}}})^{{m_i}}}y_{is}^{{m_i} - 1}\exp ( - \frac{{{m_i}{y_{is}}}}{{{\alpha _{is}}{\lambda _{me}}}})\\
&{f_{{Y_{ie}}}}({y_{ie}}) = \frac{1}{{\Gamma ({k_i})}}{(\frac{{{k_i}}}{{{\alpha _{ie}}}})^{{k_i}}}y_{ie}^{{k_i} - 1}\exp ( - \frac{{{k_i}{y_{ie}}}}{{{\alpha _{ie}}}}).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Using the PDFs of ${Y_{is}} $ and ${Y_{ie}} $ given by (17) and letting $\lambda_{me} \to \infty$, we obtain (18) at the top of the following page, where $\exp ( - \frac{{{m_i}{y_{is}}}}{{{\alpha _{is}}{\lambda _{me}}}}) = 1$ for $\lambda_{me} \to \infty$ is used.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{equation}\label{equa18}
\begin{split}
P_{{\mathop{\textrm {int}}} }^i&= \int_0^\infty {\frac{1}{{\Gamma ({k_i})}}{(\frac{{{k_i}}}{{{\alpha _{ie}}}})^{{k_i}}}y_{ie}^{{k_i} - 1}\exp ( - \frac{{{k_i}{y_{ie}}}}{{{\alpha _{ie}}}})d{y_{ie}}\int_0^{{y_{ie}}} {\frac{1}{{\Gamma ({m_i})}}{(\frac{{{m_i}}}{{{\alpha _{is}}{\lambda _{me}}}})^{{m_i}}}y_{is}^{{m_i} - 1}\exp ( - \frac{{{m_i}{y_{is}}}}{{{\alpha _{is}}{\lambda _{me}}}})d{y_{is}}} } \\
&= \int_0^\infty {\frac{1}{{\Gamma ({k_i})}}{(\frac{{{k_i}}}{{{\alpha _{ie}}}})^{{k_i}}}y_{ie}^{{k_i} - 1}\exp ( - \frac{{{k_i}{y_{ie}}}}{{{\alpha _{ie}}}})d{y_{ie}}\int_0^{{y_{ie}}} {\frac{1}{{\Gamma ({m_i})}}{(\frac{{{m_i}}}{{{\alpha _{is}}{\lambda _{me}}}})^{{m_i}}}y_{is}^{{m_i} - 1}d{y_{is}}} } \\
&= \int_0^\infty {\frac{1}{{{m_i}\Gamma ({k_i})\Gamma ({m_i})}}{(\frac{{{k_i}}}{{{\alpha _{ie}}}})^{{k_i}}}{(\frac{{{m_i}}}{{{\alpha _{is}}{\lambda _{me}}}})^{{m_i}}}y_{ie}^{{m_i} + {k_i} - 1}\exp ( - \frac{{{k_i}{y_{ie}}}}{{{\alpha _{ie}}}})d{y_{ie}}}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{figure*}
Using (18) and letting $\lambda_{me} \to \infty$, we can further rewrite $P_{{\mathop{\textrm {int}}} }^i $ as
\begin{equation}\label{equa19}
P_{{\mathop{\textrm {int}}} }^i = \frac{{\zeta ({m_i},{k_i},{\alpha _{ie}})}}{{{m_i}\Gamma ({m_i})}}{\left( {\frac{{{m_i}}}{{{\alpha _{is}}}}} \right)^{{m_i}}} \cdot {\left( {\frac{1}{{{\lambda _{me}}}}} \right)^{{m_i}}},
\end{equation}
where $\zeta ({m_i},{k_i},{\alpha _{ie}})$ is given by
\begin{equation}\nonumber
\begin{split}
\zeta ({m_i},{k_i},{\alpha _{ie}}) = &\int_0^\infty {\frac{1}{{\Gamma ({k_i})}}{{(\frac{{{k_i}}}{{{\alpha _{ie}}}})}^{{k_i}}}y_{ie}^{{m_i} + {k_i} - 1}}\\
&\quad\quad\times \exp ( - \frac{{{k_i}{y_{ie}}}}{{{\alpha _{ie}}}})d{y_{ie}}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Combining (12) and (19) yields
\begin{equation}\label{equa20}
\begin{split}
P_{{\mathop{\textrm{int}}} }^{\textrm{round}} = &\frac{1}{N}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^N {\frac{{\zeta (m_i ,k_i ,\alpha _{ie} )}}{{m_i \Gamma (m_i )}}\left( {\frac{{m_i }}{{\alpha _{is} }}} \right)^{m_i }}\\
&\quad\quad\quad\times\left( {\frac{1}{{\lambda _{me} }}} \right)^{m_i - \mathop {\min }\limits_{i \in {\cal S}} m_i } \\
&\quad \cdot \left( {\frac{1}{{\lambda _{me} }}} \right)^{\mathop {\min }\limits_{i \in {\cal S}} m_i }.\\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Substituting (20) into (15) gives
\begin{equation}\label{equa21}
d_{{\textrm{round}}} = \mathop {\min }\limits_{i \in {\cal S}} m_i,
\end{equation}
which shows that the intercept probability of the conventional round-robin scheduling decreases exponentially with $\mathop {\min }\limits_{i \in {\cal S}} m_i$ as ${{\lambda _{me}}} \to \infty$, where $m_i$ is the Nakagami shaping factor of the channel from sensor $s_i$ to sink. In other words, the diversity gain of the round-robin scheduling with $N$ sensors is determined by the sensor with the smallest Nakagami shaping factor. This also means that upon increasing the number of sensors, the wireless security of the conventional round-robin scheduling scheme would not improve, and even degrades.
\subsection{Proposed Optimal Sensor Scheduling}
In this subsection, we analyze the diversity gain of proposed optimal sensor scheduling through an asymptotic intercept probability analysis for $ \lambda_{me} \to \infty$. Similarly to (15), the diversity gain of proposed sensor scheduling scheme is given by
\begin{equation}\label{equa22}
{d_{{\textrm{proposed}}}} = -\mathop {\lim }\limits_{{\lambda_{me}} \to \infty } \dfrac{{\log (P^{\textrm{proposed}}_{{\textrm{int}}})}}{{\log({\lambda _{me}})}},
\end{equation}
where $P^{\textrm{round}}_{{\textrm{int}}}$ is given by (14). Substituting (19) into (14), we have
\begin{equation}\label{equa23}
\begin{split}
{P^{\textrm{proposed}}_{{\mathop{\textrm{int}}} }} =& \prod\limits_{i = 1}^N {\left[ {\frac{{\zeta ({m_i},{k_i},{\alpha _{ie}})}}{{{m_i}\Gamma ({m_i})}}{{\left( {\frac{{{m_i}}}{{{\alpha _{is}}}}} \right)}^{{m_i}}}} \right]}\\
&\cdot {\left( {\frac{1}{{{\lambda _{me}}}}} \right)^{\sum\limits_{i = 1}^N {{m_i}} }},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
for $ \lambda_{me} \to \infty$. Substituting $P^{\textrm{round}}_{{\textrm{int}}}$ from (23) into (22) gives
\begin{equation}\label{equa24}
{d_{{\textrm{proposed}}}} = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^N {{m_i}},
\end{equation}
which shows that for ${{\lambda _{me}}} \to \infty$, the intercept probability of proposed optimal sensor scheduling scheme decreases exponentially with $\sum\nolimits_{i = 1}^N {{m_i}} $, i.e., the diversity order of $\sum\nolimits_{i = 1}^N {{m_i}} $ is achieved by the proposed scheduling scheme. One can also observe from (24) that the diversity order of proposed sensor scheduling scheme is the sum of Nakagami shaping factors $m_i$ of the main links from $N$ sensors to sink. Thus, as the number of sensors $N$ increases, the diversity order of proposed sensor scheduling scheme increases accordingly. In other words, increasing the number of sensors can significantly decrease the intercept probability of the proposed scheduling scheme. By contrast, the number of sensors even has a negative impact on the security performance of the conventional round-robin scheduling, as implied from (21). This further confirms the advantage of the proposed optimal scheduling over the round-robin scheduling.
\section{Numerical Results and Discussions}
In this section, we present numerical results on the intercept probability of the conventional round-robin scheduling and the proposed optimal sensor scheduling schemes. To be specific, the numerical intercept probability results of the two scheduling schemes are obtained through using (12) and (14). The wireless link between any two network nodes in Fig. 1 is modeled by the Nakagami fading channel, where the Nakagami shaping factors of both the main link and wiretap link are specified to $m_i=k_i=1.5$, unless otherwise stated. Additionally, the fading coefficients $|h_{is}|^2$ and $|h_{ie}|^2$ are assumed to be independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables, leading to $\alpha_{is}=\alpha_{ie}=1$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
{\includegraphics[scale=0.52]{Fig2.eps}\\
\caption{Intercept probability versus MER $\lambda_{me}$ of the conventional round-robin scheduling and the proposed optimal scheduling schemes for different number of sensors with $m_i=k_i=1.5$ and $\alpha_{is}=\alpha_{ie}=1$.}\label{Fig2}}
\end{figure}
Fig. 2 shows the intercept probability of the round-robin scheduling and the optimal scheduling schemes by plotting (12) and (14) as a function of MER for different number of sensors $N$. As shown in Fig. 2, as the number of sensors increases from $N=2$ to $N=4$, the intercept probability performance of the conventional round-robin scheduling remains the same, showing that no security benefit is achieved by the round-robin scheduling with an increasing number of sensors. By contrast, upon increasing the number of sensors from $N=2$ to $N=4$, the intercept probability of the proposed optimal scheduling scheme decreases significantly. In addition, Fig. 2 also shows that for both the cases of $N=2$ and $N=4$, the proposed optimal sensor scheduling scheme strictly outperforms the round-robin scheduling in terms of the intercept probability.
\begin{figure}
\centering
{\includegraphics[scale=0.52]{Fig3.eps}\\
\caption{Intercept probability versus MER $\lambda_{me}$ of the conventional round-robin scheduling and the proposed optimal scheduling schemes for different Nakagami shaping factors with $N=3$ and $\alpha_{is}=\alpha_{ie}=1$.}\label{Fig3}}
\end{figure}
In Fig. 3, we show the intercept probability versus MER $\lambda_{me}$ of the round-robin scheduling and the optimal scheduling schemes for different Nakagami shaping factors. One can see from Fig. 3 that as the Nakagami shaping factors increase from $m_i=k_i=1$ to $m_i=k_i=2$, the intercept probabilities of both the round-robin scheduling and the optimal scheduling schemes decrease significantly. Fig. 3 also shows that for both $m_i=k_i=1$ and $m_i=k_i=2$, the intercept probability performance of the proposed optimal scheduling is better than that of the round-robin scheduling.
\begin{figure}
\centering
{\includegraphics[scale=0.52]{Fig4.eps}\\
\caption{Intercept probability versus the number of sensors $N$ of the conventional round-robin scheduling and the proposed optimal scheduling schemes for different MER values with $m_i=k_i=1.5$ and $\alpha_{is}=\alpha_{ie}=1$.}\label{Fig3}}
\end{figure}
Fig. 4 illustrates the intercept probability versus the number of sensors of the conventional round-robin scheduling and the proposed optimal scheduling schemes for different MER values. It can be observed from Fig. 4 that for both the cases of $\lambda_{me}=3$ and $\lambda_{me}=5$, the intercept probability of the conventional round-robin scheduling keeps unchanged, as the number of sensors increases. By contrast, with an increasing number of sensors, the intercept probability performance of the optimal scheduling scheme is significantly improved, showing the security advantage of the proposed scheduling approach over the conventional round-robin scheduling.
\begin{figure}
\centering
{\includegraphics[scale=0.52]{Fig5.eps}\\
\caption{Comparison between the exact and asymptotic intercept probabilities of the round-robin scheduling and the proposed optimal scheduling schemes for different number of sensors with $m_i=k_i=1.5$ and $\alpha_{is}=\alpha_{ie}=1$.}\label{Fig3}}
\end{figure}
Fig. 5 shows the comparison between the exact and asymptotic intercept probabilities of the round-robin scheduling and the proposed optimal scheduling schemes for different number of sensors $N$. One can see from Fig. 5 that the intercept probability of the round-robin scheduling corresponding to $N=2$ is the same as that corresponding to $N=4$, further showing that no security benefit is achieved by the round-robin scheduling as the number of sensors increases. It is also observed from Fig. 5 that for both the round-robin scheduling and proposed optimal scheduling schemes, the exact and asymptotic intercept probability results match well with each other in high MER region, implying the tightness of asymptotic intercept probability analysis for $\lambda_{me} \to \infty$. As shown in Fig. 5, the slopes of intercept probability curves of proposed optimal scheduling become much steeper, as the number of sensors $N$ increases from $N=2$ to $N=4$. This means that with an increasing number of sensors, the intercept probability of proposed optimal scheduling scheme decreases at much faster speed as $\lambda_{me} \to \infty$, confirming the advantage of exploiting the optimal sensor scheduling for defending against the eavesdropping attack.
\section{Conclusion and Future Work}
In this paper, we investigated the use of sensor scheduling to improve the physical-layer security of industrial WSNs against the eavesdropping attack and proposed an optimal sensor scheduling scheme, aiming at maximizing the secrecy capacity of wireless transmissions from sensors to the sink. We also considered the conventional round-robin scheduling as a benchmark. We derived exact closed-form expressions of the intercept probability for both the conventional round-robin scheduling and the proposed optimal scheduling schemes in Nakagami fading environments. An asymptotic intercept probability analysis was also presented to characterize the diversity gains of the round-robin scheduling and the optimal sensor scheduling schemes. Numerical results demonstrated that the proposed optimal scheduling scheme performs better than the conventional round-robin scheduling in terms of the intercept probability. In addition, upon increasing the number of sensors, the intercept probability of the proposed optimal sensor scheduling scheme significantly decreases, showing the physical-layer security enhancement of industrial WSNs.
In the present paper, we only examined the single-antenna case, where each network node is equipped with the single antenna. It is of high interest to extend the results of this paper to a general scenario with multiple antennas for each network node. Also, we have not considered the QoS requirement in the sensor scheduling, where all the sensors are assumed with the same priority and scheduled for data transmissions solely based on their channel state information without considering specific QoS requirements for different sensor data. In practice, some sensors may have time-critical data with a strict real-time requirement, which should be assigned with a higher priority than the others in accessing the wireless channel. Hence, it is highly necessary to explore the QoS guaranteed sensor scheduling, attempting to improve the wireless security while guaranteeing each sensor's specific QoS requirement. Additionally, due to the channel estimation errors, it is impossible to obtain the perfect CSI knowledge for the sensor scheduling. It is of thus interest to investigate the impact of CSI estimation errors on the intercept performance of sensor scheduling. We leave these aforementioned challenging but interesting problems for future work.
|
\section{INTRODUCTION}
Coherent quantum feedback control \cite{L_2000,M_2008} is a relatively novel quantum control paradigm which is aimed at achieving given performance specifications for quantum systems, such as internal stability and optimization of a cost functional. Such systems arise naturally in quantum physics \cite{H_2001} and its engineering applications (for example, nanotechnology and quantum optics \cite{GZ_2004}). The dynamic variables of quantum systems are (usually noncommuting) operators on an underlying Hilbert space which evolve according to the laws of quantum mechanics \cite{M_1998}. The latter make the quantum dynamics particularly sensitive to interaction with classical devices in the course of quantum measurement, as reflected in the projection postulate of quantum mechanics. In order to overcome this issue, coherent quantum control employs the idea of direct interconnection of quantum systems to be controlled (quantum plants) with other quantum systems playing the role of controllers, possibly mediated by light fields. Unlike the traditional observation-actuation control loop, this fully quantum measurement-free feedback avoids the loss of quantum information as a result of its conversion to classical signals.
Quantum-optical components, such as optical cavities, beam splitters and phase shifters, make it possible to implement coherent quantum feedback governed by linear quantum stochastic differential equations (QSDEs) \cite{P_1992,P_2010}, provided the latter are physically realizable (PR) as open quantum harmonic oscillators \cite{EB_2005,GZ_2004}. The resulting PR conditions \cite{JNP_2008,SP_2009,SP_2012} are organized as quadratic constraints on the coefficients of the QSDEs. The PR constraints for the state-space matrices of a coherent quantum controller complicate the solution of quantum counterparts to the classical $\cH_{\infty}$ and Linear Quadratic Gaussian (LQG) control problems.
The Coherent Quantum LQG (CQLQG) control problem \cite{NJP_2009} seeks for a stabilizing PR quantum controller so as to minimize a mean square performance criterion for the fully quantum closed-loop system. A numerical procedure for finding \emph{suboptimal} controllers for this problem was proposed in \cite{NJP_2009}, and algebraic equations for the \textit{optimal} CQLQG controller were obtained in \cite{VP_2013a}. Despite the previous results, the CQLQG control problem does not lend itself to an ``elegant'' solution (for example, in the form of decoupled Riccati equations as in the classical case \cite{KS_1972}) and remains a subject of research. Since the main difficulties are caused by the coupling of the equations due to the PR constraints, a conversion of the CQLQG control problem to an \emph{unconstrained} problem by using Lagrange multipliers was considered in \cite{VP_2013b} for a related coherent quantum filtering problem which is a simplified feedback-free version of the CQLQG control problem.
In the present paper, we develop an algorithm for the numerical solution of the CQLQG control problem by using the gradient descent method and the Hamiltonian parameterization of PR quantum controllers \cite{VP_2013a}. The latter is a different technique to handle the PR constraints by reformulating the CQLQG control problem in an unconstrained fashion.
More precisely, the optimal solution is sought in the class of stabilizing PR controllers whose state-space matrices are parameterized in terms of the free Hamiltonian and coupling operators of an open quantum harmonic oscillator \cite{EB_2005}. We obtain ordinary differential equations (ODEs) for the gradient descent in the Hilbert space of matrix-valued parameters. For this purpose, Fr\'{e}chet differentiation is used together with related algebraic techniques \cite{BH_1998,M_1988,SIG_1998,VP_2010b,VP_2013a} to employ the analytic structure of the LQG cost as a composite function of the matrix-valued variables, involving Lyapunov equations.
The advantage of the proposed
approach is that, at intermediate steps, it produces stabilizing PR quantum controllers which can be used as gradually improving suboptimal solutions of the CQLQG control problem, and a locally optimal solution (if it exists) is achieved asymptotically by moving along negative gradient directions with a suitable choice of stepsizes. To this end, we provide an algorithm for adaptive selection of the stepsize for each iteration based on the second-order G\^{a}teaux derivative of the LQG cost along the gradient. However, the proposed gradient descent algorithm for the CQLQG control problem requires for its initialization a \emph{stabilizing} PR quantum controller. Finding such a controller for an arbitrary given quantum plant is a nontrivial open problem. Because of the lack of a systematic solution for this \emph{quantum stabilization problem} at the moment, the current version of the algorithm is initialized at a stabilizing PR quantum controller obtained by random search in the space defined by the Hamiltonian parameterization of PR controllers. Although a random search for an admissible starting point is acceptable for low-dimensional problems, the development of a more systematic solution for this issue is a subject of future research.
The paper is organised as follows. Section~\ref{sec:not} outlines the notation used in the paper. Sections~\ref{sec:plant} and \ref{sec:controller} specify the quantum plants and coherent quantum controllers being considered. Section \ref{sec:PR} revisits PR conditions for linear quantum systems. Section~\ref{sec:problem} formulates the CQLQG control problem. Section~\ref{sec:Grad_Dec} describes a gradient descent system for finding local minima in the control problem. Section~\ref{sec:Grad_Algo} describes an algorithmic implementation of the gradient descent method.
Section~\ref{subsec:con_analys} discusses convergence of the algorithm.
Section~\ref{sec:example} provides a numerical example of designing a locally optimal CQLQG controller. Section~\ref{sec:Conclusion} gives concluding remarks. Appendices~\ref{app:FreDeriv} and \ref{app:sec_Gateaux} provide a subsidiary material on the differentiation of the LQG cost.
\section{NOTATION}\label{sec:not}
Vectors are assumed to be organized as columns unless specified otherwise, and the transpose $(\cdot)^{\rT}$ acts on matrices with operator-valued entries as if the latter were scalars. For a vector $X$ of operators $X_1, \ldots, X_r$ and a vector $Y$ of operators $Y_1, \ldots, Y_s$, the commutator matrix
$
[X,Y^{\rT}]
:=
XY^{\rT} - (YX^{\rT})^{\rT}
$
is an $(r\times s)$-matrix whose $(j,k)$th entry is the commutator
$
[X_j,Y_k]
:=
X_jY_k - Y_kX_j
$ of the operators $X_j$ and $Y_k$.
Furthermore, $(\cdot)^{\dagger}:= ((\cdot)^{\#})^{\rT}$ denotes the transpose of the entry-wise operator adjoint $(\cdot)^{\#}$. When it is applied to complex matrices, $(\cdot)^{\dagger}$ reduces to the complex conjugate transpose $(\cdot)^*:= (\overline{(\cdot)})^{\rT}$. Denoted by $\sym(\cdot):= \frac{(\cdot)+(\cdot)^\rT}{2}$ and $\asym(\cdot):= \frac{(\cdot)-(\cdot)^\rT}{2}$ are the symmetrizer and antisymmetrizer of matrices. Also, we denote by $\mathbb{S}_r$, $\mA_r$
and
$
\mathbb{H}_r
:=
\mathbb{S}_r + i \mA_r
$
the subspaces of real symmetric, real antisymmetric and complex Hermitian matrices of order $r$, respectively, with $i:= \sqrt{-1}$ the imaginary unit. Furthermore, $I_r$ denotes the identity matrix of order $r$, positive (semi-) definiteness of matrices is denoted by ($\succcurlyeq$) $\succ$, and $\otimes$ is the tensor product of spaces or operators (in particular, the Kronecker product of matrices).
The adjoints and self-adjointness of linear operators acting on matrices is understood in the sense of the Frobenius inner product
$
{\langle} M,N{\rangle}
:=
\Tr(M^*N)
$ of real or complex matrices, with the corresponding Frobenius norm $\|M\|:= \sqrt{{\langle} M,M{\rangle}}$ which is the standard Euclidean norm $|\cdot|$ for vectors.
Also, $\bE X := \Tr(\rho X)$ denotes the quantum expectation of a quantum variable $X$ (or a vector of such variables) over a density operator $\rho$ which specifies the underlying quantum state.
\section{QUANTUM PLANT}\label{sec:plant}
The quantum plant under consideration is an open quantum stochastic system which is coupled to another such system (playing the role of a controller), with the dynamics of both systems being affected by the environment.
Both the plant and the controller are assumed to satisfy the physical realizability (PR) conditions \cite{JNP_2008,NJP_2009,SP_2009} which will be described in Section~\ref{sec:PR}.
The plant has $n$ dynamic variables $x_1(t), \ldots, x_n(t)$ (with $n$ even) which are self-adjoint operators on a Hilbert space specified below. With the time arguments being omitted for brevity, the evolution of the plant state vector $x:= (x_k)_{1\< k \< n}$ and its contribution to a $p_1$-dimensional output of the plant $y:= (y_k)_{1\< k\< p_1}$ (also with self-adjoint operator-valued entries) are governed by QSDEs
\begin{equation}
\label{x_y}
\rd x
=
A x\rd t + B \rd w + E \rd \eta,
\qquad
\rd y
=
C x\rd t + D \rd w.
\end{equation}
Here,
$
A\in \mR^{n\times n}$,
$
B\in \mR^{n\times m_1}$,
$
C\in \mR^{p_1\times n}$,
$
D\in \mR^{p_1\times m_1}$,
$
E\in \mR^{n\times p_2}
$
are given constant matrices. Also,
\begin{equation}
\label{z}
z
:=
Cx
\end{equation}
is a ``signal part'' of the plant output $y$, and $\eta$ is a $p_2$-dimensional output of the controller to be described in Section~\ref{sec:controller}. The external noise acting on the plant is represented by a quantum Wiener process $w:= (w_k)_{1\< k\< m_1}$ whose entries are self-adjoint operators on a boson Fock space $\mathcal{F}_1$ \cite{P_1992} with the quantum It\^{o} table
$ \rd w \rd w^{\rT}
=
\Omega_1
\rd t$,
where the matrix $\Omega_1 \in \mathbb{H}_{m_1}$ is given by
$
\Omega_1
:=
I_{m_1}+iJ_1
\succcurlyeq 0
$.
Here, the matrix $J_1 \in \mA_{m_1}$ specifies the CCRs between the entries of the plant noise $w$ as
$ [\rd w, \rd w^{\rT}]
=
2iJ_1\rd t
$
and (assuming that the dimension $m_1$ is even) is given by
$ J_1 := I_{m_1/2} \otimes \mathbf{J}$,
with
$ \mathbf{J}
:=
{\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 1\\
-1 & 0
\end{bmatrix}}
$.
\section{QUANTUM CONTROLLER}\label{sec:controller}
Consider an interconnection of the plant (\ref{x_y}) with a coherent (that is, measurement-free) quantum controller. The latter is also an open quantum system with an $n$-dimensional state vector $\xi:= (\xi_k)_{1\< k\< n}$ of self-adjoint operators on another Hilbert space, which also evolve in time. The assumption that the controller has the same number of dynamic variables as the plant is adopted from the classical LQG control theory. The controller interacts with the plant and the environment according to the QSDEs
\begin{equation}
\label{xi_eta}
\rd \xi
=
a\xi\rd t + b \rd \omega + e\rd y,
\qquad
\rd \eta
=
c\xi \rd t + d\rd \omega.
\end{equation}
Here,
$
a \in \mR^{n\times n}
$,
$
b\in \mR^{n\times m_2}
$,
$
c\in \mR^{p_2\times n}
$,
$
d\in \mR^{p_2\times m_2}
$,
$
e\in \mR^{n\times p_1}
$
are also constant matrices.
Similarly to (\ref{z}), the $p_2$-dimensional process
\begin{equation}
\label{zeta}
\zeta
:=
c\xi
\end{equation}
is the signal part of the controller output $\eta$. The process $\omega$ in (\ref{xi_eta}) is a quantum noise which effects the controller and is an $m_2$-dimensional quantum Wiener process (with $m_2$ even) on another boson Fock space $\mathcal{F}_2$ with the quantum Ito table
$ \rd \omega \rd \omega^{\rT}
=
\Omega_2\rd t$,
where the matrix $\Omega_2 \in \mathbb{H}_{m_2}$ is given by
$
\Omega_2
:=
I_{m_2}+iJ_2
\succcurlyeq 0$.
Here, the matrix $J_2 \in \mA_{m_2}$ specifies the CCRs between the entries of the controller noise $\omega$ as
$ [\rd \omega, \rd \omega^{\rT}]
=
2iJ_2\rd t
$
and is given by $
J_2 := I_{m_2/2} \otimes \mathbf{J}
$.
The plant and controller noises $w$ and $\omega$ act on different boson Fock spaces $\mathcal{F}_1$ and $\mathcal{F}_2$, respectively, and hence, commute with each other. Therefore, the combined quantum Wiener process
\begin{equation}
\label{cW}
\mathcal{W}
:=
{\begin{bmatrix}
w\\
\omega
\end{bmatrix}}
\end{equation}
of dimension $m:= m_1+m_2$ acts on the tensor product space $\mathcal{F}_1\otimes \mathcal{F}_2$ and has a block diagonal CCR matrix $J$:
\begin{equation}
\label{WCCR}
[\rd \mathcal{W}, \rd \mathcal{W}^{\rT}]
=
2iJ\rd t,
\qquad
J
:=
{\begin{bmatrix}
J_1 & 0\\
0 & J_2
\end{bmatrix}}.
\end{equation}
Furthermore, the external boson fields are assumed to be in the product vacuum state $\upsilon := \upsilon_1 \otimes \upsilon_2$, and hence, are uncorrelated. The resulting quantum Ito table of the combined Wiener process $\mathcal{W}$ in (\ref{cW}) is
\begin{equation}
\label{WW}
\rd \mathcal{W} \rd \mathcal{W}^{\rT}
=
\Omega
\rd t,
\qquad
\Omega
:=
I_m + iJ
=
\Omega^*\succcurlyeq 0.
\end{equation}
In the controller dynamics (\ref{xi_eta}), the matrix $b$ is the noise gain matrix, while $e$ plays the role of the observation gain matrix, although $y$ is not an observation signal in the classical control theoretic sense. Accordingly, the process $\zeta $ in (\ref{zeta}) corresponds to the classical actuator signal.
Now, the combined set of QSDEs
(\ref{x_y}), (\ref{xi_eta}) describes the fully quantum closed-loop system shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:system}.
\begin{figure}[htpb]
\begin{center}
\unitlength=1.5mm
\linethickness{0.2pt}
\begin{picture}(50.00,26.00)
\put(7.5,7.5){\dashbox(35,15)[cc]{}}
\put(10.5,10){\makebox(10,12)[cc]{{\small quantum} }}
\put(10.5,8){\makebox(10,12)[cc]{{\small plant} }}
\put(10,10){\framebox(10,10)[cc]{ }}
\put(30.5,10){\makebox(10,12)[cc]{{\small quantum} }}
\put(30.5,8){\makebox(10,12)[cc]{{\small controller} }}
\put(30,10){\framebox(10,10)[cc]{}}
\put(0,15){\vector(1,0){10}}
\put(50,15){\vector(-1,0){10}}
\put(30,18){\vector(-1,0){10}}
\put(20,12){\vector(1,0){10}}
\put(-2,15){\makebox(0,0)[rc]{{\small$w$}}}
\put(25,18.5){\makebox(0,0)[cb]{{\small$\eta$}}}
\put(52,15){\makebox(0,0)[lc]{{\small$\omega$}}}
\put(25,10.5){\makebox(0,0)[ct]{{\small$y$}}}
\end{picture}\vskip-5mm
\caption{The interconnected quantum plant and quantum controller form a fully quantum closed-loop system which is governed by (\ref{x_y}), (\ref{xi_eta}) and is influenced by the environment through the quantum Wiener processes $w$, $\omega$.}
\label{fig:system}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
By using a quadratic cost adopted in quantum control settings \cite{NJP_2009,VP_2013a} from classical LQG control \cite{KS_1972}, the performance of the coherent quantum controller will be described in Section~\ref{sec:problem} in terms of an $r$-dimensional quantum process
\begin{equation}
\label{cZ}
{\mathcal Z}
:=
F x + G \zeta.
\end{equation}
Here, $F\in \mR^{r\times n}$, $G\in \mR^{r\times p_2}$ are given \emph{weighting matrices} whose entries quantify the relative importance of the state variables $x_1, \ldots, x_n$ of the plant and the ``actuator output'' variables $\zeta_1, \ldots, \zeta_{p_2}$ of the controller. The choice of $F$, $G$ is specified only by control design preferences and is not subjected to physical constraints. The process ${\mathcal Z}$ in (\ref{cZ}) is linearly related to the $2n$-dimensional state vector
\begin{equation}
\label{cX}
\mathcal{X} :=
{\begin{bmatrix}
x\\
\xi
\end{bmatrix}}
\end{equation}
of the
closed-loop system whose dynamics are governed by the QSDE
\begin{equation}
\label{closed}
\rd \mathcal{X}
=
\mathcal{A}\mathcal{X} \rd t + {\cal B}\rd \mathcal{W} ,
\qquad
{\mathcal Z}
=
\mathcal{C}\mathcal{X}
\end{equation}
which is driven by the combined quantum Wiener process $\mathcal{W}$ from (\ref{cW}).
The state-space matrices $\mathcal{A} \in \mR^{2n\times 2n}$, ${\cal B}\in \mR^{2n\times m}$, $\mathcal{C}\in \mR^{r\times 2n}$ of the closed-loop system in (\ref{closed}) are obtained by combining (\ref{x_y}), (\ref{xi_eta}) with (\ref{cW}), (\ref{cZ}), (\ref{cX}) and depend on the controller matrices $a$, $b$, $c$, $e$ in an affine fashion:
\begin{equation}
\label{cABC}
\mathcal{A}:=
{\begin{bmatrix}
A & E c\\
e C & a
\end{bmatrix}},
\qquad
{\cal B}
:=
{\begin{bmatrix}
B & Ed\\
e D & b
\end{bmatrix}},
\qquad
\mathcal{C}
:=
{\begin{bmatrix}
F & G c
\end{bmatrix}}.
\end{equation}
\section{CONDITIONS FOR PHYSICAL REALIZABILITY}\label{sec:PR}
Both the quantum plant (\ref{x_y}) and the coherent quantum controller (\ref{xi_eta}) are assumed to be physically realizable as open quantum harmonic oscillators, with initial complex separable Hilbert spaces $\cH_1$, $\cH_2$. In particular, their dynamic variables (which are self-adjoint operators on the product space $\cH_1\otimes \cH_2\otimes \mathcal{F}_1\otimes \mathcal{F}_2$ at any subsequent moment of time $t>0$) satisfy CCRs
\begin{equation}
\label{xxx}
[x,x^{\rT}] = 2i\Theta_1,
\qquad
[\xi,\xi^{\rT}] = 2i\Theta_2,
\qquad
[x,\xi^{\rT}] = 0,
\end{equation}
where $\Theta_1, \Theta_2 \in \mA_n$ are constant nonsingular matrices. An equivalent form of the CCRs for the combined vector $\mathcal{X}$ from (\ref{cX}) is
\begin{equation}
\label{Theta}
[\mathcal{X},\mathcal{X}^{\rT}]
=
2i\Theta,
\qquad
\Theta
:=
{\begin{bmatrix}
\Theta_1 & 0 \\
0 & \Theta_2
\end{bmatrix}}.
\end{equation}
The preservation of the CCRs (\ref{xxx}) (including the commutativity between $x$ and $\xi$) is a consequence of the unitary evolution of the isolated system formed from the plant, controller and their environment. The QSDE in (\ref{closed}) preserves the CCR matrix $\Theta$ in (\ref{Theta}) in time if and only if the matrices $\mathcal{A}$, ${\cal B}$ in (\ref{cABC}) satisfy
\begin{equation}
\label{ThetaLyap}
\mathcal{A} \Theta + \Theta \mathcal{A}^{\rT}
+
{\cal B} J {\cal B}^{\rT} = 0,
\end{equation}
where $J$ is the CCR matrix of the combined quantum Wiener process $\mathcal{W}$ in (\ref{cW}) given by (\ref{WCCR}). The relation (\ref{ThetaLyap}) is obtained by taking the imaginary part of the algebraic Lyapunov equation (ALE)
\begin{equation}
\label{SLyap}
\mathcal{A} S + S \mathcal{A}^{\rT}
+
{\cal B} \Omega {\cal B}^{\rT} = 0
\end{equation}
(provided $\mathcal{A}$ is Hurwitz)
for the steady-state quantum covariance matrix
\begin{equation}
\label{S}
S
:=
\lim_{t\to +\infty }
\bE (\mathcal{X}(t)\mathcal{X}(t)^{\rT})
=
P+i\Theta
=
S^*\succcurlyeq 0,
\end{equation}
with $\Omega$ the quantum Ito matrix from (\ref{WW}).
Here, the quantum expectation $\bE(\cdot)$ is taken over the product state $\varpi\otimes \upsilon$, where $\varpi$ is the initial quantum state of the plant and controller on $\cH_1\otimes \cH_2$, and $\upsilon$ is the vacuum state of the external fields on $\mathcal{F}_1\otimes \mathcal{F}_2$. We have also used the convergence $\lim_{t\to +\infty}\bE \mathcal{X}(t) = 0$ which is ensured by $\mathcal{A}$ being Hurwitz. The real part
\begin{equation}
\label{P}
P:= \Re S
\end{equation}
of the quantum covariance matrix $S$ from (\ref{S}) is the unique solution to the ALE
\begin{equation}
\label{PLyap}
\mathcal{A} P + P \mathcal{A}^{\rT} + {\cal B} {\cal B}^{\rT} = 0,
\end{equation}
obtained by taking the real part of (\ref{SLyap}),
and coincides with the controllability Gramian \cite{KS_1972} of the pair $(\mathcal{A}, {\cal B})$. Since the left-hand side of (\ref{ThetaLyap}) is an antisymmetric matrix of order $2n$, then,
by computing the diagonal $(n\times n)$-blocks and the upper off-diagonal block of this matrix with the aid of (\ref{cABC}), it follows that the preservation of the CCR matrix $\Theta$ in (\ref{Theta}) is equivalent to
\begin{align}
\label{CCR11}
A \Theta_1 + \Theta_1 A^{\rT} + B J_1 B^{\rT} + E d J_2 d^{\rT}E ^{\rT} &= 0,\\
\label{CCR22}
a \Theta_2 + \Theta_2 a ^{\rT} + e D J_1 D ^{\rT}e ^{\rT} + b J_2 b ^{\rT} &= 0,\\
\label{CCR12}
(\Theta_1 C ^{\rT} + B J_1 D ^{\rT})e ^{\rT}
+
E (c \Theta_2 + d J_2 b ^{\rT})
& = 0;
\end{align}
cf. \cite[Eqs. (18)--(20)]{VP_2011b}.
Therefore, the fulfillment of the equalities
\begin{align}
\label{CCR12_plant}
\Theta_1 C^{\rT} + BJ_1 D^{\rT}
& = 0,\\
\label{CCR12_cont}
c \Theta_2 + d J_2 b ^{\rT}& = 0
\end{align}
is sufficient for (\ref{CCR12}). Note that (\ref{CCR11}), (\ref{CCR12_plant}) are the conditions for physical realizability (PR) \cite{JNP_2008,NJP_2009,SP_2009} of the quantum plant which describe the preservation of the CCR matrix $\Theta_1$ in (\ref{xxx}) and $[x,y^{\rT}] = 0$. Similarly, the relations (\ref{CCR22}), (\ref{CCR12_cont}), which describe the preservation of the CCR matrix $\Theta_2$ in (\ref{xxx}) and $[\xi, \eta^{\rT}] = 0$, are the PR conditions for the coherent quantum controller.
The PR condition
(\ref{CCR22}) can be regarded as a linear equation with respect to the matrix $a$, and its general solution is representable as
\begin{equation}
\label{a}
a
=
2\Theta_2 R
-\frac{1}{2}(e D J_1 D ^{\rT}e ^{\rT} + b J_2 b ^{\rT})\Theta_2^{-1}.
\end{equation}
Here, the matrix $R \in \mathbb{S}_n$ specifies the free Hamiltonian $\frac{1}{2}\xi ^{\rT} R \xi$ which the PR controller would have in the absence of interaction with its surroundings; cf. \cite[Eqs. (20)--(22) on pp. 8--9]{EB_2005}.
The other PR condition (\ref{CCR12_cont}) allows the matrix $c $ to be expressed in terms of $b $ as
\begin{equation}
\label{c}
c
=
-d
J_2
b ^{\rT}
\Theta_2^{-1}.
\end{equation}
The coupling between the output matrix $c$ and the noise gain matrix $b$ makes the design of a coherent quantum controller (\ref{xi_eta}) substantially different from that of the classical controllers even at the level of achieving internal stability for the closed-loop system. Indeed, if the additional quantum noise $\omega$ is effectively eliminated from the state dynamics of the quantum controller by letting $b=0$, then (\ref{c}) implies that $c=0$, and hence, the matrix $\mathcal{A}$ in (\ref{cABC}) becomes block lower triangular. In this case, the closed-loop system in (\ref{closed}) cannot be internally stable if $A$ is not Hurwitz.
Also note that, in the formulations of the PR conditions \cite{JNP_2008,NJP_2009,SP_2012} for the plant and controller QSDEs (\ref{x_y}), (\ref{xi_eta}), the noise feedthrough matrices are usually given by $D = \begin{bmatrix}I_{p_1} & 0\end{bmatrix}$ and $d = \begin{bmatrix}I_{p_2} & 0\end{bmatrix}$, with $
p_1\< m_1$ and
$
p_2\< m_2
$. Such matrices $D$ and $d$ have full row rank and satisfy
\begin{equation}
\label{DDdd}
DD^{\rT} = I_{p_1},
\qquad
dd^{\rT} = I_{p_2}.
\end{equation}
The full row rank property of $D$ corresponds to nondegeneracy of measurements in the classical setting, where $y$ in (\ref{x_y}) is an observation process. Furthermore, since $\det J_2\ne 0$ and $\det\Theta_2 \ne 0$, the full row rank property of $d$ implies that the map $\mR^{n\times m_2}\ni b\mapsto c\in \mR^{p_2\times n}$, given by (\ref{c}), is onto. This allows the matrix $c$ to be assigned any value by an appropriate choice of $b$, which plays a part in the stabilization issue mentioned above. Although (\ref{DDdd}) simplifies the algebraic manipulations, it is the rank properties of the matrices $D$, $d$ that are most important.
\section{COHERENT QUANTUM LQG CONTROL PROBLEM}\label{sec:problem}
Following \cite{NJP_2009,VP_2013a}, we formulate the CQLQG control problem as that of minimizing the steady-state mean square value
\begin{equation}
\label{cE}
{\mathcal E}
:=
\frac{1}{2}
\lim_{t\to+\infty}
\bE
(
{\mathcal Z}(t) ^{\rT} {\mathcal Z}(t)
)
=
\frac{1}{2}
\big\langle
\mathcal{C} ^{\rT}\mathcal{C} ,
P
\big\rangle
\longrightarrow
\min
\end{equation}
for the criterion process ${\mathcal Z}$ of the closed-loop system (\ref{closed}) over internally stabilizing (that is, making the matrix $\mathcal{A}$ Hurwitz) PR quantum controllers (\ref{xi_eta}) of fixed dimensions described in Sections \ref{sec:controller}, \ref{sec:PR}.
Here,
$
{\mathcal Z}^{\rT}{\mathcal Z}
=
\sum_{k=1}^r
{\mathcal Z}_k^2
$
is the sum of squared entries of ${\mathcal Z}$ (and hence, ${\mathcal Z}^{\rT}{\mathcal Z}$ is a positive semi-definite self-adjoint operator) and $P$ is the controllability Gramian of the closed-loop system given by (\ref{P}), (\ref{PLyap}).
The LQG cost ${\mathcal E}$ in (\ref{cE}) is a function of the triple
\begin{equation}
\label{u}
u:= (R,b,e)
\in
\mathbb{S}_n
\times
\mR^{n\times m_2}
\times
\mR^{n\times p_1}
=: \mathbb{U}
\end{equation}
which parameterizes PR quantum controllers (\ref{xi_eta}) through (\ref{a}), (\ref{c}), with the controller noise feedthrough matrix
$
d\in \mR^{p_2\times m_2}
$
being fixed and satisfying (\ref{DDdd}). Accordingly, the minimization in (\ref{cE}) is carried out over the set
\begin{equation}
\label{U0}
\mathbb{U}_0:= \{u \in \mathbb{U}:\ \mathcal{A}\ {\rm in}\ (\ref{cABC})\ {\rm is\ Hurwitz}\}
\end{equation}
of those $u$ which specify internally stabilizing PR quantum controllers for the quantum plant (\ref{x_y}).
For what follows, the set $\mathbb{U}$ on the right-hand side of (\ref{u})
is endowed with the structure of a Hilbert space with the direct sum inner product
$ {\langle} (R,b,e),(R',b',e') {\rangle} := {\langle} R,R'{\rangle} + {\langle} b,b'{\rangle} + {\langle} e,e'{\rangle}$. Note that $\mathbb{U}_0$ in (\ref{U0}) is an open subset of $\mathbb{U}$.
\section{GRADIENT FLOW FOR THE LQG COST}\label{sec:Grad_Dec}
The gradient descent approach to the solution of the CQLQG control problem is to move with the negative gradient flow for the LQG cost function ${\mathcal E}$ in (\ref{cE}) towards a local minimum. The gradient descent can be regarded as a dynamical system governed by the ODE
\begin{equation}
\label{gradient_sys}
\dot{u}(\tau) = - g(u(\tau)), \qquad u(0) = u_0.
\end{equation}
Here, $\dot{(\, )}:= \partial_{\tau}(\cdot)$ is the derivative with respect to fictitious time $\tau\> 0$, and the gradient
\begin{equation}
\label{grad}
g(u): = \partial_u {\mathcal E}(u) = (\partial_R {\mathcal E}, \partial_b {\mathcal E}, \partial_e {\mathcal E})
\end{equation}
is the Fr\'{e}chet derivative of the LQG cost with respect to $u$ in the Hilbert space $\mathbb{U}$ associated with the Hamiltonian parameterization of PR quantum controllers in (\ref{u}). More precisely, the map $g: \mathbb{U}_0 \to \mathbb{U}$ is well-defined on the open set $\mathbb{U}_0$ in (\ref{U0}). The starting point in (\ref{gradient_sys}) is assumed to satisfy
\begin{equation}
\label{u0}
u_0 := (R_0, b_0, e_0) \in \mathbb{U}_0,
\end{equation}
so that the corresponding PR controller is internally stabilizing.
Unless $u_0$ is a stationary point of ${\mathcal E}$, the LQG cost is strictly decreasing along the trajectory of the ODE (\ref{gradient_sys}) in view of
$
{\mathcal E}(u(\tau))^{^\bullet} = -\|g(u(\tau))\|^2
$.
The first-order Fr\'{e}chet derivative in (\ref{grad}) is computed in the following lemma. For its formulation, we denote by $Q$ the observability Gramian of the pair $(\mathcal{A},\mathcal{C})$ which is a unique solution of the ALE
\begin{equation}
\label{QLyap}
\mathcal{A}^{\rT} Q + Q \mathcal{A} + \mathcal{C}^{\rT} \mathcal{C} =0,
\end{equation}
provided the matrix $\mathcal{A}$ in (\ref{cABC}) is Hurwitz. Furthermore, we will use the Hankelian of the closed-loop system defined by
\begin{equation}
\label{H}
H:= QP.
\end{equation}
Also, we partition $(2n\times 2n)$-matrices $X$ (such as $P$, $Q$, $H$) into $(n\times n)$-blocks $X_{jk}$ as
$
X
:=
{\small\begin{array}{cc}
{}_{\leftarrow n \rightarrow} {}_{\leftarrow n\rightarrow} &\\
{\small\begin{bmatrix}
X_{11} & X_{12}\\
X_{21} & X_{22}
\end{bmatrix}}
&\!\!\!\!\!
{\small\begin{matrix}
\updownarrow\!{}^n\\
\updownarrow\!{}_n
\end{matrix}}\\
{}
\end{array}}
$.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:1st_Frechet}
For any $u \in \mathbb{U}_0$ from (\ref{U0}), the Fr\'{e}chet derivative (\ref{grad}) of the LQG cost ${\mathcal E}$ in (\ref{cE}) can be computed as
\begin{align}
\label{eq:frech_der_R}
\partial_R {\mathcal E} &= -2\sym(\Theta_2 H_{22}),\\
\label{eq:frech_der_b}
\partial_b {\mathcal E} &= Q_{21}Ed+Q_{22}b-\psi b J_2 - \chi d J_2, \\
\label{eq:frech_der_e}
\partial_e {\mathcal E} &= H_{21}C^{\rT} + Q_{21} BD^{\rT} + Q_{22} e - \psi e D J_1 D^{\rT}.
\end{align}
Here, $\psi$ and $\chi$ are auxiliary $(n\times n)$-matrices defined by
\begin{equation}
\label{psi_chi}
\psi := \asym (H_{22} \Theta_2^{-1}),\qquad
\chi := \Theta_2^{-1}(H_{12}^{\rT} E + P_{21}F^{\rT} G + P_{22} c^{\rT} G^{\rT}G),
\end{equation}
with $P$, $Q$, $H$ the Gramians and Hankelian from (\ref{PLyap}), (\ref{QLyap}), (\ref{H}). \hfill $\square$
\end{lem}
The proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:1st_Frechet} is similar to that of \cite[Theorem~1]{VP_2013a} and is given in Appendix~\ref{app:FreDeriv} for completeness.
That the trajectories of the gradient descent system in (\ref{gradient_sys}) will not ``miss'' local minima of the LQG cost is justified by the following lemma.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:stability}
A point $u_* \in \mathbb{U}_0$ in (\ref{U0}) is a stable equilibrium of the ODE (\ref{gradient_sys}) if and only if it is a local minimum of the LQG cost ${\mathcal E}$ in (\ref{cE}).\hfill$\square$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The assertion of the lemma can be established by using \cite[Theorem~3]{absil2006stable} and the \emph{analyticity} \cite{H_1990} (rather than infinite differentiability) of the LQG cost ${\mathcal E}$ in a neighbourhood of any point $u\in \mathbb{U}_0$. The analyticity follows from the representation
\begin{equation}
\label{rat}
{\mathcal E}
= -\frac{1}{2} \col(\mathcal{C}^{\rT} \mathcal{C})^{\rT}(\mathcal{A} \oplus \mathcal{A})^{-1}\col({\cal B}\cB^{\rT})
\end{equation}
which is obtained from (\ref{PLyap}), (\ref{cE}) by using the column-wise vectorization $\col(\cdot)$ of matrices \cite{M_1988,SIG_1998} and the Kronecker sum $\mathcal{A} \oplus \mathcal{A}:= I_{2n}\otimes \mathcal{A} + \mathcal{A} \otimes I_{2n}$ of the matrix $\mathcal{A}$ with itself. Indeed, the representation (\ref{rat}) implies that ${\mathcal E}$ is a rational function of the entries of $\mathcal{A}$, ${\cal B}$, $\mathcal{C}$ in (\ref{cABC}) which, in turn, are polynomial functions of the entries of $R$, $b$, $e$ in view of (\ref{a}), (\ref{c}), and hence, ${\mathcal E}(u)$ is a rational function of $u$. Therefore, the function ${\mathcal E}(u)$ is analytic on the open set $\mathbb{U}_0$ since the matrix $\mathcal{A}\oplus \mathcal{A}$ is also Hurwitz (and hence, nonsingular) for any $u \in \mathbb{U}_0$.
\end{proof}
In practice, the gradient descent ODE (\ref{gradient_sys}) is solved by using a numerical algorithm, which is the subject of the next section.
\section{GRADIENT DESCENT ALGORITHM}\label{sec:Grad_Algo}
We will now consider a numerical algorithm which implements the gradient descent method (\ref{gradient_sys}) for the CQLQG control problem in the form \begin{equation}
\label{unext}
u_{k+1}:=u_k - s_k g(u_k),
\qquad
k = 0,1,2,\ldots.
\end{equation}
This recurrence equation is initialized with matrices $R_0$, $b_0$, $e_0$ of an internally stabilizing PR controller in (\ref{u0}) (see Section~\ref{sec:Initialization}). The gradient $g(u_k)$ is computed by using Lemma~\ref{lem:1st_Frechet}, and the stepsize $s_k>0$ is chosen as described in Section~\ref{sec:Stepsize}. The iterations in (\ref{unext}) are stopped when a termination condition is satisfied (see Section~\ref{subsec:Term_Cond}). The ingredients of the algorithm are discussed in the subsequent sections.
\subsection{Initialization}\label{sec:Initialization}
The gradient descent algorithm (\ref{unext}) relies on existence of an internally stabilizing PR quantum controller which can be used as an initial point. As mentioned in Introduction, the existence of such controllers (that is, nonemptiness of the set $\mathbb{U}_0$ in (\ref{U0})) for a given quantum plant (and a systematic method of finding them) remains an open problem. In the present version of the algorithm, this quantum stabilization problem is solved by using a random search in the finite-dimensional Hilbert space $\mathbb{U}$ in (\ref{u}).
\subsection{Stepsize selection}\label{sec:Stepsize}
According to the conventional limited minimization rule (see, for example, \cite{bertsekas99nonlinear}), the stepsize $s_k$ is chosen for each iteration of the gradient descent by solving the minimization problem
\begin{equation}
\label{equ:step_min}
s_k\in \Argmin_{0\< s\< h_k} {\mathcal E}(u_k-s g(u_k))
\end{equation}
with a \emph{constant} search horizon $h_k:= h>0$. Here, we use the convention that ${\mathcal E}(u):=+\infty$ if $u\ne \mathbb{U}_0$ (thus discarding those controllers which are not internally stabilizing).
A restricted version of the line search with a constant horizon $h$ may suffer from the inability to adapt properly to the behaviour of the function ${\mathcal E}$ in its minimization over the ray $\{u_k-sg(u_k):\ s \>0\} \subset \mathbb{U}$. In order to overcome this issue, for the stepsize selection in the gradient descent algorithm (\ref{unext}), we will use a modified version of the limited minimization rule with an adaptive choice of the search horizon $h_k$ in each iteration.
More precisely, $h_k$ can be chosen so as to enable (\ref{equ:step_min}) to ``capture'' the minimum of ${\mathcal E}$ over the whole ray if ${\mathcal E}$ is a strictly convex quadratic function. To this end, consider the quadratically truncated Taylor series
\begin{equation}
\label{quad}
{\mathcal E}(u-sg) = {\mathcal E}(u) - s\mathcal{D}_g {\mathcal E} + \frac{s^2}{2} \mathcal{D}_g^2 {\mathcal E} + o(s^2),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align}
\label{Gat1}
\mathcal{D}_v {\mathcal E}(u) & := \partial_s{\mathcal E}(u+s v)\big|_{s=0} = {\langle} g(u), v{\rangle},\\
\label{Gat2}
\mathcal{D}_v^2 {\mathcal E}(u) & :=\partial_s^2{\mathcal E}(u+s v)\big|_{s=0} = {\langle} \partial_u^2 {\mathcal E}(u)(v), v{\rangle}
\end{align}
are the first and second-order G\^{a}teaux (or directional) derivatives \cite{LS_1961} of the LQG cost at a point $u \in \mathbb{U}_0$ (specifying an internally stabilizing controller) along $v \in \mathbb{U}$. Here, in view of (\ref{Gat1}),
\begin{equation}
\label{gg}
\mathcal{D}_g{\mathcal E} = \|g\|^2 = \|\partial_R{\mathcal E}\|^2 + \|\partial_b{\mathcal E}\|^2 + \|\partial_e{\mathcal E}\|^2\>0.
\end{equation}
Also, $\partial_u^2 {\mathcal E}(u):=\partial_u g(u)$ in (\ref{Gat2}) is the second-order Fr\'{e}chet derivative of ${\mathcal E}$ which is a self-adjoint operator on the Hilbert space $\mathbb{U}$ in (\ref{u}) whose computation is outlined in Appendix~\ref{app:sec_Gateaux}.
Now, if $\mathcal{D}_g^2 {\mathcal E}(u)>0$, then the quadratic polynomial of $s$ on the right-hand side of (\ref{quad}) (with the higher-order terms being neglected) achieves its unique minimum at a nonnegative value of $s$:
\begin{equation}
\label{smin}
\argmin_{s \> 0} \left(\frac{s^2}{2} \mathcal{D}_g^2{\mathcal E}- s\mathcal{D}_g {\mathcal E} \right) = \frac{\mathcal{D}_g{\mathcal E}}{\mathcal{D}_g^2{\mathcal E}} = \frac{\|g\|^2}{\mathcal{D}_g^2{\mathcal E}}.
\end{equation}
This suggests using the right-hand side of (\ref{smin}) as a search horizon $h_k$ in (\ref{equ:step_min}), provided $\mathcal{D}_g^2 {\mathcal E}(u)>0$. However, if the latter inequality does not hold, the argument, based on a quadratic approximation of the minimization problem (\ref{equ:step_min}), is no longer valid and needs to be amended. In this case (when $\mathcal{D}_g^2 {\mathcal E}(u)\< 0$), the search horizon can be chosen so as to avoid the domination of nonlinear terms over the linear term in the quadratically truncated Taylor series for the LQG cost along the ideal gradient descent trajectory in (\ref{gradient_sys}):
\begin{align}
\nonumber
{\mathcal E}(u(\tau+s)) &= {\mathcal E}(u(\tau)) +({\mathcal E}(u))^{^\bullet}s + ({\mathcal E}(u))^{^{\bullet\bullet}}\frac{s^2}{2} + o(s^2)\\
\label{quad2}
& =
{\mathcal E}(u(\tau)) - \|g\|^2s + \mathcal{D}_g^2{\mathcal E} s^2 + o(s^2),
\end{align}
where (\ref{Gat2}) is used.
For $s\> 0$, the comparison of the absolute values $\|g\|^2s$ and $|\mathcal{D}_g^2{\mathcal E}| s^2$ of the linear and quadratic terms in (\ref{quad2}) shows that the latter does not dominate the former if
\begin{equation}
\label{abs}
s\< \frac{\|g\|^2}{|\mathcal{D}_g^2{\mathcal E}|}.
\end{equation}
This inequality is closely related to the accuracy of (\ref{unext}) as Euler scheme for numerical integration of the ODE (\ref{gradient_sys}). More precisely, if the stepsizes $s_k>0$ in (\ref{unext}) are significantly smaller than the respective values of the right-hand side of (\ref{abs}), then $u_k$ becomes an accurate approximation of the ideal gradient descent trajectory $u(\tau)$ at fictitious time $\tau:= s_0 + \ldots +s_{k-1}$. A combination of (\ref{smin}) and (\ref{abs}) justifies the following heuristic rule for choosing the search horizon at the current point $u_k \in \mathbb{U}_0$:
\begin{equation}
\label{hor}
h_k:= \min\left(h_{\max},\, \frac{\|g\|^2}{|\mathcal{D}_{g}^2{\mathcal E}|}\Big|_{u=u_k}\right).
\end{equation}
Here, $h_{\max}$ is a given positive threshold which becomes active, for example, if $\mathcal{D}_{g}^2{\mathcal E}$ vanishes.
The stepsize selection algorithm considered below, replaces the minimization problem in (\ref{equ:step_min}) with a different procedure which involves a finite subset of values of $s$ from a geometric progression
\begin{equation}
\label{skl}
s_{k,\ell}:= h_k f^{\ell},
\qquad
\ell = 0,1,2,\ldots
\end{equation}
whose initial value $h_k$ is given by (\ref{hor}). The common ratio $f\in (0,1)$ is a parameter of the algorithm which affects how ``densely'' the progression fills the interval $[0,h_k]$. Now, the adaptive stepsize selection algorithm proceeds as follows:
\begin{equation}
\label{sk}
s_k := s_{k,j},
\end{equation}
where the $j$th element of the geometric progression (\ref{skl}) is chosen according to the Armijo rule \cite{bertsekas99nonlinear} with a parameter $\sigma \in (0,1)$:
\begin{equation}
\label{Arm}
j :=
\min\big\{
\ell\> 0:\,
{\mathcal E}(u_k)-{\mathcal E}(u_k - s_{k,\ell} g(u_k)) \> \sigma s_{k,\ell} \|g(u_k)\|^2
\big\}.
\end{equation}
Here, the subset of indices $\ell$ is nonempty since $\sigma <1$ and $\lim_{\ell \to +\infty}s_{k,\ell} = 0$.
The inequality in (\ref{Arm}) is important in the convergence analysis of the gradient descent algorithm. In particular, the condition $\sigma >0$ ensures that ${\mathcal E}(u_k)$ is strictly decreasing until $u_k$ achieves a stationary point of the LQG cost. Such a point is a stable equilibrium of the gradient descent only if it delivers a local minimum to the LQG cost.
\subsection{Termination condition}\label{subsec:Term_Cond}
Since the gradient descent sequence $u_k$ in (\ref{unext}) can converge to a local minimum of the LQG cost only asymptotically, as $k\to +\infty$, the algorithm is equipped with a termination condition (for stopping the iterations) which reflects the proximity to the limit point. More precisely, we use the following termination condition which employs the relative smallness of the gradient as specified by a dimensionless parameter $\epsilon>0$:
\begin{equation}
\label{stop}
s_k\|g(u_k)\| \< \epsilon \|u_k\|.
\end{equation}
\section{CONVERGENCE OF THE GRADIENT DESCENT ALGORITHM}\label{subsec:con_analys}
As the proposed algorithm is based on the classical gradient descent approach, its convergence analysis follows a similar reasoning, which we provide below for completeness.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:converg}
Suppose $(u_k)_{k\>0}$ is the gradient descent sequence in (\ref{unext}) with the stepsize selection described by (\ref{hor})--(\ref{Arm}).
Then every limit point $u_* \in \mathbb{U}_0$ of this sequence is a stationary point of the LQG cost ${\mathcal E}$, that is, $g(u_*) =0$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Since the sequence ${\mathcal E}(u_k)\>0$ is nonincreasing, it has a finite limit. Therefore, (\ref{unext}), (\ref{sk}) and the Armijo rule in (\ref{Arm}) imply that
$
\sigma s_k \|g(u_k)\|^2 \< {\mathcal E}(u_k)-{\mathcal E}(u_{k+1})\to 0$ as $k\to +\infty$. Hence, in view of $\sigma>0$, it follows that
\begin{equation}
\label{sg0}
\lim_{k\to +\infty} \big(s_k \|g(u_k)\|^2\big) = 0.
\end{equation}
Now, assume that the gradient descent sequence $u_k$ has a limit point $u_* := \lim_{\mathcal{K}\ni k\to +\infty}u_k\in \mathbb{U}_0$ such that $g(u_*)\ne 0$, where $\mathcal{K}:= \{0\< k_1 < k_2 < \ldots\}$ is an infinite subset of nonnegative integers which specifies the respective subsequence of $u_k$. Then the analyticity of the LQG cost on the open set $\mathbb{U}_0$ implies that
\begin{align}
\label{gpos}
\lim_{\mathcal{K}\ni k\to +\infty}g(u_k) & = g(u_*)\ne 0,\\
\label{hpos}
\lim_{\mathcal{K}\ni k\to +\infty} h_k
& =
\min\left(h_{\max},\, \frac{\|g(u_*)\|^2}{|\mathcal{D}_{g}^2{\mathcal E}(u_*)|}\right)>0,
\end{align}
where use is made of (\ref{hor}). Note that,
if $\mathcal{D}_{g}^2{\mathcal E}(u_*) = 0$, the limit in (\ref{hpos}) is equal to $h_{\max}>0$. A combination of (\ref{gpos}) with (\ref{sg0}) implies that
\begin{equation}
\label{s0}
\lim_{\mathcal{K}\ni k\to +\infty} s_k = 0.
\end{equation}
In turn, by combining (\ref{s0}) with (\ref{hpos}) and recalling (\ref{sk}) and the condition $0<f<1$, it follows that the indices
$
j_p := \log_f \frac{s_{k_p}}{h_{k_p}} = \frac{\ln h_{k_p} - \ln s_{k_p}}{-\ln f}$
of the elements of the geometric progression in (\ref{skl}), which correspond to $k_p\in \mathcal{K}$, diverge to infinity as
$
p\to +\infty
$,
and hence, $j_p\>1$ for all sufficiently large $p$. For all such $p$, the stepsize candidates $s_{k_p, j_p-1} = \frac{s_{k_p}}{f}$ do not pass the Armijo selection rule in (\ref{Arm}), that is,
\begin{equation}
\label{ineq:contra}
{\mathcal E}(u_k)-{\mathcal E}\big(u_k-\frac{s_k}{f}g(u_k)\big) < \sigma \frac{s_k}{f}\|g(u_k)\|^2
\end{equation}
for all sufficiently large $k \in \mathcal{K}$.
Upon multiplying both parts of (\ref{ineq:contra}) by $\frac{f}{s_k}$ and taking the limit, this inequality leads to
\begin{align}
\nonumber
\|g(u_*)\|^2
& =
\lim_{\mathcal{K} \ni k\to +\infty}
\Big(
\frac{f}{s_k}
\Big(
{\mathcal E}(u_k)-{\mathcal E}\big(u_k-\frac{s_k}{f}g(u_k)\big)
\Big)
\Big)\\
\label{ggg}
& \< \sigma \lim_{\mathcal{K}\ni k\to +\infty}\|g(u_k)\|^2 = \sigma \|g(u_*)\|^2,
\end{align}
where use is also made of (\ref{gpos}) and (\ref{s0}). However, since $\sigma <1$, the inequality in (\ref{ggg}) contradicts the assumption that $g(u_*)\ne 0$. This contradiction shows that any limit point $u_*\in \mathbb{U}_0$ of the gradient descent sequence satisfies $g(u_*) = 0$.
\end{proof}
Note that the CQLQG control problem inherits a special type of symmetry from the LQG cost ${\mathcal E}$ which is invariant under symplectic similarity transformations of the controller variables $\xi\mapsto \Sigma \xi$, with $\Sigma \in \mR^{n\times n}$ satisfying $\Sigma \Theta_2 \Sigma^{\rT} = \Theta_2$ and thus preserving the CCR matrix $\Theta_2$ (see, for example, \cite{VP_2011b,VP_2013a}). Hence, the stationary points of the LQG cost are not isolated, which complicates the convergence rate analysis for the proposed gradient descent algorithm. This issue is beyond the scope of the present study and will be addressed elsewhere by using more advanced analytic tools (such as in \cite{absil2009} and related references).
\section{A NUMERICAL EXAMPLE OF OPTIMAL CQLQG CONTROLLER DESIGN}\label{sec:example}
The gradient descent algorithm of Section~\ref{sec:Grad_Algo} was tested to find a locally optimal solution of the CQLQG control problem for a PR quantum plant in (\ref{x_y}) with dimensions $n=m_2=p_1=p_2=r=2$, $m_1 = 4$ and randomly generated state-space matrices $A$, $B$, $C$, $E$, satisfying the PR conditions (\ref{CCR11}), (\ref{CCR12_plant}), and the weighting matrices $F$, $G$ in (\ref{cZ}):
\begin{align*}
A=& {\begin{bmatrix}
0.9534 & -1.1165\\
0.4193 & 1.8821
\end{bmatrix}}\!,\ \ \qquad
B=
{\begin{bmatrix}
-1.7174 & -0.2189 & 1.9180& 0.5636\\
-0.6815 & 1.3570 & 0.2985 & -0.3679
\end{bmatrix}},\\
C=& {\begin{bmatrix}
-1.3570 & -0.2189\\
-0.6815 & 1.7174
\end{bmatrix}}\!,\qquad
D=
{\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0
\end{bmatrix}}\!,\qquad\qquad\quad
E= {\begin{bmatrix}
-0.3238 & 0.2779\\
-1.1693 & -0.5966
\end{bmatrix}},\\
F= & {\begin{bmatrix}
-0.8290 & -0.9665\\
-1.8655& -0.0357
\end{bmatrix}}\!,\qquad
G= {\begin{bmatrix}
-0.2324 & -0.1608\\
-0.5822 & -1.0961
\end{bmatrix}}\!,\qquad
d= {\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0\\
0 & 1
\end{bmatrix}}.
\end{align*}
This plant is unstable (the eigenvalues of the matrix $A$ are $1.4177 \pm 0.5025 i$). The algorithm was run with parameters $h_{\max}=1$,
$f=0.5$, $\sigma = 0.9$, $\epsilon = {10}^{-6}$ in (\ref{hor})--(\ref{stop}) for $10$ randomly generated stabilizing PR controllers as initial points.
Starting from these points, it has taken $307$
to $2318$
steps for the algorithm to reach the fulfillment of the termination condition, with the average number of iterations being $1075$.
The local minimum value of the LQG cost is ${\mathcal E}_{\min}=12.1026$
and is achieved at the following controller parameters:
\begin{align*}
R= {\begin{bmatrix}
-0.5611 & -1.5567\\
-1.5567 & 1.8283
\end{bmatrix}},
\qquad
b= {\begin{bmatrix}
1.8111 & 0.7201\\
-1.4979 & -3.9696
\end{bmatrix}},
\qquad
e= {\begin{bmatrix}
-0.1250 & 4.9673\\
-4.4929 & -1.3387
\end{bmatrix}}\!\!.
\end{align*}
The values of the LQG cost ${\mathcal E}(u_k)$ for the gradient descent sequences $u_k$ are presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:NExp} in the form of semi-logarithmic graphs of $\frac{{\mathcal E}(u_k)}{{\mathcal E}_{\min}}-1$.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\vskip-3mm \includegraphics[width=9cm]{P1v4.pdf}
\vskip-3mm
\caption{The relative deviations $\frac{{\mathcal E}(u_k)}{{\mathcal E}_{\min}}-1$ from the minimum value of the LQG cost on a logarithmic scale versus the number of steps $k$.}\label{fig:NExp}
\end{figure}
These graphs are in qualitative agreement with the relatively slow linear convergence rate, typical for gradient descent methods. However, they also show that the proposed algorithm is fairly reliable, being able to cope with poor initial approximations where the LQG cost exceeds the minimum value by an order of magnitude.
\section{CONCLUSION}\label{sec:Conclusion}
A gradient descent algorithm has been developed for the numerical solution of the optimal CQLQG controller design problem, and its convergence has been investigated. The algorithm has been tested and it appears to be fairly reliable in a numerical example with randomly generated stabilizing PR controllers as initial points. The lack of a more systematic method for initialization and a relatively slow convergence rate are the main shortcomings of the algorithm. These issues are a subject for future research and will be tackled in subsequent publications.
|
\section{Introduction}
Supernova (SN) impostors \citep{vanDyk00} are a class of stellar transients characterized by Type IIn spectra (narrow hydrogen emission lines) with lower peak luminosities ($M_{V}\simeq-13$) than typical core collapse SNe (ccSNe; $M_{V}\simeq-17$). The class is heterogeneous, including luminous variable stars \citep[e.g. SN 2002kg;][]{Weis05} and the SN 2008S class of transients \citep{Prieto08,Thompson09,Kochanek11b}, but a subset of the events are generally connected to some type of eruptive transient associated with the phenomenology of luminous blue variable stars \citep[LBVs;][]{Humphreys94}. Still, the true nature of SN impostors is debated, including whether they are non-terminal eruptions or actual SNe \citep[see][]{Smith11,Kochanek12}.
The rate of SN impostors attributed to LBV eruptions is likely $\sim20\%$-$60\%$ of the ccSN rate \citep{Thompson09}. Thus, the true nature of these transients could have important consequences for the rate of SNe. For example, the SN rate appears to be less than the massive-star formation rate \citep{Horiuchi11}. There are several possible solutions to this mismatch. Non-local SN surveys could be significantly incomplete \citep[e.g.,][]{Botticella12} or there could be a significant rate of failed SNe \citep{Kochanek08,Gerke15}. The latter solution could also help to explain the lack of higher mass SN progenitors \citep[$\gtrsim15~M_{\odot}$;][]{Kochanek08,Smartt09} and the black hole mass function \citep{Kochanek14b,Kochanek15}. The final option is that some of these lower luminosity transients are in fact SNe \citep{Horiuchi11}.
On the other hand, if SN impostors are non-terminal events, they may be the dominant mode of mass-loss in massive stars \citep{Smith06}.
This would be important because eruptive mass-loss is unaccounted for in stellar evolution models and little is known about the mechanism, duty cycle, mass dependence, or total mass-loss in such events. Recently \cite{Khan13,Khan15} surveyed nearby galaxies and found that luminous stars encased in ejected dusty shells analogous to $\eta$ Carinae are not common enough for eruptions to be the dominant mass-loss channel, representing $\sim10\%$ of mass-loss rather than $\sim50\%$.
Inspired by the phenomenology of $\eta$ Carinae, the most-widely accepted picture of SN impostors is that these events are the result of non-terminal eruptions that eject a significant amount of mass that then may obscure the surviving star \citep[see e.g.,][]{Humphreys99}. The phenomenology expected for a dusty shell is fairly simple -- the optical depth peaks as the shell passes through the dust formation radius and then declines as $\sim t^{-2}$ with time \citep{Kochanek11}. \cite{Kochanek12} examined several SN impostors with archival \emph{Hubble Space Telescope} (\emph{HST}), \emph{Spitzer Space Telescope} (\emph{SST}), and Large Binocular Telescope (LBT) data and found that none of the transients (for which there are sufficient data to reach a conclusion) are consistent with the shell ejection scenario.
If they are simply outbursts, the data are more consistent with a scenario where the transient is a sign post that the star is transitioning from a low to a high mass-loss rate, resulting in a longer lived dusty wind. Still, nothing in the available data ruled out the possibility that some of these systems are not impostors at all, but instead are true SNe.
The basic problem is that SN impostors have been little studied after the brief optical transient even though it is really the late-time phenomenology that is the key to understanding these events. For example, it would be useful to simply establish the continued presence of a star.
In this paper we utilize new late-time observations to investigate the nature of the archetypal impostor SN 1997bs.
SN 1997bs, discovered on 1997 April 15, was the first SN reported by the Lick Observatory Supernova Search \citep[LOSS;][]{Treffers97}. It was found in NGC 3627 and was classified as a Type IIn SN (the spectrum was dominated by Balmer emission lines with full width at half-maximum $\simeq 1000~\mathrm{km}\>\mathrm{s}^{-1}$).
\cite{vanDyk99} identified a candidate progenitor with $m_{F606W}\simeq22.86\pm0.16$ mag, which corresponds to a luminosity of $L_{*}=10^{4.8}$--$10^{5.4}~L_{\odot}$ for the temperature range $T_{*}=7500$--20,000 K.
The event peaked at $V \simeq 17$ and had faded to ($F555W$) $V \simeq 23.4$ mag by 1998 January 10. Over this period the transient became redder, evolving from $V-I=0.7$ to $V-I=3$ mag \citep{vanDyk00}. \cite{vanDyk00} suggested that the flattening of the late-time light curve at $\sim 0.5$ mag fainter than the progenitor was an indication that the star survived the explosion.
In fact, it continued to fade, since \cite{Li02} found that the SN was marginally detected in an \emph{HST}/Wide Field Planetary Camera 2 (WFPC2) image taken in 2001, with $F555W$ = $25.8\pm0.3$ mag (March 4) and that it was not detected at $F814W$ to a limiting magnitude of about 25.0 (February 24 and May 28). \cite{Li02} posited that while the formation of dust in the ejecta could explain the continuous decline in the optical flux, this would be inconsistent with the color evolution. The SN would become progressively redder if dust was forming in the ejecta, but instead the source appeared to become bluer between early 1998 and early 2001. We present the full optical light curve in Fig. \ref{fig:lightcurve}.
\cite{vanDyk12} reported mid-infrared emission near the position of SN 1997bs in \emph{SST} Infrared Array Camera (IRAC) images from 2004 May, with 32 $\mu$Jy at $3.6~\mu\mathrm{m}$ and 40 $\mu$Jy at $4.5~\mu\mathrm{m}$, but no detections at $5.8~\mu\mathrm{m}$ and $8.0~\mu\mathrm{m}$. \cite{vanDyk12} stated that this could be fitted by a $T \simeq 970$ K blackbody with a radius $R \simeq 1.4 \times 10^{15}$ cm and luminosity
$L \simeq 3.1 \times 10^{5}~L_{\odot}$. This would correspond to an expansion speed of only $\sim60~\mathrm{km\>s^{-1}}$, far slower than the $\sim765~\mathrm{km\>s^{-1}}$ line width observed during the transient \citep{Smith11}. Additionally, \cite{vanDyk12} found that the star is recovered at $m_{F555W} = 26.08$ and $m_{F814W} = 25.08$ mag in \emph{HST}/Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS) data obtained in 2009, although they do not report uncertainties.
\cite{Kochanek12} considered the same \emph{SST} observations but had a different interpretation. They found that most of the flux of the point source possibly present in the $4.5~\mu\mathrm{m}$ image vanished in wavelength-differenced images\footnote{Using difference imaging methods to subtract the 3.6 and $4.5~\mu\mathrm{m}$ images removes all sources with the `Rayleigh--Jeans' mid-IR spectral energy distributions of normal stars to leave only those with significant dust emission. Thus, the lack of a counterpart in the wavelength-differenced images indicates an absence of dust emission.}, suggesting that the source of the flux was not dusty.
Furthermore, they also found that the evolution of the spectral energy distribution (SED) is inconsistent with the ejection of a single shell at the time of the transient.
Keeping the star obscured at the time of the \emph{HST} observations in 2001 would require a continued mass-loss rate of $\dot{M} \sim 10^{-3} M_{\odot}\>\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$. However, matching the candidate surviving star to the progenitor requires a temperature ($T_{*}>10^{4}$ K), too high to allow the formation of dust \citep[see][]{Kochanek11b,Kochanek14}. \cite{Kochanek12} concludes that if the star found by \cite{Li02} is the survivor of SN 1997bs, the most likely scenario is that the eruption ended before 2001 and the star would have to be unobscured in 2011.
\begin{figure}
\ifpdflatex
\includegraphics[width=8.6cm, angle=0]{fig1.pdf}
\else
\includegraphics[width=8.6cm, angle=0]{../../lc.ps}
\fi
\caption{Optical light curve of SN 1997bs. The black filled squares (red open triangles) show the evolution of the \emph{V}-band (\emph{I}-band) luminosity
converted from the \emph{HST} magnitudes reported by \citet{vanDyk00} and \citet{Li02} as well as our measurements of archival \emph{HST} images from 2004 and 2009. The last set of \emph{V} and \emph{I}-band luminosities represent the upper limits we find for the new \emph{HST} data we present in this paper. The short lines extending from the LBT point (the open pentagon) represent the \emph{V}-band variability and 3$\sigma$ limits found by image subtraction of our LBT monitoring data. The horizontal dashed lines give the range of progenitor luminosities for $T_{*}=7500-20,000$ K given the candidate progenitor detection of $m_{F606W} \simeq 22.86\pm0.16$ mag reported by \citet{vanDyk99}. \label{fig:lightcurve}}
\end{figure}
In this work, we revisit these questions with new \emph{HST}, \emph{SST}, and LBT observations. In \S\ref{sec:dataandmodels} we present the data, explain our identification of the source and its photometry, and present the methods we use to model and constrain the existence of a surviving star. As can be seen from Fig. \ref{fig:postage_stamps}, no star is obviously visible, and there is certainly no source with a flux comparable to the progenitor.
In \S\ref{sec:models} we present the results of modeling the SED of the source as obscured by an expanding shell or a steady-state wind and show that they are inconsistent with a surviving star as luminous as the progenitor. Finally in \S\ref{sec:conclusions} we summarize our results and consider alternative explanations for the fate of SN 1997bs.
When converting observables into physical quantities we adopt the Cepheid distance of 9.4 Mpc to NGC 3627 from \cite{Freedman01} and a Galactic extinction of $E(B-V) = 0.04$ from the \cite{Schlafly11} recalibration of \cite{Schlegel98}. We note that this results in a significantly smaller progenitor luminosity than that adopted by \cite{vanDyk00}, who used an older Cepheid distance of 11.1 Mpc from \cite{Saha99} and also included an estimate of galactic reddening from NGC 3627 of $E(B-V) = 0.21$ mag. Though we do not include this galactic reddening, such reddening, to first order, will be taken into account by our circumstellar dust models \citep[but see][]{Kochanek12}. Additionally, most of our results are dependent primarily on the luminosity of the progenitor relative to a possible survivor, which is independent of foreground extinction and the adopted distance.
\section{Data and Models}
\label{sec:dataandmodels}
\subsection{Data}
\label{sec:data}
We utilize both new and archival \emph{HST} data.
For our program, we obtained new Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3) UVIS $F555W$ and $F814W$ and IR $F110W$ and $F160W$ images (GO-13477) taken in 2013 November. We also use public \emph{HST} WFC3 UVIS $F275W$, $F336W$, $F438W$, $F555W$, and $F814W$ images taken for the Legacy ExtraGalactic UV Survey (LEGUS; PI D. Calzetti, GO-13364) in 2014 February and the multi-epoch archival WFPC2 $F555W$ images of NGC 3627 taken between late 1997 and early 1998 (PI A. Sandage, GO-6549) that contain the transient event to calibrate our astrometry and measure the position of SN 1997bs. Additionally, we analyze archival ACS/Wide Field Channel (WFC) $F555W$ and $F814W$ images taken in 2009 December (PI S. van Dyk, GO-11575) and $F435W$ images taken in 2004 December (PI R. Chandar, GO-10402).
We also make use of new and archival \emph{SST} data. We co-added archival images of NGC 3627 (from program ID 159) taken in 2004 May and also co-added archival images taken in 2014 Feb-March-Aug (ID 10136) together with data from our program (ID 10001) taken in 2013 July using the {\sc mopex} reduction package\footnote{http://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/data/SPITZER/docs/dataanal\-ysistools/tools/mopex/}. We also performed image subtraction of these data using {\sc isis} \citep{Alard98,Alard00} to check for source variability.
We have been monitoring NGC 3627 with the LBT as part of a program searching for failed SNe \citep{Kochanek08,Gerke15}. We use {\sc isis} to check for optical source variability in the dozen epochs we have collected between 2008 and 2014.
\subsection{Candidate Identification}
\label{sec:candidate}
Proper alignment of all the data and a precise measurement of the coordinates of SN 1997bs are critical for correct candidate identification and photometry. We first aligned and stacked the archival drizzled \emph{HST} WFPC2 $F555W$ images using {\sc SExtractor} \citep{Bertin96}, {\sc scamp} \citep{Bertin06}, and {\sc swarp} \citep{Bertin02}. We chose to register the astrometry of all our data to the drizzled \emph{HST} WFC3 $F814W$ image from 2013 November. We found the position of SN 1997bs in our reference WFC3 $F814W$ frame by aligning the stacked archival WFPC2 $F555W$ image with the GEOMAP task in {\sc iraf}\footnote{{\sc iraf} is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatory, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA) under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.} using a matched coordinate list of several dozen sources within 20$''$ of SN 1997bs. We estimate an uncertainty of 0$\farcs$002 in the astrometry by measuring the rms in the SN position using different subsamples of the matched coordinate list with different orders for the astrometric fits. We measure a centroid uncertainty of 0$\farcs$004 based on the aperture photometry of SN 1997bs in the stacked archival frame. Adding these uncertainties in quadrature gives a total positional uncertainty of 0$\farcs$004 (0.1 pixels) in our reference image.
We generate photometric catalogs for the \emph{HST} WFC3 data using the software package
\ifapj
{\sc dolphot 2.0} \citep{Dolphin00}\footnote{\url{http://americano.dolphinsim.com/dolphot/}}.
\else
{\sc dolphot 2.0} \citep{Dolphin00}\footnote{http://americano.dolphinsim.com/dolphot/}.
\fi
We largely used the same parameter settings as in \cite{Dalcanton12}, with the exceptions listed in Table \ref{tab:dolphot}.
We again used the drizzled \emph{HST} WFC3 $F814W$ image from 2013 November as the reference. Although {\sc dolphot} has a built-in routine for aligning images, it was necessary to calculate initial pixel offsets using the {\sc tweakreg} task in the {\sc drizzlepac} package for the images taken on a different epoch (2014 February) than the reference. The rms alignment residuals for the different images ranged from 0$\farcs$003 for the UVIS $F555W$ and $F814W$ images to 0$\farcs$03 for the UV images, and 0$\farcs$16 for the IR images.
We also performed aperture photometry with the PHOT task in {\sc iraf}. The aperture corrections were calculated using the \emph{HST} point spread function (PSF) models from
\ifapj
{\sc tiny tim} \citep{Krist95,Krist11}\footnote{\url{http://tinytim.stsci.edu/cgi-bin/tinytimweb.cgi}}.
\else
{\sc tiny tim} \citep{Krist95,Krist11}\footnote{http://tinytim.stsci.edu/cgi-bin/tinytimweb.cgi}.
\fi
\input{table1.tex}
\begin{figure}
\ifpdflatex
\includegraphics[width=8.6cm, angle=0]{fig2.png}
\else
\includegraphics[width=8.6cm, angle=0]{../../data/N3627/wfc3_march/postage_stamps_labels3x3.eps}
\fi
\caption{The region surrounding SN 1997bs in the new \emph{HST} WFC3 images, the ACS $F555W$ image from 2009, and the pre-SN WFPC2 $F555W$ image. The radius of the green circles (0$\farcs$1) is 25 times our positional uncertainty and each image is $1\farcs0$ across. \label{fig:postage_stamps}}
\end{figure}
The closest source found by {\sc dolphot} at \emph{I}-band is 0$\farcs$04 from the expected position of SN 1997bs with a centroid uncertainty estimated from the reported S/N of the detection of 0$\farcs$004. We also estimate the uncertainty by bootstrap resampling the set of six $F814W$ images that are co-added to form the reference image. The rms in the location of the closest source to the position of SN 1997bs using these different reference images is 0$\farcs$11. The rms of the source location found using {\sc dolphot} with slightly different sets of parameters is $\sim 0\farcs03$. Taken together, these uncertainties mean that the source position is consistent with the position of SN 1997bs. The photometry for the ACS/WFC images was found by again running {\sc dolphot} with the same reference image. We report the {\sc dolphot} photometry of the \emph{HST} data in Table \ref{tab:photometry}, separately listing the statistical uncertainties from {\sc dolphot} and systematic uncertainties estimated from the standard deviations of the fluxes measured using a range of {\sc dolphot} parameter settings.
We also looked for an IR source at the position of SN 1997bs.
First we registered the \emph{SST} images to the \emph{HST} data using the GEOMAP task in {\sc iraf} with coordinates of matched point sources. The point sources were identified by subtracting \emph{SST} images convolved with a larger kernel from those convolved with a smaller kernel. The rms in the astrometric solution is $\sim0\farcs12$. There is no clear point source at the position of SN 1997bs in the \emph{SST} data but we give upper limits based on aperture photometry in Table \ref{tab:photometry}. Unfortunately SN 1997bs is coincident with diffuse IR emission from a spiral arm, making photometric measurements challenging. In order to minimize contamination from diffuse emission and other sources we use a $1\farcs2$ radius aperture with a $1\farcs2 - 3\farcs6$ radius sky annulus together with empirically-determined aperture corrections. While such a small sky annulus includes significant point source flux, the background is non-uniform on larger scales.
We also measure the variability of SN 1997bs in the \emph{SST} images taken between 2004 and 2014 using image subtraction. While the $3.6~\mu\mathrm{m}$ flux stays constant, the $4.5~\mu\mathrm{m}$ flux declines by 24 $\mu$Jy.
\newcommand{\photdata}{
HST WFC3/UVIS $F275W$ & $>24.7$ & 2014-02-08 \\
HST WFC3/UVIS $F336W$ & $26.72 \pm 0.69 \pm 0.63$ & 2014-02-08 \\
HST WFC3/UVIS $F438W$ & $27.13 \pm 0.35 \pm 0.54$ & 2014-02-08 \\
HST WFC3/UVIS $F555W$ & $26.90 \pm 0.15 \pm 0.52$ & 2013-11-28, 2014-02-08 \\
HST WFC3/UVIS $F814W$ & $25.49 \pm 0.12 \pm 0.11$ & 2013-11-28, 2014-02-08 \\
HST WFC3/IR $F110W$ & $23.83 \pm 0.04 \pm 0.35$ & 2013-11-28 \\
HST WFC3/IR $F160W$ & $22.64 \pm 0.04 \pm 0.26$ & 2013-11-29 \\
SST IRAC $3.6~\mu\mathrm{m}$ & $>18.2$ ($<15~\mu$Jy) & July 2013, Feb-Mar-Aug 2014 \\
SST IRAC $4.5~\mu\mathrm{m}$ & $>18.5$ ($<7~\mu$Jy) & July 2013, Feb-Mar-Aug 2014 \\
SST IRAC $5.8~\mu\mathrm{m}$ & $>15.1$ ($<109~\mu$Jy) & May 2004 \\
SST IRAC $8.0~\mu\mathrm{m}$ & $>12.5$ ($<645~\mu$Jy) & May 2004 \\
SST IRAC $3.6~\mu\mathrm{m}$ & $>18.2$ ($<15~\mu$Jy) & May 2004 \\
SST IRAC $4.5~\mu\mathrm{m}$ & $>16.9$ ($<31~\mu$Jy) & May 2004 \\
HST ACS/WFC $F435W$ & $26.78 \pm 0.17 \pm 0.04$ & 2004-12-31 \\
HST ACS/WFC $F555W$ & $25.97 \pm 0.17 \pm 0.03$ & 2009-12-14 \\
HST ACS/WFC $F814W$ & $24.81 \pm 0.10 \pm 0.00$ & 2009-12-14 \\
HST WFPC2 $F555W$ & $25.8 \pm 0.3$
\ifapj
\tablenotemark{a}
\else
$^{a}$
\fi
& 2001-03-04 \\
HST WFPC2 $F814W$ & $>25.0$
\ifapj
\tablenotemark{a}
\else
$^{a}$
\fi
& 2001-02-24, 2001-05-28 \\
}
\ifapj
\begin{deluxetable*}{ccc}
\tablecaption{Photometry}
\tablehead{
\colhead{Filter} &
\colhead{Magnitude ($\pm$ stat $\pm$ sys)} &
\colhead{Epoch} }
\startdata
\else
\begin{table*}
\begin{minipage}{10cm}
\caption{Photometry}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\hline
\hline
{Filter} & {Magnitude ($\pm$ stat $\pm$ sys)} & {Epoch} \\
\hline
\fi
\photdata
\ifapj
\enddata
\tablenotetext{a}{Photometry taken from \cite{Li02}}
\tablecomments{Upper limits are from aperture photometry.}
\label{tab:photometry}
\end{deluxetable*}
\else
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
$^{a}$Photometry taken from \cite{Li02} \\
Magnitudes listed with uncertainties are from {\sc DOLPHOT} PSF photometry. Magnitudes with only upper limits are from aperture photometry.
\label{tab:photometry}
\end{minipage}
\end{table*}
\fi
We use the LBT data to place limits on optical variability at the coordinates of SN 1997bs. No source is detected at the position of SN 1997bs and with a dozen epochs spanning 2008-2014 we find slopes consistent with zero in all filters
($150 \pm 420$, $-260 \pm 450$, $320 \pm 390$, and $310 \pm 660$
L$_{\odot}\>\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ and with rms residuals of
1400, 3200, 1600, and 2900 L$_{\odot}$ in \emph{U}, \emph{B}, \emph{V}, and \emph{R} respectively, where the uncertainties include both statistical uncertainties and systematic uncertainties estimated from the rms of light curves of a sigma-clipped grid of points within 45 arc-sec of the coordinates of SN 1997bs). The new \emph{HST} observations reveal that the $F555W$ luminosity at the position of 97bs decreased by $\sim1.1\pm0.6$ mag between 2001 and 2013 and the $F814W$ luminosity decreased by $\sim0.7\pm0.2$ mag between 2009 and 2013. In principle, the \emph{HST} data can place more stringent limits on variability of the source due to the longer baseline and better resolution, but in practice the LBT variability limits may be more reliable and less susceptible to systematic errors by virtue of coming from a single instrument and using image subtraction.
\subsection{Confusion}
\label{sec:confusion}
Since we are considering a faint source in a crowded field, we must evaluate the likelihood that our detected \emph{HST} source could be an incidental detection of an unrelated source. We find that the surface density of all {\sc dolphot} sources within 0$\farcs$8
of the position of SN 1997bs is 31/arc-sec$^{2}$, which corresponds to a $15\%$ chance of an unrelated source being detected within 0$\farcs$04 (the distance of the closest source from the SN location) by chance. For sources as bright (in $F814W$) as the detection, the surface density is 7/sq-arcsec, which reduces the chance of confusion to $4\%$. However, aperture photometry seems to indicate that confusion is more substantial, with $\sim 30\%$ of apertures laid out over a 0$\farcs$8 grid surrounding the source yielding fluxes as bright as our detection. The large difference between the two methods might be due to {\sc dolphot} limiting detections to only nearly point-like objects or from source deblending.
Another possibility is that the detection is a surviving companion to the progenitor of SN 1997bs. Massive stars have a large multiplicity fraction
($>82\%$) \citep{Chini12}.
\cite{Kochanek09} estimates the magnitude distribution of surviving companions of ccSNe for a set of progenitor masses assuming a uniform distribution of mass ratios. Unfortunately, the mass of the progenitor of SN 1997bs is not well constrained, but out of the four progenitor models calculated, the progenitor's $m_{F555W}=22.86$ is most consistent with the $20 M_{\odot}$ model. For this progenitor mass and assuming a binary fraction of $80\%$ there is very roughly a 5-$20\%$ chance that there would be a surviving companion to SN 1997bs brighter than our detection. However, as discussed in \cite{Kochanek09}, most secondaries of exploding stars are fainter, blue main sequence stars, but our detection is relatively red ($V-I\sim1.4$)
and would correspond to $T_{*}\sim4400$ K
if the SED is not strongly influenced by dust. This reduces the likelihood that the detection is a surviving companion.
For the \emph{SST} data the variability in the $4.5~\mu\mathrm{m}$ flux strongly suggests that the $4.5~\mu\mathrm{m}$ flux observed in 2004 is associated with SN 1997bs. The IR flux remaining in 2013/14 may be only due to diffuse emission coincident with the original source.
\subsection{Basic Scalings for Dust}
A common picture of SN impostors is that a surviving star is obscured by a dusty shell ejected at the time of the transient. For such a model, geometry dictates that at late times the evolution of the optical depth of a uniform shell expanding at a constant velocity is $\tau(t) \propto t^{-2}$, where $t$ is the time elapsed since the ejection of the shell. The observed visible light is dominated by scattered photons rather than direct emission, so inhomogeneities in the shells have less effect than naively expected \citep[see][]{Kochanek12}. In particular, inhomogeneities can only grow with time and accelerate the optical depth evolution, which would further strengthen our arguments. The evolution of the optical depth in turn must result in a change in the observed luminosity (in a given filter). Consequently, the limits on the observed variability of a source surrounded by an expanding shell can be used to constrain the current effective absorption optical depth, $\tau_{\mathrm{eff}} = \left[ \tau_{\mathrm{abs}} (\tau_{\mathrm{abs}} + \tau_{\mathrm{sca}}) \right]^{1/2}$, where $\tau_{\mathrm{abs}}$ and $\tau_{\mathrm{sca}}$ are the absorption and scattering optical depths, by
\begin{equation}
\tau_{V,\mathrm{eff}}<\frac{1}{2}\frac{t}{L_{V,\mathrm{obs}}}\left(\frac{dL_{V,\mathrm{obs}}}{dt}\right) ,
\label{eqn:taulimit}
\end{equation}
where $t$ is again the elapsed time, $L_{V,\mathrm{obs}}$ is the current observed luminosity, and $dL_{V,\mathrm{obs}}/dt$ is the limit on the rate of change in the observed \emph{V}-band luminosity.
Similarly, variability limits constrain the maximum luminosity, $L_{*,V}$, of a star surviving within an expanding shell to
\begin{equation}
L_{*,V}< \frac{1}{2}\frac{t}{\tau_{V,\mathrm{eff}}}\left(\frac{dL_{V,\mathrm{obs}}}{dt}\right) \mathrm{e}^{\tau_{V,\mathrm{eff}}} .
\label{eqn:lumlimit}
\end{equation}
Late-time data, in addition to constraining the optical depth of an expanding shell and the luminosity of a surviving star from the observed variability, can also be used to estimate the mass of the shell.
The mass of the shell, $M_{\mathrm{ej}}$, is related to the total optical depth, $\tau_{V,\mathrm{tot}}$, by
\begin{equation}
M_{\mathrm{ej}} = \frac{ 4 \pi v_{\mathrm{e}}^{2} t^{2} \tau_{V,\mathrm{tot}}(t)}{\kappa_{V}} ,
\label{eqn:ejectedmass}
\end{equation}
where $v_{\mathrm{e}}$ is the radial velocity of the shell and $\kappa_{V}$ is the opacity at \emph{V}-band. The total and effective optical depths are related by the albedo $w$ with $\tau_{\mathrm{eff}} = (1-w)^{1/2} \tau_{\mathrm{tot}}$.
Another case to consider is that the progenitor star is obscured by a steady-state dusty wind. We can estimate the mass-loss rate needed to obscure the progenitor star with such a wind. If we assume that all of the dust forms at the dust formation radius, $R_{\mathrm{f}}$, then the rate of mass-loss is:
\begin{equation}
\dot{M} = \frac{4\pi v_{\mathrm{w}} R_{\mathrm{f}} \tau_{V,\mathrm{tot}}}{\kappa_{V}}
\label{eqn:mdot}
\end{equation}
where $R_{\mathrm{f}} \sim L^{1/2} / T_{\mathrm{f}}^{2}$ and $T_{\mathrm{f}} \sim 1500$ K is the dust formation temperature.
More precisely the dust begins to form at $R_{\mathrm{f}}$, where the temperature is low enough for grain condensation at a rate proportional to density. As discussed in \cite{Kochanek11}, $R_{\mathrm{f}}$ has a complex temperature dependence, but would only range from $2.3\times 10^{14}$ cm for a $10^{4.7} L_{\odot}$, 7500 K star to $2.8\times 10^{15}$ cm for a $10^{5.4} L_{\odot}$, 20,000 K star. The dust opacity depends on the distribution of grain sizes and the dust-to-gas ratio, but will generally be within a factor of 2 of 100 cm$^{2}$/g (of gas) at V-band.
If the dust is aspherically distributed, the ejected mass inferred by Eqn. \ref{eqn:ejectedmass} for the shell case and the rate of mass-loss for the wind case from Eqn. \ref{eqn:mdot} could be over- or underestimates depending on the specific geometry and orientation of the system. However, the temporal scalings for the optical depth encoded by Eqn. \ref{eqn:taulimit} and \ref{eqn:lumlimit} should remain reasonable approximations even for complex geometries \citep{Kochanek12}.
We will utilize these relations in \S\ref{sec:shell} and \S\ref{sec:wind} to help determine whether a surviving star to SN 1997bs could be obscured by an expanding shell or steady-state wind.
\subsection{DUSTY}
We model the SED of the source using {\sc dusty} \citep{Ivezic97,Ivezic99,Elitzur01}, a code for solving radiative transfer through a spherically symmetric dusty medium. We use stellar atmospheric models from \cite{Castelli04} for stars of various temperatures and solar composition.
We find best-fitting models using a Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) wrapper around {\sc dusty} for both silicate and for graphitic dust from \cite{Draine84} using a standard MRN grain size distribution \cite[$dn/da \propto a^{-3.5}$ with $0.005~\mu\mathrm{m} < a < 0.25~\mu\mathrm{m}$;][]{Mathis77}. In Appendix \ref{app:one} we show that our conclusions are not dependent on this choice for the grain size distribution. Since silicate dust is the type expected to form around more massive stars (like the progenitor of SN 1997bs was believed to be) and the conclusions of the paper are robust to the chosen dust type, we will only present the results for silicate dust.
For the MRN grain size distribution of silicate dust $w_{V} \simeq 0.86$, making $\tau_{V,\mathrm{eff}} \simeq 0.37 \tau_{V,\mathrm{tot}}$.
The models assume that a shell with a thickness ($R_{\mathrm{out}}/R_{\mathrm{in}}$) of 2.0 expanding with a velocity of $v_{\mathrm{e}} = 765~\mathrm{km\>s^{-1}}$ \citep[$\pm$ a factor of 2;][]{Smith11} was ejected during the 1997 event. We actively expand $R_{\mathrm{in}}$ at this rate since the effects of dust are dominated by $R_{\mathrm{in}}$ because optical depth drops as $R^{-1}$. We also produce models for a dusty wind by setting $R_{\mathrm{in}}$ equal to the radius corresponding to a typical dust formation temperature of 1500 K \citep[see, e.g.,][]{Kochanek14}.
The $\chi^{2}$ used in the MCMC is calculated with the logarithmic (linear) differences between modeled and observed fluxes (or limits) in each filter treated as a detection (or limit) and, for the expanding shell models, between modeled and observed $v_{\mathrm{e}}$ (to place the dust at the $R_{\mathrm{in}}$ corresponding to the given dust temperature).
When considering all photometric constraints as only upper limits, we calculate the $\Delta\chi^{2}$ compared to having no star as functions of $L_{*}$ and $T_{*}$. When folding in the light curves we add $\chi^2$ contributions for each observation, $n$, in each filter, $f$, found by
\begin{equation}
\chi^2_{f,n} = \left( \frac{L_{\mathrm{obs},f,n} - L_{\mathrm{mod},f,n}}{\sigma_{L_{\mathrm{obs},f,n}}} \right)^2 ,
\label{eqn:lumchi2}
\end{equation}
where the model luminosity
\begin{equation}
L_{\mathrm{mod},f,n} = L_{*,f} \mathrm{e}^{-\tau_{\mathrm{eff},f,n}}
\label{eqn:lummodel}
\end{equation}
is controlled by the evolution of the optical depth
\begin{equation}
\tau_{\mathrm{eff},f,n} = \tau_{\mathrm{eff},f} \left[ \left( \frac{T}{t_{n}} \right)^2 - 1 \right] .
\label{eqn:tauevol}
\end{equation}
In this model, $\tau_{\mathrm{eff},f}$ is the optical depth at the time of the latest observations $T=16.5$ yr after the transient and $t_{n}$ is the time elapsed since the transient for observation $n$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\ifpdflatex
\includegraphics[width=8.6cm]{fig3.pdf}
\else
\includegraphics[width=8.6cm]{../../dusty/mylimits/2014_silicate_shell_f814f555_mcmc/sed_extrapolation.ps}
\fi
\end{center}
\caption{The SED of SN 1997bs with the best-fitting model for a silicate shell when treating our $F555W$ and $F814W$ photometry as detections and the other bands as upper limits. The latest \emph{HST} and \emph{SST} detections and limits for a surviving star are shown as the open pentagons with the current best-fitting observed model spectrum shown as the thick black line. This best-fitting model has $T_{*}=$ 18,900 K, $\tau_{V,\mathrm{tot}}=5.34$, and $L_{*}=10^{4.90}~L_{\odot}$. We also show this best-fitting model evolved forwards in time to 2017 in green and backwards in time to 2009 in blue with $\tau \propto t^{-2}$ but with the same $T_{*}$ and $L_{*}$. The tension between the 2009 \emph{HST} photometry, shown as the open blue triangles, with the best-fitting shell model evolved back to 2009 illustrates how models in which SN 1997bs is obscured by an expanding dusty shell cannot be reconciled with the late-time optical evolution. Although the present-day luminosity constraints allow for SED solutions with higher IR fluxes these solutions require higher optical depths, which, when evolved backwards in time, are even more incompatible with the 2009 \emph{HST} photometry. For comparison, we show the \emph{HST} progenitor detection as the solid black square and an unobscured model spectrum with $T_{*}=$ 18,900 K and $L_{*}=10^{5.47}~L_{\odot}$ as the dashed magenta line. \label{fig:sed_shell}}
\end{figure}
\section{A Star Obscured by Dust?}
\label{sec:models}
We consider whether the progenitor of SN 1997bs could have survived obscured by either an expanding dusty shell or by a steady-state wind. Our candidate late-time detection, like those in earlier studies, is marginal and confusion is a non-trivial issue. Therefore, we will consider a range of interpretations for which observations constitute detections and which are only upper limits. We consider the case of $F555W$ and $F814W$ as detections since detections in these filters have been previously reported \citep{Li02,vanDyk12}. We also consider the case of only $F814W$ as a detection, as this is the filter in which a detection is most convincing visually. We consider the case of $F814W$ and $4.5~\mu$m as detections because there was a decline in $4.5~\mu$m flux between 2004 and 2014 and this represents a scenario in which there is high obscuration. Finally, we consider the case where all of the photometry is treated as upper limits, since the candidate detections are marginal and could be due to confusion.
\subsection{Obscuration by an Expanding Shell}
\label{sec:shell}
First, we model our photometry as though a surviving star obscured by an expanding shell is recovered with detections in $F555W$ and $F814W$ but only upper limits in the other filters. We present, as an example, the best-fitting SED for this case in Fig. \ref{fig:sed_shell}. This best-fitting SED is almost a factor of 4 fainter than the luminosity of a progenitor with the same $T_{*}$ and relies on a large amount of obscuration ($\tau_{V,\mathrm{tot}}=5.3$) to account for the low optical flux currently observed.
The complete results of our MCMC modeling are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:shell}. When considering only the latest photometric constraints for each filter (the cases displayed on the left side of Fig. \ref{fig:shell}), it is the possible that the star survived with unchanged luminosity but is cloaked beneath a significant amount of extinction. In the cases where either the $F555W$ and $F814W$ photometry or only the $F814W$ photometry is treated as a detection, the star can be cool with relatively low luminosity and low obscuration or hot with higher luminosity and higher obscuration. The $F814W$-only case allows a more luminous surviving star than the $F555W$ and $F814W$ case because the models no longer have to fit the shallow slope between the $F555W$ and $F814W$ magnitudes, enabling scenarios with higher optical depths to achieve good fits. In the $F814W$ and $4.5~\mu$m case, a cooler star with lower luminosity and lower obscuration is not allowed by the mid-IR detection, which requires a significant luminosity to be reprocessed by dust. If all of the photometry is taken as only upper limits, the MCMC modeling would be poorly constrained, so we instead show the maximum allowed luminosity of a surviving star for optical depths of $\tau_{V,\mathrm{tot}}=$ 0, 1, 3, and 10. The limits-only case echoes the results of the other cases -- the latest photometric constraints, taken alone, allow for a luminous, but heavily obscured, surviving star.
These limits are relatively robust to variations in the velocity of the expanding shell. Doubling the assumed velocity of the expanding shell only significantly increases the maximum luminosity of a surviving star with $T_{*}\gtrsim25,000$ K and $\tau_{V,\mathrm{tot}}=10$ and then only by $\sim0.3$ dex. Conversely, halving the expansion velocity decreases the maximum luminosity in the same parameter range by a similar amount.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\ifpdflatex
\includegraphics[width=0.78\textwidth]{fig4.png}
\else
\includegraphics[width=0.78\textwidth]{../../dusty/mylimits/fig4.ps}
\fi
\end{center}
\caption{MCMC results for the luminosity and temperature of a surviving star obscured by an expanding shell ejected at the time of the SN 1997bs transient when imposing different possible photometric constraints: treating the \emph{HST} WFC3/UVIS $F555W$ and $F814W$ photometry as detections and the other filters as only upper limits (top row), treating the \emph{HST} WFC3/UVIS $F814W$ photometry as a detection and the other filters as upper limits (2nd row from the top), treating the \emph{HST} WFC3/UVIS $F814W$ and \emph{SST} $4.5~\mu$m photometry as detections and the other filters as upper limits (2nd row from the bottom), and treating all photometry as upper limits (bottom row). The panels on the right also fold in the constraints from the LBT and \emph{HST} light curves.
The shaded bands in the panels on the bottom row show the luminosities within the 90-99.99\% confidence intervals ($6.25 < \Delta \chi^2 < 21.1$ for three parameters -- $L_{*}$, $T_{*}$, and $\tau$) relative to no surviving star) for $\tau_{V,\mathrm{tot}}=$ 0, 1, 3, and 10.
For comparison, the solid black line and gray band indicates the progenitor luminosity as constrained by the pre-explosion measurement of $m_{\mathrm{F606}}=22.86$ and its $1\sigma$ uncertainty (0.16 mag). The lowest $\chi^2$ value for the 10,000 MCMC steps accepted is given for each panel. The panels on the left show that the latest photometric constraints taken alone do not rule out the star surviving with its pre-eruption luminosity if obscured by a shell with $\tau_{V,\mathrm{tot}} \mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower5pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$>$}}} 5$.
However, the panels on the right that fold in the light curve evolution only allow a luminous surviving star in the `\emph{I}$+4.5\mu\mathrm{m}+$LC' and `Limits$+$LC' cases. The former is heavily disfavored by the relatively high $\chi^2_{\mathrm{min}}$ while the latter would require that all late-time optical detections are of an unrelated source.
\label{fig:shell}}
\end{figure*}
That solutions consistent with the photometric data exist does not mean they are physical because they may imply unphysical ejecta masses or unobserved variability. First, we consider the ejecta mass needed to obscure a surviving star with an unchanged intrinsic luminosity and temperature. Fig. \ref{fig:shell} shows that this would require the current optical depth to be $\tau_{V,\mathrm{tot}} \sim 10$. Using Eqn. \ref{eqn:ejectedmass}, we estimate
\begin{eqnarray}
M_{\mathrm{ej}} = 1.0 \left( \frac{v_{\mathrm{e}}}{765~\mathrm{km\>s^{-1}}} \right)^{2} \left( \frac{t}{16.5~\mathrm{yr}} \right)^{2} \nonumber \\ \times \left( \frac{\tau_{V,\mathrm{tot}}}{10} \right) \left( \frac{100~\mathrm{cm^{2}/g}}{\kappa_{V}} \right) M_{\odot} .
\label{eqn:scaledejectedmass}
\end{eqnarray}
Such an ejected mass is feasible, but, as we shall see, this scenario is inconsistent with the variability constraints dictated by geometric expansion if any of the late-time photometric detections are powered by the luminosity from a surviving star.
The kinetic energy of the ejecta, $E_{\mathrm{kin}} = \frac{1}{2} M_{\mathrm{ej}} v_{\mathrm{e}}^{2}$,
in this scenario would be
\begin{eqnarray}
E_{\mathrm{kin}} = 6 \times 10^{48} \left( \frac{v_{\mathrm{e}}}{765~\mathrm{km\>s^{-1}}} \right)^{4} \left( \frac{t}{16.5~\mathrm{yr}} \right)^{2} \nonumber \\ \times \left( \frac{\tau_{V,\mathrm{tot}}}{10} \right) \left( \frac{100~\mathrm{cm}^{2}/\mathrm{g}}{\kappa_{V}} \right)~\mathrm{erg} .
\end{eqnarray}
We compare this to the radiated energy, $E_{\mathrm{rad}} = t_{1.5} \zeta L_{\mathrm{peak}}$, of the transient estimated by \cite{Smith11} of
\begin{equation}
E_{\mathrm{rad}} = 7 \times 10^{49} \left( \frac{t_{1.5}}{45~\mathrm{days}} \right) \left( \frac{L_{\mathrm{peak}}}{1.2 \times 10^{7}~L_{\odot}} \right) \zeta~\mathrm{erg} ,
\end{equation}
where $L_{\mathrm{peak}}$ is the peak luminosity of the outburst, $t_{1.5}$ is the time for the transient to fade by 1.5 mag from its peak, and $\zeta \sim 1$ is a dimensionless factor that depends on the shape of the light curve. The high ratio of radiated to kinetic energy in this scenario would likely require a radiative, rather than explosive, mechanism. We do caution that these estimates of $M_{\mathrm{ej}}$ and $E_{\mathrm{kin}}$ assume homogeneous, spherically distributed ejecta.
Fig. \ref{fig:sed_shell} also illustrates how the expanding shell model that best fits the latest data would necessarily have been much fainter in the optical in 2009, in gross disagreement with the \emph{HST} photometry from 2009. A model in which $\tau_{V,\mathrm{tot}}=10$ would be in even more severe conflict with the photometric evolution. More quantitatively, using Eqn. \ref{eqn:taulimit} with the 3$\sigma$ upper limit on the variability from the LBT data constrains the current maximum optical depth of an expanding shell to be
\begin{equation}
\tau_{V,\mathrm{eff}} < 11 \left(\frac{t}{16.5~\mathrm{yr}}\right) \left(\frac{1140~L_{\odot}}{L_{V,\mathrm{obs}}}\right) \left(\frac{dL_{V,\mathrm{obs}}/dt}{1500~L_{\odot}\>\mathrm{yr}^{-1}}\right) .
\end{equation}
Similarly, we can use the variability limits from LBT and Eqn. \ref{eqn:lumlimit} to constrain the maximum luminosity of a star surviving within an expanding shell as
\begin{equation}
L_{*,V}< 3.3 \times 10^{4} \left(\frac{t}{16.5~\mathrm{yr}}\right) \left(\frac{dL_{V,\mathrm{obs}}/dt}{1500~L_{\odot}\>\mathrm{yr}^{-1}}\right) \frac{\mathrm{e}^{\tau_{V,\mathrm{eff}}-1}}{\tau_{V,\mathrm{eff}}} L_{\odot} \label{eqn:lumlimitscaled} .
\end{equation}
These limits from the LBT are less constraining than the decline in flux seen in the \emph{HST} observations. In Fig. \ref{fig:shell}, the panels on the right show the constraining effect of using the both the LBT and \emph{HST} light curves from 2008-14 with Eqn. \ref{eqn:lumchi2} and \ref{eqn:lummodel}. The effects of the luminosity constraints should be relatively robust to departures from our assumptions of homogeneous, spherically-distributed dust.
The light curves restrict solutions to have low optical depths ($\tau_{V,\mathrm{tot}} \mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower5pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$<$}}} 1$). Although the \emph{I}$+4.5~\mu\mathrm{m}+$LC case still appears to favor a luminous, obscured survivor, the $\chi^{2}_{\mathrm{min}}$ for this case is much higher than that for the other cases, indicating that it is strongly disfavored.
Moreover, the putative \emph{HST} source at the coordinates of 97bs seems to have faded between 1998 and 2013, which further disfavors any expanding shell scenario in which the optical flux at the position of 97bs is from a surviving star. The remaining expanding shell scenario is that the star is still heavily obscured ($\tau_{V,\mathrm{tot}}\gtrsim10$) and the optical emission reported here and by \cite{Li02} and \cite{vanDyk12} is not from a surviving star.
Such a scenario is difficult to reconcile with the first year of the transient light curve. The light curve presented by \cite{vanDyk00} shows that SN 1997bs rapidly evolved to the red, with the redward color evolution peaking at $V-I \sim 3$ by eight months after discovery, which given the constraints on the ejecta velocity and the progenitor \emph{V}-band detection is roughly the time at which the ejecta should have reached the dust formation radius. As discussed in \cite{Kochanek12}, this peak in the color evolution corresponds to a peak in the optical depth at $\tau_{V}\simeq10$. A shell with $\tau_{V}=10$ at eight months would have evolved to $\tau_{V}\sim 0.02$ by our latest \emph{HST} observations. Such a low optical depth would not allow a luminous survivor. It may be possible that slower-moving ejecta reached the dust formation radius and formed additional dust during gaps in the coverage of the light curve later than nine months post-discovery, but all subsequent observations have constrained SN 1997bs to be much less red than it was at eight months.
\subsection{Obscuration by a Wind}
\label{sec:wind}
Rather than being obscured by a dusty shell ejected during the outburst in 1997, the surviving star could be obscured by a steady-state dusty wind that began following the transient. For our standard models we adopt an inner (dust formation) temperature of $T_{\mathrm{f}}=1500$ K. We present, as an example, the best-fitting SED for a wind when treating our $F555W$ and $F814W$ photometry as detections and the other bands as upper limits in Fig. \ref{fig:best_silicate_wind_sed}. The striking fact is that the luminosity of the best-fitting SED for our candidate detection is fainter than the progenitor by nearly a factor of 20 when modeled as being obscured by a dusty wind.
\begin{figure}
\ifpdflatex
\includegraphics[width=8.6cm, angle=0]{fig5.pdf}
\else
\includegraphics[width=8.6cm, angle=0]{fig5.ps}
\fi
\caption{The SED of SN 1997bs with the best-fit model for a silicate wind with an inner edge temperature of $T_{\mathrm{f}} = 1500$ K when treating our $F555W$ and $F814W$ photometry as detections and the other bands as upper limits. The \emph{HST} and \emph{SST} detections and limits for a surviving star are shown as the black open pentagons with the best-fit observed model spectrum shown as the thick black line, the intrinsic input SED is the thin blue line, and the contributions of the attenuated input radiation, scattered radiation, and dust emission are shown as thin red solid, dotted, and dashed lines respectively. This particular model has $T_{*}=5252$ K, $\tau_{V,\mathrm{tot}}=1.95$, and $L_{*}=3197~L_{\odot}$. While the mid-IR limits are relatively weak, the near-IR constraints on hot dust prevent solutions with much higher luminosities and optical depths. For comparison, we show the \emph{HST} progenitor detection as the solid black square and a model spectrum also with $T_{*}=5252$ K and $L_{*}=10^{4.80}~L_{\odot}$ as the dashed magenta line. \label{fig:best_silicate_wind_sed}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\ifpdflatex
\includegraphics[width=0.78\textwidth]{fig6.png}
\else
\includegraphics[width=0.78\textwidth]{../../dusty/mylimits/fig6.ps}
\fi
\end{center}
\caption{MCMC results for the luminosity and temperature of a surviving star obscured by a steady-state wind when imposing different possible photometric constraints: treating the \emph{HST} WFC3/UVIS $F555W$ and $F814W$ photometry as detections and the other filters as only upper limits (top left), treating the \emph{HST} WFC3/UVIS $F814W$ photometry as a detection and the other filters as upper limits (top right), treating the \emph{HST} WFC3/UVIS $F814W$ and \emph{SST} $4.5~\mu$m photometry as detections and the other filters as upper limits (bottom left), and treating all photometry as upper limits (bottom right).
The shaded bands in the `Limits Only' panel show the luminosities within the 90-99.99\% confidence intervals ($6.25 < \Delta \chi^2 < 21.1$ for three parameters -- $L_{*}$, $T_{*}$, and $\tau$ -- relative to no surviving star) for $\tau_{V,\mathrm{tot}}=$ 0, 1, 3, and 10.
For comparison, the solid black line and gray band indicates the progenitor luminosity as constrained by the pre-explosion measurement of $m_{F606}=22.86$ and its $1\sigma$ uncertainty (0.16 mag). The lowest $\chi^2$ value for the 10,000 MCMC steps accepted is given for each panel. Well-fitted wind models are possible when treating the $F555W$ and $F814W$ photometry as detections, but these models require a surviving star to be much fainter than the progenitor. Though the panel where both the $F814W$ and the $4.5~\mu$m photometry are treated as detections appears to allow a luminous survivor, these models have a high $\chi^{2}$ because of the great difficulty in accounting for the $4.5~\mu$m flux with $T_{\mathrm{f}} = 1500$ K dust without violating the \emph{HST} near-IR limits. It is unlikely that a surviving star is obscured by a steady-state wind unless the star is significantly fainter than the progenitor. \label{fig:wind}}
\end{figure*}
The complete MCMC results are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:wind}.
The \emph{HST} $F110W$ and $F160W$ photometric limits strongly constrain the amount of hot dust around the source. As a result, at least for the cases where only optical filters are treated as detections, a surviving star is constrained to be cool with low to moderate obscuration ($\tau_{V,\mathrm{tot}} \mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower5pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$<$}}} 7$) and a significantly lower luminosity than the progenitor. While the case where the $F814W$ and $4.5~\mu$m photometry are treated as detections appears to favor a heavily obscured source with only slightly lower luminosity than the progenitor, all of the models in this case have high $\chi^{2}$ values because of the great difficulty in accounting for the $4.5~\mu$m flux with $T_{\mathrm{f}} = 1500$ K without violating the \emph{HST} near-IR limits. When we model all of the photometry as upper limits (see the lower-left panel in Fig. \ref{fig:wind}) we see that $\tau_{V,\mathrm{tot}}\gtrsim10$ is needed to allow the star to survive with an undiminished luminosity behind a dusty wind. As illustrated by the high $\chi^{2}$ values of the case where the $F814W$ and $4.5~\mu$m photometry are treated as detections, such a high optical depth is only possible if all the optical constraints are only upper limits.
These limits are relatively robust to variations in the assumed dust condensation temperature in the wind. Models of a steady-state wind with cooler dust condensation temperatures result in slightly weaker luminosity limits for a hot, heavily obscured surviving star. Even if we drop the condensation temperature to $T_{\mathrm{f}} = 1000$ K (750 K) the luminosity limit for a $T_{*}>7500$ K surviving star with $\tau_{V,\mathrm{tot}}=10$ only increases by $\sim0.3$ dex ($\sim0.5$ dex). We note, however, that setting $T_{\mathrm{f}} = 1000$ K significantly improves the fit of the model ($\chi_{\mathrm{min}}=0.9$) in the case where $F814W$ and $4.5~\mu$m are treated as detections by easing the tension with the near-IR flux limits.
We can use Eqn. \ref{eqn:mdot} to estimate the mass-loss rate required to achieve $\tau_{V,\mathrm{tot}}\sim10$. Using the observed ejecta velocity of SN 1997bs as $v_{\mathrm{w}}$, the mass-loss rate would correspond to $3\times 10^{-4}~M_{\odot}\>\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ ($4\times 10^{-3}~M_{\odot}\>\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$) for a $10^{4.7}~L_{\odot}$ ($10^{5.4}~L_{\odot}$), 7500 K (20,000 K) star. Such high mass-loss rates are typical of active LBVs \citep{Puls08}, although a still higher mass-loss rate of $\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower5pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$>$}}} 10^{-2.5}~M_{\odot}\>\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ is needed in order for dust formation to occur around hot ($T\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower5pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$>$}}} 10,000$ K) stars \citep{Kochanek11,Kochanek14}. Additionally, at these high mass-loss rates, the wind itself becomes optically thick independent of any dust leading to a pseudophotosphere with an apparent temperature of $T \sim 7000$ K \citep{Davidson87}.
A mass loss rate of $\dot{M}>10^{-2.5}~M_{\odot}\>\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ would correspond to $\tau_{V,\mathrm{tot}}>140$ (12) for $T_{*} = 7500$ K (20,000 K). Essentially this means that for a hot surviving star there must be either no dust in the wind or a very thick dusty wind ($\tau_{V,\mathrm{tot}}>12$).
However, $\tau_{V,\mathrm{tot}}>>10$ is inconsistent with any optical detection of a source.
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:conclusions}
The new \emph{HST} images we present clearly lack a source with optical flux comparable to the progenitor of SN 1997bs. If SN 1997bs was a non-terminal event the diminished optical flux could be due to increased obscuration of the star, an increase in the star's temperature, or an intrinsic decline in the luminosity. The alternative is that SN 1997bs was a genuine SN. We evaluate these different scenarios and the limits placed on them by the data.
\subsection{Obscuration}
The late-time photometric evolution of SN 1997bs poses a challenge to
the prevailing notion of it being an SN impostor in which a non-terminal eruption ejected a significant amount of mass that then obscured the surviving star. The observed limits on the variability at the position of SN 1997bs from \emph{HST} and LBT rule out any expanding dusty shell scenario in which the optical emission represents a `recovery' of the luminous progenitor (see the right-hand panels of Fig. \ref{fig:shell}). The data cannot, however, rule out the possibility that a surviving star is still cloaked by a dusty shell with $\tau_{V,\mathrm{tot}}>10$, but this scenario is difficult to reconcile with the earlier color evolution of the transient.
The new data are also difficult to reconcile with the alternative, a steady dusty wind, which \cite{Kochanek12} found was consistent with earlier archival data (see Fig. \ref{fig:wind}).
The high mass loss rate needed for self-shielding so that dust can form in the wind of a hot ($T_{*}\gtrsim10,000$ K) star would result in a large $\tau_{V,\mathrm{tot}}$ that would not allow the candidate optical detections reported here and by \cite{Li02} and \cite{vanDyk12}.
\subsection{Bolometric Correction}
If we assume that there is no dust obscuration, the maximum luminosity of the surviving star is $\sim10^{4.2}~L_{\odot}$ (see the $\tau_{V,\mathrm{tot}}=0$ line in the `Limits Only' panel of Fig. \ref{fig:shell} or \ref{fig:wind}), which is significantly fainter than the traditional range of luminosities for LBVs.
It is unlikely that the low luminosity could solely be the result of a large bolometric correction. Allowing a surviving star to have an effective temperature of up to 40,000 K, the maximum luminosity of a surviving star is still at least a factor of three fainter than the minimum luminosity of the progenitor.
For temperatures higher than 40,000 K, the maximum luminosity of the star can be constrained by the maximum possible H$\beta$ flux allowed by our $F555W$ photometry, since a very luminous hot star would produce a significant flux of ionizing photons and the ejecta would provide an absorbing medium. If we assume that the star emits a blackbody spectrum and is surrounded by enough gas to absorb the photons with 11\% of recombinations going through the H$\beta$ branch (based on Case B recombination coefficients for $T_{*}=20,000$ K from \cite{Draine11}) and set the H$\beta$ flux equal to our flux limit for $F555W$ (we do not use H$\alpha$ because its wavelength places it in the tail of the $F814W$ filter response curve), we find that the maximum luminosity of a $T_{*}=40,000$ K star is $\sim10^{5.0}~L_{\odot}$, with lower maximum luminosities for increasing $T_{*}$. Accordingly, we cannot completely rule out the possibility that a progenitor initially with $4400 \mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower5pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$<$}}} T_{*} \mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower5pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$<$}}} 13,000$ K survived the episode as a $T_{*}>40,000$ K Wolf--Rayet star. However,
we are unaware of any theoretical studies suggesting
that a single short duration event could affect such a dramatic change.
\subsection{A Tuckered-Out Star}
Another possibility that would allow SN 1997bs to be a non-terminal event is that the progenitor survived the event with a diminished luminosity -- the `tuckered-out' star hypothesis \citep{Smith11}. If a surviving star is unobscured and its temperature is unchanged from pre-eruption, it must be at least a factor of $\sim30$ fainter than the progenitor. No known mechanism could so drastically diminish the intrinsic luminosity of the star. As mentioned in the previous section, even if we allow for a significant increase in the temperature of the star, a factor of four decrease in the luminosity is required by the latest observations.
A conspiracy of factors could explain the dramatic drop in apparent luminosity.
Though an expanding dusty shell is ruled out by limits on the observed variability, a combination of a steady-state dusty wind and a significant increase in $T_{*}$ could allow for a surviving star with a luminosity that has declined by as little as $\sim25\%$. However, this collusion is disfavored by the candidate late-time detections of an optical source.
The `buildup' or `recovery' time-scale for the radiated energy budget given by \cite{Smith11} is $t_{\mathrm{rad}} = E_{\mathrm{rad}} / L_{*} = t_{1.5} \zeta L_{\mathrm{peak}} / L_{*}$, where $E_{\mathrm{rad}}$ is the energy radiated during the outburst, $L_{\mathrm{peak}}$ is the peak luminosity of the outburst, $L_{*}$ is the quiescent pre-outburst luminosity of the progenitor, and $\zeta$ is a dimensionless factor. For SN 1997bs this is
\begin{equation}
t_{\mathrm{rad}} \sim 27 \left( \frac{t_{1.5}}{45~\mathrm{days}} \right) \left( \frac{L_{\mathrm{peak}} / L_{*}}{220} \right) \zeta~ \mathrm{yr} ,
\end{equation}
which means that a large fraction of this recovery time-scale has already elapsed with no re-brightening of a surviving star.
This time-scale may not be the most relevant time-scale for the stellar luminosity, since the envelope would likely return to thermal equilibrium primarily through Kelvin--Helmholtz contraction rather than by energy radiated from the core. In order to decrease the bolometric luminosity for such an extended period of time, either some of the nuclear energy generated must be diverted into gravitational potential energy by inflating the stellar envelope or the nuclear luminosity must have decreased.
If the missing luminosity is being used to alter the structure of the outer layers of the star, the time-scale for it to lift mass $\Delta M$ against the gravitational potential of the star is
\begin{eqnarray}
t_{\mathrm{infl}} \sim 120 \left( \frac{\Delta M}{M_{\odot}} \right) \left( \frac{M_{*}}{20~M_{\odot}} \right) \left( \frac{T_{*}}{10,000~\mathrm{K}} \right)^{2} \nonumber \\ \times \left( \frac{L_{*}}{10^{5}~L_{\odot}} \right)^{-3/2} \left( \frac{0.5}{f} \right)~\mathrm{yr} ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $M_{*}$, $T_{*}$, and $L_{*}$ are the mass, temperature, and luminosity of the progenitor, and $f$, is the fraction by which the radiated luminosity has decreased.
This could account for the missing energy, but it is unclear if there is a theoretical mechanism that could drive this. Moreover, $t_{\mathrm{infl}}$ is not so long that we would expect no external changes on time-scales of a decade.
Another problem is that the most natural post-eruption state would be a star with an overexpanded envelope rather than the reverse. The envelope would then shrink on a thermal time-scale, rapidly at first but then slowing, making the star overluminous, not subluminous. The overexpansion is a natural consequence of any transient mechanism which has no `knowledge' of the escape speed and has mainly been discussed in the context of shock-heating non-degenerate companions of Type Ia SNe \citep{Pan13,Shappee13}.
The final alternative is for the nuclear luminosity to have decreased. The core luminosity should be unaltered as it can only change over a (core) thermal time-scale, but it might be possible for the luminosity from shell-burning to decrease suddenly in certain (fine-tuned) situations. Perhaps the progenitor had previously experienced enough mass loss for its hydrogen-burning shell to be close to its surface and the star experienced a final shell flash, analogous to the final shell flash of an asymptotic giant branch star.
If the progenitor was very massive star ($M_{i} \mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower5pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$>$}}} 80~M_{\odot}$), a thermonuclear outburst from pulsational pair instability might be another possibility \citep{Woosley15}.
\subsection{SN and Confusion}
Alternatively, SN 1997bs could have been a terminal event.
If the star went supernova, our detection of an $F814W = 25.49 \pm 0.12$ source 0$\farcs$016 from the position of SN 1997bs must be due to confusion, a surviving companion, or the SN ejecta. As we describe in \S\ref{sec:confusion}, the likelihood of our detection being due to confusion is between 4\% and 30\%. The likelihood of the source being a surviving binary companion is comparable, at 5--20\%, although we would expect a surviving companion to be bluer.
The slight decrease in luminosity between the 2001 \emph{HST}/WFPC2, 2009 \emph{HST}/ACS, and 2013 \emph{HST}/WFC3 $F555W$ and $F814W$ images reduces the likelihood that the detection is due to confusion, although there could be systematic issues in comparing the crowded field photometry based on the three different instruments and the LBT variability limits are consistent with zero.
The $4.5~\mu$m flux measured at the location of SN 1997bs dropped from a significant $31\pm4 \mu$Jy in 2004 to $7\pm3 \mu$Jy in 2014. This variability indicates that the $4.5~\mu$m flux observed in 2004 originated from SN 1997bs and is not confusion. The decrease in the $4.5~\mu$m flux while the $3.6~\mu$m flux stayed constant is difficult to explain if the $3.6~\mu$m flux is from SN 1997bs. More likely, the $3.6~\mu$m flux is unrelated to SN 1997bs (SN 1997bs is close to a spiral arm) and the decreasing $4.5~\mu$m emission was from warm ($\sim 1000$ K) dust that has since cooled.
It is possible that we are detecting residual flux from the shock interaction of SN 1997bs with its circumstellar medium (CSM). If we parametrize the fraction of the maximum possible shock luminosity radiated in our observed filters as $f$, then the observed shock luminosity is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
L_{\mathrm{s,obs}} \simeq 2.3 \times 10^3 \left( \frac{\dot{M}}{10^{-4}M_{\odot}} \right) \left( \frac{v_{\mathrm{e}}}{765~\mathrm{km\>s^{-1}}} \right)^{3} \nonumber \\ \times \left( \frac{v_{\mathrm{w}}}{100~\mathrm{km\>s^{-1}}} \right)^{-1} \left( \frac{f}{0.1} \right) L_{\odot}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\dot{M}$ is the pre-eruption mass loss rate, $v_{\mathrm{e}}$ is the velocity of the SN ejecta, and $v_{\mathrm{w}}$ is the pre-eruption wind velocity. Although we do not have constraints on $\dot{M}$ or $v_{\mathrm{w}}$ since little is known about the progenitor, reasonable values of $v_{\mathrm{w}}$ and $f$, together with a relatively (but not outrageously) high $\dot{M}$ during the decades proceeding the transient, are sufficient to possibly account for our detection ($\sim 1700~L_{\odot}$ in $F814W$).
It is worth reconsidering why SN 1997bs was originally designated as a likely SN impostor: a low peak luminosity and a possible flattening of the late-time ($\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower5pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$>$}}} 250$ days post-explosion) light curve at $\sim 0.5$ mag fainter than the progenitor \citep[see][]{vanDyk99}. Though the source continued to fade well beyond this level, \cite{vanDyk12} re-asserted the case for a surviving star based on the 2009 \emph{HST} observations in which the star was `recovered' with a brightness consistent with measurements made in 2001 \citep[see][]{vanDyk12}. However, the source at the coordinates of SN 1997bs, rather than re-brightening as required if the optical emission was from a surviving star partially obscured by an expanding dusty shell, has only continued to fade and is now $\sim4$ mag fainter than the progenitor.
For the most likely physical conditions, the near-IR limits rule out the detection of optical emission from a star surviving in a dusty wind.
Rather than providing evidence that 97bs was a non-terminal eruption, the late-time observations are difficult to reconcile with this prevailing notion.
SN 1997bs can be explained as a low-energy SN. Over the last two decades, a class of faint Type IIP SNe has emerged with peak magnitudes as faint as $M_{V}=-13.76$ \citep[SN 1999br;][]{Pastorello04}, less than a magnitude brighter than 97bs ($M_{V}\sim-12.9$). These faint SNe have low ejected $^{56}$Ni masses ($\sim10^{-3} M_{\odot}$) and require low explosion energies ($L<10^{51}$ erg). The low $^{56}$Ni mass is likely due to fall-back of material on to the collapsed remnant \citep[see e.g.,][]{Woosley95}. Although the late-time light curve of SN 1997bs might have significant contributions from a CSM--SN shock interaction, we can estimate the maximum $^{56}$Ni mass ejected by scaling the \emph{V}-band luminosity to that of the well-studied faint IIP SN 1997D at the same epoch (270 days post-explosion). Nominally this would suggest that that the maximum $^{56}$Ni mass for 97bs is 20 times smaller than the 0.002 $M_{\odot}$ estimated for SN 1997D by \cite{Turatto98}. However, 97bs was much redder than 97D by this point ($V-I\sim4.5$ versus $\sim1.2$ mag) and was likely significantly obscured. If we posit that extinction is needed to match the colors, then 97bs had $E(B-V)\sim2.3$ mag at this point, which would increase the maximum $^{56}$Ni mass by nearly a factor of 1000. Even if the shock luminosity contributed a large fraction of the luminosity, 97bs could still potentially have more ejected $^{56}$Ni than a significant fraction of faint IIP's.
Thus, SN 1997bs could be a IIn analog of a faint IIP.
Progenitor detections and hydrodynamical modeling of light curves point to faint IIP SNe progenitor masses of 10-15 $M_{\odot}$ \citep{Spiro14}. Meanwhile, recent work in SN theory by \cite{Ugliano12} and \cite{Pejcha15} suggests that stars with masses between 14 and 16 $M_{\odot}$, some between 17 and 22 $M_{\odot}$, and stars between 23 and 26 $M_{\odot}$ are the most difficult to explode.
Faint IIP SNe might arise from the lower mass (14--16 $M_{\odot}$) stars that have density structures resulting in low-energy explosions while 97bs and similar `impostors' could arise from the higher mass (23--26 $M_{\odot}$) stars. These higher mass stars have the potential to have the pre-explosion mass loss required for a transient to have the narrow hydrogen emission lines that are characteristic of SN IIn (and SN impostor) spectra.
The event could even be a collapse-induced thermonuclear SN \citep{Kushnir14}, which would dump enough energy in the stellar envelope quickly enough to drive a shock in a manner similar to the piston simulations of \cite{Dessart10}. This would be a weak, terminal event of a star in one of the harder-to-explode mass ranges.
All of these low-energy explosions are also much more favorable for dust formation because condensation will occur at much higher densities \citep[see, e.g.,][]{Kochanek14d}. This would provide a natural explanation of the increasingly red colors observed by \cite{vanDyk00}, since dust formation fairly naturally correlates with dropping luminosity. The lack of a surviving star then avoids the problems with dusty models of a surviving star.
\subsection{Summary}
Our late-time observations of SN 1997bs seem most easily understood if SN 1997bs was, in fact, the first SN found by LOSS.
It is difficult to explain the data as dust obscuration by a wind and it is only possible to explain by an expanding shell if the star is still completely obscured in the optical and the putative recovery of a surviving star is actually unrelated emission.
Similarly, invoking bolometric corrections or simply making the star less luminous seems difficult to support. While the observations do not rule out a surviving star, they do undermine the evidence in favor of this scenario. Occam's razor, if nothing else, argues for simply making it an SN rather invoking a more baroque model.
Nature does not, of course, have to respect Occam's razor. Further observations are necessary to confirm the fate of SN 1997bs. Unfortunately it is impossible to resolve any IR emission from SN 1997bs with the diffuse emission from the nearby spiral arm with \emph{SST}. The improved resolution and sensitivity of the \emph{James Webb Space Telescope} are needed to reduce the mid-IR limits enough to completely rule out a cool star behind a thick, dusty wind or shell.
As argued by \cite{Kochanek12}, the current class of SN impostors is likely comprised of multiple phenomena. We find that SN 1997bs, an archetypal SN impostor, was likely a genuine SN, but there are also several SN impostors that have clearly undergone multiple non-terminal outbursts (e.g., SN 2000ch, 2002kg, 2009ip). Moreover, in newly obtained \emph{HST} images, we confirm a surviving star to the SN impostor 1954J, as proposed by \cite{Smith01} and \cite{vanDyk05} (Adams \& Kochanek, in preparation). At least a significant fraction of SN impostor progenitors are relatively low mass (15 $M_{\odot} < M < 25 M_{\odot}$) stars \citep{Smith11,Kochanek12}. These masses are lower than the mass range of `classical' LBVs and should not be close to their Eddington limits and any of the radiative instabilities of classical LBVs. Recurrent impostors have the highest progenitor masses (see Table \ref{tab:masses}). Perhaps some of the lower mass impostors are faint IIn SNe and only the impostors arising from more massive stars are non-terminal eruptions of LBVs.
\ifapj
\begin{acknowledgements}
\else
\section*{Acknowledgements}
\fi
We thank Jill Gerke for providing the LBT variability limits, Andrew Dolphin for assistance with {\sc dolphot}, and Rubab Khan, Marc Pinsonneault, Jos\'{e} Prieto, Kris Stanek, and Todd Thompson for discussions and comments.
This work is based in part on observations made with the \emph{Spitzer Space Telescope}, which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology under a contract with NASA, and in part on observations made with the NASA/ESA \emph{Hubble Space Telescope} obtained at the Space Telescope Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS 5-26555. These observations are associated with program GO-13477.
This work is also based in part on observations made with the Large
Binocular Telescope. The LBT is an international collaboration
among institutions in the United States, Italy, and Germany. The
LBT Corporation partners are: the University of Arizona on behalf
of the Arizona university system; the Istituto Nazionale di
Astrofisica, Italy; the LBT Beteiligungsgesellschaft, Germany,
representing the Max Planck Society, theAstrophysical Institute
Potsdam, and Heidelberg University; the Ohio State University;
and the Research Corporation, on behalf of the University of
Notre Dame, the University of Minnesota, and the University of
Virginia.
\ifapj
\end{acknowledgements}
\fi
\begin{appendix}
\section{Dust Size Distribution}
\label{app:one}
\input{tableA1.tex}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\ifpdflatex
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{figA1.pdf}
\else
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{../../dusty/mylimits/figA1_eff.ps}
\fi
\end{center}
\caption{The luminosities within the 90-99.99\% confidence intervals ($6.25 < \Delta \chi^2 < 21.1$ for three parameters -- $L_{*}$, $T_{*}$, and $\tau$ -- relative to no surviving star) for $\tau_{V,\mathrm{tot}}=$ 0, 1, 3, and 10 with a steady-state silicate wind for different dust grain sizes, $a$, as compared to the results for an MRN dust size distribution (bottom-right panel) when treating all photometry as upper limits. The solid black line and gray band indicates the progenitor luminosity as constrained by the pre-explosion measurement of $m_{F606}=22.86$ and its $1\sigma$ uncertainty (0.16 mag). For most temperatures and effective optical depths, using a different (reasonable) dust grain size distribution would only shift the luminosity limit by $\sim0.1$ dex. \label{fig:dustsize}}
\end{figure*}
Although the MRN dust size distribution we assumed for the analysis presented in this paper is a reasonably accurate prescription for the size distribution of interstellar dust, dust formed around a particular star will grow to a particular size that is dependent on the density and radiation field of the circumstellar environment \citep[see, e.g.,][for a discussion]{Kochanek14}. Unfortunately, we are unable to determine a most likely dust size, since the size, an input to our models, is dependent on the output (i.e., $\tau$, $T_{*}$, and $L_{*}$) from the models.
Instead, we evaluated our models for a number of dust sizes ranging from $0.005~\mu\mathrm{m}$ to $0.25~\mu\mathrm{m}$ and verified that our conclusions are robust to the chosen dust size. For an example, in Fig. \ref{fig:dustsize} we present the results of the silicate wind model for a range of dust sizes and effective optical depths. For silicate dust grain sizes, $a$, of $0.005~\mu\mathrm{m}$, $0.035~\mu\mathrm{m}$, $0.25~\mu\mathrm{m}$, and an MRN size distribution the albedo is $w_{V} \simeq$ 0, 0.10, 0.43, and 0.39, corresponding to $\tau_{V,\mathrm{eff}} \simeq$ 1.00, 0.82, 0.32, and 0.37, respectively. For a given effective optical depth the luminosity limits on a surviving star are largely unchanged. The most significant difference is that the $\chi^{2}$ of the best-fitting model for a silicate wind with our $F814$ and $4.5~\mu\mathrm{m}$ photometry treated as detections for a dust size of $0.035~\mu\mathrm{m}$ is only 1.3 (compared to 3.9 for an MRN distribution of dust), slightly reducing the confidence with which we can rule out a luminous star surviving behind a dusty wind.
The impacts of the dust size on the results of the shell model are even more limited. For a given effective optical depth, the only significant change for different dust sizes is that the luminosity limit for a cool star with heavy obscuration is increased. The key point, however, is that the light curve constraints continue to rule out the optical emission being a detection of a luminous surviving star dimmed by an expanding shell.
\end{appendix}
|
\section{Introduction and preliminaries}
A subset $A$ of a Banach space $X$ is called limited (resp.
Dunford--Pettis (DP)), if every weak$^*$ null (resp. weak null) sequence $(x_n^*)$ in $X^*$ converges uniformly on $A$, that is, $$\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \sup_{a\in A}|\langle a,x_n^* \rangle|=0.$$ We know that every relatively compact subset of $X$ is limited and every limited set is DP, but the converse of these assertions, in general,
are false. The reader can be find some useful and additional properties of limited and DP sets in \cite{Limited} and \cite{Andrews}.\\
Recently in \cite{Almost limited set} and \cite{Almost DP set}, the class of almost limited sets and almost DP sets are introduced in Banach lattices. A subset $A$ of a Banach lattice $E$ is called almost limited (resp.
almost DP), if every disjoint weak$^*$ null (resp. disjoint weak null) sequence $(x_n^*)$ in $E^*$ converges uniformly on $A$.\\
It is clear that every almost limited set is almost DP, but the converse is false, in general. For instance, $B_c=[-1,1]$ is an almost DP set, but it is not almost limited.\\
Based on the concept of DP (resp. limited) sets, the class of order DP (resp. order limited)
operators is defined in \cite{ordered DP}, \cite{Dunford-Pettis sets} and \cite{ordered limited}. In fact, an operator $T$ from a Banach lattice $E$ into
a Banach space $X$ is said to be order DP (resp. order limited) if it carries each order bounded
subset of $E$ into a DP (resp. limited) set of $X$, i.e., if for each $x\in E^+$, the subset
$T ([-x, x])$ is DP (resp. limited) in $X$.\\
An operator $T: X \rightarrow E$ is
called limited, whenever $T(B_X)$ is an limited set. By \cite{almost limited set}, $T: X \rightarrow E$ is
called almost limited, whenever $T(B_X)$ is an almost limited set in $E$.\\
Following Lin in \cite{weakly limited}, An operator $T: X \rightarrow Y$ is
called weakly limited whenever $T(B_X)$ is a DP set in $Y$.\\
The aim of this paper is to introduce new classes of operators that we call
order almost DP and almost weakly limited operators and give some interesting applications of this class
of operators.
Also we will give some equivalent conditions for $T(A)$ to be a almost DP set, where $A$ is an almost DP (solid) subset of a Banach lattice $E$ and $T$ is an operator from $E$ to $X$.\\
It is evident that if $E$ is a Banach lattice, then its dual $E^*$, endowed with the dual norm and pointwise order, is also a Banach lattice. The norm $\|.\|$ of a Banach lattice $E$ is order continuous if for each generalized net $(x_{\alpha})$ such that $x_{\alpha}\downarrow0$ in $E$, $(x_{\alpha})$ converges to $0$ for the norm $\|.\|$, where the notation $x_{\alpha}\downarrow0$ means that the net
$(x_{\alpha})$ is decreasing, its infimum exists and inf$(x_{\alpha})=0$. A Banach lattice is said to be $\sigma$--Dedekind complete if for its countable subset that is bounded above has a supremum. A subset $A$ of $E$ is called solid if $|x|\leq |y| $ for some $y\in A$ implies that $x\in A$ and the solid hull of $A$ is the smallest solid set including $A$ and is exactly the set $Sol(A)=\lbrace y\in E:|y| \leq |x|, $ \ for \ some\ $x\in A\rbrace$.\\
Throughout this article, $X$ and $Y$ denote the arbitrary Banach spaces and $X^*$ refers to the dual of the Banach space $X$. Also $E$ and $F$ denote arbitrary Banach lattices and $E^+ =\lbrace x\in E : x\geq 0\rbrace$ refers to the positive cone of the Banach lattice $E$ and $B_E$ is the closed unit ball of $E$. If $a,b$ belong to a Banach lattice $E$ and $a\leq b$, the interval $[a,b]$ is the set of all $x\in E$ such that $a\leq x \leq b$. A subset of a Banach lattice is called order bounded if it is contained in an order interval. The lattice operations in $E$ are weakly sequentially continuous, if for every weakly null sequence $(x_n)$ in $E$, $|x_n|\rightarrow 0$ for $\sigma (E,E^*)$. The lattice operations in $E^*$ are weak sequentially continuous, if for every weak$^*$ null sequence $(f_n)$ in $E^*$, $|f_n|\rightarrow 0$ for $\sigma (E^*,E)$.\\ We refer the reader to \cite{Aliprantis} and \cite{Meyer} for unexplained terminologies on Banach lattice theory and positive operators.
\section{order almost Dunford-Pettis operators}
In this section we will define new classes of operators so called order almost DP and almost weakly limited operators and establish some additional properties of them related to some operators. \\
A bounded linear operator $T$ from a Banach space $X$ into a Banach space $Y$ is DP (resp. almost DP), if it carries weakly null (resp. disjoint weakly null) sequences in $X$ to norm null ones. See \cite{Aliprantis} and \cite{Sanchez almost DP operator}.\\
It is clear that $T$ is weakly limited if and only if $T^*$ is DP.
\begin{definition}\label{I} An operator $T$ from $E$ into $F$ is said to be order almost DP
if it carries each order bounded subset of $E$ into an almost DP set in $F$.
\end{definition}
\noindent Note that there exist operators which are order almost DP, but fail to be
order DP. Indeed, $Id_{\ell_{\infty}}: \ell_{\infty}\rightarrow \ell_{\infty}$ is order almost DP (because $[-e,e]=B_{\ell_{\infty}}$ is almost DP set), but it is not order DP (because $[-e,e]=B_{\ell_{\infty}}$ is not DP set). It is clear that each order DP operator is order almost DP.\\
\noindent As in \cite{Aliprantis}, an operator $T$ from $X$ into $Y$ is said to be weak DP,
if it carries relatively weakly compact sets in $E$ to DP ones.\\
By a simple proof we can investigate that each weakly limited operator $T: E \rightarrow X$ is order DP and weak DP.
\begin{definition}\label{II} An operator $T$ from $X$ into $E$ is said to be almost weakly limited
whenever $T(B_X)$ is a almost DP set in $E$.
\end{definition}
\noindent It is clear that $T$ is almost weakly limited if and only if $T^*$ is almost DP.\\
An operator $T: X \rightarrow E$ is called weak and almost DP if $T$ carries each relatively weakly compact set in $X$ to an almost DP set in $E$, equivalently, for
every weakly null sequence $(x_n)\subset X$, and every disjoint weak null sequence
$(f_n)\subset E^*$ we have $f_n(Tx_n)\rightarrow 0$. See \cite{weak DP property}.\\
By a simple proof we can investigate that each almost weakly limited operator is order almost DP and weak almost DP.\\
\begin{example}\label{III} Every weakly limited operator is almost weakly limited, but the converse is false, in general. In fact, since the closed unit ball $L^1[0,1]$ is almost DP set, but it is not DP set, $Id_{ L^1[0,1]}: L^1[0,1] \rightarrow L^1[0,1]$ is almost weakly limited, but it not weakly limited.\\
Also, the identity operator $Id_{\ell_{\infty}}: \ell_{\infty}\rightarrow \ell_{\infty}$ is almost weakly limited operator and it is not weakly limited.
\end{example}
\noindent A Banach lattice $E$ has the Schur (resp. positive Schur) property, if every weakly null (resp. weakly null with positive terms) sequence in $E$ is norm null, See \cite{Aliprantis} and \cite{positive Schur}.
\begin{corollary}\label{P} Every operator $T$ from a Banach space $X$ into a Banach lattice $E$ such that $E^*$ has the Schur (resp. positive Schur) property is weakly limited (resp. almost weakly limited).
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof} We note that dual Banach lattice $E^*$ has the Schur (resp. positive Schur) property if and only if the closed unit ball $B_E$ is DP (resp. almost DP) set.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{PP}In every Banach lattice we have the following assertions:
\begin{itemize}
\item [(a)] Each limited operator is weakly limited, but the converse is false, in general. Indeed $Id_{c_0}: c_0\rightarrow c_0$ is weakly limited operator and it is not limited.
\item [(b)] Each limited operator is almost limited, but the converse is false, in general. Indeed $Id_{\ell_{\infty}}: \ell_{\infty}\rightarrow \ell_{\infty}$ is almost limited, but it is not limited.
\item [(c)] Each almost limited operator is almost weakly limited, but the converse is false, in general. Indeed $Id_c: c\rightarrow c$ is almost weakly limited, but it is not almost limited.
\end{itemize}
\end{proposition}
\noindent By \cite[Definition 3.6.1]{Meyer}, a subset $A$ in a Banach lattice $E$ is $L$-weakly compact, if every disjoint sequence in $Sol(A)$ is norm null. By \cite{Meyer} every $L$-weakly compact set is relatively weakly compact and the converse holds for Banach lattices with the positive Schur property, see \cite{positive Schur}. An operator $T$ from a Banach space $X$ into a Banach lattice $E$ is $L$-weakly compact, if $T(B_X)$ is an $L$-weakly compact set in $E$.
\begin{theorem}\label{PPP} Every $L$-weakly compact operator is almost weakly limited, but the converse is false, in general.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
By \cite[Proposition 2.8]{Almost DP set}, every $L$-weakly compact set in a Banach lattice is an almost DP set. So every every $L$-weakly compact operator almost weakly limited.\\
Also by \cite[Theorem 4.2]{Almost limited set}, every $L$-weakly compact operator on a Banach lattice is an almost limited operator and so is an almost weakly limited operator.\\
The converse is false. In fact, $Id_{c_0}: c_0\rightarrow c_0$ is almost weakly limited operator and it is not $L$-weakly compact, because the closed unit ball $c_0$ is an almost DP set, but it is not an $L$-weakly compact set.
\end{proof}
\noindent Remember that a Banach lattice $E$ is an $AL$-space if $x \wedge y=0$ in $E$ implies $\|x+y\|=\|x\|+\|y\|$.
\begin{theorem}\label{C}\cite{Almost DP set} Let $E$ be an $AL$-space, for a norm bounded subset $A$ of $E$, the following
statements are equivalent.
\begin{itemize}
\item [(a)] $A$ is $L$-weakly compact.
\item [(b)] $A$ is relatively weakly compact.
\item [(c)] $A$ is DP set.
\item [(d)] $A$ is almost DP set.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\noindent An operator $T$ from $E$ into $X$ is said to be an order weakly compact operator,
if it carries order intervals in $E$ to relatively weakly compact sets in $X$. By \cite{ordered almost limited}, an operator $T$ from $E$ into $F$ is said to be order almost limited
if it carries each order bounded subset of $E$ into an almost limited set of $F$.
\begin{theorem}\label{CC} Every order weakly compact operator from a Banach lattice $E$ into an $AL$-space $E$ is an order almost limited and order DP operator.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
For each $x\in E^+$, $T[-x,x]$ is relatively weakly compact set. By \cite{positive Schur}, every relatively weakly compact set in an $AL$-space is an $L$-weakly compact set and by \cite{Almost limited set} it is an almost limited set. Also by Theorem \ref{C}, every relatively weakly compact set in an $AL$-space is DP set.
\end{proof}
\noindent By \cite{AZIZ ELBOUR}, an operator $T$ from $X$ into $E$ is said to be weak and almost limited operator,
if it carries relatively weakly compact sets in $X$ to almost limited ones.
\begin{corollary}\label{CCC} Every $L$-weakly compact operator from a Banach space $X$ to a Banach lattice $E$ is a weak and almost limited operator.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
We note that $T(B_X)$ is an $L$-weakly compact set. By \cite{Almost limited set}, $T(B_X)$ is an almost limited set. So $T$ carries each relatively weakly compact sets in $X$ to almost limited ones.
\end{proof}
\noindent There is an order DP operator which is not $L$-weakly compact. In fact, $Id_{c_0}: c_0\rightarrow c_0$ is an order DP operator and it is not $L$-weakly compact, because the closed unit ball $c_0$ is a DP set, but it is not an $L$-weakly compact set.
\begin{corollary}\label{V} Every $L$-weakly compact operator $T$ from a Banach lattice $E$ into an $AL$-space is an order DP operator.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof} If $T$ is an $L$-weakly compact operator from a Banach lattice $E$ into an $AL$-space, $T(B_E)$ is an $L$-weakly compact set and so by Theorem \ref{C}, it is a DP set. Hence, $T$ is an order DP operator.
\end{proof}
\noindent By \cite{Meyer}, an element $x$ belonging to a Riesz space $E$ is discrete, if $x>0$ and $|y| \leq x$ implies $y=tx$ for some real number $t$. If every order interval $[0,y]$ in $E$ contains a discrete element, then $E$ is said to be a discrete Riesz space.
\begin{theorem}\label{VV}\cite{almost limited set} Let $T$ be an operator from a Banach space into a discrete Banach lattice with order continuous norm. Then the following
statements are equivalent.
\begin{itemize}
\item [(a)] $T$ is almost limited.
\item [(b)] $T$ is $L$-weakly compact.
\item [(c)] $T$ is limited.
\item [(d)] $T$ is compact.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\noindent An operator $T$ from $E$ into $X$ is said to be an $AM$-compact operator,
if it carries order intervals in $E$ to relatively compact sets in $X$. It is clear that every $AM$-compact operator is an order DP and so order almost DP operator, but the converse is false, in general. For the converse see the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}\label{VVV} Every order almost DP operator $T$ from a Banach lattice $E$ into a discrete $AL$-space $F$ is $AM$-compact operator and this condition on $F$ can not be removed.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} For each $x\in E^+$, $T[-x,x]$ is almost DP set and by Theorem \ref{C} it is $L$-weakly compact and also by Theorem \ref{VV} it is relatively compact. Hence $T$ is an $AM$-compact operator. \\
There is an order almost DP operator which is not $AM$-compact. Indeed $Id_{\ell_{\infty}}: \ell_{\infty}\rightarrow \ell_{\infty}$ is order almost DP operator, but it is not $AM$-compact. Every order DP operator is not $AM$-compact, in general. Indeed $Id_c: c\rightarrow c$ is order DP operator, but it is not $AM$-compact.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{M} We have the following statements.
\begin{itemize}
\item [(a)] Every almost limited operator from a Banach space $X$ into a discrete Banach lattice $E$ with order continuous norm is limited.
\item [(b)] Every almost weakly limited operator from a Banach space $X$ into an $AL$-space $E$ is weakly limited.
\item [(c)] Every almost weakly limited operator from a Banach space $X$ into an $AL$-space $E$ is almost limited.
\item [(d)] Every weakly limited operator from a Banach space $X$ into a Grothendieck space is limited.
\end{itemize}
\end{proposition}
\begin{theorem}\label{MM} Every order bounded operator on a Banach lattice is an order almost DP operator.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} We note that every order bounded operator maps order intervals into order intervals. By \cite[Corollary 2.2]{Almost DP set}, each order interval of a Banach lattice is an almost DP set.
\end{proof}
\noindent Remember that a Banach lattice $E$ is an $AM$-- space if $x \wedge y=0$ in $E$ implies $\|x\vee y\|=\max \lbrace\|x\|,\|y\|\rbrace$.
\begin{corollary}\label{MMM} If $E$ is a $AM$-space with unit, then identity operator $Id_E$ is almost weakly limited.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof} In each $AM$-space $E$ with unit, the closed unit ball $B_E$ is an order bounded set and so it is almost DP set. So, the identity operator $Id_E$ is almost weakly limited.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{R} Every order almost limited operator from a Banach lattice $E$ into $F$ is an order almost DP operator, and the converse holds, if $F$ is an $AL$-space.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} Since each almost limited set in a Banach lattice is a almost DP set, so order almost limited operator is an order almost DP operator, but the converse is false, in general. Indeed, $Id_c: c\rightarrow c$ is order almost DP (because $[-1,1]=B_c$ is almost DP set), but it is not order almost limited (because $[-1,1]=B_c$ is not almost limited set).\\
If $T$ is an order almost DP operator from $E$ to an $AL$-space $F$, then for each $x\in E^+$, $T[-x,x]$ is almost DP and by Theorem \ref{C}, it is $L$-weakly compact and so almost limited. Hence $T$ is an order almost limited set.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{RR} For an operator $T$ from a Banach lattice into an $AL$-space, the following are equivalent:
\begin{itemize}
\item [(a)] $T$ is order almost DP operator,
\item [(b)] $T$ is order DP operator,
\item [(c)] $T$ is order weakly compact operator,
\item [(d)] $T$ is order almost limited operator.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\noindent It should be note that the assertions in Corollary \ref{RR} are not equivalent, in general.\\
At first recall that by \cite{Weak DP Property Wnuk}, a Banach lattice $E$ has the weak DP property if every weakly compact operator on $E$ is an almost DP operator.\\
By \cite{Almost DP set}, a Banach lattice $E$ has the weak DP property if and only if every relatively weakly compact set in $E$ is an almost DP set.
\begin{theorem}\label{RRR} Every order weakly compact operator $T$ from a Banach lattice into a Banach lattice $F$ with the weak DP property is order almost DP operator, and this condition on $F$ is essential.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} Since every relatively weakly compact set in a Banach lattice $F$ with the weak DP is an almost DP set, so every order weakly compact operator $T$ from a Banach lattice into a Banach lattice $F$ with the weak DP property is order almost DP operator, but
an order weakly compact
operator is not necessarily order almost DP. In fact, the closed unit ball $B_{\ell_2}$ of the Banach
lattice ${\ell_2}$ is a relatively weakly compact set in ${\ell_2}$, but it is not almost DP; that is, there exist a relatively weakly compact set in ${\ell_2}$ which is not almost DP. Since $L^1[0,1]$ has order continuous norm, by \cite{Aliprantis}, every order interval in $L^1[0,1]$ is relatively weakly compact. So each operator $T: L^1[0,1] \rightarrow \ell_2$ is order weakly compact, but it is not order almost DP (and so it is not order almost limited).
\end{proof}
\noindent Every order almost DP operator is not an order weakly compact operator, in general. Indeed $Id_{\ell_{\infty}}: \ell_{\infty}\rightarrow \ell_{\infty}$ is order almost DP operator and it is not order weakly compact.
\begin{theorem}\label{UU} Every operator $T$ from a Banach lattice with order continuous norm into a Banach lattice with the weak DP property is an order almost DP operator.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} Since $E$ has order continuous norm, so by \cite{Aliprantis}, for each $x\in E^+$, order interval $[-x,x]$ is relatively weakly compact. So $T[-x,x]$ is relatively weakly compact and so it is almost DP. Hence $T$ is an order almost DP operator.
\end{proof}
\noindent A Banach lattice $E$ is said to be a $KB$-space, whenever every increasing norm
bounded sequence of $E^+$ is norm convergent and it is called a dual Banach lattice if $E = G^*$
for some Banach lattice $G$. A Banach lattice $E$ is called a dual $KB$-space if $E$ is
a dual Banach lattice and $E$ is a $KB$-space. It is clear that each $KB$-space has an order continuous norm.
\begin{theorem}\label{T} Every almost weakly limited operator from a Banach space $X$ into a Banach lattice $E$ is almost limited, if one of the following assertions is valid.
\begin{itemize}
\item [(a)] The norm of the topological bidual $E^{**}$ is order continuous.
\item [(b)] $E$ is a dual $KB$-space.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} If $E^{**}$ has order continuous norm or $E$ is a dual $KB$-space, then by \cite[Theorem 2.9]{Almost DP set}, every almost DP set in $E$ is $L$-weakly compact and so it is almost limited. So every almost weakly limited operator from a Banach space $X$ into a Banach lattice $E$ is almost limited.
\end{proof}
\noindent Note that there exist operators which are order almost DP and weak and almost
DP, but fail to be (almost) weakly limited. Indeed, $Id_{\ell_1}: {\ell_1}\rightarrow {\ell_1}$ is order almost DP
and weak almost DP, but it is not (almost) weakly limited, because $\ell_{\infty}$ does not have the (positive) Schur property and so the closed unit ball $B_{\ell_1}$ is not an (almost) DP set.
\noindent In the following result, similarly to \cite[Theorem 4.2]{ordered almost limited}, we characterize Banach lattices $E$ and $F$ on
which each operator from $E$ into $F$ which is order almost DP and weak almost
DP, is almost weakly limited.\\
To establish this result, we will need the following Lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{TT}
A Banach lattice $E$ such that $E^*$ does not have the positive Schur property if and only if there exist a disjoint weakly null sequence $(f_n)$ in $E^*_{+}$ and a sequence $(x_n)$ in $B_E^+$ and $\epsilon >0$ such that $|f_n(x_n)|>\epsilon$, for all $n$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{theorem}\label{TTT} The following assertions are equivalent:
\begin{itemize}
\item [(a)] each order almost DP and weak and almost DP operator $T: E\rightarrow F$ is
almost weakly limited;
\item [(b)] $E^*$ has order continuous norm or $F^*$ has the positive Schur property.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} $(a)\Rightarrow (b).$ Assume $(b)$ is false, i.e, the norm of $E^*$ is not order
continuous and $F^*$ does not have the positive Schur property. We will construct an operator $T: E\rightarrow F$ which is order almost DP and weak and almost DP but is
not almost weakly limited. Indeed, the norm of $E^*$ is not order
continuous. By \cite[Theorem 4.2]{ordered almost limited}, we may assume that ${\ell_1}$ is a closed sublattice of $E$ and from \cite[Proposition 2.3.11]{Meyer}, it follows that there is a positive projection $P$ from
$E$ into ${\ell_1}$.\\
On the other hand, $F^*$ does not have the positive Schur property, from precedding lamma, it follows that there exist a disjoint weakly null sequence $(f_n)$ in $F^*_{+}$ and a sequence $(x_n)$ in $B_F^+$ and $\epsilon >0$ such that $|f_n(x_n)|>\epsilon$, for all $n$.
Now, we consider the operator $T=SoP :E \rightarrow {\ell_1} \rightarrow F$ where $S$ is an operator which is defined in \cite[Theorem 4.2]{ordered almost limited}. Since ${\ell_1}$ has the Schur property, then $T$ is weak
and almost limited and so it is weak and almost DP. The operator $T$ is also order almost limited and so is order almost DP.\\
But, similarly to $((1)\Rightarrow (2)$) in \cite[Theorem 4.2]{ordered almost limited}, the operator $T$ is not almost weakly limited.\\
$(b)\Rightarrow (a).$ Let $(f_n)$ be a disjoint weakly null sequence of $F^*$. We have to
prove that $\|T^*f_n\|\rightarrow 0$. By using Corollary 2.7 of Dodds-Fremlin \cite{Dodds}, it suffices
to prove that $|T^*f_n|(x)\rightarrow 0$ for each $x\in E^+$ and $T^*f_n(x_n) \rightarrow 0$, for every norm bounded
disjoint sequence $(x_n)\subset E^+$. \\
Indeed, as $(f_n)$ is a disjoint weakly null sequence of $F^*$ and $T$ is order almost DP, we have $|T^*f_n|(x)\rightarrow 0$ for each $x\in E^+$. On the other hand, since the norm of $E^*$ is order continuous, by using Corollary 2.7 of Dodds-Fremlin \cite{Dodds}, it follows that $(x_n)$ is weakly null. Hence,
as $T$ is a weak almost DP operator, we obtain $T^*f_n(x_n) = f_n(T(x_n))\rightarrow 0$.
We conclude that $T$ is an almost DP operator.\\
If $F^*$ has the positive Schur property, the closed unit ball $B_F$ is almost DP set and clearly every operator $T: E\rightarrow F$ is almost weakly limited.
\end{proof}
\noindent Note that continuous linear images of DP (resp. limited) sets or sequences are DP (resp. limited), but the same conclusion is false for almost DP sets (resp. almost limited) or sequences, in general.
\noindent In the following theorem, we stablish some conditions which guarantees the continuous linear images of almost limited (resp. almost DP) sets are also almost limited (resp. almost DP).\\
Recall from \cite{Meyer} that a positive linear operator $T:E\rightarrow F$ between two Banach lattices is almost interval preserving, if $T[0,x]$ is dense in $[0,Tx]$, for every $x\in E^{+}$.
\begin{theorem}\label{W}
Let $T: E\rightarrow F$ between two Banach lattices be an almost interval preserving operator and let $A$ be an almost DP (resp. almost limited) subset of $E$. Then $T(A)$ is almost DP (resp. almost limited) in $F$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} Let $(y_n^*)$ be a disjoint weakly null (resp. disjoint weak$^*$ null) sequence in $F^*$. By \cite[Theorem 1.4.19]{Meyer}, $T^*$ is lattice homomorphism and so $(T^*y_n^*)$ is a disjoint weakly null (resp. disjoint weak$^*$ null) sequence in $E^*$. Since $A$ is almost DP (resp. almost limited), $$\limsup_{x\in A}|\langle Tx,y_n^*\rangle|= \limsup_{x\in A} |\langle x,T^*y_n^*\rangle|\rightarrow 0.$$ This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{WW}
Every almost interval preserving operator $T: E\rightarrow F$ between two Banach lattices is an order almost DP operator.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof} By \cite[Corollary 2.2]{Almost DP set}, for each $x\in E^+$, order interval $[-x,x]$ is an almost DP set, and by Theorem \ref{W}, $T[-x,x]$ is an almost DP set.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{E}
Every almost interval preserving operator $T$ on a Banach lattice $E$ order isomorphic to some $C(K)$ space is an order almost weakly limited operator.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
If $E$ is order isomorphic to some $C(K)$ space, then every norm bounded set in $E$ is order bounded and by \cite[Corollary 2.2]{Almost DP set}, it is almost DP. So by Theorem \ref{W}, the operator $T$ is almost weakly limited.
\end{proof}
\noindent By the tecnique in the proof of Theorem 2.7 in \cite{almost limited set}, we have the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}\label{Q}
Let $E$ and $F$ be two Banach lattices such that $E^*$ has the weakly sequentially continuous lattice operations. If $T:E\rightarrow F$ is an operator, then $T(A)$ is an almost DP set in $F$, whenever $A$ is an almost DP solid set in $E$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} Suppose that $(f_n)$ is a disjoint weakly null sequence in $F^*.$ We claim that $(|T^*(f_n)|)$ is weakly null in $E^*.$ In fact, if $E^*$ has the weakly sequentially continuous lattice operations then $(|T^*(f_n)|)$ is weakly null, since $(T^*f_n)$ is weakly null in $E^*$.\\
Now, to finish the proof, we have to show that $$\sup_{y\in TA}|f_n(y)|= \sup_{x\in A}|T^*f_n(x)|\rightarrow 0.$$ Let $(x_n)\subseteq A^{+}$ be a disjoint sequence. Since the sequence $(|T^*(f_n)|)$ is weakly null in $E^*$, by \cite[page 77]{Aliprantis}, there exists a disjoint sequence $(g_n)\subseteq E^*$ such that $|g_n|\leq |T^*f_n|$ and $g_n(x_n)=(T^*f_n)(x_n)$, for all $n.$
It is easy to see that the sequence $(g_n)$ is weakly null. As the set $A$ is almost DP, $\sup_{x\in A}|g_n(x)|\rightarrow 0.$ From the inequality$$|T^*f_n(x_n)|=|g_n(x_n)|\leq \sup_{x\in A}|g_n(x)|,$$ we conclude that $T^*f_n(x_n)\rightarrow 0.$
Now, by \cite[Theorem 2.4]{Dodds}, we have $$\sup_{x\in A}|T^*f_n|(|x|)=\sup_{x\in A}|T^*f_n|(x)\rightarrow 0.$$ Thus by the inequality $|T^*f_n(x)|\leq |T^*f_n|(|x|),$ we see that $\sup_{x\in A}|T^*f_n(x)|\rightarrow 0$ and so $T(A)$ is almost DP.
\end{proof}
\noindent According to \cite[Lemma 2.2]{almost limited set}, for almost limited sets, we have the following lemma for almost DP sets.
\begin{lemma}\label{QQ} Let $A$ be a norm bounded subset of a Banach lattice $E$. If for every $\epsilon >0$ there exists some almost DP subset $A_\epsilon$ of $E$ such that
$A\subset A_{\epsilon} + \epsilon B_E$, then $A $ is almost DP.
\end{lemma}
\begin{theorem}\label{Z} Let $E$, $F$ and $G$ be three Banach lattices. Then
\begin{itemize}
\item [(a)] the class of order almost DP operators is a norm closed vector subspace
of the space $L(E, F)$ of all operators from $E$ into $F$.
\item [(b)] if $T: E\rightarrow F$ is an order almost DP operator, then for each almost interval preserving
operator $S: F\rightarrow G$, the composed operator $S o T$ is order almost DP.
\item [(c)] if $T: E\rightarrow F$ is an order bounded operator, then for each order almost DP
operator $S: F\rightarrow G$, the composed operator $S o T$ is order almost DP.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} $(a).$ Clearly the class of order almost DP operators is a vector subspace of $L(E, F)$ and by Lemma \ref{QQ}, this class is also norm closed.\\
$(b).$ Let $T: E\rightarrow F$ be an order almost DP operator. Then for each $x\in E^+$,
$T([-x, x])$ is an almost DP. Since $S$ is almost interval preserving, $S(T([-x,x]))$
is an almost DP set in $F$, and hence $S o T$ is order almost DP.\\
$(c).$ Let $T: E\rightarrow F$ be an order bounded operator. Then for each $x\in E^+$,
$T([-x, x])$ is an an order bounded. Since $S$ is order almost DP, $S(T([-x,x]))$
is an almost DP set in $F$, and hence $S o T$ is order almost DP.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{ZZ} Let $T$ be an operator from a Banach lattice $E$ into a Banach
lattice $F$. If $T^*$ is almost DP, then $T$ is order almost DP.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} Let $(f_n)$ be a disjoint weakly null sequence of $F^*$.
As the adjoint $T^*$ is almost DP, we deduce that $\|T^*f_n\|\rightarrow 0$. So for each $x\in E^+$ order interval $T[-x,x]$ is an almost DP; that is, $$\sup_{z\in T[-x,x]}|f_n(z)|=\sup_{y\in [-x,x]}|T^*f_n(y)| =|T^*f_n|(x)\rightarrow 0.$$ We deduce that $T$ is order Dunford-Pettis.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{XX} Let $T$ be an operator from a Banach lattice $E$ into a Banach
lattice $F$. If $T^*$ is almost DP, then $T$ is weak and almost DP.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} Let $(x_n)$ be a weakly null sequence of $E$ and $(f_n)$ be a disjoint weakly null sequence in $F^*$. We have to prove that $f_n(T (x_n))\rightarrow0$. As $(f_n)$ is a disjoint weakly null sequence in $F^*$ and hence $T^*$ is almost DP then $\|T^*f_n\|\rightarrow 0$.
On the other hand, since $(x_n)$ is a weakly null sequence of $E$, hence $(x_n)$ is
norm bounded and by the inequality $|T^*(f_n)(x_n))| =|f_n(T (x_n))| \leq \|T^*f_n\|$ , we conclude that $T$
is weak and almost DP.
\end{proof}
\noindent Similarly to \cite[Theorem 3.1]{ordered DP}, we have the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}\label{2.10} The following assertions are equivalent:
\begin{itemize}
\item [(a)] Each order almost DP and weak and almost DP operator $T: E\rightarrow F$ has an adjoint almost DP operator;
\item [(b)] $E^*$ has order continuous norm or $F^*$ has the positive Schur property.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\bibliographystyle{amsplain}
|
\section{Introduction}
After the initial run of the LHC, the constraints on new physics are
rather severe \cite{lhc}. Although models can still be made to realize
weak-scale mass spectra, sfermion masses of generic models like the
constrained minimal supersymmetric standard model (CMSSM) \cite{cmssm}
are now required to be larger than about a TeV. As a result, the
naturalness of supersymmetry (SUSY) has been called into question. However, it
was perhaps naive to expect nature to fall into our strict definition of
naturalness with less than $10\%$ fine-tuning. Supersymmetry, with
sfermion masses larger than a TeV, still solves the larger hierarchy
problem associated with grand unification and/or the Plank
scale. Furthermore, if the sfermion masses are set by the gravitino
mass, $m_{3/2}$, and are larger than about 10 TeV, the gravitino
lifetime is short enough that it decays before BBN \cite{gravitinoBBN}. Moreover, as the
mass scale of the sfermions is pushed beyond the weak scale, the
constraints on SUSY models from flavor and CP violation in the sfermion
sector are greatly relaxed \cite{flavor}. These advantages, plus the fact that
sfermion masses this large are consistent with a larger Higgs mass like
the $126$~GeV Higgs boson seen at the LHC \cite{lhch} suggest we relax our strict
definition of naturalness.
Large sfermion masses like those found in split supersymmetry \cite{split} are realized in models such as pure gravity
mediation (PGM) \cite{pgm,Hall:2011jd}, which can be parametrized by a
single parameter \cite{eioy} $m_{3/2}$. This
minimal model of pure gravity mediation is similar in many ways to minimal supergravity
(mSUGRA). Universal masses equal to $m_{3/2}$ are imposed at the grand
unified theory (GUT) scale
based on the assumption that the K\"ahler manifold is flat for all matter
fields. Unlike the CMSSM, gauginos do not get a tree-level
mass. This is because the supersymmetry breaking field is not a singlet
and so is excluded from coupling to the gauge kinetic function to leading
order. Thus, the leading order contribution to the mass of the gauginos
comes from anomaly mediation \cite{anom} and is loop suppressed relative to the
sfermion masses. The $B$-term, which contributes to electroweak symmetry
breaking, is identical to that in mSUGRA, $B=A-m_{3/2}$. However, since
the $A$-terms of PGM are effectively zero, $B=-m_{3/2}$ and $B$ is fixed
for a given value of $m_{3/2}$. This makes radiative electroweak
symmetry breaking (EWSB) difficult. However, by adding a
Giudice-Masiero term \cite{gm}, $B$ is no longer
fixed by $m_{3/2}$ alone, but also depends on the coupling of the
Giudice-Masiero
term. This additional freedom in $B$ makes radiative EWSB possible, but
only for small values of $\tan\beta$. Once the Higgs mass constraint is
taken into consideration, these models have a single free parameter which is
some combination of $m_{3/2}$ and $\tan\beta$ \cite{eioy}. However, because
$\tan\beta$ is restricted to be less than about 3, $m_{3/2}$ tends to be
rather large. The constraints on $\tan\beta$ can be removed, if the
Higgs soft masses at the GUT scale are taken to be non-universal
\cite{eioy2}. In this case, $m_{3/2}$ can be taken to be smaller for
larger values of $\tan\beta$.
Another important motivation for SUSY is grand unification
\cite{Georgi:1974sy}. In the Standard Model (SM), the gauge couplings approach each
other as they are run up to the high scale \cite{Georgi:1974yf}.
However, the quality of the coupling unification is less than
convincing. If the SM is supersymmetrized, on the other hand, the
unification of the gauge couplings becomes quite good
\cite{Dimopoulos:1981yj}. Furthermore,
grand unification in the SM would generate enormous quadratic
divergences for the Higgs boson. However, these quadratic divergences
are significantly reduced for supersymmetric grand unified theories, even
if the sfermions are larger than a TeV. Clearly, grand unification is
another motivation for PGM.
The signatures of these simple PGM-type models are limited. One possible
signature at the LHC for small $m_{3/2}$ is the wino \cite{winolhc}. For larger
$m_{3/2}$, on the other hand, the wino cannot be seen at the LHC but
could be a viable thermal relic dark matter candidate
\cite{Hisano:2006nn}. If this is indeed the case, it could be seen by
indirect detection experiments in the near future
\cite{Bhattacherjee:2014dya}. However, this scenario is already under
tension from existing indirect detection experiments \cite{wino}. The
direct detection of wino dark matter is challenging as its scattering
cross section with
a nucleon is as small as $10^{-47}~\text{cm}^2$ \cite{winodd}. A
Higgsino signature at the LHC is another possible observable which
arises from tuning $\mu$ to be small \cite{higgsinolhc}. However, this is also difficult to see. This scenario could also have Higgsino-like
dark matter which could possibly be seen in future indirect detection
experiments \cite{baer}. The scattering cross section of the Higgsino
with a nucleon is dependent on the size of the wino component of the
LSP, and may be probed in future experiments \cite{Hisano:2012wm}.
In this work, we will examine another possible signature of these
models. Since the colored triplet Higgs gives threshold corrections to
the gauge couplings when integrated out, the quality of the coupling
unification determines the mass of the colored triplet Higgs
\cite{Hisano:1992mh,Hisano:1992jj,Hisano:2013cqa} and so
affects the lifetime of the proton. When the colored Higgs is integrated
out, it also generates a dimension-five operator proportional to down-type
Yukawa couplings which lead to proton decay
\cite{dim5protondecay}. Since this dimension-five
operator is proportional to the down-type Yukawa couplings, it will be
enhanced for large $\tan\beta$. Proton decay from this dimension-five
operator arises from a loop diagram with a Higgsino mass
insertion \cite{higprotondec}. Proton decay of this type can then be
suppressed for small
$\mu$. When unification is not ideal and $\tan\beta$ is large, a
larger Higgsino mass can increase the rate of proton decay from this
dimension 5 operator. Parameters of this size are viable in PGM models.
Since proton decay of this type is also suppressed by $m_{3/2}$, the
more interesting parameter space will be for smaller $m_{3/2}$ and
larger $\tan\beta$. Therefore, we will need to consider non-universal
Higgs soft masses. We will find that if $m_{3/2}$ is small and
$\tan\beta$ is larger, which is also consistent with the Higgs mass
measurement, the proton lifetime may be in reach of future experiments.
However, for much of the parameter space the lifetime tends to be well
beyond the reach of future experiments. We will also look at the quality
of the gauge coupling unification determined by the deviation of the
colored triplet Higgs mass, $M_{H_C}$, from the GUT-scale as well as the
deviation of $\left(M_X^2M_\Sigma\right)^{1/3}$, where $X$ represents the
GUT scale SU(5) gauge bosons that become massive and $\Sigma$ is the ${\bf
24}$ which breaks SU(5) at the GUT scale.
\section{Minimal SUSY SU(5) GUT}
\label{sec:MSGUT}
In this section, we will outline the SU(5) SUSY GUT theory
\cite{Dimopoulos:1981zb, Sakai:1981gr} we will
consider. Additional details on these models can be found in Appendix
\ref{App:NotCon}. The superpotential for this minimal SU(5) SUSY GUT is
given by
\begin{equation}
W=W_{\text{Higgs}}+W_{\text{Yukawa}} ~,
\label{eq:superpotential}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align}
W_{\rm Higgs} &= \frac{1}{3}\lambda_{\Sigma}{\rm Tr}\Sigma^3
+\frac{1}{2}m_\Sigma
{\rm Tr} \Sigma^2 +\lambda_H \bar{H}\Sigma H +m_H\bar{H} H ~,
\label{superpotentialHiggs}
\\
W_{\rm Yukawa} &=
\frac{1}{4}h^{ij}\epsilon_{\hat{a}\hat{b}\hat{c}\hat{d}\hat{e}}\Psi_i^{\hat{a}
\hat{b}} \Psi_j^{\hat{c}\hat{d}}H^{\hat{e}} -\sqrt{2}
f^{ij}\Psi_i^{\hat{a}\hat{b}} \Phi_{j\hat{a}}\bar{H}_{\hat{b}}~,
\label{superpotentialYukawa}
\end{align}
and $\hat{a},\hat{b},\dots=1$--$5$ represent the SU(5) indices and
$\epsilon_{\hat{a}\hat{b}\hat{c}\hat{d}\hat{e}}$ is the totally
antisymmetric tensor with $\epsilon_{12345}=1$. $\Phi_i$ and $\Psi_i$
are the chiral superfields in the $\bar{\bf 5}$ and ${\bf 10}$ representations,
respectively, with $i$ denoting the generation index. $H$ and $\bar H$
are the ${\bf 5}$ and $\bar {\bf 5}$ containing the mininal
supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) doublets. In
these expressions, we have assumed $R$-parity conservation which forbids
terms like $\Psi\Phi\Phi$ and $H\Phi$. The adjoint Higgs field,
$\Sigma$, gets a vacuum expectation value (VEV) in the direction
\begin{equation}
\langle \Sigma \rangle =V\cdot {\rm diag}(2,2,2,-3,-3)~,
\end{equation}
breaking the SU(5) gauge group to the SM gauge groups
SU(3)$_C\otimes$SU(2)$_{L}\otimes$U(1)$_Y$. Because SUSY remains
unbroken for SU(5) breaking, we have $V=m_\Sigma/\lambda_\Sigma$. For
this setup, the masses of $\Sigma_3$, $\Sigma_8$, $\Sigma_{24}$, and
$H_C$ are given as
\begin{equation}
M_{\Sigma}\equiv
M_{\Sigma_8}=M_{\Sigma_3}=\frac{5}{2}\lambda_{\Sigma}V~,
~~~~~
M_{\Sigma_{24}}=\frac{1}{2}\lambda_{\Sigma}V~,
~~~~~
M_{H_C}=5\lambda_H V~,
\end{equation}
while the $\mu$ term for the MSSM Higgs fields is
\begin{equation}
\mu_0 =m_H -3\lambda_H V ~.
\end{equation}
As is usually done, we tune the parameter $m_H$ to
realize $\mu_0\ll m_H$ which is typically referred to as the
doublet-triplet splitting.\footnote{This is another fine-tuning
besides that for the Higgs mass. Note that the fine-tuning for the Higgs
mass becomes worse as the $\mu$ parameter is taken to be larger, while the
doublet-triplet fine-tuning becomes less severe. This tension may
explain why $\mu$ is much larger than the electroweak scale
\cite{Nomura:2014asa, Yanagida:2014}.} In addition, the gauge
interactions of the adjoint Higgs field yield an $X$-boson mass of
$M_X=5\sqrt{2}g_5 V$ where $g_5$ is the unified gauge coupling
constant. The
components $\Sigma_{(3^*, 2)}$ and $\Sigma_{(3,2)}$ become the
longitudinal component of the $X$ bosons, and thus do not appear as
physical states.
The Yukawa couplings $h^{ij}$ and $f^{ij}$ in
Eq.~(\ref{superpotentialYukawa}) have redundant degrees of freedom, most
of which are eliminated by the field redefinition of $\Psi$ and $\Phi$.
Since $h^{ij}$ is a symmetric matrix, $h^{ij}$ and $f^{ij}$ have
six and nine complex degrees of freedom, respectively. The field
redefinition of the SM fields forms the U(3)$\otimes$U(3) transformation
group, and thus the physical degrees of freedom turn out to be
$(12+18)-9\times 2=12$. Among these degrees of freedom, six of them are
the quark mass eigenvalues and four are for the
Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix elements and we are left with two
phases \cite{Ellis:1979hy}. In this paper, we take the same basis used
in Ref.~\cite{Hisano:1992jj} such that
\begin{align}
h^{ij}&= e^{i\varphi_i} \delta_{ij}f_{u_i}(Q_{{G}}) ~, \\
f^{ij}&= V^*_{ij} f_{d_j}(Q_{{G}}) ~,
\end{align}
where $f_{u_i}(Q_{{G}})$ and $f_{d_j}(Q_{{G}})$ are
the up-type and down-type Yukawa couplings, respectively, at a scale
$Q_{{G}}$ around the GUT scale, and $V_{ij}$ is the
CKM matrix. The phase factors $\varphi_i$
satisfy the condition $\sum_{i}\varphi_i=0$, and thus only two of them are
independent.
In this basis, the MSSM superfields are embedded into the SU(5) matter
multiplets as
\begin{align}
\Psi_i&\ni \{
Q_i,~e^{-i\varphi_i}\overline{U}_i,~V_{ij}\overline{E}_j
\}~,~~~~~~
\Phi_i\ni\{
\overline{D}_i,~L_i
\}~.
\end{align}
Then, Eq.~\eqref{superpotentialYukawa} leads to
\begin{align}
W_{\rm Yukawa}&=f_{u_i}
(Q^{a}_i\cdot H_2)\overline{U}_{ia}-V^*_{ij}f_{d_j} (Q^{a}_i\cdot H_1)
\overline{D}_{ja}-f_{d_i}
\overline{E}_i (L_i\cdot H_1)\nonumber \\[2pt]
&-\frac{1}{2}e^{i\varphi_i}\epsilon_{abc}f_{u_i}
(Q^{a}_i \cdot Q^{b}_i) H^c_C
+V^*_{ij}f_{d_j}(Q^{a}_i\cdot L_j)\overline{H}_{Ca}
\nonumber \\[2pt]
&+f_{u_i}V_{ij}\overline{U}_{ia}
\overline{E}_jH^a_C
-V^*_{ij}f_{d_j}e^{-i\varphi_i}\epsilon^{abc}
\overline{U}_{ia}\overline{D}_{jb}\overline{H}_{Cc}~.
\label{eq:wyukawa}
\end{align}
The new phase factors appear only in the couplings of the color-triplet
Higgs multiplets.
\section{Mass Spectrum and Coupling Unification}
To compute the proton decay rate, we need to evaluate the masses of the
GUT-scale particles which induce the baryon-number violating
interactions. In this section, we estimate these masses using the method
discussed in Refs.~\cite{Hisano:1992mh,Hisano:1992jj,Hisano:2013cqa}.
The mass of the
heavy particles is determined by first RG running the couplings to the
scale where they approximately unify. Then, because the thresholds at
the GUT scale depend on these superheavy particles, their masses can be
determined by assuming the deviation in gauge coupling unification is
solely due to these thresholds. Note, we will use the $\overline{\rm
DR}$ scheme \cite{Siegel:1979wq} in the following calculation. At the
scale $Q_G$ near the GUT scale, the one-loop matching conditions for
the gauge coupling constants are as follows
\cite{Weinberg:1980wa, Hall:1980kf}:
\begin{align}
\frac{1}{g_1^2(Q_{G})}&=\frac{1}{g_G^2(Q_G)}
+\frac{1}{8\pi^2}\biggl[
\frac{2}{5}
\ln \frac{Q_{G}}{M_{H_C}}-10\ln\frac{Q_{G}}{M_X}
\biggr]~,\nonumber \\
\frac{1}{g_2^2(Q_{G})}&=\frac{1}{g_G^2(Q_{G})}
+\frac{1}{8\pi^2}\biggl[
2\ln \frac{Q_{G}}{M_\Sigma}-6\ln\frac{Q_{G}}{M_X}
\biggr]~,\nonumber \\
\frac{1}{g_3^2(Q_{G})}&=\frac{1}{g_G^2(Q_{G})}
+\frac{1}{8\pi^2}\biggl[
\ln \frac{Q_{G}}{M_{H_C}}+3\ln \frac{Q_{G}}
{M_\Sigma}-4\ln\frac{Q_{G}}{M_X}
\biggr]~,
\end{align}
where $g_G$ is the unified gauge coupling constant.
Note that the conditions do not include constant (scale independent) terms
since we use the $\overline{\rm DR}$ scheme for
renormalization. Assuming the above equations contain the major
thresholds for the gauge couplings, they can be used to solve for the
masses
\begin{align}
\frac{3}{g_2^2(Q_{G})}- \frac{2}{g_3^2(Q_{G})}
- \frac{1}{g_1^2(Q_G)}
&=-\frac{3}{10\pi^2}\ln \biggl(\frac{Q_{G}}{M_{H_C}}\biggr)
~, \nonumber \\
\frac{5}{g_1^2(Q_{G})}- \frac{3}{g_2^2(Q_{G})}
- \frac{2}{g_3^2(Q_{G})}
&=-\frac{9}{2\pi^2}\ln\biggl(
\frac{Q_{G}}{M_{G}}\biggr)~,
\label{conditions}
\end{align}
with $M_{\text{G}}\equiv (M_X^2M_{\Sigma})^{\frac{1}{3}}$.
The above expressions allow us to find the masses of the heavy particles
in the combination\footnote{The third condition is used to determine
$g_G^2(Q_G)$.}, $M_{H_C}$ and $M_X^2M_{\Sigma}$. The value of $M_{H_C}$
and $M_G$ found from these relationships will be used below to find the
lifetime of the proton.
\section{Proton Decay}
In the
minimal SUSY GUT, proton decay is induced by the exchange of the
color-triplet Higgs boson, and the dominant decay mode is, generally,
$p\to K^+\bar{\nu}$ \cite{dim5protondecay}. We will only
give details of the contributions from the colored Higgs boson since it
will often be the dominant source of proton decay in PGM. At the GUT scale,
the triplet Higgs boson is integrated out. The most important
interaction for our considerations is the color-triplet Higgs exchange
which we match at the scale $Q_G$ on to the dimension-five effective
Lagrangian
\begin{equation}
{\cal L}_5^{\rm eff}= C^{ijkl}_{5L}{\cal O}^{5L}_{ijkl}
+C^{ijkl}_{5R}{\cal O}^{5R}_{ijkl}
~~+~~{\rm h.c.}~,
\end{equation}
where the effective operators ${\cal O}^{5L}_{ijkl}$ and ${\cal
O}^{5R}_{ijkl}$ are defined by
\begin{align}
{\cal O}^{5L}_{ijkl}&\equiv\int d^2\theta~ \frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{abc}
(Q^a_i\cdot Q^b_j)(Q_k^c\cdot L_l)~,\nonumber \\
{\cal O}^{5R}_{ijkl}&\equiv\int d^2\theta~
\epsilon^{abc}\overline{U}_{ia}\overline{E}_j\overline{U}_{kb}
\overline{D}_{lc}~,
\label{eq:dim5operators}
\end{align}
and the Wilson coefficients $C^{ijkl}_{5L}$ and $C^{ijkl}_{5R}$ are
given by
\begin{align}
C^{ijkl}_{5L}(Q_G)&
=\frac{1}{M_{H_C}}f_{u_i}
e^{i\varphi_i}\delta^{ij}V^*_{kl}f_{d_l}~,\nonumber \\
C^{ijkl}_{5R}(Q_G)
&=\frac{1}{M_{H_C}}f_{u_i}V_{ij}V^*_{kl}f_{d_l}
e^{-i\varphi_k}
~.
\label{eq:wilson5}
\end{align}
Note, the color indices must be completely antisymmetric for these
interactions and as a result,
only operators with at least two generations will be allowed. For this
reason, the dominant decay modes contain a strange quark in their final
state, \textit{i.e.}, $p\to K^+\bar{\nu}$.
As can be seen in Eq.~\eqref{eq:wyukawa}, at the GUT scale the lepton
and down-type quark Yukawa couplings should be equal. However, in
running up from the weak scale, we find them to be quite different
especially those for the first two generations. The difference is,
however, easily compensated by effects above the GUT scale; for
instance, the higher-dimensional operators induced at the Planck scale
contribute to the Yukawa couplings, which may account
for this difference \cite{Nath:1996qs, Nath:1996ft,
Bajc:2002pg}. Because it is not known which of these values is
close to the correct value for the Yukawa coupling at the GUT scale, in
the the discussion below, we use both the down quark and lepton-type
Yukawa couplings to calculate the proton lifetime. This will allow us to
quantify our uncertainty in the lifetime of the proton.
The relevant operators in Eq.~\eqref{eq:wilson5} can be further reduced
by keeping only those with the largest Yukawa couplings. We find that
only the operators ${\cal O}^{5R}_{3312}$ and ${\cal O}^{5R}_{3311}$
yield a sizable contribution to proton decay, even though the contribution
is suppressed by a flavor changing element of the CKM matrix. This
contribution turns out to be dominant because of the large third
generation Yukawa couplings involved \cite{higprotondec}. The relevant
Wilson coefficients are then
\begin{align}
C^{3311}_{5R}
(Q_G)=\frac{1}{M_{H_C}}f_tf_d(Q_G)
e^{-i\varphi_1}V_{tb}V_{ud}^*~, \nonumber \\
C^{3312}_{5R}(Q_G)=\frac{1}{M_{H_C}}f_tf_s(Q_G)
e^{-i\varphi_1}V_{tb}V_{us}^*~.\label{eq:wilson3genT}
\end{align}
Notice that the coefficients include a common phase factor
$e^{-i\varphi_1}$, which is therefore not important for proton decay.
The Wilson coefficients in Eq.~\eqref{eq:wilson3genT} are then evolved down to
the SUSY scale. At the SUSY scale, the sfermions of
these dimension-five operators are integrated out
via the one-loop diagram found in Fig.~\ref{fig:1loop} of
Appendix~\ref{App:ProDec}. The process proceeds via the exchange of
either a charged wino or a Higgsino.\footnote{This is the dominant
contribution to proton decay, unless there is flavor violation in the sfermion
sector. In this paper, we assume there is no flavor violation in the
sfermion sector. The flavor violating case is discussed in
Ref.~\cite{Nagata:2013sba}.} In PGM, we generally have
$|\mu|\gg |M_2|$ and so the contribution from Higgsino exchange
dominates \cite{Hisano:2013exa}.\footnote{ Higgsino exchange dominates
in this limit because the gauginos and Higgsinos in the one-loop
diagrams are required to flip their chirality, and thus their
contribution to proton decay is proportional to their masses, as can be
seen from the expression for the function $F$ given in
Eq.~\eqref{eq:funceq}. } For these reasons, we focus on the charged
Higgsino exchange process in what follows.
The loop diagram in Fig.~\ref{fig:1loop} is then matched onto the
baryon-number violating four-fermion operators \cite{Weinberg:1979sa,
Wilczek:1979hc, Abbott:1980zj}
\begin{equation}
{\cal L}^{\text{eff}}_6=C_i~ \epsilon_{abc}(u^a_{R1}d^b_{Ri})
(Q_{L3}^c \cdot L_{L3})~,
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
C_i (Q_S)=\frac{f_tf_\tau}{(4\pi)^2}C^{*331i}_{5R}(Q_S)
F(\mu, m_{\widetilde{t}_R}^2,m_{\tau_R}^2)~,
\label{eq:susymatching}
\end{equation}
where $i=1,2$, and $Q_S$ is the SUSY breaking scale taken to be around
$m_{3/2}$. The loop function $F$ is found in Appendix
\ref{App:ProDec}. The above expression shows that the proton decay rate
depends on the SUSY spectra through the loop function. We will see this
dependence in Sec.~\ref{sec:results} for the PGM scenario. Note that the
loop function is suppressed by the sfermion masses. Thus, we expect that
for large $m_{3/2}$ the proton lifetime is long enough
\cite{Hisano:2013exa, Liu:2013ula} to evade the
current bound, $\tau (p \to K^+ \bar{\nu}) > 5.9\times 10^{33}$~years
\cite{Abe:2014mwa}. This can be compared to the weak-scale SUSY
scenarios; in these cases, the proton decay rate is in general predicted
to be so large that the minimal SUSY GUT is excluded
\cite{Murayama:2001ur} and thus some additional conspiracy is required
to realize a SUSY GUT.
We now run the Wilson coefficients down to the hadronic scale,
$Q_{\text{had}}=2$ GeV. The Lagrangian at this scale takes the
form\footnote{For more details of how we arrived at this expression see
Appendix~\ref{App:ProDec}.}
\begin{equation}
{\cal L}(p\to K^+\bar{\nu}_\tau)
=C_{usd} [\epsilon_{abc}(u_R^as_R^b)(d_L^c\nu_\tau)]
+C_{uds} [\epsilon_{abc}(u_R^ad_R^b)(s_L^c\nu_\tau)]
~.
\end{equation}
Using these Wilson coefficients, we then evaluate
the partial decay width of the $p\to K^+ \bar{\nu}$ and find
\begin{equation}
\Gamma(p\to K^+\bar{\nu})=\frac{m_p}{32\pi}
\biggl(1-\frac{m_K^2}{m_p^2}\biggr)^2
|{\cal A}(p\to K^+\bar{\nu})|^2~,
\label{tp5}
\end{equation}
where $m_p$ and $m_K$ are the masses of proton and kaon, respectively,
and
\begin{equation}
{\cal A}(p\to K^+\bar{\nu})=
C_{usd}(Q_{\text{had}})\langle K^+\vert (us)_R ^{}d_L^{}\vert p\rangle +
C_{uds}(Q_{\text{had}})\langle K^+\vert (ud)_R ^{}s_L^{}\vert p\rangle ~.
\end{equation}
The hadron matrix elements in the above equation have been recently
computed in Ref.~\cite{Aoki:2013yxa} using a lattice simulation of QCD,
\begin{align}
\langle K^+\vert (us)_R ^{}d_L^{}\vert p\rangle&=
-0.054(11)(9)~\text{GeV}^2
~,\nonumber\\
\langle K^+\vert (ud)_R ^{}s_L^{}\vert p\rangle &=
-0.093(24)(18)~\text{GeV}^2
~,
\end{align}
where the first and second parentheses represent statistical and
systematic errors, respectively. The matrix elements are computed at the
scale $Q_{\text{had}}=2$~GeV.
Before concluding this section, we comment on other possible
contributions to proton decay. Firstly, the dimension-five baryon-number
violating operators in Eq.~\eqref{eq:dim5operators} can also be generated at
the Planck scale, $M_P$. If the coefficients of the operators are
${\cal O}(1/M_P)$, that is, there is no suppression from Yukawa couplings, then they
will give the dominant contribution to proton decay and result in a
lifetime which is too short \cite{Dine:2013nga}. It is expected, however, that there is some underlying mechanism such as a flavor
symmetry which is responsible for the structure of the Yukawa couplings. This symmetry could give additional suppression to these Planck-scale
operators. In this paper, we assume that the contribution
of these operators is less significant compared with the color Higgs
contribution, and neglect them in the following analysis.
Secondly, the exchange of the $X$ bosons will also induce proton
decay. This decay mode is via a dimension-six GUT-scale effective
operator and is thus usually subdominant compared to the contribution
of the dimension-five operator discussed above. An approximate
expression for the lifetime of the proton from the dimension-six
operator is
\begin{eqnarray}
\tau(p\to e^+\pi^0) \simeq 3 \times 10^{35} \times
\left(\frac{M_X}{1.0\times 10^{16}~\text{GeV}}\right)^4 ~.
\label{tp6}
\end{eqnarray}
There is a slight dependence on the masses of SUSY particles we have
neglected. As can be seen from this expression,
the proton decay width from the dimension-six operator will in general
give lifetimes too long to be detected, at least much longer than the
present bound: $\tau (p\to e^+\pi^0)> 1.4 \times 10^{34}~{\rm years}$
\cite{Shiozawa, Babu:2013jba}.
\section{Pure Gravity Mediation}
As discussed above, the lifetime of the proton depends on the SUSY
parameters. Motivated by the $126$ GeV Higgs boson \cite{lhch} and other
cosmological considerations \cite{ego}, we will analyze the proton lifetime for PGM
models. The scalar potential of PGM takes the same form as that of
mSUGRA
\begin{eqnarray}
V & = & \left|{\partial W \over \partial \phi^i}\right|^2 +
\left( A_0 W^{(3)} + B_0 W^{(2)} + \text{h.c.}\right) + m_{3/2}^2
\phi^i \phi_i^* \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
which is determined by the flat K\"ahler manifold\footnote{If the
K\"ahler manifold for the first two generations is no-scale like, these
models can explain $g-2$ experiments \cite{Evans:2013uza}. However, in
this case the proton decay calculation is more complicated because of
an additional wino contribution but should give a similar order of
magnitude for the proton lifetime.} and the superpotential $W$ is given
in Eq.~\eqref{eq:superpotential}. $W^{(2)}$ and $W^{(3)}$ are the bi-
and trilinear parts of the superpotential.
For PGM, the SUSY breaking field is a non-singlet and strongly
stabilized \cite{strongStab} which suppresses the gaugino masses and
$A$-terms respectively. The gaugino masses are regenerated by anomalies
and take the form\footnote{The $A$-terms are also regenerated by
anomalies. However, they are too small to be of importance.}
\begin{eqnarray}
M_{1} &=&
\frac{33}{5} \frac{g_{1}^{2}}{16 \pi^{2}}
m_{3/2}\ ,
\label{eq:M1} \\
M_{2} &=&
\frac{g_{2}^{2}}{16 \pi^{2}} m_{3/2} \ ,
\label{eq:M2} \\
M_{3} &=& -3 \frac{g_3^2}{16\pi^2} m_{3/2}\ .
\label{eq:M3}
\end{eqnarray}
In order to account for radiative EWSB,
mSUGRA is further modified by including a Giudice-Masiero term for the Higgs fields in the K\"ahler manifold
\cite{gm}. This modifies the Higgs boson parameters to
\begin{eqnarray}
\mu &=& \mu_0 + c_H m_{3/2}\ ,
\label{eq:mu0}
\\
B\mu &=& \mu_0 (A_0 - m_{3/2}) + 2 c_H m_{3/2}^2\ ,
\label{eq:Bmu0}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mu_0$ is the superpotential Higgs bilinear term found in $W^{(2)}$.
This allows us to vary both $\mu$ and $B\mu$ independently in order to
satisfy the EWSB conditions. This leaves $m_{3/2}$ and $c_H$ as free
parameters. In this case, $\tan \beta$ is an output of the EWSB conditions,
but in practice one can trade $c_H$ for $\tan \beta$ and use $m_{3/2}$
and $\tan \beta$ as free inputs. Since this simplest of PGM models
tends to require small $\tan\beta$ and larger $m_{3/2}$, we will allow
the Higgs soft masses to be free parameters. This will allow $\tan\beta$
to be larger and so allow for $m_{3/2}$ to be smaller \cite{eioy2}. As
was seen in the previous sections, both larger $\tan \beta$ and smaller
$m_{3/2}$ will lead to shorter lifetimes of the proton. We will not
discuss the origin of these non-universal Higgs soft masses here.
However, discussion about this can be found in Ref.~\cite{eioy2}. Lastly,
we note that the non-universal Higgs soft masses, $m_1$ and $m_2$, can
also be parametrized in terms of the low scale values of $\mu$ and
$m_A$ which are otherwise also outputs of the EWSB conditions. We will
take advantage of this in the results below in order to zoom in on some
features of the proton lifetime.
\section{Results}
\label{sec:results}
We are now in a position to discuss the proton lifetime and mass scales
associated with gauge coupling unification in a variety of models which have
varying degrees of non-universality in the Higgs sector.
We begin by displaying in Fig.~\ref{m1eqm2p} the $m_1=m_2$ vs. $\tan \beta$ plane
for fixed gravitino mass.
This is a one-parameter extension of the minimal (two-parameter) PGM model and resembles NUHM1 models \cite{nuhm1}. In the left panel we have fixed $m_{3/2} = 60$ TeV.
For this value of the gravitino mass, the Higgs mass lies between 124 and 128 GeV
\footnote{We refer to this extended range of Higgs masses to account for the uncertainty in
the calculation of the Higgs mass. Note also that the Higgs masses calculated here
differ slightly from those calculated in \cite{eioy2} as here we are not imposing strict gauge coupling unification
at the GUT scale.} for $\tan \beta$ roughly between 4--9 as shown by the red dot-dashed curves.
The thin blue lines show the values of the LSP (wino) mass\footnote{The
present lower limit on the wino mass from the LHC experiment is about
270~GeV \cite{Aad:2013yna}. } and are solid for $\mu > 0$ and dashed for $\mu < 0$. The anomaly mediated contribution to $m_\chi$ for $m_{3/2} = 60$ TeV
is 170 GeV. At low $\tan \beta$, threshold corrections from the heavy Higgs bosons and the Higgsinos increase the mass for $\mu < 0$ and decrease the mass for $\mu > 0$. At large $\tan \beta$, the wino mass,
for both positive and negative $\mu$, tends to its anomaly mediated value.
The curves end at high and low values of the Higgs soft masses due to the absence of radiative electroweak
symmetry breaking. For large and negative values of $m_1^2 = m_2^2$ (the sign on the axis refers to the sign
of the mass squared), the Higgs pseudoscalar mass squared is negative, and for large positive
$m_1^2 = m_2^2$, the electroweak conditions yield $|\mu|^2 < 0$.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics{tbim1qem2n1_0_60000.eps}}
\scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics{tbim1eqm2n_1_100000.eps}}
\caption{
{\it
The $\tan \beta$--$m_{1,2}$ plane for a) $m_{3/2} = 60$\,TeV and b) $m_{3/2} = 100$\,TeV.
The Higgs mass is shown by the nearly horizontal thin red contours in $1$\,GeV intervals.
The wino/chargino mass is shown by the thin solid ($\mu > 0$) and dashed
($\mu < 0$) contours. The thick black contours show the value of the proton lifetime
based on the quark Yukawa couplings (solid) and lepton Yukawa couplings (dashed) in
units of $10^{35}$ years. Lifetime contours for the solid curves are labeled to the left of the contours
whereas dashed contours are labeled to the right.}}
\label{m1eqm2p}
\end{figure}
The thicker black curves in Fig.~\ref{m1eqm2p} show the values of the proton lifetime. As discussed earlier,
as there is some uncertainty as to how we match the Yukawa couplings at the GUT scale,
we have results based on quark Yukawa couplings (shown by the solid curves) and results based on
lepton Yukawa couplings (shown by the dashed curves). As one can see from the figure,
the calculated proton lifetime is sensitive to $\tan \beta$ yet relatively insensitive to the value of $m_{1,2}$ for fixed
gravitino mass. In general, the proton lifetime is lower at high $\tan \beta$ due to the increase in the down-like Yukawa couplings when $\tan \beta$ is increased, whereas the Higgs mass increases
with $\tan \beta$.
For these relatively low values of the gravitino mass used in the left panel,
the proton lifetimes based on quark Yukawas drop below $5 \times 10^{34}$ years only when
$\tan \beta > 7$ where $m_h > 127$ GeV. The lifetime increases rapidly at lower $\tan \beta$ and
exceeds $5 \times 10^{35}$ years when $\tan \beta < 4$ where $m_h < 124$ GeV. However, the wino mass requires $\mu<0$ and $\tan\beta\gtrsim 6$.
Recall that these lifetimes are computed from Eq.~(\ref{tp5}) and when the lifetime exceeds
3 $\times 10^{35}$ years, the dominant contribution to the decay rate comes from the
dimension-six operator given in Eq.~(\ref{tp6}).
Proton lifetimes based on lepton Yukawas are significantly smaller (by a factor of roughly 20),
so that $\tau_p^l < 5 \times 10^{33}$ years when $\tan \beta \gtrsim 6$ and is still smaller than
$2 \times 10^{34}$ years when $\tan \beta > 4$.
In the right panel of Fig.~\ref{m1eqm2p}, we have taken $m_{3/2} = 100$ TeV and as expected
the Higgs mass for a given value of $\tan \beta$ is higher. The range 124 -- 128 GeV now requires
$\tan \beta \simeq 3.5$ -- 6. The uncorrected wino mass is now about 290 GeV and in the figure
we see lower (higher) wino masses when $\mu > (<) 0$. The proton lifetimes are now significantly higher.
At $\tan \beta = 6$, the quark based value of $\tau_p$ determined by the dimension five operator is now $10^{36}$ years and increases as $\tan \beta$ is lower. The lepton based lifetimes remain a factor of about 20 lower and may still be as low as $5 \times 10^{34}$ years
at $\tan \beta = 6$.
To see more clearly the dependence of the proton lifetime on the PGM parameters,
we show in the left panel of Fig.~\ref{tpm32tb} the behavior of the proton
lifetime as a function of $\tan \beta$ for fixed $m_{3/2} = 60$ and 200
TeV with $m_1 = m_2 = 0$. The lifetime falls off monotonically with
$\tan \beta$. The ratio between the quark and lepton evaluation of
$\tau_p$ is seen to be nearly constant as $\tan \beta$ is varied with a
ratio of about 20. We also see the substantial increase in $\tau_p$ when
$m_{3/2}$ is increased to 200 TeV. The experimental limit on the proton
lifetime, $\tau (p \to K^+ \bar{\nu}) > 5.9\times 10^{33}$~years
\cite{Abe:2014mwa}, is shown by the horizontal line. In the right panel, we
show this increase in $\tau_p$ with $m_{3/2}$ for fixed values of $\tan
\beta = 2$ and 5. In both panels, we also show the Higgs mass as a
function of $\tan \beta$ and $m_{3/2}$ with its value displayed on the
right edge of each panel. Restricting the Higgs mass to the range
124--128 GeV allows one to focus on the relevant ranges of either $\tan
\beta$ or $m_{3/2}$ and hence on the predicted proton lifetime.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\scalebox{0.6}{\includegraphics{tbvstp.eps}}
\scalebox{0.6}{\includegraphics{m32vstp.eps}}
\caption{
{\it
The dependence of the proton lifetime on $\tan \beta$ (left) for fixed
$m_{3/2} = 60$ and $200$ TeV, and on $m_{3/2}$ (right) for fixed $\tan \beta = 2$ and 5. Both of the Higgs soft masses have been fixed $m_1 = m_2 = 0$.
The dependence of the Higgs mass is also shown with its value given on
the right side of each panel. The horizontal line indicates the present
experimental bound \cite{Abe:2014mwa}.}}
\label{tpm32tb}
\end{figure}
In contrast to the proton lifetime, the relevant GUT mass scales,
$M_{H_C}$ and $M_G$, are relatively insensitive to the PGM parameter choices
as seen in Fig.~\ref{mm32tb}. As one can see in the left panel, there is
very little dependence on $\tan \beta$.
The mass parameter $M_G\equiv (M_X^2M_\Sigma)^{\frac{1}{3}}$ is always
close to $10^{16}$~GeV independent of $m_{3/2}$ (as also seen in the
right panel). While the color-triplet mass is insensitive to $\tan
\beta$, it does have a mild dependence on the gravitino mass
and ranges from a few $\times 10^{16}$ -- few $\times
10^{17}$~GeV. Notice that in the weak-scale SUSY scenario the mass of
the color-triplet Higgs multiplet is predicted to be around $10^{15}$~GeV
\cite{Murayama:2001ur}. A heavier color triplet mass makes the proton
lifetime long enough to evade the current experimental bound. Furthermore,
in some of the parameter space of PGM, the GUT-scale parameters
$M_{H_C}$ and $M_G$ are both of ${\cal O}(10^{16})$. In these cases, the threshold corrections at the GUT scale become very small,
which implies the unification of the gauge couplings is quite good. In fact, for $m_{3/2}\sim 60 $ TeV and $\tan\beta \sim 5$, we get good gauge coupling unification and a proton lifetime which could be in reach of future experiments.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\scalebox{0.63}{\includegraphics{tbvsMG.eps}}
\scalebox{0.63}{\includegraphics{m32vsMG.eps}}
\caption{
{\it
The dependence of the GUT-scale mass parameters ($M_{H_C}$ and $M_G$) on
$\tan \beta$ (left) for fixed $m_{3/2} = 60$ and $200$~TeV, and on
$m_{3/2}$ (right) for fixed $\tan \beta = 2$ and $5$. Both of the Higgs
soft masses have been fixed $m_1 = m_2 = 0$. The dependence of the
Higgs mass is also shown with its value given on the right side of each
panel. }}
\label{mm32tb}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{muma}, we offer two additional planes which show the dependence of the proton lifetime
on other PGM parameters. In the left panel, we plot the lifetime contours in the $m_1=m_2$, $m_{3/2}$ plane.
This is again a NUHM1-like model and we have fixed $\tan \beta =5$. As in Fig.~\ref{m1eqm2p},
the red-dashed curves show the Higgs mass contours which vary from about 124--128 GeV for the plane shown. As before, the curves extend across a limited range in $m_1=m_2$ where the EWSB conditions can be
satisfied. At large positive $m_1^2$, $\mu^2$ goes to 0 (where the curve is cutoff). At very small
$\mu$, the Higgs masses increases rapidly causing the sudden downturn in the mass contours.
As expected, we see the wino mass varies considerably as $m_{3/2}$ is varied.
For the range in $m_{3/2}$ shown, the proton lifetime varies from as low as $10^{33}$ years
using the lepton Yukawas and low $m_{3/2}$ to as high as $10^{37}$ years using quark Yukawas and
$m_{3/2} \approx 150$ TeV.
\begin{figure}[t]
\scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics{m0m1m2an1_5_1.eps}}
\scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics{mumAan_5_0_60000.eps}}
\caption{
{\it
a) The $m_{3/2}$--$m_{1,2}$ plane for $\tan \beta = 5$ and b) the $\mu$--$m_A$ plane for
$\tan \beta = 5$ and $m_{3/2} = 60$ TeV. In both panels,
the Higgs mass is shown by thin red dot-dashed contours in $1$\,GeV intervals.
The wino/chargino mass is shown by the thin solid ($\mu > 0$) and dashed
($\mu < 0$) contours. The thick black contours show the value of the proton lifetime
based on the quark Yukawa couplings (solid) and lepton Yukawa couplings (dashed) in
units of $10^{35}$ years. Lifetime contours for the solid curves are labeled to the left of the contours
whereas dashed contours are labeled to the right.}}
\label{muma}
\end{figure}
In the right panel of Fig.~\ref{muma}, we show a two-parameter extension of the two-parameter
PGM similar to the NUHM2 \cite{nuhm2}. Results are displayed in the $\mu,m_A$ plane for fixed
$\tan \beta = 5$ and $m_{3/2} = 60$ TeV.
In this case, the EWSB conditions, are used to solve for the two Higgs soft masses which now differ.
As the Higgs mass is largely independent of $m_A$, the Higgs mass contours are nearly vertical.
At the center of the plot, as $|\mu|$ gets to be very small, $m_h$ gets large and exceeds 130 GeV.
At large $|\mu|$, $m_h$ is always larger than 125 GeV in the ranges shown. The threshold
corrections to the wino mass are sensitive to $\mu$ and $m_A$
and that accounts for the variation of $m_\chi$ as these parameters are varied.
The proton lifetime varies between $10^{34}$ and $10^{36}$ years but
shows significantly more variability. This is due to the competing effects
of changing $\mu$. The proton lifetime depends both on the color-triplet
Higgs mass and on $\mu$ itself.\footnote{The proton decay rate directly
depends on $\mu$ through the loop function $F$ in
Eq.~\eqref{eq:susymatching}. When $|\mu| << m_{3/2}$, $F\propto \mu
/m_{3/2}^2$, while if $\mu >> m_{3/2}$, $F\propto
\log(\mu^2/m_{3/2}^2)/\mu$, as can be seen from Eq.~\eqref{eq:funceq}. } As $\mu$ is lowered, the color-triplet Higgs
mass decreases which tends to decrease the proton lifetime. But as $|\mu|$ is further decreased,
the proton lifetime dependence on $\mu$ overcomes its dependence on $M_{H_C}$ and the lifetime
increases very rapidly at small $|\mu|$ seen by the sharp downturn in the contours near $\mu = 0$.
These effects can be better understood by examining Figs.~\ref{tpmu} and \ref{mmu} which show
the behavior of the proton lifetime and GUT-scale masses, including the heavy Higgs mass, as a function of $\mu$ for fixed $\tan \beta$ and
$m_{3/2}$. Here we see the first gradual and then rapid decrease in the color-triplet mass as
$|\mu|$ is lowered from large values toward $\mu = 0$. There is no substantial difference in this
behavior between the two values of $\tan \beta$ shown.
Once again, we see that $M_G$ depends very little on our parameter
choices and is always near $10^{16}$~GeV.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\scalebox{0.63}{\includegraphics{MHCvsmu.eps}}
\scalebox{0.63}{\includegraphics{MHCvsmutb5.eps}}
\caption{
{\it
The dependence of the GUT-scale masses ($m_{H_C}$ and $M_G$) on $\mu$ for
fixed $\tan \beta = 3$ (left) and $\tan \beta = 5$ (right) and fixed $m_{3/2} = 65, 130$, and $260$ TeV.
Both of the Higgs soft masses have been fixed $m_1 = m_2 = 0$. The extent of the curves is
determined by the validity of radiative EWSB.
}}
\label{tpmu}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\scalebox{0.63}{\includegraphics{muvtap.eps}}
\scalebox{0.63}{\includegraphics{muvtaptb5.eps}}
\caption{
{\it
The dependence of the proton lifetime on $\mu$ for
fixed $\tan \beta = 3$ (left) and $\tan \beta = 5$ (right) and fixed $m_{3/2} = 65, 130$, and $260$~TeV.
Both of the Higgs soft masses have been fixed $m_1 = m_2 = 0$. The extent of the curves is
determined by the validity of radiative EWSB.
The dependence of the Higgs mass is also shown with its value given on the right side of each panel. }}
\label{mmu}
\end{figure}
Finally, in Fig.~\ref{mmu}, we see the sharp increase in the proton lifetime
as $|\mu|$ gets small.\footnote{Our calculations are only valid for $|\mu|$ much greater than the wino mass.} Here we see also that the Higgs mass rises sharply as $\mu$ tends to
zero. It is important to recall that the lifetime plotted corresponds only to that
given by the dimension-five operator given in Eq.~\eqref{tp5} and would not exceed
$3 \times 10^{35}$ years when the dimension-six operator is included. The latter is fairly insensitive
to parameter choices.
\section{Conclusion and Discussion}
As we await new results for physics beyond the standard model from the LHC,
we have been forced to consider supersymmetric models with sfermion masses larger than
what was previously considered `natural'. While a great deal of attention had been focused
on relatively simple models such as the CMSSM or mSUGRA (with four and three parameters respectively)
or the NUHM1,2 with five and six parameters, pure gravity mediation models can be
described with as few as two parameters at the cost of a mass spectrum which approaches
the PeV scale. As we hope the actual theory of nature is in the realm of experimental science,
it is imperative to find means to test these models. Here we have examined
one additional possibility for testing these models despite their
generally heavy mass spectra.
PGM theories, with all their economy, are still able to resolve many of the questions
their lower energy cousins (such as the CMSSM) were motivated from. These include
the ability to achieve gauge coupling unification at the GUT scale, radiative breaking
of the electroweak symmetry, the stability of the Higgs potential, and they also provide a suitable
candidate for dark matter. The latter is definitely more difficult in PGM models, as
the wino is usually the lightest supersymmetric particle and as such would require
a wino mass near 3 TeV to supply the correct relic density. This pushes the gravitino mass
up to several hundred TeV. Alternatives within PGM are possible if $\mu$ is relatively small
and the Higgsino is the lightest supersymmetric particle \cite{eioy5} or if the theory contains
additional vector-like states and bino-gluino co-annihilation controls the relic bino density \cite{vector},
or even axion dark matter \cite{eioy5,eioy4}. In contrast to their lower energy counterparts,
PGM models have a relatively easy time obtaining a Higgs mass in agreement with the
experimental measurement \cite{lhch}.
Thus experimental verification of PGM models remains challenging.
While there is the chance that the lightest supersymmetric particle is within
reach of the LHC, the bulk of the PGM spectrum is not. Here we have calculated
the proton lifetime in PGM models. We have found that typically
the lifetime is long and in many cases significantly above the current
experimental bounds. However in cases where $m_{3/2}$ is relatively small
and $\tan \beta$ is relatively high, the proton lifetime is low and
may be at the level of current experimental searches. While proton decay itself,
can not point directly to PGM supersymmetry, it may provide one more handle on
an ever increasingly elusive theory beyond the standard model.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
The work of J.E. and K.A.O. was supported in part
by DOE grant DE-SC0011842 at the University of Minnesota.
The work of N.N. is supported by Research Fellowships of the Japan Society
for the Promotion of Science for Young Scientists.
\section*{Appendix}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{Introduction}
With the fast development of the world, the dimensional and size of data is fast-growing in most kinds of fields which challenge the data mining and machine learning techniques. Feature selection is an important and useful method that can effectively reduce the dimensionality of feature space while retaining a relatively high accuracy in representing the original data. Thus, it plays a fundamental role in many data mining and machine learning tasks, particularly in pattern recognition \cite{new12}, knowledge discovery \cite{new14,new15}, information retrieval \cite{new16,new17}, computer vision \cite{new18,new19}, bioinformatics \cite{new20}, and so forth. The effects of feature selection \cite{2} have been widely recognized for its abilities in facilitating data interpretation, reducing acquisition and storage requirements, increasing learning speeds, improving generalization performance, etc. Therefore, feature selection has attracted significant attention of more and more researchers \cite{JSandBEP,DEAFS,4,new24,new25}.
Generally speaking, the feature selection methods can be divided into two types: Wrapper and filter. Wrapper methods depend on specific learning algorithms. Thus the performance of wrapper methods is affected by the selected learning method. This may makes the wrapper methods computationally expensive in learning, since they must train and test the classifier for each feature subset candidate. Conversely, filter methods do not rely on any learning schemes. Instead, it is only based on some classifier-irrelevant metrics, including Fisher score \cite{6}, $\chi^2$-test \cite{8}, mutual information \cite{9,11,12,Zhangis_1,Zhangis_2}, Symmetrical Uncertainty(SU) \cite{13,DEAFS}, etc., to estimate the discrimination power of features. In this study, we only focus on filter methods.
Filter methods can also divided into feature subset selection and feature ranking ones, with regard to their searching strategy. The evaluation unit for subset selection methods is a set of features, thus the one with best discrimination power is trying to be discovered \cite{13,CFS,CMIM,IAMB2010,OnlineStreamFS}. Nevertheless, to find the best feature subset, $\mathrm{O}(2^m)$ candidate subsets (where $m$ is \# features in the original data) will be traversed for feature selection task cannot be solved optimally in polynomial-time unless $\s{P}=\s{NP}$ \cite{NPComplete}. Thus it is computationally intractable in practice. Unlike subset methods, feature ranking methods individually take features as the evaluation units and rank them according to their discrimination power \cite{Relief,Var_Of_relief,MIFS}. These methods usually employ heuristic search strategies such as forward search, backward search, and sequential floating search.
However, whatever feature ranking or feature subsets selection method, there are two problems possibly leading to the wrong ranking or lower capacity for classification. One is that the ignorance of feature interaction and dependencies may lead to redundancy, as some feature selection methods like MIM \cite{MIM} take the assumption of independence of features. For the real-world datasets, especially those high-dimensional ones, such strong assumption may produce results far from optimal. The other problem is that group capacity of features is usually ignored, since many methods only measure the relationship between any two features \cite{9,mRMR2,MIFS}. For example, a feature has low individual classification capacity and is highly dependent on other features may be overlooked and even misidentified as a redundant feature by only measuring its pairwise relationship with other features. However, since it is highly dependent on other features, it is also possible that the feature contributes largely to the discrimination power of the subset consisting of such features. Thus, it should be evaluated as a salient feature and selected. Since the dependence among features is related to both redundancy and complementariness, it is imperative to develop more precise correlation analysis in order to distinguish them effectively. To this end, we propose a novel feature selection algorithm which tries to modify the redundancy analysis applied in prior methods in this paper by introducing a modification item and a dynamic coefficient to effectively adjust the redundancy-complementariness identification process.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: Section \ref{Related work} reviews related work. Section \ref{Preliminaries} presents the Information theoretic metrics and evaluation criteria. A new feature selection method is included in section \ref{Framework}. In section \ref{Exp}, experimental study is described and the results are discussed. Finally, section \ref{conclusion} concludes this study and proposes possible further work.
\section{Related work}\label{Related work}
In recent decades, many kinds of feature selection methods have been studied. In general, there are two aims in these feature selection methods. One is to search the most class-relevant features, the other is to remove redundancy.
Most feature selection algorithms can effectively find relevant features \cite{new1,Var_Of_relief,new4}. A well-known example is Relief, which is developed by Kira and Rendell \cite{Relief}. The main idea of Relief is to rank features in terms of the weight corresponding to their ability to both discriminate instances with different class labels and cluster those with same class labels based on the distance between instances. However, Relief method may be ineffective since similar weights of two or more features cannot be removed by this method. In other words, this implies that redundant features cannot be identified. A typical and widely used extension of Relief is ReliefF \cite{ReliefF}, which is competent to the noisy and incomplete datasets. However, it is still unable to remove redundant features.
Redundant features are considered to have negative effects on the accuracy and speed of classification methods, hence many feature selection methods are proposed to address this problem by statistic-based merics \cite{Kohavi_John,KollerSahami,MIFS,CFS,13}. For example, Correlation based Feature Selection (CFS) algorithm proposed by Hall et al. \cite{CFS} adopts $cor$ value to simultaneously measure a feature subset's correlation to the class and inter-correlation among features in it. CFS selects the subset which obtains the maximum $cor$ value. However CFS does not designate specific search approaches, thus how to select feature subsets still remains to be a problem.
Minimum Redundancy and Maximum Relevance (mRMR) criterion and its variants \cite{9,mRMR2,mRMR14,MIFS} apply information theoretic metrics to separately measure class-relevance and pairwise correlation between features. A comprehensive score consisting of the two indices is applied to evaluate and select features. Fast Correlation Based Feature selection algorithm (FCBF) proposed by Yu and Liu \cite{13} is another typical method that separately handles relevance and redundancy. FCBF utilizes Symmetrical Uncertainty ($SU$) as the merci to represent class-relevance and pairwise correlation. If the class-relevance of a feature is lower than that of another and the correlation between them, it would be identified as a redundant features and thus to be removed. Recently, an extenuation of FCBF was proposed in order to identify redundant features more precisely \cite{Fast-FCBF}. All of the above mentioned methods take pairwise correlation as the redundancy index and identify features with high such index to be redundant, while ignoring 1) complementary correlation between features (which we will discuss detailed in section \ref{DRM}) and 2) correlation among more than two features, which still remain to be problems that impair the performance of feature selection.
Much effort has been made to tackle the former problem mentioned above \cite{CMIM,CMIM_WANG,IAMBs,CCR,JMI,Zhangis_1,Zhangis_2,DEAFS,DISR,MIFS-U}. Flueret \cite{CMIM} and Wang et al. \cite{CMIM_WANG} propose Conditional Mutual Information Maximization (CMIM) criterion for feature selection. CMIM harnesses Conditional Mutual Information (CMI) to measure the intensity of relevance and redundancy since CMI can implicitly identify complementary correlation between features, i.e. a large value of $CMI(F ; C | \w{F})$ implies 1) $F$ is relevant to class $C$, and 2) $F$ is highly complementary with $\w{F}$, many information theoretic feature selection methods apply it to build up their evaluation criteria \cite{mRR,CCR,IAMBs,Fast_IAMB}. There are also several methods explicitly identifying redundancy and complementary correlation without CMI. Algorithms based on Joint Mutual Information (JMI) criterion \cite{JMI,DISR} take into account mutual information between pairs of features and class. Since the feature relevant to class and the one complementary to salient features will obtain high JMI values, they both will be identified as salient features and thus is more possible to be selected. Although the above mentioned methods try to recognize complementariness from the pairwise correlation of features, measuring pairwise correlation is actually an approximation to measuring the correlation among more than two features. Under this circumstance, features that is strongly complementary to the certain selected feature(s) but not significantly correlated with the feature group are possible to be selected using such approximation, which will in turn intervene the later selection process.
\section{Information theoretic metrics and evaluation criteria}\label{Preliminaries}
\subsection{Entropy, mutual information, and conditional mutual information}\label{MI}
In this section, some essential information theoretic metrics used in our method will be described. The entropy, a fundamental unit of information, is used to quantify the uncertainty preset in the distribution of $X$, which is formed as
\begin{equation*}
H(X)=
-\sum_{x\in X}p(x)\log p(x),
\end{equation*}
where $x\in X$ denotes the possible value assignments of $X$, $p(x)$ is the distribution of $x$ (for convenience, we hereafter use the notation $\log$ to denote the base 2 logarithm instead of $\log_2$). According to the probability theory, one can use conditional entropy to quantify the uncertainty one variable conditioned on another one. The conditional entropy of $X$ given $Y$ is defined as
\begin{equation*}
H(X|Y)=
-\sum_{y\in Y}\sum_{x\in X}p(xy)\log p(x|y),
\end{equation*}
Mutual Information (MI) between two random variables $X$ and $Y$ can be described as follows
\begin{equation*}
I(X;Y)=
\sum_{x\in X}\sum_{y\in Y}p(xy)\log\frac{p(xy)}{p(x)p(y)},
\end{equation*}
where $x\in X$ and $y\in Y$ are the possible value assignments of $X$ and $Y$, respectively. MI can be considered as the amount of information shared by two variables. In feature selection field, it is one of the most widely used metrics for measuring the correlation intensity of two features. Note that the MI is a symmetric merci, i.e. $I(X;Y)=I(Y;X)$. $I(X;Y) = 0$ implies that $X$ and $Y$ are statistically independent. Conditional mutual information (CMI), which is an extension of MI for measuring the conditional dependence between two random variables given the third, is defined as
\begin{equation*}
I(X;Y|Z)= \sum_{z\in Z}p(z)\sum_{x\in X}\sum_{y\in Y}p(xy|z)\log\frac{p(xy|z)}{p(x|z)p(y|z)}.
\end{equation*}
$I(X;Y|Z)$ can be interpreted as the information shared between $X$ and $Y$ given the value of a third variable ($Z$). MI and CMI can also be expressed with entropies as follows:
\begin{equation*}
I(X;Y)=H(X)-H(X|Y)
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
I(X;Y|Z)=H(X|Z)-H(X|Y,Z).
\end{equation*}
\subsection{Relevance, redundancy, and complementariness analysis}\label{DRM}
The motivation of using MI to solve feature selection problem is that a larger MI between the feature and class should imply a potentially greater discrimination ability when using the feature. In addition, a commonly cited justification for using MI in feature selection is that MI can be used to write both an upper and lower bound on the Bayes error rate \cite{xin33}. It can simply be applied as the criterion of a filter taking the form of
\begin{equation}\label{MIM}
J(F)=I(F;C),
\end{equation}
where $J(\cdot)$ denotes the evaluation criterion, $F$ denotes a candidate feature and $C$ denotes the class. Intuitively, the top $m$ candidates which maximize $J(\cdot)$ could be selected, where $m$ is a predefined number or decided by some stop criterion. In fact, this criterion takes the assumption that each feature is independent to all other features, which makes the criterion very efficient.
However, such an assumption is so strong in practice that almost all the features may be mutually dependent to others, which makes the criterion shown in Eq.\eqref{MIM} be far from optimal. In general, it is widely recognized that a salient set of features should not only be individually relevant to class, but also should not be redundant to other features in the set. In order to identify redundancy, mRMR and its variants are proposed which can be generally formed as
\begin{equation}\label{mRMR}
J(F)=D(F)-R(F)
\end{equation}
where $D(F)$ represents relevance between $F$ and class $C$, $R(F)$ describes redundancy between $F$ and the selected features in the subset $\s{S}$. Usually, like in mRMR \cite{9}, $D(F)$ and $R(F)$ take the forms of MI. This criterion can efficiently find the features with high class-relevance and low dependence with respect to each other in $\s{S}$. However, term ``redundancy'' not only implies that features are highly dependent to each other, but also indicates which one would be substitutable, i.e. their discrimination power would be significantly impaired when some other feature(s) are(is) given. From this viewpoint, only considering dependence between features is not enough to effectively identify redundancy. In other words, a feature which is dependent on another may not definitely imply to be redundant. Instead, the two features may complementary to each other, i.e they would have stronger discriminatory power as a group (but may weak as individuals), particularly in microarray data analysis \cite{xin31,new6}. To this end, a complementary modification item is introduced as
\begin{equation}\label{fou}
J(F)=D(F)-(R(F)-M(F))
\end{equation}
where $M(F)$ is an item to identify complementary correlation between $F$ and selected features in $\s{S}$. In the context of MI, if $R(C)$ takes the form of $\sum_{F_s\in\s{S}}I(F;F_s)$ (as in mRMR), $M(F)$ could thus be denoted as $\sum_{F_s\in\s{S}}I(F;F_s|C)$, which represents the information shared between $F$ and $F_s$ given class $C$. In order to illustrate this, we first show the relationship between $R(F)$ and $M(F)$ as follows
\begin{eqnarray}\label{R-M=MI-CMI}
R(F) - M(F) & = & I(F;F_s)- I(F;F_s|C) \nonumber\\
& = &\displaystyle\sum_{f_s\in F_s}\sum_{f\in F}p(ff_s)\log\frac{p(ff_s)}{p(f)p(f_s)} - \sum_{c\in C}p(c)\sum_{f_s\in F_s}\sum_{f\in F}p(ff_s|c)\log\frac{p(ff_s|c)}{p(f|c)p(f_s|c)} \nonumber\\
& = & \sum_{c\in C}\sum_{f\in F}\sum_{f_s\in F_s}p(ff_sc)\log\left(\frac{p(ff_s)}{p(f)p(f_s)}\cdot\frac{p(f|c)p(f_s|c)}{p(ff_s|c)}\right) \nonumber \\
& = & \sum_{c\in C}\sum_{f\in F}\sum_{f_s\in F_s}p(ff_sc)\log\frac{p(ff_s)p(fc)p(f_sc)}{p(f)p(f_s)p(c)p(ff_sc)} \nonumber \\
& = & \sum_{c\in C}\sum_{f\in F}\sum_{f_s\in F_s}p(ff_sc)\log\left(\frac{p(fc)}{p(f)p(c)}\cdot\frac{p(ff_s)p(f_sc)}{p(ff_sc)p(f_s)}\right) \nonumber \\
& = &\displaystyle\sum_{f\in F}\sum_{c\in C}p(fc)\log\frac{p(fc)}{p(f)p(c)} - \sum_{f_s\in F_s}\sum_{f\in F}\sum_{c\in C}p(ff_sc)\log\frac{p(fc|f_s)}{p(f|f_s)p(c|f_s)} \nonumber\\
& = & I(F;C) - I(F;C|F_s).
\end{eqnarray}
We now explain $R(F)-M(F)$ using Eq.\eqref{R-M=MI-CMI}, since the relationship between $I(F;C)$ and $I(F;C|F_s)$ is straightforward: If $I(F;C)$ is much great than $I(F;C|F_s)$, the relevance between $F$ and class $C$ would become significantly weak after given the information of $F_s$. In other words, $F$ is redundant to $F_s$. Conversely, if $I(F;C)$ is much small than $I(F;C|F_s)$, the relevance between $F$ and class $C$ would become significantly strong after given the information of $F_s$. i.e. $F$ is complementary to $F_s$. Thus, $R(F)-M(F)$ could be applied to simultaneously measure redundancy and complementary correlation: When $R(F)-M(F)>0$, it captures the magnitude of redundancy between $F$ and $F_s$; when $R(F)-M(F) < 0$, it captures the magnitude of complementary correlation between $F$ and $F_s$. In the context of MI, the following expression could be applied to be the evaluation criterion according to Eq.\eqref{fou}
\begin{equation}\label{proposed_main}
J(\cdot)=I(F;C)-Pair\_Cor(F;\s{S})
\end{equation}
where $Pair\_Cor(F;\s{S})$ takes the form of
\begin{equation}\label{pair_cor_temp}
Pair\_Cor(F;\s{S})=\sum_{F_s\in\s{S}}\left(I(F;F_s)-I(F;F_s|C)\right).
\end{equation}
For the sake of convenience for the discussion in the following sections, we denote $cor(F;F_s) = I(F;F_s)-I(F;F_s|C)$ and thus Eq.\ref{pair_cor_temp} can be rewriten as
\begin{equation}\label{pair_cor}
Pair\_Cor(F;\s{S})=\sum_{F_s\in\s{S}}cor(F;F_s).
\end{equation}
It is noted that although Eq.\eqref{pair_cor} can measure both redundancy and complementary correlation, it is still a pariwise-based criterion since it only catches the relationship between two features. Criteria that only concern pairwise correlation among features is also called first-order approximation in literature \cite{FEAST}. We will further discuss the limitation of Eq.\eqref{pair_cor} in detail in the next section.
\section{Feature selection with redundancy-complementariness dispersion}\label{Framework}
\subsection{Interference effect of false positives}
First-order approximation is a prevailing strategy that seems to bring the best trade-off between executional efficiency and the selected features quality. Yet ignoring the group effect of features is still known to be suboptimal although taking the pairwise relevance effect into account. As mentioned before, feature selection methods that only handle individual relevance take the assumption of mutual independence among features. Similarly, first-order approximation in redundancy analysis only concentrates on individual redundancy. In other words, it takes the assumption that all the selected features are mutually independent. Since the first-order approximation only identify pairwise correlation, it is not able to take high inter-feature correlation into account, thus may misidentify and select actually-redundant features (i.e. False Positives, which is denoted as FPs hereafter in the paper; Similarly, we use the term True Positives (TPs) to denote the selected actually-salient features hereafter in the paper), which will in turn intervene the later selection process.
More specifically, only focusing on pairwise correlation may give chance to FPs to intervene the evaluation of candidates. Suppose the selected feature subset already contains FPs, the pairwise correlation between the candidate and each FP is an interference that prompts the candidate to be given unduly high status if such correlation is influential to the value of the evaluation criterion $J(\cdot)$. recall that the correlation between candidate and each selected features is denoted as $cor(F;F_s)$ where $F_s\in\s{S}$ ($\s{S}$ is the selected feature subset) and thus $Pair\_Cor(F;\s{S})=\sum_{F_s\in\s{S}}cor(F;F_s)$, the interference effect of FPs can be illustrated in two possible scenarios shown in Figs.\ref{density_example} (a) and (b), where node in yellow, nodes in red, and nodes in green denote the candidate, FPs, and TPs, respectively. Distance between yellow node and any other node is in proportion to the strength of their pairwise correlation, e.g. a short distance corresponds to the complementary correlation, while long corresponds to the redundant correlation.
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[trim = 13em 47em 20em 20em, scale = 1.1]{example.eps}\\
\caption{Toy examples of interference effect of FPs.}\label{density_example}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
{\it Scenario} 1: FPs are close to the candidate. As shown in Fig.\ref{density_example} (a), most of TPs are distant to the candidate, which implies that the candidate is more likely to be redundant rather than complementary to FPs (which corresponds to positive $cor$ value in terms of Eq.\eqref{R-M=MI-CMI}) and thus it is possibly a redundant feature. However, as FPs are very close to the candidate, they are more likely to be complementary and the corresponding $cor$ value tend to be negative. Under this circumstance, the complementary correlation between candidate and FPs impairs the reliability of the estimation of $Pair\_Cor(F;\s{S})$ and thus makes the candidate to be overestimated.
{\it Scenario} 2: FPs are distant to the candidate. Fig.\ref{density_example} (b) shows that most of TPs are close to the candidate. This implies that the candidate is more complementary to TPs and thus more likely to be a salient feature that should be selected. However, it is redundant to the distant FPs and the corresponding $cor$ value tend to be positive, thus also impairs the reliability of the estimation of $Pair\_Cor(F;\s{S})$ and makes the candidate to be underestimated.
Actually, the interference effect of FPs revealed in the above scenarios can be depicted by the dissimilarity of the selected features. That is, the intensity of the interference effect of FPs depends on the amount of the dispersion of the correlation between candidate and the selected features. When a certain value of $Pair\_Cor(F;\s{S})$ is given, the correlation between $F$ and FPs in $\s{S}$ which is more likely to be complementary corresponding to larger negative $cor$ values would lead to the correlation between $F$ and TPs in $\s{S}$ which is more likely to be redundant corresponding to larger positive $cor$ values, and vice versa. We call such dissimilarity as redundancy-complementariness dispersion. As a heuristic, we apply standard deviation of $cor$ to capture such dispersion in order to possibly identify the interference effect of FPs, for standard deviation is always the best index for risk estimation and instability identification. The standard deviation of $cor(F;F_{s})$ given the selected feature subset $\s{S}$ takes the form of
\begin{equation}\label{std}
\sigma(F;{\s{S}})=\left(\frac{\sum_{F_s\in\s{S}}\left(cor(F;F_s)-\mu(F;\s{S})\right)^2}{|\s{S}|}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}},
\end{equation}
where $\mu(F;\s{S})$ is the mean value of $cor(F;F_s)$ calculated as
\begin{equation}
\mu(F;\s{S})=\frac{Pair\_Cor(F;\s{S})}{|\s{S}|}.
\end{equation}
Thus, the smaller the value of $\sigma(F;{\s{S}})$, the less influential the interference effect of FPs. We try to find salient candidates not only with more complementariness and less redundancy, but also less redundancy-complementariness dispersion, i.e. a small value of $\sigma(F;\s{S})$, to heuristically avoid the interference effect of FPs. To this end, we use $\sigma(F;\s{S})$ to adjust the value of $Pair\_Cor$. Recall that $Pair\_Cor$ simultaneously measures two types of correlation, i.e. redundancy (where the value of $Pair\_Cor$ is positive) and complementariness (where the value is negative). Taking this into account, we use the following criterion
\begin{equation}\label{J}
J_{RID}=D(F;C)-\phi(F;\s{S})\cdot Pair\_Cor(F;\s{S})
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{coefficient}
\phi(F;\s{S}) = \begin{cases}
1+\sigma(F;\s{S}) &\quad\quad Pair\_Cor(F;\s{S}) \ge 0 \\
1-\sigma(F;\s{S}) &\quad\quad Pair\_Cor(F;\s{S}) < 0
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
to evaluate and select features among candidates. Note that $\phi(F;\s{S})$ is defined piecewise for different types of correlation. Also, we use $1+\sigma(F;\s{S})$ and $1-\sigma(F;\s{S})$ rather than $\sigma(F;\s{S})$ as the coefficient of $Pair\_Cor(F;\s{S})$ in order to reduce the estimation bias for $\sigma(F;\s{S})$ particularly when there are only a few features selected in $\s{S}$.
\subsection{Proposed method}
Based on the above analysis, we propose our feature selection framework shown in Fig.\ref{framework}. It not only consider class-relevance and pairwise inter-correlation of features, but also take into account the effect of redundancy-complementariness dispersion. Similar to most of the feature selection methods, proposed method also applies a sequential forward searching strategy to select features. That is, only one candidate would be selected at each iteration.
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[trim = 9em 43em 20em 31em, scale = 1.2]{framework.eps}\\
\caption{A new framework for feature selection.}\label{framework}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
We show the pseudo code of proposed algorithm in Algorithm \ref{alg}.
\begin{algorithm}[!th]
\caption{RCDFS: {\bf R}edundancy-{\bf C}omplementariness {\bf D}ispersion-based {\bf F}eature {\bf S}election}
\label{alg}
\KwIn{ $\s{D}$ /*dataset*/, $\s{F}$ /*feature set*/, $C$ /*class*/, $\delta$ /*expected \# features to be selected*/}
\KwOut{$\s{S}$ /*selected feature subset*/}
Initialize $\s{S}\leftarrow\varnothing$, $k\leftarrow 1$ \\
\Repeat{$k \ge \delta$}{
\ForEach{$F\in\s{F}$}{
$Relevance \leftarrow I(F;C)$ \\
$Pair\_Cor\leftarrow 0$ \\
\ForEach{$F_s\in\s{S}$}{
$cor \leftarrow I(F;F_s) - I(F;F_s|C)$ \\
$Pair\_Cor \leftarrow Pair\_Cor + cor$ \\
}
Calculate $\sigma(F;\s{S})$ according to Eq.\eqref{std}\\
\eIf{$Pair\_Cor \ge 0$}{$\phi \leftarrow 1+\sigma(F;\s{S})$}{$\phi \leftarrow 1-\sigma(F;\s{S})$}
$J(F) \leftarrow Relevance - \phi\cdot Pair\_Cor $ \\
}
$\s{S}\leftarrow\s{S}\cup\{\w{F}\}$ satisfying $\w{F} = \arg\max_{F\in\s{F}} J(F)$ \\
$\s{F}\leftarrow\s{F}-\{\w{F}\}$ \\
$k\leftarrow k + 1$\\
}
\Return{$\s{S}$}
\end{algorithm}
Algorithm \ref{alg} contains a `repeat' loop and two `for' loops and a calculation process of $\sigma(F;\s{S})$ (line 11 in Algorithm \ref{alg}) which takes at least $|\s{S}|$ loops for the calculation. Thus the iteration complexity of Algorithm \ref{alg} is $\mathrm{O}(\delta\cdot|\s{F}|^2)$, where $\delta$ is the predefined number of selected features. Since there is only one candidate to be selected at the end of each iteration when traversing $F_s\in\s{S}$, we only need to get the additional information of the newly-added feature rather than traversing $\s{S}$ again. As for the calculation of $\sigma(F;\s{S})$ (i.e. the variance of $cor$), we could taking an alternative formulation of variance, i.e. $Var(X)=E(X^2)-E^2(X)$ to make use of the loops in Algorithm \ref{alg}. That is, to get $\sigma(F;\s{S})$ , we designate $P$ to record the summation of $cor^2$ and $Q$ to record the summation of $cor$, and then we have
$$
\sigma(F;\s{S}) = \left(\frac{P - Q^2/|\s{S}|}{|\s{S}|}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.
$$
Taking the above into account, we show the fast implementation of Algorithm \ref{alg} as Algorithm \ref{fast}.
\begin{algorithm}[!th]
\caption{A fast implementation of RCDFS}
\label{fast}
\KwIn{ $\s{D}$ /*dataset*/, $\s{F}$ /*feature set*/, $C$ /*class*/, $\delta$ /*expected \# features to be selected*/}
\KwOut{$\s{S}$ /*selected feature subset*/}
Initialize $\s{S}\leftarrow\varnothing$, $F_{new}\leftarrow\varnothing$, $\Delta(F)\leftarrow 0$ for $\forall F\in\s{F}$, $Pair\_Cor(F)\leftarrow 0$ for $\forall F\in\s{F}$, $k\leftarrow 0$ \\
\ForEach{$F\in\s{F}$}{
$Relevance(F) \leftarrow I(F;C)$ \\
}
$F_{new}\leftarrow\w{F}$ satisfying $\w{F} = \arg\max_{F\in\s{F}} Relevance(F)$ \\
$\s{S}\leftarrow\s{S}\cup\{F_{new}\}$\\
$\s{F}\leftarrow\s{F}-\{F_{new}\}$ \\
$k\leftarrow k + 1$ \\
\Repeat{$k \ge \delta$}{
\ForEach{$F\in\s{F}$}{
$Relevance \leftarrow I(F;C)$ \\
$cor \leftarrow I(F;F_{new}) - I(F;F_{new}|C)$ \\
$\Delta(F) \leftarrow \Delta(F) + cor^2$ \\
$Pair\_Cor(F) \leftarrow Pair\_Cor(F) + cor$ \\
$\sigma(F;\s{S})\leftarrow\left(\frac{\Delta(F) - Pair\_Cor(F)^2/|\s{S}|}{|\s{S}|}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}$ \\
\eIf{$Pair\_Cor(F) \ge 0$}{$\phi \leftarrow 1+\sigma(F;\s{S})$}{$\phi \leftarrow 1-\sigma(F;\s{S})$}
$J(F) \leftarrow Relevance(F) - \phi\cdot Pair\_Cor(F) $ \\
}
$F_{new}\leftarrow\w{F}$ satisfying $\w{F} = \arg\max_{F\in\s{F}} J(F)$ \\
$\s{S}\leftarrow\s{S}\cup\{F_{new}\}$\\
$\s{F}\leftarrow\s{F}-\{F_{new}\}$ \\
$k\leftarrow k + 1$ \\
}
\Return{$\s{S}$}
\end{algorithm}
By utilizing the additional information gained at the latest iteration, the complexity of Algorithm \ref{fast} reduces to $\mathrm{O}(\delta\cdot|\s{F}|)$, which is more efficient than Algorithm \ref{alg}. Thus, we implement proposed method according to Algorithm \ref{fast} in the experiments to verify the performance of RCDFS.
\section{Experiment study}\label{Exp}
In order to evaluate the performance and effectiveness of proposed method, the most representative and well-performed feature selection methods (CMIM \cite{CMIM}, mRMR \cite{9}, FCBF \cite{13},MIM \cite{MIM} and ReliefF \cite{ReliefF}) are used to compare with proposed algorithm. The brief reviews on above five selected feature selection algorithm are described as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item CMIM (Conditional Mutual Information Maximization) \cite{CMIM}: This well-known algorithm makes use of CMI to simultaneously measure class-relevance and inter-correlation of features, applying the following function
$$J(F)=\displaystyle\min_{\w{F}\in\s{S}} I(F;C|\w{F})$$
as the evaluation criterion, taking the heuristic that $\w{F}$ satisfying $\min_{\w{F}\in\s{S}} I(F;C|\w{F})$ could best represent the conditioning set $\s{S}$.
\item mRMR (minimum Redundancy and Maximum Relevance) \cite{9}: It is a very famous feature selection algorithm that uses MI to measure class-relevance and pairwise dependence. It selects feature satisfying
$$\displaystyle J(F)=I(F;C)-\frac{1}{|\s{S}|}\sum_{F_s\in\s{S}}I(F;F_s)$$
in a greedy manner, where $I(F;C)$ measures the class-relevance of $F$ and $\frac{1}{|\s{S}|}\sum_{F_s\in\s{S}}I(F;F_s)$ measures the average pairwise dependence between $F$ and $F_s\in\s{S}$. Note that we have already introduced it in section \ref{DRM}.
\item FCBF (Fast Correlation-Based Feature selection) \cite{13}: In this algorithm, Symmetrical Uncertainty (SU) is used as the evaluation merci. It first ranks features in descending order. Then it eliminates redundant features in terms of an approximate Markov blanket criterion: If $SU(F_1;C)>SU(F_2;C)$ and $SU(F_1;C)>SU(F_1;F_2)$, $F_2$ is thus identified as a redundant feature of $F_1$ and thus would be eliminated. For this method, we set the predefined threshold $\gamma = 0$ as suggested by \cite{13}.
\item MIM (Mutual Information Maximization) \cite{MIM}: It is the most basic feature ranking algorithms based on mutual information that only concerns the class-relevance of features. We have also introduced it in section \ref{DRM}. It applies$$J(F) = I(F;C)$$as the criterion to select the top $m$ features with the highest value of $I(F;C)$. It is one of the most typical benchmark algorithms in the field of feature selection.
\item ReliefF \cite{ReliefF}: It is a well-known distance-based feature ranking method that searches nearest neighbors of samples for each class label and then weights features in terms of how well they differentiate samples for different class labels. As for the parameter settings, we use 5 neighbors and 30 instances throughout the experiments as suggested by \cite{ReliefF}.
\end{itemize}
Weka (Waikato environment for knowledge analysis) \cite{Weka} is chosen as the classification platform. Since FCBF, MIM, and ReliefF have already been integrated in Weka, we directly use them to generate datasets with their selected features before classification. CMIM, mRMR, and the proposed method are implemented in Java and with Weka interfaces. All experiments are conducted on a 2.60 GHz CPU, 8GB RAM personal computer with Windows 7.
\subsection{Datasets}
In order to validate the performance of the proposed method, ten frequently used datasets are applied in our experiments, where six of them (mushroom, kr-vs-kp, sonar, multiple features ka, DNA, and isolet5) are well known UCI datasets and the rest (Colon Tumor, BCR\_ABL, Prostate Cancer, and Breast Cancer) are gene microarray datasets with high dimensionality (i.e. containing more than 2000 features). General information of these datasets are summarized in Tab.\ref{datasets}. For the continuous and mixed datasets, a supervised discretization method called MDL \cite{MDL} is employed to discrete continuous features before feature selection and classification.
\begin{table}[!ht]
\centering
\footnotesize
\begin{threeparttable}
\caption{Description of datasets}\label{datasets}
\begin{tabular}{rl r@{}lr@{}lcl}
\toprule
\#\phantom{.000} & Name & \multicolumn{2}{l}{\phantom{}\# samples\phantom{00}} & \multicolumn{2}{l}{\phantom{}\# features\phantom{0}} & Type & \# classes \\
\midrule
1\phantom{0000}& mushroom & \phantom{00} 8124 & & \phantom{00}22 & & nominal & \phantom{0000}2\\
2\phantom{0000}& kr-vs-kp & \phantom{00} 3196 & & \phantom{00} 36 & & nominal & \phantom{0000}2\\
3\phantom{0000}& sonar & \phantom{00} 208 & & \phantom{00} 60 & & nominal & \phantom{0000}2\\
4\phantom{0000}& multiple features kahunen & \phantom{00} 2000 & & \phantom{00} 64 & & numeric & \phantom{000}10\\
5\phantom{0000}& DNA & \phantom{00} 3186 & & \phantom{00}180 & & nominal & \phantom{0000}3\\
6\phantom{0000}& isolet5 & \phantom{00} 1559 & & \phantom{00} 617 & & mixed & \phantom{000}26\\
7\phantom{0000}& Colon Tumor & \phantom{00} 62 & & \phantom{00} 2000 & & numeric & \phantom{0000}2\\
8\phantom{0000}& BCR\_ABL & \phantom{00} 112 & & \phantom{00} 12559 & & numeric & \phantom{0000}2\\
9\phantom{0000}& Prostate Cancer & \phantom{00} 34 & & \phantom{00} 12601 & & numeric & \phantom{0000}2\\
10\phantom{0000}& Breast Cancer & \phantom{00} 19 & & \phantom{00} 24482 & & numeric & \phantom{0000}2\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{table}
\subsection{Classifiers and Experimental settings}
\subsubsection{Classifiers}
In our experiments, four famous and most frequently used classifiers -- Na\"{i}ve Bayesian Classifier (NBC) \cite{Weka}, Support Vector Machine (SVM) \cite{SVM}, $k$-Nearest Neighbor ($k$NN) \cite{kNN} and C4.5 decision tree \cite{5} are adopted to generate classification error rate on the datasets with selected features preprocessed by different feature selection methods. We set $k=1$ for $k$NN and employ Gaussian RBF kernels for SVM.
\subsubsection{Experimental settings}
First, we show the classification results of the four classifiers on $1,...,m$ selected features for each feature selection method, where $m$ in our experiments is set to be
$\min\left\{50,\left\lfloor\frac{{|\s{F}|}}{2}\right\rfloor\right\}.$
10-fold cross validation is applied in this part. Note that the nature of the learning process of each classifier is different. Since we are
interested in checking the quality of the selected
features, independently from the type of classification rule applied, the average result of the four classifiers is thus reported.
In addition, we compare the best classification results for the six feature selection methods among their selected features. That is, we check the average classification results for each feature selection method on the datasets with selected features ranging from 1 to $\min\left\{50,\left|\s{F}\right|\right\}$, and report the best one.
In order to achieve stable results, a $(M=10)\times (N=10)$-fold cross-validation is applied, i.e. 10-fold validation will be conduct ten times for each classifier on each dataset. Thus, a total of one hundred result samples (i.e. average results from four classifiers) can be collected where each sample is an average classification result of the four classifiers. Finally, the average of one hundred samples is reported in our paper. Wilcoxon rank-sum test is applied to determine the statistical significance of the difference of the results (where the significant level is set to be 0.05).
At last, to test the stability of the performance on different datasets, average classification results of different datasets, in ranges from 1 to 5, from 1 to 10, from 1 to 15, from 1 to 20, from 1 to 25, from 1 to 30, from 1 to 35, from 1 to 40,from 1 to 45, and from 1 to 50 selected features, are reported and analyzed respectively for each classifier and feature selection method. Friedman test is applied to analyze the statistical significance of the results. These ten average classification results have been considered to be the approximate transitory period
to reach a stable performance for the datasets used.
\subsection{Experimental results and discussion}\label{ExperimentalResults}
Figs.\ref{mushroom}--\ref{BreastCancer} show the 10-fold cross-validation average test error rate of the different types of classifiers (NBC, SVM, kNN, and C4.5) on the ten datasets to illustrate the effectiveness of proposed method RCDFS, where the consecutive numbers of selected features are described by X axis, and the average test error rate is represented by Y axis. According to the results shown in Figs.\ref{mushroom}--\ref{BreastCancer}, the superiority of RCDFS can be verified in the majority of cases. Particularly on seven datasets namely mushroom (Fig.\ref{mushroom}), kr-vs-kp (Fig.\ref{kr-vs-kp}), sonar (Fig.\ref{sonar}), DNA (Fig.\ref{DNA}), Colon Tumor (Fig.\ref{ColonTumor}), BCR\_ABL (Fig.\ref{BCR_ABL}), and Breast Cancer (Fig.\ref{BreastCancer}), RCDFS significantly outperforms CMIM, mRMR, FCBF, MIM, and ReliefF. More precisely, RCDFS usually perform better at the beginning of feature selection process on several datasets such as sonar (Fig.\ref{sonar}) and Colon Tumor (Fig.\ref{ColonTumor}). This is probably because the redundancy and complementariness are both considered by RCDFS, rather than only measuring pairwise redundancy like mRMR and CMIM or ignoring redundancy among features like MIM, FCBF and ReliefF. For other datasets, e.g. BCR\_ABL dataset, the test error rate corresponding to RCDFS is higher than that to CMIM and mRMR on the first five selected features, whereas after the sixth feature being selected, RCDFS performs better (i.e. the test error is lower) than other methods and it is never exceeded, which is possibly due to the fact that the dispersion of redundancy-complementariness correlation becomes influential to feature evaluation process after several features being selected, i.e. the interference effect of FPs in the selected subset impairs the evaluation ability of the selected compared algorithms except for RCDFS. On the whole, it can also be seen that RCDFS selects less features corresponding to the lowest error rate than other methods (e.g. it corresponds to the best classification results only selecting five and sixteen features on Colon Tumor and DNA, respectively).
It is also found that the performance of RCDFS is not always outstanding and sometimes inferior to CMIM (such as Fig.\ref{ProstateCancer}). This may also lie in the dispersion of the redundancy-complementariness correlation since there also exist alternative conditions leading to high dispersion rather than the variance between TPs and FPs.
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[ scale = 0.6]{mushroom.eps}\\
\caption{Accuracy comparison with different number of selected features on mushroom.}\label{mushroom}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[ scale = 0.6]{kr-vs-kp.eps}\\
\caption{Accuracy comparison with different number of selected features on kr-vs-kp.}\label{kr-vs-kp}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale = 0.6]{sonar.eps}\\
\caption{Accuracy comparison with different number of selected features on sonar.}\label{sonar}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[trim = 0 -5em 0 -7.5em, scale = 0.6]{multiplefeatureskahunen.eps}\\
\caption{Accuracy comparison with different number of selected features on multiple features kahunen.}\label{multiple features kahunen}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale = 0.6]{DNA.eps}\\
\caption{Accuracy comparison with different number of selected features on DNA.}\label{DNA}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale = 0.6]{isolet5.eps}\\
\caption{Accuracy comparison with different number of selected features on isolet5.}\label{isolet5}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale = 0.6]{ColonTumor.eps}\\
\caption{Accuracy comparison with different number of selected features on Colon Tumor.}\label{ColonTumor}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale = 0.6]{BCR_ABL.eps}\\
\caption{Accuracy comparison with different number of selected features on BCR\_ABL.}\label{BCR_ABL}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale = 0.6]{ProstateCancer.eps}\\
\caption{Accuracy comparison with different number of selected features on Prostate Cancer.}\label{ProstateCancer}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale = 0.6]{BreastCancer.eps}\\
\caption{Accuracy comparison with different number of selected features on Breast Cancer.}\label{BreastCancer}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
Tab.\ref{TabNumfeatures} records the number of features selected by each feature selection algorithm. We observe from the table that the average number of selected features of RCDFS (18.7) is smaller compared to other algorithms used in our experiment. This indicates the advantage of RCDFS that the best classification result can be obtained with a sufficiently small set of features.
\begin{table*}[!ht]
\centering
\footnotesize
\begin{threeparttable}
\caption{Number of selected features corresponding to best performance}
\label{TabNumfeatures}
\begin{tabular}{l rrrrrr}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{ Datesets }
&\multicolumn{6}{c}{\raisebox{0pt}[1mm][1mm]{\# features}} \\
\cline{2-7}
& \raisebox{-2pt}[1mm][1mm]{\phantom{aa}RCDFS} & \raisebox{-2pt}[1mm][1mm]{\phantom{aa}CMIM}& \raisebox{-2pt}[1mm][1mm]{\phantom{aa}mRMR} & \raisebox{-2pt}[1mm][1mm]{\phantom{aa}FCBF} & \raisebox{-2pt}[1mm][1mm]{\phantom{aa}MIM} & \raisebox{-2pt}[1mm][1mm]{\phantom{aa}ReliefF} \\
\midrule
mushroom & 9 & 5 &12 & 3 & 8 & 7 \\
kr-vs-kp & 21 & 35 &27 & 4 & 35 & 34 \\
sonar &10 & 15 & 11 & 9 & 17 & 18\\
multiple feature kahunen & 34 & 31 & 25 & 32 & 25 & 23\\
DNA & 16 &26 &18 & 17 & 18 & 25\\
isolet5 & 49 &47 &50 & 31 &49 & 48\\
Colon Tumor & 5 & 7 & 15 & 13 & 5 & 46 \\
BCR\_ABL & 8 & 14 & 10 & 48 & 31 & 42\\
Prostate Cancer & 19 &16 &3 & 34 & 40 & 8\\
Breast Cancer & 16 &21 &20 & 32 & 50 & 36\\
Avg. & 18.7 &21.7 &19.1& 22.3 & 27.8& 28.7\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{table*}
Tab.\ref{wilcoxon} show the average test error rate of NBC, SVM, $k$NN, and C$4.5$ on ten datasets over $(M=10)\times (N=10)$-fold cross validation, respectively.
For each dataset, Wilcoxon test is conducted to evaluate the statistical significance of the difference between the two groups of result samples, i.e. groups of the result samples that corresponds to RCDFS and any other feature selection method. In Tab.\ref{wilcoxon}, ``Err'' column records the average test error rate of $(M=10)\times (N=10)$-fold cross-validation. ``$p$-val'' column records the $p$-value associated with Wilcoxon test, where $p$-value less than 0.05 indicates the statistical significance of the difference between the two average values. Notation ``$\bullet$''/``$\circ$'' are used to show that the test error rate corresponding to the current feature selection method is significantly lower/higher than that to proposed method (corresponding to ``RCDFS'' column) under the test. Bold value in each row indicates that it is the best result among six feature selection methods. The average error rate of ten datasets is given in the last row.
As can be seen from Tab.\ref{wilcoxon}, the average value of test error rate for the ten datasets shows that RCDFS outperforms other methods on mushroom, sonar, DNA, BCR\_ABL, Prostate Cancer, and Breast Cancer datasets. According to the average test error rate of ten datasets given in the last row, the best one is obtained by our method ($7.89$) and the worst is by MIM ($12.57$). Also, the average test error rate of CMIM ($8.12$) is better than other algorithms (mRMR ($8.71$), FCBF ($11.1$), and ReliefF (11.62)).
For further analysis, the diagram (Fig.\ref{WLT}) is applied to visualize the statistical significance of RCDFS comparing with the selected methods under four classifiers on ten datasets. The blue box in Fig.\ref{WLT} describes that the test error rate of RCDFS is significantly better than the compared algorithms in current dataset. The yellow box represents that there is no significant difference between the results of RCDFS and the compared algorithm. The red box implies that the test error rate of RCDFS is significantly worse than the compared algorithms. The results shown in Fig.\ref{WLT} indicate that RCDFS achieves better performance in most of datasets compared with selected feature selection algorithms.
\begin{table*}[!ht]
\centering
\begin{threeparttable}
\footnotesize
\caption{Average classification error rate of the six classifiers on selected features with NBC, SVM, kNN and C4.5, and the result of Wilocxon test.}\label{wilcoxon}
\begin{tabular}{r c@{\hspace{3pt}} c@{\hspace{10pt}} c@{\hspace{6pt}} r@{\hspace{1pt}} l@{\hspace{15pt}} c@{\hspace{6pt}} r@{\hspace{1pt}} l@{\hspace{15pt}} c@{\hspace{6pt}} r@{\hspace{1pt}} l @{\hspace{15pt}} c@{\hspace{6pt}} r@{\hspace{1pt}} l@{\hspace{15pt}} c@{\hspace{6pt}} r@{\hspace{1pt}} l@{\hspace{15pt}} }
\toprule
\multirow{2}{40pt}{\# Dataset}& RCDFS&&\multicolumn{2}{c}{CMIM}& &\multicolumn{2}{c}{mRMR}& &\multicolumn{2}{c}{FCBF}& &\multicolumn{2}{c}{MIM}& &\multicolumn{2}{c}{ReliefF}& \\
\cline{2-2}\cline{4-5}\cline{7-8}\cline{10-11}\cline{13-14}\cline{16-17}
& Err & & Err & $p$-val & & Err & $p$-val & & Err & $p$-val & & Err & $p$-val & & Err & $p$-val & \\
\midrule
1\phantom{000} & \bf{0.32} & & 0.37 & 0.207 & & 0.47 & 0.000 & \fs$^\circ$ & 23.26 & 0.000 & \fs$^\circ$ & 20.57 & 0.000 & \fs$^\circ$ & 0.39 & 0.000 & \fs$^\circ$ \\
2\phantom{000} & 5.32 & & 5.61 & 0.015 & \fs$^\circ$ & \bf{5.14} & 0.231 & & 5.91 & 0.000 & \fs$^\circ$ & 5.61 & 0.015 & \fs$^\circ$ & 5.21 & 0.449 & \\
3\phantom{000} & \bf{14.05} & & 16.05 & 0.025 & \fs$^\circ$ & 17.44 & 0.000 & \fs$^\circ$ & 18.63 & 0.000 & \fs$^\circ$ & 17.38 & 0.001 & \fs$^\circ$ & 16.56 & 0.006 & \fs$^\circ$ \\
4\phantom{000} & 10.05 & & 9.89 & 0.317 & & \bf{9.81} & 0.143 & & 10.08 & 0.874 & & \bf{9.81} & 0.143 & & 9.83 & 0.144 & \\
5\phantom{000} & \bf{5.98} & & 5.99 & 0.959 & & 6.46 & 0.011 & \fs$^\circ$ & 8.16 & 0.000 & \fs$^\circ$ & 6.46 & 0.011 & \fs$^\circ$ & 10.79 & 0.000 & \fs$^\circ$ \\
6\phantom{000}& 25.13 & & \bf{23.19} & 0.000 & \fs$^\bullet$ & 27.06 & 0.000 & \fs$^\circ$ & 23.62 & 0.000 & \fs$^\bullet$ & 37.89 & 0.000 & \fs$^\circ$ & 37.11 & 0.000 & \fs$^\circ$ \\
7\phantom{000}& 3.32 & & 2.83 & 0.105 & & 4.02 & 0.715 & & \bf{2.37} & 0.103 & & 7.26 & 0.001 & \fs$^\circ$ & 8.35 & 0.000 & \fs$^\circ$ \\
8\phantom{000}& \bf{5.98} & & 5.99 & 0.959 & & 6.46 & 0.011 & \fs$^\circ$ & 8.16 & 0.000 & \fs$^\circ$ & 6.46 & 0.011 & \fs$^\circ$ & 10.79 & 0.000 & \fs$^\circ$ \\
9\phantom{000}& \bf{5.13} & & 5.58 & 0.070 & & 5.71 & 0.113 & & 5.96 & 0.960 & & 6.71 & 0.758 & & 8.54 & 0.053 & \\
10\phantom{000} & \bf{3.66} & & 5.65 & 0.000 & \fs$^\circ$ & 4.52 & 0.106 & & 4.86 & 0.021 & \fs$^\circ$ & 7.58 & 0.000 & \fs$^\circ$ & 8.63 & 0.000 & \fs$^\circ$ \\
Avg.\phantom{000} & \bf{7.89} & & 8.12 & & & 8.71 & & & 11.10 & & & 12.57 & & & 11.62 & & \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular
\begin{tablenotes}
\footnotesize
\item $\circ$ statistical degradation at significant level of $0.05$.
\item $\bullet$ statistical improvement at significant level of $0.05$.
\end{tablenotes}
\label{NBC
\end{threeparttable
\end{table*}
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[trim = 0 36em 18em 30em scale = 0.6]{WLT.eps}\\
\caption{Average classification error rate comparison between RCDFS and the selected methods on the selected ten datasets.}\label{WLT}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
Tabs.\ref{NB_friedman}--\ref{C4.5_friedman} show the statistical significance of average error using Friedman test under different classifiers on ten datasets. Results in column $k=5$, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, and 50 represents the average classification error in ranges from 1 to 5, from 1 to 10, from 1 to 15, from 1 to 20, from 1 to 25, from 1 to 30, from 1 to 35, from 1 to 40,from 1 to 45, and from 1 to 50 features, respectively. Note that FCBF may select less features than other methods, e.g. it only selects 4 features on mushroom dataset, thus the average up to 4 features is described in row $k=$ 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, and 50. A very small $p$-val (i.e. $p$-val $<0.05$) indicates the significant difference among the average values. In addition, we use S/N given in the last row of the tables to represent statistically significant/insignificant difference among the average values under Friedman test with significant level $0.05$. Bold value in each column shows the best classification result among six feature selection methods.
Tab.\ref{NB_friedman} shows that the average test error rate of Na\:{i}ve Bayesian Classifier (NB) corresponding to RCDFS is lowest among all methods and $p$-val is smaller than $0.05$. This indicates that the performance of RCDFS is best using NBC classifiers with the number of selected features in all ranges. Similar to NB, the average test error rate of SVM corresponding to RCDFS shown in Tab.\ref{SVM_friedman} is also lowest with the number of selected features in most of the ranges. In addition, the CMIM is superior to other methods with SVM in the ranges of $k = 1$ to $45$ and to $50$. From Tab.\ref{kNN_friedman} and Tab.\ref{C4.5_friedman}, the average error rates of $k$NN and C4.5 corresponding to RCDFS are both the lowest and the $p$-val is also smaller than $0.05$, which verifies the effectiveness of proposed method.
\begin{table*}[!ht]
\centering
\begin{threeparttable}
\caption{Average classification error rate for all databases with NB classifiers, and the result of the Friedman test.}
\label{NB_friedman}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccccc}
\toprule
NB &$k=5$ & $k=10$ & $k=15$ & $k=20$ & $k=25$ & $k=30$ & $k=35$ & $k=40$ & $k=45$ & $k=50$ \\
\midrule
RCDFS &\bf{18.91} & \bf{13.92} & \bf{11.66} & \bf{10.45} & \bf{10.56} & \bf{9.93} & \bf{9.48} & \bf{8.87} & \bf{8.59} & \bf{8.34} \\
CMIM & 19.34 & 14.70 & 12.68 & 11.43 & 11.48 & 10.88 & 10.40 & 9.82 & 9.51 & 9.25 \\
mRMR & 19.42 & 15.32 & 13.23 & 12.07 & 12.30 & 11.73 & 11.32 & 10.88 & 10.57 & 10.29 \\
FCBF & 20.26 & 15.51 & 13.22 & 12.04 & 12.30 & 11.60 & 11.26 & 10.72 & 10.59 & 10.48 \\
MIM & 27.01 & 21.11 & 18.64 & 17.11 & 17.38 & 16.50 & 15.78 & 15.52 & 15.00 & 14.56 \\
ReliefF & 29.28 & 23.04 & 19.99 & 18.35 & 18.95 & 18.02 & 17.29 & 17.08 & 16.43 & 15.87 \\
$p$-val & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.001 & 0.000\\
& S & S & S & S & S & S & S & S & S & S\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[!ht]
\centering
\begin{threeparttable}
\caption{Average classification error rate for all databases with SVM classifiers, and the result of the Friedman test.}
\label{SVM_friedman}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccccc}
\toprule
SVM &$k=5$ & $k=10$ & $k=15$ & $k=20$ & $k=25$ & $k=30$ & $k=35$ & $k=40$ & $k=45$ & $k=50$ \\
\midrule
RCDFS &\bf{18.83} & \bf{13.65} & \bf{11.41} & \bf{10.15} & \bf{10.34} & \bf{9.72} & \bf{9.32} & \bf{9.34} & 9.24 & 9.20 \\
CMIM & 18.87 & 14.24 & 12.14 & 10.75 & 10.85 & 10.12 & 9.57 & 9.37 & \bf{8.96} & \bf{8.64} \\
mRMR & 19.64 & 15.20 & 12.83 & 11.38 & 11.57 & 10.82 & 10.25 & 10.08 & 9.71 & 9.41 \\
FCBF & 20.81 & 15.80 & 13.49 & 12.20 & 12.46 & 11.70 & 11.29 & 10.78 & 10.59 & 10.43 \\
MIM & 27.28 & 21.15 & 18.53 & 16.60 & 16.79 & 15.61 & 14.67 & 14.75 & 14.06 & 13.49 \\
ReliefF & 29.10 & 22.17 & 18.68 & 16.52 & 16.86 & 15.82 & 14.92 & 15.09 & 14.40 & 13.87 \\
$p$-val & 0.003 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.001 & 0.002 & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.002\\
& S & S & S & S & S & S & S & S & S & S\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[!ht]
\centering
\begin{threeparttable}
\caption{Average classification error rate for all databases with $k$NN classifiers, and the result of the Friedman test.}
\label{kNN_friedman}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccccc}
\toprule
$k$NN &$k=5$ & $k=10$ & $k=15$ & $k=20$ & $k=25$ & $k=30$ & $k=35$ & $k=40$ & $k=45$ & $k=50$ \\
\midrule
RCDFS &\bf{18.72} & \bf{14.27} & \bf{12.38} & \bf{11.22} & \bf{11.62} & \bf{11.11} & \bf{10.77} & \bf{11.19} & \bf{11.01} & \bf{10.89} \\
CMIM & 19.10 & 14.90 & 13.04 & 12.02 & 12.59 & 12.21 & 11.87 & 12.37 & 12.19 & 12.03 \\
mRMR & 19.56 & 15.61 & 13.68 & 12.64 & 13.22 & 12.64 & 12.21 & 12.63 & 12.38 & 12.17 \\
FCBF & 20.54 & 16.45 & 14.52 & 13.51 & 14.22 & 13.70 & 13.42 & 13.27 & 13.07 & 12.92 \\
MIM & 26.94 & 21.28 & 18.88 & 17.40 & 18.14 & 17.36 & 16.74 & 17.44 & 16.97 & 16.57 \\
ReliefF & 28.98 & 22.81 & 19.87 & 18.05 & 18.72 & 17.91 & 17.29 & 18.02 & 17.49 & 17.04 \\
$p$-val & 0.003 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000\\
& S & S & S & S & S & S & S & S & S & S\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[!ht]
\centering
\begin{threeparttable}
\caption{Average classification error rate for all databases with C4.5 classifiers, and the result of the Friedman test.}
\label{C4.5_friedman}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccccc}
\toprule
C4.5 &$k=5$ & $k=10$ & $k=15$ & $k=20$ & $k=25$ & $k=30$ & $k=35$ & $k=40$ & $k=45$ & $k=50$ \\
\midrule
RCDFS &\bf{19.23} & \bf{15.50} & \bf{13.84} & \bf{12.91} & \bf{13.83} & \bf{13.50} & \bf{13.27} & \bf{14.22} & \bf{14.13} & \bf{14.08} \\
CMIM & 19.50 & 16.48 & 15.04 & 14.12 & 15.10 & 14.78 & 14.53 & 15.51 & 15.40 & 15.29 \\
mRMR & 20.26 & 17.72 & 16.19 & 15.33 & 16.36 & 15.97 & 15.68 & 16.83 & 16.71 & 16.57 \\
FCBF & 21.34 & 17.91 & 16.57 & 16.05 & 17.40 & 17.18 & 17.07 & 17.57 & 17.56 & 17.57 \\
MIM & 27.47 & 22.76 & 20.84 & 19.34 & 20.37 & 19.57 & 18.91 & 20.13 & 19.77 & 19.52 \\
ReliefF & 29.65 & 24.22 & 21.95 & 20.68 & 21.94 & 21.32 & 20.69 & 21.90 & 21.29 & 20.81 \\
$p$-val & 0.019 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.001 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000\\
& S & S & S & S & S & S & S & S & S & S\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{table*}
\section{Conclusions \& future work}\label{conclusion}
Relevance and redundancy are two important feature properties attracting much attention in the study of feature selection. Many algorithms eliminate redundancy by measuring pairwise inter-correlation between features, while they cannot identify the complementariness of features and the correlation among more than two features. Although the former problem can be effectively addressed by introducing a modification item, high inter-correlation of features still makes the result far from optimal. Specifically, pairwise approximation of high inter-correlation may misidentify and select FPs which will in turn impair the effectiveness of feature evaluation. In order to identify the interference effect of FPs, the redundancy-complementariness dispersion is taken into account in proposed method to adjust the measurement of pairwise inter-correlation of features.
To illustrate the effectiveness of proposed method RCDFS, classification experiments are conducted with four frequently used classifiers on ten datasets. In the experiments, RCDFS is compared with five representative feature selection methods namely CMIM, mRMR, FCBF, MIM, and ReliefF. Classification results have been proven to perform satisfactorily of RCDFS. To verify the stability of RCDFS, Wilcoxon test as well as Friedman test are adopted to assess the statistical significance of the differences among the results of the feature selection method. According to the test results, RCDFS performs better than the selected methods in most of the cases.
Although the superiority of RCDFS has been verified in the experiments, there still remain challenges which are imperative to be solved in our future work. One is that how to properly set the weights of three objectives, i.e. coordinate relevance, redundancy-complementary, and dispersion of pairwise inter-correlation, is still needed to be studied. Possible directions include multi-objective programming and multi-index evaluation techniques such as data envelopment analysis. Additionally, since their is no causal relationship between FPs and the dispersion of pairwise inter-correlation, only concerning such dispersion may not always be effective in feature evaluation. Thus how to design more effective heuristics in the context of first-order approximation will be further studied in future.
\section*{Acknowledgement}
The corresponding author would like to thank the support from the Doctorate Fellowship Foundation of Huazhong University of Science \& Technology (D201177780), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, HUST (CXY12Q044, CXY13Q035), the Graduates' Innovation Fund of Huazhong University of Science \& Technology (HF-11-20-2013), and China Scholarship Council (201406160046).
\bibliographystyle{elsarticle-num}
\hspace*{\stretch{1}}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.